1999 12-14MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING – December 14, 1999
The regular 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, Tammy deWeerd, Thomas Barbeiro, Kent Brown,
Richard Hatcher.
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg.
Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. This is the December 14th
meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. I’d like to call the meeting to order. First Item on the
Agenda is Item A under Consent Agenda which consists of meetings from our
November 9th
meeting. Commissioner's, any questions or comments on the minutes.
De Weerd: I have none. I was not there.
Borup: If not we are open for a motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approved of the minutes for the Tuesday,
November 9th
meeting.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor:
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 157.876 ACRES FROM R-3 TO LO BY TOUCHMARK LIVING
CENTERS, JOSEPH A. BILLIG:
2. CONTINUED 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: We do have a letter in our packets from the applicant requesting a deferral. I
think they were probably anticipating what the Commission may be saying because we
have not received the report from the Ada County Highway District. Their Commission
has not acted on this yet. They are requesting a deferral on both Items 1 and 2 and I
will open Item 1 a continued public hearing. I’d be open for a motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing on Item 1 to our
next regular scheduled meeting of January 11, 2000.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
2
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN
Borup: Item 2, continued public hearing for the same project for the conditional use
permit.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we continue the public hearing for
Touchmark Living Centers until January 11, 2000.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN
3. 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:
Borup: I noticed that staff does have a revised staff report. Would you like to
summarize this application.
Hawkins: I can do that. Up on the screen is the general vicinity and since it is
continued, I won’t go into the details of the surrounding areas. I think most people are
familiar. We’ve got 4 lots that are currently in the county. That is the annexation
request. Item 4 is the conditional use permit. The staff memo dated 12/13/99 does
address I believe, most of the major issues since the last hearing. The key changes
from the previous hearing to the site plan and this is their old site plan in your packet.
You should have a revised site plan. I’ll just put this up there simply for the benefit of
the audience to point out that there are a couple of main changes to this. The access
now is on the north that they are proposing. Carol Street having a direct access about
50 feet to the west of Locust Grove. The second key change from you last hearing is
that they have removed the third building which is the existing chiropractor building just
to the southwest of the main store. The third main change, they’ve added some rows of
parking north of the multi tenant building and that should be shown on your revised—
They have expanded the landscape strip on the west side of the Fairview Drive access.
That was brought up at the last meeting. I guess the main items that I point out for P&Z
discussion tonight that after meeting with the applicant, we feel probably should be
addressed. On page one of the revised 12/13 memo, there is ACHD final decision was
to recommend that access be taken on the north and they are mainly looking at—so
they have a direct connection now into Fred Meyer. There is now a right turn lane with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
3
what they are proposing which would be a new lane on Carol Street. It would allow
right hand turns only as well as straight through and left turns. After—this was a tough
on for staff. We originally recommended just a pedestrian or bicycle. I think that
looking at these other considerations with congestion and the internal circulation, I think
we can now support ACHD’s decision. The second thing I think would be for the
Commission tonight –the Locust Grove improvements and then we have asked that you
consider putting a condition on this project that they have to—ACHD must make a
written commitment that Locust Grove improvements will be started no later than one
year after they start—they have sort of pushed this thing in terms of the expansion of
Locust Grove several times and there is just no real telling when that could happen. We
feel that with the athletic club, the other retail on the southeast, the Fred Meyer
complex, that no pedestrian there sidewalk on Locust Grove and just leaving that
indefinitely. It would be good to get a firm commitment. That is what number 7 is all
about. The third thing to look at would be the 35 foot Fairview strip—the landscape
strip. They are proposing 24 feet along Fairview. We have been encouraging and the
Comprehensive Plan calls for 35 feet. If that whole row of parking on the south end of
that lot was omitted and there was expanded to 35 feet, they could still technically meet
the parking requirements. They would lose about 15 or so stalls. They are required to
have 76 parking stalls to serve the Walgreen’s store and that it could technically meet
that. It would be right at 76, so –Then signage. You should have in your packets the
sign that they are submitting—proposing a pylon sign 24 feet tall and it is smaller than
the existing one. We have been encouraging as you know the monument type signs.
Free standing is more low profile and we would encourage the monument low profile on
Locust and then they have talked about one on Fairview, so two of those. I think those
are the main issues to point out.
Borup: Commissioner's, any questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Boyle: Clint Boyle, Hawkin Smith Development. 8645 W Franklin Road in Boise. I
appreciate the time and effort you spend reviewing this in the past. I also appreciate
the time that the staff has put into this to help the project along and get through some of
their items of concern. Tonight since we’ve seen this in a previous planning commission
meeting just want to go over some of the new items that came out in the revised staff
report with you. First of all, with Item number 3 related to the utility easements as well
as the parcel reduction of re-subdivision of the lot. We will take care of that. That
process. We have not determined whether or not we will go through the county or the
city with that process. If we do go through the city, we will propose a re-plat of that
subdivision so that it will meet the city ordinance and criteria for reducing those lots
down to 2 lots. We will also take care of the Vacation process for those utility
easements, dedicated easements were necessary to reroute any of the existing utilities
that maybe in those. Namely, right now, there is a overhead power line that currently
(inaudible) thought the site and we will work with Idaho Power on rerouting that and
providing them with the appropriate easements as well as any other as they need them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
4
Borup: Mr. Boyle. I think what this Commission would appreciate is if you would just go
through those—we do have the staff report, this one and the previous one. If there is
any items on there that you have a concern with, those are the ones we would like to
have addressed. If you are 100 per cent agreement with them, I think we need to cover
those.
Boyle: Briefly, Item number 4 then under the conditional use permit, site specific, there
was mention in there regarding the choker design and clear site clear vision. Again, the
reason for that choker design is striving to de-emphasize turning movements into the
subdivision. That is also the reason that the left turn movement into the subdivision
was not indicated on the site plan was just because we are trying to de-emphasize
turning movements onto Carol Street from out of our site. Item number 7 under the
conditions, related to improvements regarding sidewalks and turning lanes along Locust
Grove. We don’t have a problem putting gin the sidewalks at this point. We also do not
have a problem putting in the improvements as far as lanes and what not. What
happened is ACHD currently does not have the funding available to reimburse us for
the cost of doing the lane improvements. At this point of time I am not sure how we
need to work that out. Certainly we will work with ACHD as well as the city and if ACHD
has the funding available at the point of time that we are under construction we don’t
have any problem with those improvements. Otherwise, we can certainly work with
ACHD to at least propose to put the sidewalk in at this point of time. I think the other
issues we are running into is they don’t have final designs done. They are in the
process of preparing those designs so rather then have us do improvements in a year
or two or whatever might be down the road that they are proposing, rather then have us
put them in and have them come right behind us and tear them out. They are
proposing that we put money into a fund on the sidewalk, but we certainly don’t have
any problem with doing those improvements as long as we can work out the issues for
reimbursement and what not with ACHD. Item number 8 relates to the landscaping on
the site and I guess we are proposing 24 feet of landscaping. We feel it is appropriate
considering the surrounding uses. We feel that with what is there today and
considering the improvements that this will make to that corner as far as landscaping
goes, we feel it will be a benefit with what we have proposed with the landscape planter.
Moving on down, number 9, we don’t have a problem with. Number 11 is fine, Number
12 is fine. Number 15 relates to the signage and again I believe you have our signage
proposal. That is a standard pylon sign. The Walgreen’s is requesting that it be out in
the intersection of Locust Grove and Fairview. That signage is typically 24 25 feet in
height and that is what we would like to see just due to the face that due to the fact that
signage is critical to Walgreen’s and to their customers and being able to easily notice
the site. That would be the only signage other then wall signage that we would propose
for the Walgreen’s store. This is a substantial reduction from the signage that currently
exists there today on the site. I have an overhead of the signage that exists. We would
substantially reduce the height as well as the overall signed copy with the proposed
pylon sign. The other proposal would be to keep the existing chiropractor sign for the
new multi tenant building that would be proposed. So that is our proposal on the overall
signage on the project.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
5
Borup: Could you point out where that existing sign is. You said existing chiropractor
sign.
Boyle: Actually I am not sure if this particular plan is the one that is in your packet. I’ll
point it out.
Borup: The chiropractor building is there and the site is still there. What size is that?
Boyle: I don’t have the exact dimensions on the square footage. Rough estimate is it is
probably 12 feet high maybe 15 in height. I actually have a picture of that sign on the
site that I could provide the commission with. I don’t have the exact dimensions of that
particular sign. Again, this is on a overhead. This will give you an idea of what it looks
like. It is the top sign in that photograph is the existing chiropractor sign.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, do you want to get the overhead out so that any residents
that are here can also see this.
Borup: We can do that. I think this may come up more when we start discussing sign
(inaudible) I just—let’s just see if the commission has any other questions.
Boyle: The final item was number 19 with regards to the drive thru for the second
building, the multi tenant building, and in our proposal this evening is that would also be
allowed to have a drive thru window available to it. We do not know whether or not we
will exercise that but we would like that available to that retail commercial building. That
pretty much covers the points in the staff report. We feel that over all this project will
help to clean up that corner and hopefully this will be a benefit to the city. This
particular site plan that is up there now, the latest submittal we have into the city which
is relayed in the staff report, we have taken out the chiropractor building so the existing
building—I am going to do some pointing here with this. This existing chiropractor
building we have removed from our site plan. That is why in the staff report until item
12 in the revised report, it states that the applicant has omitted the existing chiropractic
building from the site plan, so again we were able to rework the site and eliminate that
building which had caused some concerns in the prior staff report relating to bring it up
to building codes and removing some structures on the back. We have eliminated that
and moved this future pad to the south further and the landscape buffer along this edge
which again is reflected in this revised staff report, is now a 10 foot wide landscape strip
with a block wall. We have made those modifications and hopefully these are in your
packets. Outside of that I am open to answer any questions you might have.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Boyle?
Barbeiro: Mr. Boyle, Walgreen’s will have a drive thru –is that correct for the pharmacy.
Boyle: That is correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
6
Barbeiro: Along with that, does not Walgreen’s also have a home delivery of some
sort?
Boyle: That I do not know and one of my co-workers may know that answer.
Barbeiro: That is fine for the moment. The concern about a drive thru are, what kind of
a drive thru is it going to be. It is going to be a Moxie Java—people getting out fairly
quickly. Early morning or early evening. If it is going to be a bank, your drive thru
stacking is going to be at noon and 5 o’clock. If we are going to have a McDonalds or
something there, it is going to be all day long. It is very, very difficult to approve or in
general to approve a drive thru when there are so many different types of drive thrus
that could be put in there. That in combination –two drive thrus back to back, the
stacking could be a disaster.
Boyle. And I think it is difficult to go off the plan that is on the screen here just because
it does not represent the changes that we’ve made, but given the distances that we
have between the windows –the windows we have on the Walgreen’s would be located
on the north side and a proposed single window on this multi tenant building would be
located on the west side of the building. Given that fact and the amount of stacking that
could occur, we don’t feel that there would be any conflict just due to the distance that
vehicles get stacked. Based on that distance, you probably get into 10 cars stacked in
there from this drive thru window around the back before we’d ever start coming close
to having a conflict with Walgreen’s because both drive thrus are not on the back of the
buildings. This particular on is actually off to the left side. You are right. There is a lot
of different uses. Again, the proposal on that is that it will be some kind of retail multi
tenant type building. Whether or not a McDonalds would go in there is probably
unlikely. They usually prefer to do a stand alone or a gas station combo rather then
being in line with some retail users in a space. There is a possibility we would have
something like a Moxie Java. A bank probably would be unlikely but again, at this point
of time I guess our proposal is that we’d like to have that option available to them
whether or not they exercise it, we don’t know if they will do that or not.
Barbeiro: You see that using the plan here, if the drive thru say in the middle of that
future pad, 3 cars stacking would interrupt people being able to get in and out of the
existing parking lot. Parked there cars going around that corner, 3 or 4 cars, the first 2
or 3 parking spaces on either side would not be able to back out.
Boyle: Yes, that is correct and again at this point the way the sight is designed just as
you stated, it is unlikely that that will be used for a drive thru. If it were, your right. If 3
or 4 cars were stacked in there they could very well conflict with that parking and I
guess that the good thing about it is more then likely that will be employee parking. It is
very unlikely that a customer is going to park behind the building and they walk around
to the front. Since it is employee parking the likelihood of there being a conflict is
minimized somewhat from what it would be if it were customer parking.
Brown: Mr. Boyle. What is Walgreen’s typical stacking for their drive up?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
7
Boyle: Normally, and I don’t know if there is a norm on the Walgreen’s that I have seen,
I have never seen more then 2 or 3 cars at a time every. That is in my experience.
Maybe one of my fellow workers has seen more then that. It is pretty low volume going
through there. It is not something like a McDonalds or restaurant where you have
having a noon or evening rush. The stacking 2 or 3 cars I’d say would be a maximum.
Brown: I would be sure that Walgreen’s has some number because this is all that they
do is the drive up. If you could ask your people and come back with that because with
your new plan, it seems that you would be in conflict if you have very many cars
because they can’t get off of Carol Street because it would be the end of the drive up.
You have very many cars backing up there, then it would back up the traffic that is trying
to get along Carol Street and they would be backing up into the public right of way. You
would have the same conflict if someone was coming off of Fairview and trying to go
directly in. I know that your building really does not line up, but if the cars are backing
up and they start coming around to the east side of the building and backing up, then
they back up into that drive up.
Boyle: And again, they have the drive thru window and another drop box on there so.
Colby can probably answer the questions better for you here.
Hawker: For the record, my name is Colby Hawker with Hawkin Smith. Address 8645
W. Franklin Road. To be more specific about this issue, each and every Walgreen’s
that they do has a drive thru. You have probably see the Rite Aides in town that have
drive thru. They design them for a specific purpose and that is a convenience use.
They realize that when more then 2 or 3 people are stacked in their lines, people are
going to park in their parking lot and walk inside their store and do their shopping that
way. It is a convenience use. We have 2 stores in Boise that are open right now and
as Clint said, there is never more then 2 or 3 cars stacked in those bays there. It is
simply a convenience use. You may think that there is going to be a problem, but they
know—they have done these all over the country. They design them so their windows
are on the far end of the building. They have the full length of their building to stack
with and they just don’t have that problem. The simple fact is, if there is that many
people there, the people will go park in the parking lot and walk in the doors.
Brown: But you don’t have the full length of your building because you have the drive
up from Carol Street before the full length of the building. It is coming in at your
northeast corner.
Hawker: There is still a drive isle there. People can turn in from the Carol Street and
access around the drive thru with the people stacking there. There is a drive isle
between the drive thru window and the parking to the north. While people are parked
and waiting in the drive thru windows, people can still traverse around the property.
Brown: Is there a reason why it’s not down the west side? It seems to me that that
would not be a conflict. It is more internal.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
8
Hawker: It is a specific function of the way the building is laid out. When they have the
corner of the building where it is right here in the southeast corner of the building, then
the drive thru –the function of where the pharmacy is within their store. It is a proto
typical store that they develop all over the country where ever the corner of the opening
to get in the store is, the drive thru corresponds with where the pharmacy is.
Brown: (inaudible) pharmacy is we should put up with a less then preferable place for
the drive up to be.
Hawker: Their storage room is on the other side of the building. The answer would be
simply, there is never more than 3 people in the drive thru lanes. Their typical building
has two lanes that you will see on here for stacking, so that drive thru that you see right
there can accommodate 6 to 8 people in their drive thru lanes waiting, with out ever
stacking past that building there.
Brown: What kind of speakers do they have?
Hawker: It is a small, 2 inch speaker that is similar to any that you would find in a drive
thru banking facility.
Brown: And your discussions that Mr. Boyle had about the landscaping, the reason you
had a problem with the landscaping, I guess I did not catch that. You thought that 24
feet was adequate. Staff is asking for 35. Is there a reason why 35 won’t work for you?
Hawker: To answer that question I would say, we feel that we have done more than a
adequate landscaping job on this site. If you take a look at the north property boundary
line, we have taken an additional 20 feet of landscaping—it certainly is not required as
part of code and to buffer ourselves from the neighbors across the street, we’ve put in
block walls. The majority of the property length on the north side of the property as well
as along the west, add an additional buffer on the west side of the property where you
see the retain building here of 10 feet, so again our answer is, we feel there is more
then adequate amount of landscaping if we consider the entire site together.
Brown: Looking at the plan, and I do have your plan I guess I don’t quite see your block
wall is in that landscaped area on your westerly side and are you saying there is also
one the north side.
Hawker: That is correct. There should be a picture on the site plan there. Again, what
you will see—it will be 7 feet 6 inches high. What we have done is take that from the
parking level on the Carol side you will find curb, gutter and sidewalk that is going to go
all the way along Carol Street. There is the detail that Clint is pointing out on the
overhead. There will be a 20 foot landscape set back from there to the block wall.
There will be a birming effect, we will cover it up with plants and again, that’s what we
are asking a variance from what your requiring from the 35 feet, we feel that if we take
the overall site into consideration what we have done is more than adequate than the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
9
normal site and because we put the extra landscaping on the back, we are asking for a
reduction on the front.
Brown: The part that is going into Locust Grove, how do you plan on finishing off that?
If you put in the sidewalk you have a distance of unimproved right of way that is not
paved. Do you have any proposed-
Hawker: No, I don’t have any proposal. The highway district –we have to deed that to
the highway district. It is there ground and I can’t do anything with their ground.
Brown: You definitely can. They do it all over the—both the entire county. They enter
into a license agreement. You can landscape it. You can put gravel in there and treat it
so that there is not a weed hazard. You can make it look nice.
Hawker: We would certainly be willing to do that.
Borup: Any other Commissioner's?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. A question that can either be answered by yourself or Mr.
Boyle or staff. Regarding line item 3. Keeping in mind that the City of Meridian does
not currently have an ordinance or mechanism in the sub division and developed an
ordinance for lot reductions, I am perplexed about what we are going to do with this.
Don’t we want to wait for Ada County to subdivide this or are we gonna go with what
would be a (inaudible).
Hawkins: We did talk about this together. This is an existing plat. This is recorded.
There are easements recorded. These lot lines are recorded. Legally, the frontage and
you can see here on these two north lots here, the frontage legally is only on Carol
Street—right now. Is it a problem that the City does not have any mechanism for lot
reductions, it would certainly be nice but I think it would be a lot simpler to have that be
done to take care of their new proposed lay out, which is 2 lots split more or less with a
north south lot line. That way, when the city takes it in, it is done, it is clean and—one
thing to point out. I am not sure what John Priest or the County Engineer feels about
conducting this. There may be some issues on the plat and maybe Bruce can speak to
you about that. That is what we feel would be cleanest.
Boyle: Our only comment on that whether we go through the county or the city and
granted, the city does not have a lot reduction per say. My understanding though is that
we could do a re-subdivision or a re-plat of that and accommodate the same thing
where we go down to the two lots and I guess at this point of time, that is what we are
pursuing. We’d rather not have the annexation held up because of that, but if it was
possibly a condition of the approval, we’d have to accommodate that lot reduction prior
to pulling the building permits on this. I think at this point, what we are looking at
pursuing is actually doing a re-plat that we would start through the city process and of
course the annexation is going to have to occur before we can have the City Council act
on the re-plat on it so I guess our proposal would be that as a condition of approval, you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
10
could (inaudible) that we take care of the lot reduction whether it be through a re-plat
through the city or some other mechanism through the county that that be taken care of
prior to pulling the building permit.
Borup: Brad, any problem with doing the re-plat. Would that answer—
Hawkins: Certainly not. I think that it would be more time conscience to do it—I think
they call a lot combo in the county. It is a lot more simpler process. You re-subdivision,
your talking about a public hearing at P&Z, City Council, running through a preliminary
plat, a final plat the whole deal. You could, a re-subdivision would allow for vacating at
the same time. Instead of having to vacate and then do the lot combination of the re-
subdivision you could just take care of the easements that are all ready there and they
would just assign new easements along the lot lines with the utilities and the
subdivision. There is pros and cons on both sides. I guess our proposal is we just
don’t want to be tied down that we have to go through the county first. We would just
like to keep our options open so we can explore both going through the county and
doing the re-plat through the city. That is all we are asking is that the condition state
that we take care of that whether it be through a re-plat or lot reduction through the
county that it be a condition of approval say prior to pulling a building permit would be
our request.
Barbeiro: Brad, based on your experience it would probably take another 4 months
after annexation to complete that process. Is that right?
Hawkins: No.
Barbeiro: We’d still have to go through the public hearing process with the city. Going
through the city and going through the re-subdivision it would be about 4 months. Is
that correct?
Hawkins: I think that is fare.
Borup: Commissioner Brown, your saying with the county it is a couple week process.
Brown: It is a couple weeks process but the problem with the county’s process they
don’t make the easements or any of those things that are dedicated on the plat go
away. That process through us has to be submitted to the city and approved before
they can do the process at the county. You have to do the vacation before they can do
a lot line adjustment of property line adjustment.
Borup: Okay, so it sounds like the same your going to want to work out what is going to
work best. I don’t know that waiting right before building permits is the right time to –
Boyle: Oh no and we will get what ever process we are going to do we are working on
it right now, so it is not something that will wait until we have plans submitted we
certainly those options running.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
11
Borup: If you are going to do a new subdivision I would need to be done. Any final
comments. This is a public hearing and now is the time I would like to invite anyone
from the public like to come forward and testify on this application. If there is anyone,
step forward.
Dealy: Commissioner's, my name is Mark Dealy. 1445 Carol Street. My property lies
directly west of their new proposed site on Carol Street. I am opposed to this
annexation or to their building permit. A couple of reasons why I am opposed. A
couple things I asked for and it is besides the point with them to get my signature on
their ballot. They would not give me what I asked for. That is besides the point. Now I
am opposed because originally when Hawkins and Smith came in and asked for
peoples signatures on their little ballot to get this thing rolling, there was to be no
entrance on to Carol. They said no way, no how, no way would we allow an entrance
on to Carol Street. Well, now that Ada County has said, well we think there needs to be
an entrance on to Carol Street, the whole ballgame has changed. It is all nothing what
they say. My feelings are that they need to go back and take another poll since this is
their new plan, annexation and everything has changed according to what they
originally told us and told the people in the subdivision, I think they need to go back and
get a new signature sign up and see where they stand. I believe they have to have
50% to even get in here.
Barbeiro: From City Attorney, this is a CC&R problem within the neighborhood and
could you address that for us please.
Rossman: Thank you. Mr. Chairman what you are referring to is a requirement most
likely of you covenants and restrictions for your subdivision. There is no requirement of
50% approval in the neighborhood before they could bring in an application for
annexation and zoning or a conditional use permit. If you have issues under your
covenants, you need to deal with those privately. It is not an issue for the city.
Dearly: Well, there was something they had to have 50% for. I am sure someone here
knows something about it. They were required to get signatures to get their approval.
Rossman: Check your covenants and if there is such a provision then you can pursue it
through you homeowners association.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else.
Watson: My name is Robert Watson. I live at 1432 Carol Street. Just across the street
from Mr. Dearly. My objection to putting a access from Carol Street into that parking lot
into the drug store is primary to begin with just exactly what he stated. They stated one
thing and did another. The other factor is that future pad building, when you put in a
drive thru window and you give them authority to use it without putting a stipulation to
what you are using it for, you can all most guarantee that our street is going to become
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
12
a thoroughfare. We are going to have no controls, no input on what kind of a
thoroughfare it is. I am opposed to it on those bases.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Watson? Thank you.
Hill: My name is Galen Hill. I live at 1404 Carol. I did submit a petition the other day—
last week signed by everybody in the subdivision. I hope you have a copy of it with you.
We do oppose the driveway onto Carol Street. The original drawing did not show the
entrance onto Carol Street. What people originally agreed to and what is happening
now are different like Mr. Dealy said. That is one of our concerns. I was at the ACHD
meeting and they did rule that if there is a full access that they recommended it be on
Carol Street for safety because it does cross a Fred Meyer. They said an option to that
is a right in, right out on Locust Grove which would then—that would give us our block
wall back and our—the separation of the subdivision to the development. That is what I
took away from that meeting was there did not have to be a driveway on Carol Street. If
enough of us oppose it, which the—like I said, just about everybody in the subdivision
signed that supporting our covenants that we don’t have an access on Carol Street.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hill.
Barbeiro: Mr. Hill again, keeping in mind that we can not act on your CC&R’s. Is it true
that the CC&R’s were amended?
Hill: Not that part of the CC&R’s. In 1986 there was one lot that fronts—well it doesn’t
actually, it is behind 2 lots that front Fairview and it does border Carol Street. That lot
was rezone commercial. Somehow, someone who ever did that came through and got
enough signatures to rezone that commercial lot. It wasn’t, when that was amended, it
was stated that under no circumstances was a driveway was there to be any access
onto the interior street in to Carol Street. It was never amended to have an access on
to Carol Street. We would like that protected.
Barbeiro: Those are things that the city attorney tried to explain. Those protections can
be enforced through your own private homeowners association apart from the
Commissioner's.
De Weerd: Mr. Hill, did you attend that ACHD meeting. Did they explain to you why
they wanted the access out on to Carol?
Hill: Well, they had a couple of traffic engineers there and testified and it does make
sense for safety, whatever, that the --come out of Fred Meyer there is a driveway, so
and it lines up right across with Carol, so people turning left can go
SIDE TWO**
Hill: at the same time, so it does make it safer that way, but I was lead to believe that
the option was still available to not allow that and just have a right in right out on Locust
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
13
Grove. They did say that in 2001 or 2002 Locust Grove is going to be widened so that
there will be two lanes coming out to Fairview so there could easily be a right in along
Locust Grove and not effect—not have the drive to Carol. Like I said, that is what I took
away from the meeting. I sounded like they were going to recommend that to you guys
and then it was still up to you guys if the driveway on Carol did happen or did not
happen.
Hatcher: I am looking at the Ada County Highway District’s report that we have on the
latest package of this information. On page 6, let me back up a second. Page 5, Item
G talks about the construction of the driveway on Locust Grove goes through their
requirement and distance from Fairview and so on and so forth. Basically, what they
are stating a right in right out driveway on Locust Grove would not meet the district’s
policies. It further goes on with on page 6, states that—items 7 and 8 if a driveway is
requested on Carol Street, then it gives the perimeters in which they would want it.
Number 8 says if a driveway is construction on Carol Street a traffic choker shall be
installed. There is no requirement from ACHD that a driveway be placed on Carol
Street. Basically what I am seeing here is based upon the latest site plan that has been
submitted by the applicant, the drive isle on to Carol Street is not required by Ada
County, it is just a best means solution for the traffic flow and it is a solution in which it
would allow them to provide adequate circulation onto the site due to the fact that right
in right out driveway will meet Ada County requirements without the Carol Street
driveway. If you took the Doris Subdivision’s request and removed the Carol Street
driveway, this project would not be in compliance with Ada County Highway District and
the best they could do would be the right in right out which doesn’t give them adequate
circulation for the facility in which they are proposing.
Borup: Mr. Hill, you said you were at the ACHD meeting. Did you have a chance to
testify at that meeting?
Hill: Yes.
Borup: And were all your neighbors there also?
Hill: There were a few there. It was not convenient for everybody, but there was a few
of us there.
Borup: Were you the only one that testified?
Hill: No. There were I think 6 of us total from the subdivision.
Borup: Did you get any indication from the ACHD Commission as far as a reception to
your comments?
Hill: They were actually really impressed with how well organized we were and we had
been talking to the developer. He has met with us and I think he’d like, as must as we
would, not to have the drive way on Carol Street. If that is the only way to gain a full
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
14
access, that is his preference. We are kind of at odds, because the residents inside the
subdivision don’t want the access onto Carol. That is his only option if he can’t get a full
access between Carol and Fairview. We are at a stand still I guess.
Borup: I think you did understand that their preference was just as they have drawn
here, and they did not originally intend to have access on Carol. It was because of
ACHD—
Hill: I understand that, but what I took away from ACHD’s meeting that that was just
their recommendation as far as safety, traffic flow, whatever. If there is still the option of
right in right out.
Borup: Have you looked at the choker design?
Hill: I have seen one.
Borup: Did that elevate any of the neighbors concerns at all?
Hill: No.
Borup: I am trying to get a feel of what the concern really is. Are you concerned that
people are going to come onto Carol Street and then take a leisurely drive through you
subdivision sightseeing?
Hill: Well, I think that will happen. People will turn in there and maybe end up driving
through the subdivision looking for that business or another business.
Borup: Do you really believe that?
Hill: I do. Another concern I have is that the other lot that is on the west end of Carol, if
this is allowed to—if there is access taken here then down the road that just leaves the
door open for that lots that is on the far end of Carol to also have an entrance for a
business or –
Borup: I thought you said that other lot agreed to some specific conditions.
Hill: Yeah I did.
Borup: That was the owner of that lot that agreed to that?
Hill: If this one is given the green light then what is to stop them from putting a proposal
in for having an access.
Borup: Because they signed an agreement that they wouldn’t. Thank you. Any other
questions. Thank you. Anyone else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
15
Amy: My name is Dan Amy. I reside at 1935 W. Carol. Like a lot of us have talked all
ready, I did not have that big of problem with the previous what was recommended in
the wall etc. I too was down at the ACHD and testified. Part of the problem I do see
that we talked about, at least my perception is, a lot of us moved into this neighborhood
for a reason. It is one way in and one way out, large lots. It is very private
neighborhood, secluded to some degree off of main cross streets, and with the thought
of the access going in as we have talked tonight, my concern is that people would go
through a choker coming out of the parking lot here and possibly turning in. I can see it
happening. We had it happen today to some degree and any other issues in that area I
think would just add to the confusion. I know there was some talk about the access
onto Locust Grove and we talked about what violation that was. I would like to see
some compromise that says what can the access be into this area that would not
compromise our neighborhood and our activity and our privacy in that area.
Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Amy?
De Weerd: I would be curious as to what that would be. Did you have something in
mind? What a compromise would be.
Amy: No. ACHD—we’ve talked about how we could move the right in right out. They
threw in some numbers as far as distance from Fairview and apparently as we’ve talked
tonight that appears to be in violation. I guess I don’t other then possibly 2 ends on
Fairview. I realize there is some restrictions and limitations of what you can and can’t
do with a business like this. Certainly there is concerns of mine that we are going to
see additional traffic in our neighborhood and the other though of traffic coming down,
coming south on Locust Grove and turning a cross traffic on Carol Street to get into
either A in the morning, cut across the parking lot to continue onto Fairview without
having to deal with the stack up at the light. There was some discussion at ACHD
about that so and realistic that would probably happen. How would that effect traffic?
The residents coming out of Carol onto Locust Grove in the morning, time will certainly
tell on that, but I see it as a potential issue there as well.
Borup: Does that happen now?
Amy: Right now there is no entrance there. What you see landscaped there now.
Borup: Not at that point but there is on the other lot.
Brown: The commercial lot does have an entrance at it’s northeast corner.
Amy: Oh I see what you are saying. No that is not an issue at this point.
Brown: People don’t drive around that business. ACHD’s policy with regard to the
entrance required them to line up with things that are existing. The reason that the Fred
Meyer had to put their driveway where it is, is because of Carol Street, so now with this
development and the distance that they are from, what you consider a major
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
16
intersection, Locust Grove with the connection to freeway is going to be a major road.
The stacking distance there would not allow them to put any right in right out from that
corner and so they have to come from Carol Street. They are allowed to be within 120
feet with an offset on most roads, when it becomes a road like Locust Grove, it is 120
feet and that is the minimum and there is not room there on that corner for them to have
any entrance off Locust Grove.
De Weerd: With a choker and signage saying not a through street or dead end or
something like that, clear signage indicating this will not get you anywhere, you really
think that people will go into the subdivision?
Amy: I do believe it will happen. It happens now to some degree.
De Weerd: But people don’t know where that road goes right now.
Rossman: Sir don’t speak from the audience. You need to testify at the microphone
where it is recorded.
Amy: Without question, a choker would definitely help the situation. I think all of us, as
you seen by the petition, would recommend to you that we are not in favor it period.
We just don’t want it. We don’t want it. We enjoy our quality of life. As much as
progress and the conditions pain is all, okay. That is what we would like. I stand to you
tonight that is my forthcoming to you.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Amy. Next.
McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts, 1490 S. Carol. We bought our house in September.
It is right across from the proposed wall. Our realtor told us a week before closing
about the proposed Walgreen’s, but told us the wall was there. Therefore, that is what
we based our decision on in purchasing this home. Now having commercial access into
the subdivision, doesn’t do anything for my quality of my property. Whether you have
choker there or not, anybody—if I ever wanted to sell it down the future, commercial
access is going denigrate the value of my property so therefore, I am opposed to the
access into Carol.
De Weerd: I am sorry—do you know where the access is coming. Have you seen the
most recent –
McRoberts: Yes I had a meeting with the developer. I know where it is. It is going to
be right across from our neighbors driveway into their garage.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. Brad could you put back up the Carol Subdivision because I’d
like Mrs. McRoberts to show me where her lot is.
Borup: Mrs. McRoberts. Commissioner Barbeiro had a question on location of your lot.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
17
McRoberts: Right there.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Enyth: I just want to make a quick comment. Dan Enyth (inaudible) West Carol.
Actually, I am a little disappointed that Colby doesn’t have the—let’s get the drawing up
that shows the entrance, the proposed entrance onto Carol Street.
Borup: Do we have a transparency? If so we can get that set up.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, we’d like to make note that the drawing that was presented to
us and the drawing that is up on the board are not the same. The one that we have
before us does not show a choker. The one up here does have a choker.
Borup: You got one of both. I did in my packet. No body else did?
Barbeiro: We have an A and B but this one does not show the chiropractors office.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, the clarification on this is B is the old layout that we had spoke
about last month. The revised plan which is labels as A which we have been looking at
as our new layout. What we see in front of us is the new layout with ACHD’s comments
providing the choker.
Borup: Okay the one we have did not show the choker so you just have to combine the
two.
Hatcher: It doesn’t show the choker and it removes the three stalls on the northeast
corner as per staff’s recommendations. This is a modified version of this.
Amy: Help me out here. As we move forward with these discussions I am curious as to
what is going to be the final proposed drawing here. Is this what’s the latest that is
proposed to you guys and if so, how come we have an entrance on Locust Grove…I
don’t quite understand that.
De Weerd: It is a right in right out. They can only turn right going onto Locust Grove.
Amy: Okay, so part of my argument earlier was that what I would like to see personally
and I think for most of the people here in our subdivision is that no access onto Carol
Street, but a right in right out onto Locust Grove. I am having a hard time
understanding, especially when I brought this up at ACHD whether or not you could do
this. I threw it out for discussion and that is with a right in right out you have an addition
lane that those people turning out can access that lane. Are you with me on that or do I
need to point it out?
Hatcher: In future construction that lane will exist, but currently until Locust Grove is
improved you won’t have that extra lane.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
18
Amy: Okay, so the thought is, what if you did have a lane. What if you forget about the
Carol Street entrance, have a right in right out. Shirley delivery trucks can come into
Fairview and get back to their on ramp. There is some concern about trucks going
north turning into or across Locust Grove.
De Weerd: You will notice that the exist that you are talking about would be right out
only. Then, the first entrance into their site is a right out only as well. There is a
circulation problem there. There is no way to turn left out of their business until they go
down to the second one then on Fairview. I think ACHD was coming up with a
circulation or some way to move traffic through that project and without the access out
onto Carol, they can not do that. No one will be able to access Locust Grove from
those first two driveways.
Amy: There is a six inch raised median required from the intersection going all the way
to 50 north of the driveway and a 6 inch raised median at Fairview going from the
intersection to that first driveway. That is probably not been made clear.
De Weerd: It would be prohibitive to go straight, turn left at all, in either of those two
drives. I think that is why they felt necessary to open it up to Carol and try to make it as
least desirable to enter into you subdivision.
Barbeiro: If I may, presume that somebody from your own subdivision wanted to go into
Walgreen’s and that there was no access onto Carol Street. Of course they would
come down Carol, turn here and turn in here. They could only make a right hand turn
and go out. You could not make a left hand turn and go back into your subdivision,
which would require you t come down here and go all the way over into the parking lot
for Idaho Athletic Club and wait for all that traffic, then you would have to turn left here,
go to the stop light turn back left and go into your subdivision. That is the same
problem that anybody up here above Locust Grove would have, while it is my
understand that ACHD would allow that, the business owner obviously would not be in
their best interest to have a requirement that people come all the way over here to
Idaho Athletic Club and turn out there. That is the best I can do as an explanation as to
why the developer may have done that and of course I will leave it to Hawkin Smith to
elaborate if they would.
Borup: Mr. Boyle, do you have any closing comments? I think the Commissioner's may
have some questions.
Boyle: With regards to the access to Carol Street, again our original position was that
we weren’t going to take access to Carol and that was what we presented to ACHD.
We would rather of had a full access out onto Locust Grove and going through their
process and their hearings that was not allowed. That is why we are in front of you now
with the access out on Carol and we are trying to make every provision that we can to
de-emphasize traffic going into the residential subdivision by the choker by placing a
subdivision sign, a rock or a sign whatever, we work out with the subdivision owners,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
19
that states your entering a residential subdivision. Dead end street, not a through traffic
sign, whatever type of sign is appropriate there and again, we’ve tried to de-emphasize
as much as possible. ACHD in their reasoning I believe that one of the planning
Commissioner's hit on it and that was, any traffic that wants to travel north after visiting
the site, if we don’t have the access out onto Carol Street, that complicates the Fairview
and Locust Grove intersection, because just as was described, the traffic would have to
go out onto Fairview and Locust Grove, then back through that intersection. The
intersection is a busy intersection. It has a high volume of accidents right now and that
is just going to complicate things as time progresses. I think another issue that came
up in ACHD meeting was just the fact that not only does this allow Doris Subdivision
into our site, it also gives them an alternative route rather then having to exit their
subdivision on Locust Grove, they could actually go through our site and get out onto
Fairview Avenue now. Whether or not that is a benefit to them, at this point of time I
don’t know. Depending how traffic works out there, again that options would be
available to them, but we have tried to work with the neighbors and tried to get through
the ACHD requirements and come up with an acceptable plan. We feel that this is the
best alternative for us, for the neighborhood and we believe that the project will be a
benefit to the city. It will help to provide some extra landscaping on the corner and
hopefully clean up some of the uses that are there now and provide something that will
be a win win and a benefit to the city long term. That is our proposal.
Borup: Mr. Boyle, could you fill me in a little bit on dimensions here—some distances.
What is the length depth of your property from Fairview to Carol.
Boyle: Fairview to Carol, I have to look it up but it’s a—
Borup: None of our plats have any dimensions on it.
Boyle: It is about 360 feet. Some where between 360 – 370.
Borup: And ACHD was wanting 440 for a full access. Did they even need the 440 with
Carol Street? But that is an existing street, so—
Boyle: That’s correct, an existing street and again the required Fred Meyer line up with
Carol street.
Borup: And, what you’ve got drawn up there, is that
Boyle: 220. From Fairview to the access is 220. That is correct. From the access to
Carol Street is an additional 120.
Borup: Commissioner's, questions for Mr. Boyle.
Hatcher: I don’t know if you’ve got this information or not but when Walgreen’s was
looking at building a facility in Meridian and looking at the demographics of possible
sites and locations, how many other possible sites beside this one was researched.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
20
Boyle: That I would have to defer to Colby since he is the one working on purchasing
the land, but I can tell you that typically a Walgreen’s store, they are looking at a mile to
two miles out as being their dry area for customers. You’ll notice that currently we’ve
just got a couple open in the Boise Valley, but we have quite a few that are going
through processes similar to these around the area. Typically they are a mile to two
mile draws is what they are looking at and as far as how man more will come into
Meridian, I don’t know that.
Hatcher: The question wasn’t how many are coming into Meridian, the question was
how many sites were reviewed for possible construction of this facility.
Boyle: Of this particular project.
Hatcher: One brand new Walgreen’s coming into Meridian, how many sites did you
guys study besides this one.
Boyle: I will have to defer that to Colby.
Hawker: We actually looked at two pieces of property to answer your question. The
first piece of property—well first or second. The first property was not available and we
could not put together. This is the second alternative.
Hatcher: So out of your research and your study of demographics—only 2 sites were
acceptable to Walgreen’s criteria.
Hawker: That is correct.
Hatcher: And the first one was not available for sale.
Hawker: That is correct.
Borup: Any other questions. Commissioner's would your pleasure be to close the
hearing or would you like to have some discussion first. I saw one nod. If no one
makes a motion I guess the meeting is still open. It probably is appropriate for
discussion. Would someone like to state what they feel what the issues are.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, so much of what I have heard in discussions from neighbors
can be taken care of privately through their own homeowners association. I believe the
vast majority of the discussion here with the neighbors were items we really are not in a
position to act on.
Borup: You talking about access to Carol Street?
Barbeiro: Not specific access to Carol Street, but with regards to the petition and the
CC&R’s of their own neighborhood with regards to the two lots that apparently were
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
21
changed in a majority vote that sometime in the past. I am still thinking of the neighbors
could be working on this privately outside of our commission.
Borup: That is definitely true as far as the covenants. I think that has all ready been
stated, but I think access on Carol Street—that is before us. That is something that
does pertain to this commission. We need to take into consideration of course the
neighborhood and the people that it effects, but the other consideration is the city as a
whole and those are the things we need to weigh. Commissioner Brown you look like
you are ready to make a comment.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, Brad, what is the required access for this site from the planning
stand point. Is there a requirement for the amount of access that they have. If they
have this right in and they have an access off of Fairview, is it strictly their desire to
have a full access.
Hawkins: The City does not have a required number of accesses per lot or parcel.
Obviously, they have the one per frontage and technically what they are proposing is
two lots, but to answer you question those access points onto public right of ways aren’t
addressed in the ordinance, they have always been dealt with through ACHD.
Borup: Any other questions or comments? I think a right in right out on Locust Grove
without an access to Carol would adequately serve things today. Often time planners
are not looking to the future. My concern is and as Commissioner Brown mentioned,
there is a proposed Locust Grove is going to be a busier street. It is going to go
through to Franklin and over the freeway eventually—the time frame we don’t know.
What are the traffic going to be like at that point and what is going to be the best for the
residents of this subdivision at that point.
De Weerd: The people on Carol Street will have difficulty getting in and out of there as
traffic increases. The second building, I would not be in favor of approving a second
building with a drive thru with out knowing what it is, so they would have to come back
with a modification and a CUP or however, Moxie Java had done it at one point. I
would not be in favor of a second building having a drive through.
Borup: Without not know what business is going in there etc.
De Weerd: Maybe I am looking—the applicant mentioned that it would be retail. Maybe
even putting—I think staff had mentioned at one time limiting of what could go in there
might not be a bad idea either.
Borup: You mean with our without a drive thru.
De Weerd: Without a drive thru.
Borup: You say limited, what can go there as proposed right now.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
22
De Weerd: Yeah. They are talking about retail or food. Didn’t you have
recommendations Brad that this not be allowed. Certain uses not allowed in the second
building. Original staff report.
Hawkins: Right. Original staff report did not address the second building per say. It
was saying that if the City choices to annex this piece of ground, they are asking for C-
G, commercial general, which is an extremely broad category. We listed I think five
different categories that are now permitted in the C-G that we would recommend not be
allowed. Things like automobile repair shops.
Borup: Auto repair, service stations, storage facilities, truck stops, heavy equipment
sales and repair were the four items they mentioned.
Hawkins: To be part of the annexation ordinance that would forever restrict those uses
on this ground. It is attached to the annexation, not attached to the CUP—that second
building.
Brown: Brad, is a restaurant allowed in that zone?
Hawkins: A restaurant, yes.
Borup: Your amended staff comments did not delete any of the previous did it? There
were a few that –right—that is what I assumed. Commissioner's thinking there is some
additional you’d like to add beyond those.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman have we discussed anything about the sign.
Borup: Not yet. I was hoping that would come up.
Barbeiro: The signs would be a part of number 4, the excuse me number 3. The
annexation and zoning.
Borup: Do you want to discuss it now or wait for that time.
Barbeiro: If we may, I would prefer to wait for that time.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing on the annexation of the
Walgreen’s site.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: Okay, but Mr. Amy did have one comment and if it is pertinent to the annexation
I would like to invite him up. If it’s pertaining to the CUP that would be the best time to
do that. Okay, let’s wait then. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
23
Dealy: Mark Dealy again. You were talking on a multi use retail building. My only
concern would be –she was suggesting certain things that would be allowed. It would
not be allowed in the multi use building there at that location. My question would be will
they allow 2 story, 3 story buildings there looking in the back of the properties that are
there or are they going to keep to a single story. There is other things that I would like
to know if your going to---
Borup: Okay we can find that out when we talk about the conditional use permit. We
have a motion and a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Public hearing has been closed. Commissioner's it has been stated we have
discussed several items that did not have pertinence to the item number 3. Do we have
any other discussion on this? It looks like what has been stated is maybe conditions on
usage. Staff has mentioned if that’s done part of annexation, then it will not have to be
addressed as a separate conditional use permit. Original staff report had mentioned
auto service station, storage facility, truck stop, heavy equipment sales. Is there
something that any commissioner wants to add to that. I guess we are making an
assumption that that’s going to be included in the motion. Is that correct?
De Weerd: Well, Commissioner Brown had the question restaurants permitted and the
zone that they are requesting. I don’t see that it is permitted—is it?
Hawkins: Yes in C-G restaurants are permitted.
Brown: With fast food to be included in that.
Hawkins: Well, if there was a drive thru it would have to have a conditional use permit,
but yeah we would classify that as a restaurant.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. The number of drive thrus permitted on this parcel that would
be handled under the conditional use permit.
Borup: Well the drive thru would…yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borup: Anything else. Any other concerns.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman can I make a motion without Commissioner here?
Hatcher: Let’s wait till he gets back. Commissioner Hatcher had to leave for just a---
Has anyone had a chance to review-any other permitted uses in the C-G zone that
anyone has concerns on.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
24
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would have a problem with a fast food use. Not necessarily a
restaurant but a fast food use.
Borup: Can that be handled through the drive thru condition. Would a fast food come
in with out a drive thru? Yes it could.
De Weerd: Commissioner Brown is your reason because of the drive thru.
Brown: It would be mostly because of the drive thru and the proximity to the corner. It
creates a traffic problem. You look at other fast food restaurants that are near corners
and intersections, the traffic is constant. It would definitely have a large impact on what
Walgreen’s is trying to do and they probably would discourage something like that, but
they do have a big impact on the parking and the traffic flow within the site. The
highway district is concerned about that and I am sure that they would look at that too,
but I guess that is my concern is the proximity of a fast food type of a restaurant, the
smells that are generated and then the proximity to the existing residents. That would
be another reason why I would think about a restaurant being there. I have mixed
feelings about that.
Barbeiro: Would you quality a pizza parlor as a fast food? What would that be?
Borup: So that is something you would like to add to staff comments?
Brown: I definitely would like that added, if you are going to make a motion a fast food
restaurant not be allowed.
De Weerd: Perhaps a second option would be if it is a possibility that the second once
the use is know that they have to come back for a public hearing, even though it would
be permitted in the zone that it would be the desire to have this kind of a process so
that the public has an opportunity to see what is being proposed there and we will have
the ability to comment.
Borup: Essentially, wouldn’t that be annexing that parcel under a conditional use
permit. Would not that be the proper—or handled in a development agreement.
De Weerd: So then, require a development agreement for the zoning and annexation
that the second come back.
Brown: That would also take care of the concerns they talked about. The elevation of
the building.
Hatcher: I would remind all of you that in the original packets the building design has
been submitted and if we were to approve this before us, we would be approving a one
story retail building with the capacity of holding 4 suites, nothing more, nothing less. I
think the discussion as to whether this is a bank, a two story, a restaurant is not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
25
pertinent because what has been proposed and what has been approved is what is
before us.
Borup: That seems to make sense.
Hawkins: I would say it is a multi tenant shell which those shells—tenant
improvements. You could allow anything that is permitted in the C-G technically.
Borup: But it is not going to go from a single story to a two story.
Hatcher: It could be a PaPa Murphy’s or Subway going into one of those suites, but
your not going to see a Pizza Hut or McDonalds go into this shell.
Hawkins: You could have a small accounting office in one and a clinic in another.
END SIDE 2
Borup: I appreciate you bringing that out Mr. Hatcher because I think that is very
pertinent. Where does that leave us?
De Weerd: I have nothing else. No, I think you need to practice. I will be stepping off
of here. Okay, I’ll do it.
Borup: At this point we are talking about the motion on the annexation zoning with the
exceptions of staff.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we recommend approval of
annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to CG, limiting the drive thrus to
one and with the proposed drawing and to include all staff comments.
Brown: I’ll second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: I needed to find out first if I needed to ask for a development agreement.
The attorney said that is taken care of.
4. 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:
Borup: Brad, is there anything additional that you would like to add?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
26
Hawkins: Nothing further. Please incorporate previous comments.
Borup: Any comments, questions from the commission? Again this is another public
hearing as stated. All testimony that has been given previously will be incorporated into
this hearing, but there is an opportunity for anyone who would like to come up and add
anything additional. Would the applicant like to add anything first? That is a good
point.
Boyle: Again, Clint Boyle, Hawkin Smith. Just briefly to remind you as far as the staff
comments go, we would like to propose the plan as submitted with landscaping as
presented here as far as the buffer along Fairview and Locust Grove and also at this
point of time, we would like to go with the pylon sign on the corner for the Walgreen’s
building and then to keep the existing chiropractor sign for the multi tenant building.
Borup: Where was the third sign going? Are you proposing two signs?
Boyle: Two signs. We would have the one on the corner for the Walgreen’s that is
indicated on the plan. Total of two signs.
Borup: You just want to have the wording changed. Exact same signs?
Boyle: The sign would remain the same and it would just be depending what tenants
go into the (inaudible) that sign would change.
Borup: The latest application we have had two Walgreen’s signs. That is why I was
wondering.
Boyle: One sign for Walgreen’s.
Brown: Is there one on the building?
Boyle: They do have signage on the building and I believe that you have the elevations
for the building. Should have been submitted in a previous packet. It shows our
signage on the building, so—
Borup: Okay, the packet we have with two signs—your proposing a new sign which is
smaller then the original—that what this is indicating?
Boyle: Actually, what that packet that you have there, that just shows two of our proto
type signs and the one that is 24 feet in height, 100 square feet, that is our proposed
sign for Walgreen’s. 100 square feet would be the total sign copy area including the
reader board.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, had a question for Brad. Brad is it a requirement of the
ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan that there be a 35 foot landscaping buffer.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
27
Hawkins: Comprehensive Plan.
Rossman: And, wouldn’t that require that they proceed with –that is a requirement of
the Comprehensive Plan. I want to make sure that a variance is not required here
because this commission does not address variances.
Borup: Another question for Brad. Do you know what the property to the east Fred
Meyer, does it have a 35 foot set back or do you know what that is.
Hawkins: Fred Meyer does have a 35 foot set back, yes. All on Fairview.
Borup: Is there something you want to look up first Mr. Rossman?
Rossman: We currently have (inaudible) requirement of the ordinance of the
Comprehensive Plan and obviously there is—this commission does not have the power
for the authority to grant. If it is just a recommendation then you obviously would have
the desecration to divert from that recommendation.
Boyle: Again, as far as our buffer we feel that we have substantially tried to adequately
buffer the site on all corners. We could compare to Fred Meyer. We’ll actually have
more landscaping then they do along our Locust Grove side. (inaudible ACHD follows
through with their plans for the 5 foot planter. We could go across the street and say
Hollywood Video fairly new use has a 24 foot buffer. We’ve got the same buffer. We
don’t want to sit here and say this use has this and we have that. Our proposal is that
we feel that we’ve adequately landscaped the site. It will be a benefit we believe to the
city and certainly Walgreen’s wants to be in within Meridian and we’ve done our best to
provide fairly decent landscaping, I believe for the site. We hope you feel the same
way.
Borup: I think that is the position that we have taken on other applications is, is can be
better to have a nicely landscaped smaller set back then the 35 foot with minimal.
Rossman: I would agree. It is just a question of whether or not the Comprehensive
Plan or ordinance gives you the authority to do that.
Borup: I believe it is the Comprehensive Plan.
Rossman: Were you able to find anything Brad.
Hawkins: It’s not a requirement, no.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Boyle? Thank you. Anyone from the audience.
How about Mr. Amy.
Amy: I think we covered it and I was going to let it go. But since you called my name I
thought I’d come up. Quickly, as we mentioned before currently with no Carol Street
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
28
access we have two right ins to the property. I wanted to point out and there is no
mystery there that that would leave the Carol Street entrance for all traffic turning left
except for those coming down Fairview that would somehow have some incentive to
turn into Idaho Athletic Club parking lot. It just came to mind to me that with that access
except for those folks, two entrances to turn right into the facility and now we have one.
Carol Street to turn left so I question the amount of traffic that will be coming in that way.
We all ready talked about that. Thank you.
Borup: Be coming in which way sir?
Amy: On to Carol Street with one entrance turning left. Those folks coming down
Fairview, if they don’t have the incentive to turn into previous where they can turn left as
Tammy pointed out, that you can not—it is a right in right out of Fairview so turning – So
those folks that are turning left are going to need to be knowledgeable enough to do it
at Athletic Club otherwise we will have all that traffic coming around coming back into
Carol Street as well as the other traffic through the intersection. Just an observation of
mine.
Borup: Anyone else? Commissioner's.
Ray: Dennis Ray. 1872 E. Carol. Turning in and out turning out of Carol onto Locust
Grove at traffic hour right now is all most impossible. You don’t turn left. If you can turn
right you are lucky. What would this do if we had a store there? How would that work.
Borup: Turning right would be easier because you’d have another lane.
Ray: Right now turning right, I can sit there sometimes for—7:30 to 8 o’clock, turning
right I can sit there for five minutes.
Borup: So another lane would help you your thinking then.
Ray: No, another lane would not help me because if they had a left hand turn lane, that
would be an impossibility. You can’t turn left.
Borup: No a right hand lane. Another lane coming down Locust Grove to Fairview. A
whole other lane so you –you said you can’t turn right but you ask how that effect that.
This project would add another lane. That is how it would effect that. It would make
that easier turning right.
Ray: The only way I could see anything that would work is to have a light there, which
is an impossibility because your too close to Fairview to have a light. Right now like I
say, during traffic hour there is no way of turning left there. If you have all this traffic
coming out of retail business I just don’t see it happening. You only have 2 ways, you
have a right turn in right turn off of Locust Grove. On Fairview you have a right turn in
and right turn out only unless you go down to the west and that is near the athletic club,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
29
I don’t know how you would funnel traffic in and out of this retail business without a
major problem.
Borup: Any questions? Come on up sir.
Dealy: Mark Dealy, 1445 Carol again. Another question, if you add a second lane to
Locust Grove travelling south, the people coming off of Carol to head east on Fairview,
that means they have another lane of traffic to cross and the traffic all ready is backed
up probably, I’d say 40 cars deep beyond Carol Street. You just are doubling that
amount of traffic coming down Locust Grove. It is all going to Fairview and that means
the people that are turning south from Carol onto Locust Grove now have to cross 2
lanes of traffic so they can get to Fairview to turn east. I don’t see where it is going to
help Carol Street. Again, the only thing that we suggested at the other meeting, ACHD
was possibly a traffic light and they said no way. It’s too close. It is just going to get
worse. The traffic there is going to become unbearable. That is all.
Borup: Thank you.
Harris: I am Helen Harris and I live at 1835 Carol. Every morning I have to turn left off
Locust Grove to go to work. I feel like I take my life in my hands every morning now
because there is no escape lane. Once you get out of there you’ve got to get in traffic.
Borup: So you saying you’d like to see a turn lane on Locust Grove.
Harris: There is a turn lane, but it only goes into Fred Meyer or—
Borup: I mean which would be on a 5 lane road that would be the 5th
lane. It is a turn
lane that goes the whole length. Center turn lane. So your saying that would help.
Harris: The only thing that would really help is a stop light or a 4 way stop. Make
people stop there because we can’t get out. I will sit there sometimes 10 or 15 minutes
to get out in the morning to turn left. I highly disapprove of this anyway. I have been
there since 1980 and I don’t want a Walgreen’s in my subdivision. I really don’t.
Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Harris. Thank you.
Hill: Galen Hill. 1404 Carol. I just wanted to cover also the –a couple of the
Walgreen’s are 24-hours and had some concerns that this one we’d like it not be 24-
hours.
Borup: That was brought up last month and they said it was not.
Hill: They said they did not need it to be, but what's to say down the road—could it turn
into 24-hours. That is what our concern is.
Borup: That could be one of the conditions. Anyone else.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
30
Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing for discussion.
Borup: That probably true. We’ve had some additional public testimony. Mr. Boyle do
you have any final comments or did you conclude earlier. I do have a question for you
Mr. Boyle. Last week you said 8 in the morning till 9 at night would be the operating
hours. Okay Colby said that. Any problem with the restriction if that is one of the
conditions. We are going by your testimony last month.
Boyle: I’ll let Colby respond. I won’t be a 24-hour store as far as hours go.
Hawker: Their normal operating hours are 8 to 9, 9 to 9. We would not ask for that
restriction being placed. We certainly would be open to a 24-hour restriction being
placed on the stores. I don’t know—they all vary depending of their location of their
hours. Their typical hours are from 8 to 9 in the evening.
Borup: Your saying you want to go same hours as Fred Meyer or something.
Hawker: Sure. I don’t know what the specific hours are. I do know that they do not
want to operate 24-hours there.
Borup: Okay. Other question I have, do you still have a viable project without the
access onto Carol. Would you go ahead with the project?
Hawker: You know I guess our concern is and it has been a concern from the very
beginning, we presented an access that took full access from Locust Grove. Our
concern is number one that the site would probably have to change some to get our
truck into the site. Right now, the truck would access from Carol Street, come around
the building and exit south right out on to Fairview Road. So the site would have to be
changed to accommodate our truck to get into the site.
Borup: Would the truck be coming down Fairview anyway?
Hawker: I don’t know their truck routes.
Borup: I am assuming it is not coming down Locust Grove.
Hawker: It is more logical that they come down Fairview.
Borup: I am not seeing where that would be a problem. Are you saying the truck needs
to back in along a loading dock—that what’s on the left side of the building there.
Hawker: That is correct.
Borup: And, if it came in from Fairview facing the wrong direction, so you’d just have to
drive around the existing parking.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
31
Hawker: That’s correct. We would have to circulate completely around the building.
Borup: How often do the truck come.
Hawker: Approximately once a week.
Borup: That does not sound like a big problem once a week.
Hawker: Like I said, we would have to modify the site plan to make it work as far as the
parking stalls to make the circulation work. I think that the biggest problem is, and I
think ACHD thought this as well, in the over all safety of everyone concerned, if the full
access is not there on Carol Street, then everything is forced onto Fairview. Not only
the neighbors of Carol Subdivision but all of the people which the majority of Meridian is
north of Fairview, as we know a lot of the population. Again, your forcing your traffic on
Fairview to come and turn left on to Locust Grove and head north. The second
concern, and this is the one we raised with the neighbors, why we felt when ACHD was
going to require (inaudible) access onto Locust Grove, there is a median that is going to
go the full length of Locust Grove down there. What we feel is going to happen is
people are going to turn and going to be heading home on Locust Grove going north
realizing that they can not get into our development and then they are going to turn into
Carol Street and then come back out and then turn into the subdivision. We feel
strongly that there are going to get more traffic in their neighborhood without an access
on Carol Street by far then if an access on Carol Street were allowed. Those people
don’t have any way to get into the site so they are going to turn feeling they can and
they are going to turn back around and they are going to head south and they are going
to come in that right in movement.
Borup: That is exactly what I would do. I think anybody would do that. If your heading
north on Locust Grove--
Colby: Maybe they do only do it once but –if forces those people in there and you know
we’ve made a large argument that the people in our subdivision now, if we sign it they
are still going to turn into there and I guess the argument is they will only do that once. I
think it is a safety concern. I think that is why ACHD recognized it in the fact that there
is a lot of people that will use the site that need to go north and they all will be forced to
exit onto Fairview and then go north and I think with that median there, there will be one
of two things. They will turn into Carol Street or they will do a U-turn around the
median. That is going to cause major complications for the intersection of Carol Street
and Fred Meyer with the people leaving Carol, with people leaving Fred Meyer.
Borup: Any comment on the existing stacking during the peak hours, morning and
evening that has been stated. It is very difficult turning left as it is. People might find
another way to go and avoid that during those periods.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
32
Colby: I guess my comment would be, the traffic that’s there is there now. Certainly our
Walgreen’s development as we stated earlier, draws from a mile and a half to a two mile
radius of people. The people that are coming to the site are the people that live in this
area. We certainly –we are not going to travel from 6 miles away to visit the Walgreen’s
because their a convenience use and there is going to be closer. You go to the one
closer to you. So I guess my answer is, the traffic is all ready there. It is simply the
people that are travelling on those roads that are going to use our site. Walgreen’s
itself again is not a fast type of use where it dumps a whole bunch of traffic out at one
time. For instance a movie theatre type where everybody leaves at once and hops onto
Carol Street and goes. They check out at the register, one people walks out the door,
gets in their car and drives away. It is more of a steady use. If you look at any of the
stores around town right now you will see that there is hardly ever any stacking getting
out of the development.
Borup: The one I am most familiar with is Milwaukee and Fairview. Do you know what
the how that was handled as far as access in. Is the one on Fairview right in right out?
Colby: There is a access on Fairview right in right out and then further down Fairview
there is a left in which is in line with a Grand Auto Supply that is next to Walgreen’s at
that particular development. There is a right in right out between the Walgreen’s and
the Grand Auto Supply and then further down the road there is full access. Similar
things happened at Overland and Orchard where we have a store open as well. On
Orchard Street there is a full access granted into the Key Bank that is there with
Walgreen’s and there is a right in right out on one of the street. At Ustick and Five Mile,
we have full access on both sides of the street.
Borup: I thought those first two would be similar to what you’ve got with the full access
at the athletic club it sounds like. The full access is off site on the Fairview Milwaukee.
Colby: That is correct. Yes.
Borup: I have driven in there several times and that’s one of the busiest intersections in
town. I hope Meridian doesn’t get to that stage. This would be the one to do it wouldn’t
it.
De Weerd: So they only have one access and so it would be similar to that off of
Fairview with the two drives that they have. Is that what you are saying.
Borup: The one on Milwaukee and Fairview is similar to this. He said they have a right
in right out and then they have—
Colby: The access on Fairview on the other location would be similar to the access
here where they would have a right in right out and then a full access down the road.
Then the access on Milwaukee, they have a full access. Where their full access would
be is where Carol Street would be. They have the depth there. Again that is why
ACHD suggested that that’s where we take access because is lines up with Fred Meyer
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
33
and you have direct conflict points going staring across from each other rather than off
set conflict points.
Boyle: Clint Boyle again. Just one final comment after Colby here and that is with
regard to the question as to whether or not Walgreen’s would come in or not with out
this access. The proposal we submitted to Walgreen’s to develop this site was with a
full access out to Locust Grove. So whether or not they would still come in, I guess we
don’t know. We would have to take it back through their committee approvals to see if it
would be approved or not.
Watson: My name is Robert Watson. I live at 132 Carol. I am also subject to quite a
financial loss because of this. I just bought the property there. It seems as though the
needs for the developer are being met pretty regularly by everyone simply by taking—
they say maybe not, maybe so. We probably won’t do this, we probably will do that. To
give them the authority to go ahead on that basis, I think is very unwise. I don’t think
that business has been that responsive to the needs of the neighborhood or people to
give them that kind of authority. Another thing is that to require an opening on Locust
Grove because they have to have a trunk in once a week to deliver a load, I don’t think
that is within reason to ask that. Another part of it to is that they can, he said in his own
words, that it would require a change in the way it was being developed to make it easy
for the truck to get around the building. I have to ask why not do it that way. Why not
leave our homes alone.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Watson. Commissioner's. We can sit or someone make a
motion.
Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing.
Brown: Second
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I assume we’d like discussion.
De Weerd: Would you like me to share my issues? I think that the developer is willing
to put in the sidewalk. I do believe that ACHD is just going to have to develop the plan
so the sidewalks can go in. I agree with staff that that is a necessity and that I see it as
a condition. Their pylon sign is 100 square feet. I know that we have been trying to
stay around 72 square feet if I remember right and the City Council has been strongly
suggesting “monument” signs. I have been told I’m not suppose to use that term, but
that’s not a pylon sign or at least a cover pole. I do have concerns about the size of
their sign. Under the conditional use permit to reiterate the condition that this is only
approved for one drive in or drive thru. I would still have concerns about the
landscaping on Fairview. We do have along that strip—Fred Meyer has 35 feet and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
34
that is one of our corridors that is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an important
intersection.
Borup: You talking about distance? Okay. Anyone else.
Barbeiro: In regards to hours of operation, I think recommending the hours of operation
not be outside of 7 am to 10 pm would be fair. Any parking lot light be a directional
parking lot lighting to prevent the lighting from seeping over to the existing
neighborhood. Any design, the choker design that we have here on our overhead be
the consideration design, not the design that was presented in design A.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, my last issue was the access onto Carol. I don’t see their
gaining any benefit of having the access onto Carol and having the left turn when it is all
ready difficult anyway and it is only going to intensify.
Borup: The difficulty is during high peak hours—morning and afternoon. The rest of
the day—
Brown: And the reason that that will get better is that more lanes that there are then the
stacking (inaudible—not close enough to the microphone).
De Weerd: They have been talking about improving Locust Grove for how long?
Brown: 2000
Borup: Next year for right of way acquisition and construction the following—It is a
funded project. I think that is probably the next thing—that will be happening. It is only
one issue.
Barbeiro: Getting back to Mr. Ray’s comments in regards to the need for Carol Street
and the developer is not even certain—he did not say it wasn’t a viable plan. On the
other hand, the developer is actively encouraging the neighbors in Carol Street
(inaudible) to get past Locust Grove and to get onto Fairview—either being left turn or
right turn.
Borup: I think they recognize it in the future as the stacking increases that it gives the
residents access to Fairview. I don’t that he wants to cut through traffic either.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman my points of discussion are comments concerns on this project.
If this project was recommended for approval tonight, at minimum I think a condition on
the project would be that as originally proposed by developer to ACHD that the street
improvement and sidewalk for Locust Grove be done for the full length for this project
and not be put off or funded. If ACHD’s design isn’t ready, the project doesn’t proceed
until it is ready. At minimum, the southbound traffic should be improved to assist in the
stacking problem in traffic. The access to Carol Street I look at I can see the pros and
cons for both sides and my immediate response or feeling is that project if reanalyzed I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
35
think could still be made possible and still move forward without access to Carol Street.
Thus, giving the subdivision their immediate desire—no access to Carol Street. In the
long term plans whether this project existed or another project was done where the lots
stayed as they are now. The problem of access from Carol Street to Locust Grove is
going to continue to get worse, no matter what. With this project putting access to
Carol Street as proposed on the over head, in the big picture in the long term, this
improvement is a benefit to this subdivision and improves the immediate access that
they have. Not desires but it is an improvement to existing conditions. Long term
conditions can not be improved upon by this project or any other project. I am in
consensus with the other Commissioner's that by no means this project be a 24 hour
store, that close to a residential subdivision. Being a resident of Meridian for as long as
I have, it seems to me there are several other viable sites for this project. I know that
Walgreen’s built on busy intersections and relatively middle to high density areas.
Everybody has to make a buck and that is what they need. I think Meridian has other
viable sites. I think there are better sites for Walgreen’s then this site. I am kind of torn
in the fact that we are tearing down two houses to build a commercial project and
encroaching upon a residential subdivision. If access to Carol Street is made a
condition, then at the absolutely minimum all discussed requirements of a choker and a
sign needs to be added and even signage on Locust Grove, do not block intersection
sign, so that left turns still be made during stacking. These are things that are going
through my mind on this project and quite honestly I am at odds with myself on this
project. I certainly would not want to be a resident of this subdivision and have to deal
with the increased traffic, but it is all ready there. This project is not creating the
problem. It is adding to the problem some, but a pharmacy does not generate high
density traffic. It generates low density traffic over a given period of time. It is adding to
the problem not creating the problem. I think it is the location and configuration.
Borup: Has everyone said something? Commissioner Brown, your not going to say
anything. Brad or, have you had a discussion with ACHD on developing of this section.
I realize they don’t have the whole mile d design. I just don’t see why it is such a
problem to engineer half a street. If the grade is all ready established on the east side
of the street. The whole length of Fred Meyer has a sidewalk, curb, gutter in, I am
assuming if it is like most other streets, the grade is going to be the same.
Hawkins: That is correct. Go figure.
Borup: So they should be able to fast track this length of design couldn’t they.
Hawkins: I would point out that the applicant has talked –there is a funding issue going
on with ACHD that I can’t speak too. In terms of actually having the funds to—they are
in the design. They have 3 phases. They fund money one year to design it, another
year to purchase the right of way and another year to construct it. Typically 3 year
deals. They are obviously having problems with their funding being sufficient enough
right now to do this pronto. I continue to believe that the city—if we are going to take
care of our traffic problems we need to take a lead roll and ask ACHD what we want to
do and I think this is part of your responsibility.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
36
Borup: That might be discussed at tomorrow nights meeting with ACHD too.
Commissioner's any discussion. I’ve got 7 items and they are one the walk they built
(Inaudible) be built at this time the other that Locust Grove be fully developed. Some
questions on the signage. The drive thru be limited to one. The landscaping buffer on
Locust Grove. Hours of operation. If access of approved to Carol that it would be with
the choker as in the latest design. Did that cover everything.
Hatcher: No 24 hour.
Borup: You saying no 24 hour rather then the 7 to 10 limitation.
Hatcher: I think 7 to 10 limitation would cover it.
Borup: Actually I would say 8 to 10. The applicant said their normal hours are either
open at 8 or 9.
Barbeiro: Fred Meyer was opening up at 7.
Borup: They would be closing earlier then Fred Meyer. At 10. I don’t think that
matters. 10 o’clock has been stated. Your saying don’t limit the hours.
Hatcher: Why should we govern their business.
Borup: Well what is the difference between 24 to 2 in the morning to 6 in the morning
close.
Hatcher: Maybe they might find that opening up at 6 in the morning brings in more
business then staying open till 10 at night. Who are we to govern that.
Borup: I think the time of night is more pertinent then. The evening hours—someone
driving at 6 in the morning is probably not causing a lot of problems. Well then, if we
are going to have a motion included in there we sure need to come to some consensus
based on that item.
Hatcher: I just don’t want it to be a 24 hour store. That is all I really care about.
De Weerd: Does anyone else have anything on the conditions that were read.
Borup: I tried to write down the ones I heard from the Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Commissioner De Weerd was it your recommendation that they not have the
pylon sign or that they reduce the pylon sign to 72 square feet.
De Weerd: If we are going with recommendations that have been made in the past with
in regards to pylon signs and the desire right now of the city with the monument, yes I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
37
would suggest not to have a pylon sign, but the copy should not be any more then 72
square feet.
Brown: (Inaudible- not up to the microphone)
De Weerd: They did not specify anything.
Borup: I think that condition was written before the sign design was turned in.
De Weerd: Signage be to staffs recommendations.
END OF SIDE 3 **
Hatcher: You are also asking that condition 8 be complied with, with reference to the
landscaping.
De Weerd: That would be my recommendation, but I have not heard anyone else.
Borup: I would rather see a denser well done landscaping at 24 then a sparse at 35. I
think that is what you got a Fred Meyer. The trees are sparsely scattered along there.
It is not that much of a landscaped area in my mind. Drive by it all the time. Think
about it. Do you remember any landscaping there? You got to look for it to even see.
De Weerd: They have a nice green area there.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman if I may, I’d like to make a motion and put it before us.
Hatcher: Can I bring up one point before you do that. I think before anyone states a
motion, one other item that needs to be thought of is the existing chiropractor sign. I
am in favor of getting rid of the existing sign and replacing with a standard monument
sign that this board has typically suggested. I am also in support of the chairman’s view
on the landscape. Smaller is better than bigger and bare, but then I am also in support
of reducing the size of pylon sign as proposed.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman either you or staff could answer this. Do we have the ability to
have the existing chiropractor sign removed or because it is existing the applicant has
the right to use that sign and put on a new cover over the sign.
Borup: My understand is that it’s a whole new project. There is nothing grandfathered
there, correct.
Hawkins: I believe that legal counsel may have something—on a site that with coming
in for a new application and its coming in to be annexed in to the city, the city can place
conditions on that site and removal of sign, modification of sign, maybe modify the one
that is there. Those are things that can be placed as conditions on annexation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
38
Borup: Otherwise, if it is grandfathered they could use the existing sign on the corner
which is way bigger then they are proposing. No problem there. I would rather see a
little leeway -– rather see a larger monument sign then—well—guess what I am saying
something—I rather see a 100 foot monument sign then a 100 square foot pylon sign.
De Weerd: Could we leave it with staffs discretion that the sign package be approved
by staff. Would that be adequate Brad with—
Hawkins: I think staff at a minimum would appreciate whether they are pylon or
monument type size restrictions.
De Weerd: Well, if they put a pole cover on that does it make it a monument sign?
Hawkins: The sign industry does not like word monument. Free standing, I think the
issue is whether or not your looking for low profile, and if it is a pylon then I think the
requirement that it be covered poles is very reasonable. The issue is more one of
height then bulk then it is just calling it monument or pylon.
De Weerd: And did staff come with recommendations or do you..
Hawkins: Yes our recommendation would be the 72 square feet including the base.
Barbeiro: I move that we recommend to City Council approval of Item 4, conditional
use permit to construct a single tenant commercial building with a drive thru window
Walgreen’s by Hawkin Smith Management on the northwest corner of Fairview and
Locust Grove to incorporate staff comments, to include the complete instruction of the
sidewalk in cooperation with the Ada County Highway District that the Locust Grove
development and additional lane be completely designed and that allowing Walgreen’s
to incorporate that into their design. That the landscaping be as per staff
recommendation. That the hours of operation be limited to the hours of 7 am to 10 pm.
That a signage be free standing or monument sign and that no pylon signs be placed
there including the removal of the existing pylon sign at the chiropractors office. That
the choker design as per the overhead be used and that only one drive thru, the drive
through the Walgreen’s, be approved.
Borup: We have a motion. Do we have a second unless someone wants to request an
addition to that motion.
Brown: So as I understand you motion, you have requested that the right hand turn
lane of Locust Grove be constructed. Is that what I understood.
Barbeiro: Keeping in mind that the right hand lane would not be constructed until 2001
or 2002 that ACHD’s design be complete but that right hand turn lane not necessarily
be in place at that time allowing Walgreen’s to complete their sidewalks to asphalt all
the way through to the existing Locust Grove and that there be no demolition of any of
Walgreen’s construction.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
39
Borup: Your saying they would construct sidewalk, curb and gutter.
Barbeiro: Yes.
Borup: But no paving?
Barbeiro: If we required them to wait until Ada County Highway District completed the
paving, they would not be able to (inaudible) for 18 months to 2-1/2 years.
Hatcher: They can do it on their time.
Barbeiro: Yes they can.
Borup: Proceed ahead your saying.
Barbeiro: In that case I’d like to amend it to have design complete by ACHD and that
the additional lane for Locust Grove be complete. (inaudible)
Brown: I’ll second that.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I need clarification on the signage. You want it monument.
Did you put in a square footage or a height for anything.
Barbeiro: No I did not.
Borup: He just referred to staff comments.
De Weerd: Okay, so you would like it just monument, but if they just put a pole cover to
make it monument, it could still remain 25 feet high.
Barbeiro: That would never be my intent of it . No.
De Weerd: Well they could.
Barbeiro: What would be a customary height for a monument sign that you might
prefer.
De Weerd: I think staff would just be
Barbeiro: Low profile be sufficient.
De Weerd: Is that what the requirements have been in the past Brad. What is the
definition of a monument sign.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
40
Hawkins: The way that we have been interpreting that and requesting that for the last
two years or so has been 72 square feet which is a measurement of height times width
which would include the base. Essentially you are looking at, if any height at all is put
on there, it’s 72. Like a 9x8 is 72 square feet, but I would incorporate maybe 3 foot high
base on a birm with like another 6 foot high sign on top of that base or any combination
there of where 72 is not exceeded. That is something many of the business along
Fairview and Cherry, if they have come in for a conditional use permit have complied
with.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if I may I would to amend the motion to reflect the customary
72 square foot monument sign or free standing sign.
Borup: Second agree with that. Any other discussion? Seeing none we are ready for a
vote. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES 1 NAY
Borup: Okay, that concludes this item. For the public information this will be
recommended to City Council at which time there will be another public hearing and
City Council will take both these same items on their agenda. This is probably a good
time for a 5 minute recess and we will proceed with Item number 5 when we return.
Borup: Okay we’d like to reconvene our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. I might mention we do have a new City Attorney is replaced Eric Rossman,
David Swartly.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN OLD TOWN TO A
FINGERNAIL SALON, ELEGANT NAILS BY CHRISTY P. FIELDSTAD—1026
N. MERIDIAN:
Hawkins: Commissioner's this application requests approval to convert an existing
single family residence in Old Town to a finger nail salon. The overhead currently
points out. It is on the southeast corner of Meridian Road and Carlton Avenue. It is
zoned OT. It is in Old Town. Old Town requires a conditional use permit for this type of
conversion. I would ask that you incorporate our staff comments as put forward in the
December 3, 1999 memo. The applicant has responded in writing to our staff report
and has stated that they intend to comply with all the condition use requirements. The
primary issue on this is relating to the parking and this layout here which Carlton Street
has kind of a redesign handwritten and there has been a resubmission of this layout.
They are basically swapping the orientation of the parking stalls. So when your
coming—they are moving the entrance further east down on Carlton so the cars will
actually head in facing west instead of east. That is one of the principle changes. I
would also point out the letter that was submitted December 9, 1999 regarding timing.
The applicant is needing expediting of this relating to some financial issues, if you have
not seen this I point it out in your packets.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
41
Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here?
Fieldstad: Commissioner's I am Christy Fieldstad. 9027 Woodside Court in Boise. I
have made an offer, a purchase on this property with the intent to lease it to the Elegant
Nails Salon. This business needs to find a relocation because they are currently
located on the corner of Fairview and Locust Grove. The impact on the area will be
minimal because the business has a client—employee client ratio of 1 to 1 as a small
tech salon. Changes to be made to the property consist of only the improvement that
are required to comply to the requirements set forth by the planning and zoning and
also the Ada County Highway District. I have contracted with Levin Associates
Engineers in Nampa to draw up the compliant drawings for the paving company to go
ahead with this when the purchase is completed.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Fieldstad isn’t there a hair salon on that corner all ready?
Fieldstad: No there is not. This property is currently one family resident dwelling. The
immediate corner of Carlton and North Meridian Road is a vacant lawn area. To the
north across Carlton is a church. To the southwest of the area is a doctors office and
the administration buildings for the Meridian School District.
Barbeiro: With a one to one ratio I am imagining that you have 3 employees in there
and there would be 3 clients and perhaps one or two waiting.
Fieldstad: The intent is to have currently the 5 technicians hoping to expand to 9.
Barbeiro: Expanding to 9 technicians assuming that any one time 3 or 4 would be in
there. 5 stalls, I am guessing that the employees would park on the street and the
parking lot would be reserved for customers.
Fieldstad: Basically we are also hoping to check with the church to see if we could use
their parking for employee parking during the week because our hours would not be
during the church service time.
Borup: Any other questions? Do we have anyone from the public that wishes to testify
on this application. Seeing none. Commissioner's.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I motion that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second it.
All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
42
Borup: Motion?
Hatcher: I would like to motion recommendation of approval to City Council for the
conditional use permit for converting a single family residence in Old Town to a
fingernail salon. I instruct the City Attorney to prepare a Facts and Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law with staff comments and updated site plan submitted tonight to be
included.
Borup: Are you proposing that to be on the 21st
agenda?
Hatcher: Yes.
De Weerd: I second that.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF THE EASEMENT LYING
ADJACENT TO THE LOT LINE COMMON TO LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 3,
THUNDER CREEK SUBDIVISION BY THUNDER CREEK PARTNERSHIP, LLC—
SOUTH OF CHERRY LANE, WEST OF TEN MILE ON GRAY CLOUD WAY:
Hawkins: Commissioner's, this property is located in the Thunder Creek Subdivision
east of Ten Mile Road as depicted on the overhead. The lot line adjustment—their
looking just to vacate utility easements. This is in relation to a lot line adjustment
application that has been filed. This application is just a formality to remove the
easements placed along the old location of the lot line. Staff has no problems with this
request. We ask that the comments from December 3, 1999 memo be incorporated.
Borup: Any questions. Is the applicant here or anything they would like to add.
Anyone from the public who would like to come forward. Seeing none,
Commissioner's?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Recommendation?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
43
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move we recommend approval to City Council for request of
vacation of easement lying adjacent to the lot line common to lots number 6 and 7,
block 3 of Thunder Creek Subdivision by Thunder Creek Partnership, LLC with staff
comments from the December 3 memo.
De Weerd: I second that.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF 20 FOOT EMERGENCY
ACCESS OF MIRAGE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION TO A NEW ACCESS LOCATED
AT THE END OF OAKCREST DRIVE BY ROBERT HIGGINS, ET AL—BLOCK 1,
LOTS 16 & 17 OF MIRAGE MEADOWS SUB AND LOTS 19 & 20 OF CHATEAU
MEADOWS EAST LOCATED AT THE END OF OAKCREST DRIVE:
Borup: Brad.
Hawkins: Commissioner's this application, also a vacation is generally located north of
the Fred Meyer complex which is the large red CG there. There are 4 lots that are
impacted by this request. The culdesac, the middle culdesac there that comes off of
Oakcrest has currently this pedestrian easement which was designated on the plat and
as shown in this as we mentioned in our December 3 memo the applicants, there are 4
property owners involved are primarily having problems with vandalism, problems to
their fences and these are 6 foot high solid wood fences that go along this easement.
Steve Siddoway, the other planner, did prepare the report. His recommendation to you
in this memo dated December 3, because of the high use or frequent use of an access,
we feel that in planning there is a high importance given to accessibility through
different sites. There is certainly right now, and certainly not just this one, around the
city where 6 foot high fences create a tunnel effect and it certainly can be an invitation
to do that. We have in our current landscape draft ordinance that you should be seeing
soon a recommendation that these type of pedestrian easements and walkways have
clear vision fences when if they are going to be solid to be no higher then 4 feet, which
would encourage that –which would discourage the vandalism that is often seen in
these. So staff are recommending because of that we certainly as you have seen,
Kenny Bowers, the Fire Chief has no problem with the Dixie Lane which runs along side
the Fred Meyer and then it is about a 12 foot wide easement. The proposal is to
change the current set up which is Ballard’s at the end of Oakcrest to put a gate. The
police, I mean fire chief has no problem with that design and certainly Planning and
Zoning Staff does not either. Our main feeling is that you cut off the accessibility for
bicycle or pedestrians and it does force that much longer route to get to the Fred Meyer
and other locations south there through the north part of the subdivision.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? I think the city policy for the last 4
years has been a see thru fence on any of these paths. I am not sure when that started
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
44
but I know it has been at least 4 years. Is the applicant here this evening and like to
come forward.
Higgins: My name is bob Higgins. I live at 2064 N. Applewood Place. (Inaudible)
vacation for the Butlers, Passwa’s and Ball’s. We’ve—I was under some mis-
information about having the access there at the end of Oakcrest because if you look at
Windgate here, it was my understanding that is -- Due to the vandalism we have had in
the past, I’ve got beer cans thrown over in my fence, the kids are going through pulling
down the wood fence slots the last couple years and I mean I was able to tack them
back on and but this year they are pulling them down and breaking them. They are
busting glass there in that alley way. We’ve had neighbors that have broke up fights
there between kids between the two different subdivisions. We are really tired of it and
this year it has got worse. I don’t have kids and I don’t even associate with most the
kids there. I go to work at 6:30 I’m out of the house. I come back between 3:30 I get off
work and I am home by 4. Sometimes I work until 5:30 and back at 7. I am exhausted
and don’t really deal with kids. My house is getting egged. My truck is egged. I file
police reports. The police said they could step up the patrols. They said they have to
catch them in the act. I have seen the cops in there twice and that is it, since July. It’s
got worse with my wood fence. It’s got obscenities on it. It’s got penis’s on it. You
name it, it got it and I don’t like my fence being a sex education for the local
neighborhood. After looking over the scenario, when I bought the house I was told that
the property is an emergency access way. It is not a public right of way for pedestrian
traffic as the planners state in there. You look at the plat, it shows a 20 foot emergency
exit way—easement excuse me. Not exit. It’s not pedestrian. We have been allowing
people to go through there but that was out of our discretion. When it comes to
insurance and liability, anybody who gets hurt in that subdivision, we pay for –either one
of us or all 4 of us combined are all liable. What I am asking for is that that vacation be
vacated, turned back to us so we can close it off. If you go back to that other
subdivision there, we are talking for a fire department to come in they got to come in
this access here on Windgate. They got to go one block here, one block here. Here
we got plenty of access from Locust Grove through this road here and we are talking
one extra block here, so it’s not even needed. Emergency access I don’t believe
because in our subdivision we got 4 houses per acre versus this division here which is 8
houses per acre. If you needed a fire path or lane, there should have been a fire lane
right here. I talked with Don Good this afternoon and he stated this subdivision, which
was put in after our subdivision, was not required to have a fire exit. What I am asking
for is please allow us to get this property back and keep us from having liability and
having report it to one of our insurance’s which are going to get raised.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Higgins?
De Weerd: Just one. Is that property yours or is it an easement to the city.
Higgins: No the property is ours. I have a letter here from the Ada County Highway
District saying they have no interest in it and I can provide that to you right now. I just
got that tonight. I have an addendum to that. The addendum shows the property and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
45
parcels involved where the easement comes across. Ada County Highway District it
was not their recommendation. They have no interest. That fire escape is in this
development right now.
De Weerd: Staff, is that normal that they put an emergency access on private property.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I think in this situation where
Oakcrest Drive goes down and basically stops with intentions of going on in the future, I
think that was put in as a temporary measure. On a temporary measure, yeah an
easement would be appropriate avenue to take. One thing I did want to point out. This
property right here is private property. It is in the county. This street coming out of
Windgate comes down and basically dead ends into it. There is no public access
through here right now.
Higgins: That is where your incorrect sir. If you talk with city planners, Mr. Bellmont I
believe it is, and Mr. Barnes, Charlie Wright who lives here in this parcel. He tried to
buy this parcel right here. He was turned down by Planning and Zoning because there
is a right of way across there—a 10 foot right of way for the public to go. The reason for
it is because there is a new school coming down –let’s see. The new school where all
the Locust Grove people this side are going to be going over here. Not across Locust
Grove anymore. The reason for it they have an access way that’s right through here
they cross through into here to go over to the school.
Freckleton: Maybe a pedestrian access. Not a public street access.
Borup: Right. Your talking about two different things here.
Higgins: right, that is my understanding. You were talking about a public street. No
okay, this is a pedestrian right of way.
Freckleton: Now, this subdivision Windgate was designed to accommodate future
connection to Oakcrest, right here across the top portion of this property. Currently right
now you come down this street and there is a temporary paved turn around right here
on the end so cars can turn around. Windgate, when it was developed, has access
through Dove Meadows and a connection here to Packard. There was two public
street accesses—connections.
Higgins: Right, but where is the connection in here. There is none.
Freckleton: No, but to get to your question as to why they weren’t required to have an
emergency access. That was because they have 2 public street connections.
Hatcher: Bruce, can you address the letter from the fire chief because basically what
Chief Bowers is stating in this letter is that they can take their fire trucks and make this
turn. Basically it says "our trucks will be able to make the turn from Dixie Lane where
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
46
Oakcrest and Dixie Lane connect. They will need to fill the pot holes between Oakcrest
and Dixie Lane to make the turn smooth”.
Borup: That is to the south, wasn’t that correct.
Hatcher: This is Oakcrest. This is Dixie Lane. It is the only intersection between—
Freckleton: Dixie Lane is right here. Goes to the south out to Fairview.
Hatcher: There is a road here?
Freckleton: It is a paved pedestrian emergency access. What his letter talks about is
being able to come up to here and make the corner.
Borup: That is how that area is in the county. That is their access down that lane.
Hatcher: So there is a second access all ready
Freckleton: This right here in Windgate subdivision is called Dixie Avenue. Dixie Lane
is what is referred to as this access back to this parcel and is also the pedestrian
access along Dove Meadows and the Avest parcel.
Hatcher: So Chief Bowers is stating he can get his fire trucks down that.
Freckleton: That’s correct.
Barbeiro: Mr. Higgins, if we vacate this then you and your neighbor would put a fence
down the center line of that and each take—
Higgins: We are going to be fencing it off—both sides from east Meadowood and
wherever I live…Applewood Place.
Barbeiro: You said fencing off. Are you going to be putting gate between it so you can’t
get access or are you gong tot combine—
Higgins: Tentatively right now, we are looking at just putting –not putting any fence in
the middle where we got a property line. Neighbors right now are pretty (inaudible).
We just want to put up a fence through here and right up over here to keep no body
from going back there and from picking up the garbage and having our fences
vandalized. The one thing that the planner who looked at this said we could lower our
fences 4 foot. Two of these parcels have hot tubs in them. Our responsibility in
keeping kids out of there, we have to have high fences.
Borup: (inaudible) that is paved now. Right up to the fence line.
Higgins: Correct. We’ve got pavement on my side of the fence that goes over 2 foot.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
47
Borup: What I am getting at, who is going to maintain—so your still going to have that
20 foot area with fences on both sides.
Higgins: Each of us are responsible. We own it. Anybody gets hurt in there, we are
responsible. We have to keep it clear.
Borup: So your not planning on removing the asphalt putting grass in there.
Higgins: Not at this point. I don’t plan on pulling it out. I just want to be able to cut the
traffic flow in it. We’ve got people from the subdivision here that will testify to that. We
just want it closed.
Barbeiro: The reason I asked if you were going to put a fence down the center line and
just add 10 feet either side, if you go ahead and put a gate in there, kids are still going
to jump over that. Now you have a completely enclosed place where no one can look
down there and –
Higgins: If anybody gets down there then they are going to be facing trespass. We
plan on having the thing a 6 foot fence and it is going to be just inside where the houses
come out so its not going to be, you know it will be off set from the houses inside.
Borup: But you have all ready stated that your not around during the day so your not
there when they are doing it anyway. How you going to enforce that.
Higgins: Well, we’ve got on individual who lives here in this parcel, they are retired and
are there most of the day. So if anybody goes in there, they also got security light which
usually comes on but if anybody goes in there, it is trespassing. They are going to get
arrested and we will prosecute.
Hatcher: Bob, may I make a friendly suggestion. You are before us to ask us to vacate
this easement which I don’t see it being a problem personally no problem vacating this
with a secondary emergency access provided elsewhere, but all of a sudden now I do
have a problem with the fact that if this is going to be vacated, I would highly
recommend and maybe even make it a condition that since your guy’s fences are in
pretty bad shape anyway, that you take -–ll 4 of you – take (inaudible) back and do the
improvements necessary and absorb that back into your backyard because otherwise it
is just going to be an area that is going to collect junk and dirt and become—
Higgins: I don’t have a problem with that. If you want to make that part of the condition,
we will more then gladly go that and put a fence down the middle.
Hatcher: Do the other 3 applicants concur with that feeling?
Higgins: I’ve got the parties here tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
48
Borup: Just a minute. Is that any other questions that anyone has. Lets just have each
of them state their name and say yes they concur with that and then we can move right
along.
Ballard: I am Harold Ballard and I am at 2026 N. Applewood and I would be the one
just across from Bob Higgins. I will be willing to do that.
Borup: Can you understand the concern with having that completely closed in area.
Passwa: Joe Passwa, 2041 N. Applewood speaking on behalf of my parents Paul and
Ruth Passwa. We really need to get this thing closed off. We have a real safety thing
coming up here real soon. We have cars that drive in that emergency after dark when
people were (inaudible) out there. I’ve got 2 of them—got motorcycles running in and
out of there. Your going to hit a kid and that will be it. I concur with that. We can run
center fence right down the middle. I am speaking on behalf of my parents.
Ball: Deana Ball. I live at 1905 E. Meadow Wood and we have had problems with
things being stolen out of our yard and driveway because kids are coming along and
see them and grap them and head down the alley way and they are gone. We’ve had
broken windshields, we have spray painting on the house just across from the alley way
and if we do get to close it off, we will tear our fence down and we will use it as a
parking area for our RV. We will tear the fence down so we have better access to
seeing what is going on in that area.
Hatfield: I am Lisa Hatfield. 2056 N. Whittier. I live in the farthest culdesac down at the
very end of Oakcrest. I do support vacating that easement. I empathize with all the
people that live in that area because I have walked through there and it does get pretty
bad with the vandalism. My concern though--— Dixie Lane where is comes up from
Fairview, it is a really narrow road. It is labeled private. My concern is right now we
also have problems with a lot of garbage and that type of thing. There is 2 big barriers
that are at the end of Oakcrest so the traffic can’t get through, so I am concerned if that
is opened up as an emergency access, will that encourage traffic like the motorcycles to
go through there or will that just move the vandalism to that area. Is there any other
alternatives or solutions if they make that the emergency access how they will—
Borup: It is going to be a locked gate and the fire department, if they needed in, would
cut the lock and go through.
Hatfield: Will there be pedestrian then or just with a key.
Borup: I would just stay the same then. Anyone else. Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
49
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL Ayes
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if there is not discussion I would move that we recommend to
City Council the request for vacation of 20 foot emergency access of Mirage Meadows
Subdivision to a new access located at the end of Oakcrest Drive by Robert Higgins,
ET AL—Block 1, Lots 16 and 17 of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots 19 and 20 of
Chateau Meadows East located at the end of Oakcrest Drive with the staff
recommendations except for discussion about the see through fence and that –apart
from staff recommendations that the easement be fully closed off and a center line
fence be placed there
END SIDE 4 **
Barbeiro: that a property line fence be placed down the easement and be done within 6
months.
Hatcher: And, a center line fence would have to be constructed gates and closing off
the existing conditions not allowed.
Borup: We do have a motion. Do we have a second?
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Discussion. The only concern I would have is this was originally an access
path, I would have some concern, but it appears that it wasn’t. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 20.05
ACRES FROM M-1 TO I-L BY ALBERTSON’S, INC.—EAST OF EAGLE ROAD,
NORTH OF RAILROAD TRACKS AND SOUTH OF SETTLERS CANAL:
Hawkins: Commissioner's, the property is cross hatched here. They are within an
existing subdivision and surrounded on all sides by existing city limits. I ask that our
staff recommendation of December 3, 1999 memo on this be incorporated. There has
been a legal description reviewed and approved by the Public Works Dept. that they
corrected. Item number 2 on page 2 of the report. That item is taken care of. Staff had
no problem with the requested light industrial zone and we do ask that a development
agreement be required as a condition of annexation.
Borup: Is the applicant here? Anyone from the public who would like to testify on this
application? Seeing none, Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
50
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval or recommendation to City Council for
annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres from M-1 to I-L by Albertson’s, Inc. incorporating
the staffs notes of December 3.
Hatcher: Second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES
FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY W.H.
MOORE COMPANY—EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW:
Hawkins: Commissioner's, I will address both the annexation and conditional use
permit application in my comments. The staff memo dated December 3, 1999 on this
application details staff requests. They are asking to annex both of the lots shown on
the screen. This is immediately west of the recently construction Eagle Partners site.
We have Green Hill Subdivision immediately to the north. Recently annexed property to
the south for the Hubble Engineering site. As mentioned in the staff report, this whole
subdivision is fairly organized. The Magic View Subdivision that is in this
Comprehensive Plan process, they seem to have consensus that they want to move
from the current single family residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan to
some kind of commercial office use. I would point to that there has been that those
discussions going on. We have met since the submission of the application staff that is,
with the applicant. A couple of the key points in the report to point out, the page 3 of
the report number 10, a minimum 35 landscape buffer required along the north property
boundary, that is basically a continuation of what the Eagle Partners site has and again
there is a road that is coming through the site here. Here is the site plan. The applicant
has asked that on the western lot, only 20 feet of landscape buffer be on the north side
next to Green Hill Estates. Item 12 on page 2 deals with the subdivision. The
subdivision and zoning ordinance does state that a road dedication can be considered
as subdivision of property. So, we have this road coming here through from Eagle
Partners and then aligning with existing Allen Street here with a line. Some discussion
we had regarding this requirement that they go through a platting process. Staff is
certainly open to another alternative there. We did discuss that. Maybe the applicant
can address their feelings on that further. In terms of the conditional use permit they
are proposing 3 one story buildings that would be this as a one story, this is a one story,
this is a one story, this would be a 2 story here on the south part of this western most
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
51
lot, which I believe they are calling B. Certainly in terms of the request for a restaurant
which was proposed as a ancillary restaurant, the applicant is still uncertain as to what
would be the size or what the restaurant would be and staff are asking that you give us
the opportunity to make that call as to whether or not is should come back as a
conditional use permit to you. It is a concern and we know it is for the commission too
in terms of the future restaurants coming in to these locations without the restaurant
being identified or how big it will be so we are simply saying that a conditional use
permit if required, would like an opportunity to send that back to you. I think the other
conditions are pretty clear. That’s it.
Borup: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Seel: Good evening. My name is Jonathan Seel. I work at W.H. Moore Company. 600
N. Steelhead Boise Idaho. As Brad as mentioned to you we have met with them and if I
could take just a few minutes I’d like to give you a little brief history. As you well know,
ACHD has talked about extending that road down from Eagle Road down to Magic
View. As Winston Moore said (inaudible) that property he went to ACHD recently and
said we would like to get an idea of specifically what you had in mind in terms
(inaudible) width of it, how much right of way your going to take, what the radius is
going to be, so on and so forth. As a result of that, ACHD say well, the best way to be
able to formulate that is for you, Winston Moore, to go ahead and submit an
application, provide a conceptual plan, put your road in as you like and that will trigger
the whole process. Well, that is what we did. We presented the conceptual plan which
as Brad said, would be an office building one story there on the westerly portion
(inaudible) below it, a restaurant on the easterly southerly portion with an office above
that. The reason that I bring that up is because one of the conditions in here which is
item number 14 on page 4, is that a development agreement will be required as
condition of annexation. As we talked to Brad about this and also Shari Stiles, we
would really like to avoid that. As we mentioned this point, what we are submitting here
is a conceptual plan. We don’t know what type of office it is going to be. We don’t
know exactly what type of restaurant it is going to be. What we are prepared to do
because Shari raised a few concerns. She said well, under an LO for example, you can
put a C store in. That is a valid concern. We don’t intend in doing that and what we
are willing to do is put a condition here that this will be their office or office and
restaurant. We will put that in the condition. If for some reason, which I don’t know
why, we were to come back to you and say to you we would like to put a c store in here,
then all bets are off and we start the process over again. I think that would address the
concerns of the development agreement and still give us flexibility. What our concern
with the development agreement is, our experience has been historically, development
agreements are very structured. Because this is a concept plan, we don’t know exactly
how these offices are going to look or potentially how this restaurant will look, or
whether or not we will even have a restaurant for that matter. What we are really trying
to do is address the concerns that the city has, but at the same time not have the
development agreement. I think one of the things that that speaks to is if you look on
page 5, item number 5 at the bottom, it talks about no details for hours of operation are
provided while the office use shall be (inaudible) so on. It talks about specific hours of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
52
operation and so on for the restaurant. Again, we don’t know that. That is where Brad
came up to it. What we would like to propose is to simply leave item number 2, which is
on page 6. And again that says it simply we would potentially come back or if staff
asked for a conditional use permit for the restaurant, if we did propose a restaurant. I
think number one, we are asking for the elimination of the development agreement. We
are will to put in that it will be office or office and restaurant. I think that addresses your
concern. This is a concept plan as we see it. We would also like to modify item number
5 on page 5 and 6 and then I think as Brad also spoke to you, we would also like to do
is avoid the subdivision process as possible. Our experience, and I know Kent is very
familiar with this, is for example the Boise we’ve been able to deed that land to ACHD
and we could potentially do lot like adjustments or something like that, but we would
really prefer to avoid the subdivision process. I think you’ve got enough work to do all
ready without adding to it and we think that this would still get you to where you want to,
which is 2 lots. It is a subdivision as we both know. I think, other then that, you talked
about the birm and the 30 feet and the 20 feet, 30 feet being on the lot, the easterly lot,
20 feet being on the westerly lot. We would like to suggest that too. Other then that, I
think we are agreement with every other condition that’s in here. So, I’d be glad to
answer any questions.
Barbeiro: Mr. Seel. You would not object to a condition that a restaurant not be a 24
hour restaurant in that area.
Seel: I think what I’d prefer to do and I guess I won’t directly answer that question, but
what I prefer to do come back for a CU and that is what we are saying here because we
don’t know what the restaurant is going to be. I know where you are going with this but
I think if we come back under conditional use permit then you have the flexibility at that
point. Again, I think it is giving you the control that you want and I can understand the
concern and I can understand the concerns of neighbors to the north. I don’t personally
visualize it would be that, but at the same time I don’t want to box us in. I am trying to
give us some flexibility, but still get the cities a second bite of the apple to say okay fine.
Here is the conditions. You can have a restaurant but this is what you’ve got to do.
Barbeiro: Inside of a development agreement, those can be pretty wide open at the
same time, as they could be very narrow. Why wouldn’t you enter into a fairly general
broad development agreement.
Seel: I guess because we don’t see any purpose of that. Again, we are submitting a
concept plan. We are saying we are going to do office, with the possibility of restaurant.
We are willing to agree to night to put that condition on that. This will be office with the
possibility of office restaurant. If it is a restaurant, they can have the flexibility of coming
back and conditional use permit. LO is allowed. It conforms to the Comprehensive
Plan. This is really no different then I think a lot of other things where if it is zoned that
way, you don’t have to do a development agreement. You have the flexibility to be able
to put an office building on it if it is zoned for office or what have you. I think we view
this as not a necessary thing. We are willing to give you the condition. I think what
Winston Moore is concerned with is that if you box him in so much, his only choice at
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
53
this time, and this is not meant to be a threat, but he would have to withdraw the
application. We are trying to get ourselves some flexibility. We don’t know what the
market conditions are going to be a year from now. They can change. I thinks as you
are probably aware, he has primarily done office over his development life, so to speak.
He does good quality office and that is his intention here. He is will to define it with
those perimeters. I don’t think you need a development then.
Borup: Any other questions? Mr. Brown.
Brown: Jonathon, just why have you chose to only have 20 feet where the one building
is versus what you have on the rest.
Seel: Well I think our feeling is, with some of the landscaping there, with the office,
quite frankly you can start to maximize the site to a degree, but you still get the buffer
between that and the neighbors to the north. Where as on the easterly portion, you’ve
got the street. ACHD apparently is going to take all of that right of way to the north of it.
We could continue that birm through. We don’t deviate from there.
Brown: What is your landscaping have in that 20 feet, I guess then. Is it birmed? You
have a travelway instead of parking which I think is better to have the travelway there.
Seel: I am not sure what you mean by a travelway.
Brown: Well, you have the access to the parking stalls being that way instead of the
headlights going into the subdivision. I think that that is a better way of doing it, but you
have the noise of the cars driving there. What is that—elevated at all. Is there a birm
there?
Seel. Yes. I think our intention is just to go ahead and do a type of birm there that will
be somewhat a visual barrier, somewhat of a sound (Inaudible) and also would be
esthetically pleasing. We just felt that in that area, 20 feet would be an acceptable size
birm and still give you as you say, as people are pulling in, we’ve designed it so they are
not pulling in where their headlights are going to be shining into the residential area.
They are going to be, when the headlights are on, will be shining toward that. I think
was their desire there. Hopefully that answers you question.
Brown: My concern is similar to my fellow Commissioner's, I have a problem with
approving something in a concept and then allowing you the freedom to do anything in
the LO that would be allowed. I think that a development agreement even though can
be real restrictive, can be worded that it gives you a lot of flexibility and doesn’t limit you
but lets us stay with what we are looking at. I mean we are looking at an office –the
other option that I can see that you can do is similar to what you have to do when you
make an application to Boise, is that everything—every building be a conditional use.
That is the other way to go that gives the city—we feel comfortable annexing it. We will
look specifically at each one of those buildings as it comes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
54
Seel: Well, I guess I’m not –I am having a difficult time understanding why we need it
because—
Brown: Because you have residents that are so close.
Seel: Right, but my understand is that the residents also fought very hard and Billy Ray
Strite is here and he can speak to more of this then I can because he was involved in
this. Wanted to have office there. That was their desire. They wanted to stay away
from the retail. I can fully understand that.
Brown: I live one street over, so I know well too.
Seel: I think the thing is that this is LO and this conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
and they talked about a mixed use project here. We are proposing office and we are
doing this type of thing and we are willing to define within that we will do office with the
flexibility that if there is a restaurant, we will come back for a conditional use permit. My
own personal opinion is that I have to believe that that gives you what you want. It
gives you your protection. It is no different then if you are zoned in a particular area of
a city. If you are zoned for that you are allowed to build that. You don’t necessarily
have to come in for a conditional use permit if you are zoned for that. So I think that we
are attempting to do this, but at the same time we do want to avoid that. Our
experience has been with a development agreement that, yes, it can start off that way
but it kind of picks away at this and if that is the case, again it is not meant to be a
threat, our only option is to withdraw it. Part of the thing was to get the road in and get
that formulized and to allow us to start marking this project. I think you are getting this.
This is what we are attempting to try to give you here. Your protection. So we don’t
come back for C store and don’t come back for something else that you don’t want and
that the neighborhood does not want. We are saying office with a possibility of a
restaurant and I think that the other thing that should be pointed out, I would think the
city would want to encourage restaurant in here. As you develop this you are going to
want to keep people in here. Your going to want to keep them off the streets. The
same thing with the city of Boise. People drive 3 miles to a restaurant instead of trying
to stay close by. I think that is another plus. Another sale pitch for this.
Borup: What your saying then is it would all be office buildings except for the one
restaurant and you state you’ll come back for a conditional use permit on the restaurant
if it goes in.
Seel: Yes, their feeling is if there is a need to come back for conditional use permit we
are prepared to do that. In fact, if you look at item number 2 in here, what page is that?
That is page 6. It says number 2 at the top of the page. Be required to submit a
separate CU application in the future if a restaurant comes through as a tenant
improvement. To my that is very specific to what you want. You then have that
opportunity to take another bite of the apple. It speaks your questions. If it is a 24 hour
restaurant and you don’t like that, then you can put conditions in. At this point we don’t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
55
know what kind of restaurant or size it is going to be. Again, we are really trying to do is
get some kind of flexibility and still give you the comfort that you want.
Barbeiro: If you were to follow through with the plan using LO and no development
agreement, you could put 4 restaurants here.
Seel: That is not our intention. (inaudible) If you want to do a development agreement,
we are not trying to give that to you. We don’t see any benefit for that. Again, Winston
Moore is not a restaurant developer. We think this is just some that is a ancillary thing
that will benefit the whole project. His intentions is office and it could all be office but
we certainly don’t see any restaurant on the westerly portion. If anything the easterly
parcel on the southerly end would be the only place where a restaurant would be viable.
We are not thinking that way. We are trying to give you what you want, but still not get
boxed in. I think it is a win, win situation.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a problem with what Mr. Seel is proposing if the
conditions are written such –again I concur with him. When your at a conceptual level,
it is extremely difficult to try to nail down specifics. I that if on this particular situation we
were to put in the conditions that these be 4 office buildings with the option of the
southeast building be modified to a restaurant under any other conditional use
submittal, then one, we have protected the neighborhood above the city that these be
office buildings only. If they would like to put a restaurant in at the specific southeast
building, then they submit a new conditional use to change that to a restaurant. Then
we deal with it accordingly at that time. If we get to look at this again, it is conceptual
we still have you know final plat and—
Borup: In my mind that sure seems to cover any concerns. Commissioner Brown, you
still got a concern on that.
Brown: (Inaudible) office on the other side of me too, on the other corner. I can
definitely say from polling the neighbors, they are not real pleased with that office, even
though it is a office. I went down to the engineers office and told them instead of a C
store this is the best thing that can in here. Well, the reason that I say that is because
of without seeing the building, it becomes very difficult especially when they want to
reduce what staff is recommending for bufferings..You don’t know what that building is
going to be, even with the one story, the building that is built on the other side of this
subdivision it was to be a two story. Well, if the two story with a garage underneath,
and all of the windows are facing into the neighbors backyard and that is a problem.
Borup: Unfortunately, you missed out on all the testimony a year or two ago. I think
they were all most unanimous that they wanted office building.
Brown: I didn’t miss out because I was here.
Seel: Commissioner Brown, in all due respect other than office, I don’t know what you’d
put here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
56
Brown: I think that office is great. I think a medical office is even better.
Seel: See, the point is, we don’t know if it is going to be medical office. We don’t know
if it is going to be standard office. If you start putting in the agreement, okay these are
the kind of uses you can and these are the kind of uses you can’t, we are back here
again. We don’t—we want to avoid that now. Like I say, at that point it just behooves
us to withdraw the application. Again, I emphasize it is not a threat. It is just that we
don’t know what the conditions are going to be. As every one here knows, conditions
change from year to year. Five years ago, you probably would never thought that this
would be what it is today. Thinks do change. I think part of the thing is also getting this
road going and this road is a critical element in this whole project.
Hatcher: One issue that Kent brought up that I had over looked that does concern me
is with my suggestion, we don’t get the opportunity to govern the design and look of the
building. I know that W.H. Moore has historically done fairly nice buildings, but we don’t
have any protection with the general condition of approval as to what you are ultimately
end up putting there. It could be a (inaudible) box, I don’t think it would be in
accordance with any of us sitting here this evening. Right now I am scratching my head
thinking of how we can possibly look at a balancing out.
Seel: I think you get back to it again is your trying to define it as a very specific thing. I
don’t know how we can do that tonight and still give ourselves the flexibility when we
don’t know what type of tenants are going to be there. That is my main concern.
Again, I keep coming back to it is going to be office. It is going to be quality office. I
don’t know how you control the quality of the office. Maybe Brad can speak of that. It
will be office. Yes it will be quality office. W.H. Moore’s standpoint, you know that. How
do you do that then other then doing a development agreement (inaudible) define the
construction and how it looks and everything else, then if it changes because of the
type of tenant and it is a deviation from that but still (inaudible) quality, we are back here
again. That is want we want to avoid. I understand what you are saying, but I don’t
know how you solve it with out defining it. You knew when the Chevron was coming in
and you could define that. Okay this is what I want to look at. This is what it is going to
be so on. We don’t know that now. We have a concept plan.
Hatcher: Has W.H. Moore looked at any type of possibilities or even a schematic
design or potential materials or..
Seel: They are in the packet.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise. First
let me make comment to Kent’s suggestion on the 30 foot (inaudible). There has been
a few of you who sat through the more than 20 hearings on the Chevron, Idaho Power
Credit Union. Let me suggest to you that the neighborhood suggestion and Ada County
Highway District’s suggestion for 30 foot of set back was primarily to buffer the
neighborhood and rightfully so from the impending which was not the applicants request
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
57
but the Ada County Highway District request. Let me suggest to you that any place
else in the City of Meridian, yellow zone requires a side yard or rear yard of 5 feet, not
30. A (inaudible) yard of 20 feet between residential and LO. Therefore, we thought
that the best solution here was to go from the 5 feet, which I believe could be pursued
to the 20 foot transitional yard and that is what we are proposing. I also like to suggest
to you and Kent is probably very familiar with this thing. There was a concern
expressed by the neighborhood that this street would continue if you will, due west to
Locust Grove. I think that now you have an opportunity here, Ada County Highway
District has consented to make sure that this road does in fact turn south and align with
Allen as it was proposed to do under alternate B onto the impending rezone, annexation
of the C store. Relative to Mr. Barbeiro’s comments, I can suggest to you that we have
submitted architectural plans, the elevations of which I think certainly address the
concerns. I think even further, maybe what you need here, and all due respect here to
Kent’s comment that all these buildings should go through condition use. Keep in mind,
the whole reason we are here on the conditional use permit here tonight is because we
have 2 buildings on the lot. That in fact gives you the hammer. Number two, these
buildings still have to go through zoning compliance, once it gets it zoning compliance,
if in fact the staff feels as through these buildings are not what you see in you packet
before you, I would suggest at that point of time, we come back to you as a
commission. I think that is the hammer that is needed by the commission. I can tell
you throughout 20 plus hearings, all we heard was the neighborhood wanted office
here. I think this is a great use here. There is no question, no denying that. Your
Comprehensive Plan suggests mixed use office preferable. In the yellow zone there
are a few accepted uses via condition use. I think that if we are prepared tonight as
Jonathon has all ready explained to you, to suggest that condition use with reference to
accepted use, that being the restaurant, would only be in the southeasterly building as
commissioner Hatcher has ready mentioned. I think that again it gives you the hammer
and the only appliance that you need to pass this on to City Council. Again, I’d like to
suggest to you that this road is probably the major reason we are here tonight, and
certainly the applicant is prepared to construct these office buildings and I think in
compliance with the Condition use the conditions that are imposed and I would ask that
you act favorable upon it. If there is any questions relative to the architectural part of it,
I would be more than happy to answer those.
Hatcher: Could you enlighten me on the proposed materials. I am looking at
(inaudible) or less here and can’t read any of the text.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hatcher the material pallet suggested in those
submittal packets basically brick and stucco –
Hatcher: Stucco or effuse?
Strite: Effuse, excuse me. Brick, effuse and glass are the primary pallets.
Hatcher: Would you classify these as the same design and construction level as the
ones down on River that you have done?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
58
Strite: I would suggest that if you are comparing them in material pallet, yes.
Hatcher: One other thing was, clarification if I might be mistaken, we keep talking about
a 20 foot buffer. We talking about the north buffer against the neighborhood?
Strite: That is correct.
Hatcher: Discussion has been 20 foot but the site plan that was submitted is scaling
out as a 30 foot buffer.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hatcher after receiving the comments from the staff,
we met with the staff I believe it was on the 11th
and we were asked to resubmit and
answer the questions in their report—I think if you go back to their report there is a
request or response to all the conditions by the 12th
. That plan was submitted on the
12th
. There was a miss-scale there and staff brought that to our attention. I think you
will find in the plan that Brad has before him tonight that it is 20 ft. The one we
submitted on Friday. Anyway, its dimensioned. I have a copy of that plan that was
submitted to the staff on Friday. That was in response to the staff report that all
conditions be responded to prior to 12/12.
Hatcher: Was there any need for the additional 10 feet?
Strite: In our belief yes.
Hatcher: And, how so?
Strite: We felt that 12 feet was not sufficient between the parking and the building. We
wanted to soften the building so we added 3 feet to each one of these sidewalk,
landscaped areas between the buildings and parking on both buildings 1 and 2 on the
site (inaudible).
Borup: You said you added 3 feet to the site around the building?
Strite: Mr. Chair. What we did was between the parking on building 1 and building 2 is
we added 3 feet to each one of the sidewalk landscaped areas between the building
and the parking on the north side, south side and the north side of building 2. That
actually totals 9 feet, but I am not sure where the extra foot will go, but we will find a
spot for it.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Strite? Do we have anyone from the public who
would like to address this Commission?
Allison: My name is Rich Allison and my office address is 916 E. 1st
Street, Meridian.
Most specifically what I’d like to speak to is the road itself that is being constructed for
the benefit of serving the Magic View area. Currently we have approved today 180,000
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
59
square feet of office space located in this area with buildings under construction. We
have limited access today on Magic View only with minor access with the new road if
you cut across the Chevron station past Idaho Power Credit Union office. We really
need this road to serve the entire development, most specifically that 180,000 square
feet that is being built today plus the two stations that exist, the McDonalds and the
Idaho Power Credit Union. This would add about another 120,000 to 180,000 square
feet, I guess about 82,200 square feet in addition. In order to properly serve the area
we’ve got an easement that now goes in 300 feet with pavement and regular roadway
and it ends. We need this to continue around to Allen Street to serve all the additional
office and other things that have all ready been approved. That is what I wanted to
speak to.
Borup: Any questions? Anyone else.
Hurel: My name is Chuck Hurel. I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. I recognize a
lot of you and you recognize me. I know we have gone through a lot of this before and I
applaud the developer for some of the things they are trying to do here and they are
right. We requested as the neighbors to the north that this be developed in such a
manner that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and to be fair to
everybody to have a office space rather than a 24 commercial adjoining our properties.
One of the things that keeps coming up is the 30 foot birm—30 area right of way with
the birm on top of it. In some of the past meetings where partners develop their
property and that 30 foot right of way was discussed and a birm was discussed. I think
what we had in mind and what came to past are two different things. There is now
about a 3 foot high birm in place that does nothing to stop and lights coming from
McDonalds, out of the credit union into the back yards and in through the windows of
the existing residential properties. Somewhere along the line of what was drawn up I
think there was suppose to be some kind of protective barrier in a birm more then 3 feet
high. Something with a birm 6 or 8 feet high with a wall, either brick or venal wall to
stop the lights. I can tell you right now, not only my property exists, but as people make
the turn, if they’ve got their headlights on, and they make the turn to the east on that
road, I will guarantee you that if the birm is the same size as it is down at Eagle
Partners, those lights are coming in through my windows and I am going to be a very
unhappy camper. I know my neighbors are going to be too. What I am asking here is
that we are talking about a 30 foot right of way and a birm that is something substantial
and that it is truly a sound and light barrier—not just something cosmetic—a couple of
trees here and call it good. The same thing, I think, on the westerly property needs to
be addressed as I can see the access to get around to the back side of the northerly
building there as people come around back side of that. If that birm is not created high
enough with enough definition and some thing, some obstruction there to keep the
lights out of the peoples windows, it is going to happen and they are going to be
unhappy campers. Anyway, that is kind of my main concern here. I was really glad to
hear that the planning of this seems to be in compliance with the way most of the
residents are thinking. I though great. This sounds like a great Italian restaurant.
“Ancillary”. Anyway. I applaud Winston Moore and the company for the fore thought
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
60
that appears to be going in here and I just hope that they will work with us and the city
with complying with our needs. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions?
Hatcher: In regards to the existing conditions on the birms and headlights and stuff like
that, are those birms currently on the southern property line of the subdivision or is it
further into the lots where the development has occurred.
Hurel: Its on the new development. It is not on the existing property.
Hatcher: The land is being allocated for the new road and the landscape buffer
between the backyards and the street still have not been improved.
Hurel: Right.
Hatcher: There is still opportunity to fix this problem of headlights getting into peoples
houses.
Hurel: In this part of the development, I don’t know where we can go with Eagle
Partners as far as what has happened down there or as Mr. Strite said, maybe
somewhere along the line we still have a hammer with the conditional use permit that
was granted them because there is a lot of light, not just from headlights but also from
the existing building—the new Chevron building. We can do brain surgery underneath
those lights. It is not a good thing.
Borup: I have one question. You made a statement that you’d like that buffering to be
substantial. Do you have a definition of what that means.
Hurel: Substantial would mean at least enough to buffer the sound and the light,
whether that birm becomes 6 to 8 to 10 feet tall with a fence with some kind of a brick
wall on top.
Borup: Your saying a 10 foot wall with a birm on top.
Hurel: I’ve seem them. That’s substantial, yes.
Borup: Do you have a definition that might be within the realms of reason?
Hurel: I see other neighborhood along thoroughfares that have buffers. Not
necessarily freeway. Franklin Road, Eagle Road. There are some very nice
separations between –not necessarily commercial properties or –
Borup: I don’t think there is any place in Meridian that has 16 high foot buffering. Not in
this town.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
61
Hurel: Okay. If there is going to be
END OF SIDE 5**
Hurel: Other types of buildings.
Borup: Is it your understanding that what is there now is completed. Are they doing
any more landscaping at the St. Luke's street---are they completed? Brad your
statement said there was a chain link fence and that was –
Hawkins: Correct. Yes they have received final occupancy.
Borup: I mean as far as what is being done to that buffer area. That is completed as
far as you understand was there going to be anymore when the street was lightened the
rest of the way.
Hawkins: No, they were required to have 35 feet wide and because of the off set of the
fence and that ditch in there, that actually turns out to be like 32 or something. In terms
of the width, they actually comply there at Eagle Partners. I was out there. I certainly
can agree. One thing to consider is you plant things that in 10 years are going to
mature to provide the buffer. If you plant things to provide a buffer now, the trees will
never survive in 5 year. They will choke each other out. The only way you can do it is
with a fence.
Hurel: That is correct. But do we have to wait 10 years for a buffer and what is chain
link fence do for –
Borup: Was that the final agreement? Do you know. The streets don’t need to be
widened and approved. What’s there now is the first phase of that street and then—
Hawkins: Well, they had to get a license agreement with the Ada County Highway
District because that is 108 foot right of way. The landscape plan only required a 35
foot wide landscape strip.
Borup: (Inaudible) additional buffering coming when that road was widened out to its
maximum capacity. Maybe we don’t know the exact answer to that question.
Hawkins: The fencing my understanding is to be non-combustible. (inaudible)
agreeable that that is the part of the reason for the chain link fence. You certainly could
do wrought iron. There are other options.
Borup: That is not going to keep the lights out either unless it is a solid wrought iron.
That is what I have seen in other areas. Get some ivy growing in on there and it can fill
in, in two years. Any other questions? Anyone else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
62
Trueax: Rod Trueax at 3091 Autumn Way which is actually right here. Based on the
proposal that has been presented, I guess as a resident living in that area, 2 years ago
we wanted them down 1 block, but barring that in general, I am in agreement with what
is proposed. I have only 2 concerns. One is the restaurant and the possibility that it
could be a 24 establishment. Definitely would be opposed to that, however, not
opposed of having a fine Italian restaurant in there. The other point, if we could go to
the side that had the road layout, just with the station in there, based on the city’s
performance with controlling that birm, Chuck kind of alluded to that, it is more like a 2
foot tall birm and I think that is flat pushing it. The fence was put behind the birm so it
has no altitude at all. When it was brought up at hearings before, what they would
provide was the birm on a 30 foot spread and so on and so forth, and the privacy fence.
I am sorry, but chain link fence does not count as privacy fence. In meeting with non-
combustible, brick and mortar is pretty non-combustible or use to be anyway. I would
even though we don'’ really care for that because it blocks what to be a good view, in
light of the Chevron and other parking lots, I think we would probably welcome a brick
fence at point of time. The lights are not blocked at all unless you are lying down in the
back yard or in my pool, you are going to get lights. That is just the way it is. My point
would be is if there is some sort of birm provided in this area and some privacy fence
which would be “light blocking” so when there is traffic coming down this, the people
living here have some opportunity of survival at night. And some opportunity to enjoy
the property that they bought 10 years ago. Based on 200,000 plus square feet of
office space, that sounds like an awful lot of traffic. I would question how long it is going
to be before this 3 lane plus a turning lane out in this area is going to be blown back into
this area. How much of this they’ll have to give up. Plus, for the fire department, this
looks like a rather nasty corner here. I would just recommend that there be some
consideration for birm—with a pond there I think it is going to be tough to put a birm
there. It looks like there are some obvious compromises here that need to be spelled
out and due to the lack of performance on the birm and the privacy and everything on
the previous agreement, I would like to see that as part of the condition and be spelled
out rather specifically. Not just the width, but also the height of the birm and the I think
that asking that it be compatible or comparable to that down at Thousand Springs which
is just down the road a mile, which has 8 to 10 foot birm height plus fence on top of it is
rather typical and should be a reasonable request for birmage in that area. There is a
lot less traffic in that area then there is here potentially.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else? You have a conclusion.
Strite: I think it probably appropriate that I bring this up since it seems to be the topic.
Most of you on the commission probably understand that that ground up north does not
belong to this developer nor is it part of this application. However, what I would suggest
to you is that the ground west of the roadway, parcel A if you will, we would have no
problem with putting in a 3 or 4 foot birm and provide a fence on top of that. However, I
would suggest to you again and I think it would be a condition that you may want to
impose upon Ada County Highway District who owns the property to the north that they
propose what ever they like. We made a number of overtures to Ada County Highway
District and Eagle Partners presentation, none of which was agreed to. I think the only
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
63
way that this is going to happen is that the city take a more active role then the
developer.
Borup: Do you remember what was finally agreed on.
Strite: The final agreement was a 3 to 4 foot high birm with landscaping. That was the
way it was written and that was it. The fence that was put there was at the request of
the ditch company. And that is a chain link fence.
Borup: That is why it is non combustible. That was the final agreement between ACHD
and –
Strite: That was the final agreement that came from the City of Meridian to the
developer. What happened between the City of Meridian, Ada County Highway District
is anybody’s guess. We met there approximately 12 times. We went up and down,
back and forth. It went from 20 feet to 30 feet. As you recall the road went on a
southwesterly direction (inaudible) the parcel, cutting this parcel in half. It went all over
the board. All we asked for was the approval. We provided 35 feet. We in turn would
landscape whatever Ada County Highway District would allow us to do on a license
agreement, which I mentioned. That was done. What you see is what you get. What I
would suggest to the commission is perhaps that the condition be stated such that Ada
County Highway District, whose position it is to take care of that ground, do so. It is not
the position of the developer. Ada County Highway District is buying the ground that
goes all the way from here to here to here. Any part of that is the developers
(inaudible). So what happens to that area has to be done by Ada County Highway
District and my strong suggestion to this commission is to make a condition on there
back to Ada County Highway District who will be hearing this I believe its tomorrow
night that something be done with that particular ground. I think Mr. Trueax brings up a
very good point. Right now at the westerly end of the present development there is a
small retention fund. This roadway has to be drained. Ada County Highway District
informs us we had to have a retention pond at the curvature of this road and that is why
it is shown there. Perhaps that is not the size, but the roadway was designed by them.
The retainage pond showing as concept only knowing that some area at that west end
of the curvature of that road has to take the drainage from that new roadway. That is
not to say that the birm can’t run to the west of that, but again I think I want to stress
upon the Commissioner's here that it is not within the purview of the developer. It is
ACHD’s purview. I would like to certainly go on record as saying so and if you’d like to
make that a condition I would be more then happy to take that to Ada County Highway
District tomorrow evening. That is all I have.
Borup: When you were referring to that you were referring to parcel B.
Strite: That is correct. As I say, on the other end on the westerly end, we have total
control of that. We will provide the birm and the fence. We don’t have a problem.
Borup: Commissioner's.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
64
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I have a question for Brad. In 20 feet, how high a birm can
you get.
Hawkins: I believe that would be 3 to 1. Between 6-1/2 and 7, right.
Borup: That is a maximum he’s talking. That gets hard to mow. Would that be a
maximum?
Hatcher: Is there any way that the City Planning Dept or this Board or anything can go
back to what is all ready been built incorrectly and get that to what was agreed upon.
Hawkins: Certainly. I think what would be a good example, the Fred Meyer complex on
the Locust Grove side, if you go look at that, it is about 20 feet. There is no sod and it is
a pretty good size buffer. You can do things with plantings, large shrubs, there is ways
to do it. There is no mowing required at the Fred Meyer birm there. It is pretty dense.
Borup: What is there now. It is sure not what I envisioned when we were talking about
the buffering 2 years ago.
Hatcher: I am not thinking the plant material that is or isn’t there. I am talking about a 2
foot birm being built when it was agreed upon that a 3 to 4 foot birm supposed to be
built.
Borup: That’s what we don’t know what was agreed upon. Is there a way to get a copy
of that?
Hatcher: I know that. I was wondering if we had the ability to correct an error and then
address the ACHD land that—we’d want to do it all in one.
Borup: Your talking a birm only or a fence on top the birm.
Hatcher: I’d like a fence as well.
Borup: What happens to that area between, if you do an area with a birm and fence on
top, what happens to that area between that fence and the neighbors fence.
Hatcher: You have a 6 foot privacy fence at the property line the birm is kind of
secondary. My big thing that I am looking at is headlights, distraction and sound.
Borup: I was concerned about a hide out for the kids. We all ready testified earlier
what they do when they have a closed in area like that. We’d be creating the same
thing. I don’t know what the solution is. Between the fence on top of the birm and the
neighbors fence.
Hatcher: I am not talking 2 fences. I was just thinking (inaudible discussion with Borup)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
65
Strite: Billy Ray Strite again. On the southerly boundary of the neighborhood, north of
that particular property line that is shown on the view foil, there is a 25 wide canal in
there. I believe it is 2 canals actually. The neighborhood fences are probably some 25
feet north of that particular property line. The fence that was placed on the Eagles
Partners ground, I believe, is 3 feet inside and guessing 3 to 5 feet south of the property
line that you see on this particular sheet. Keeping in mind that there is a small ditch just
north of that and then there is a large ditch toward the back.
Borup: So the double ditch—They run parallel to Green Hills. That is a different
situation.
Strite: Mr. Hatcher, maybe the thing to do and we can control parcel B, is if we can
build provided the ditch company, and I want to make that caveat right now, provide a
solid wood fence, and I think that is more appropriate, along the north boundary of
parcel B. It would be rather duplicate, but we can still birm on the inside obviously. I
want to stress upon you again, I think it is to the credit of the City is going to have to go
to Ada County Highway District and suggest what has to be done with their parcel.
Borup: If we can do any thing, then now is the time to do it.
Hatcher: Correct. As large as a development that this is, throw out the concept of now
necessarily a wood fence, but something a little more permanent that is going to be
around as long as this development is going to be. It might have to be a 6 foot wood
fence, maybe a 4 or 5 foot masonry fence. Something tall enough to stop the
automotive headlights, that is going to be a permanent fixture that not going to degrade
over a time.
Borup: Well, masonry fences do that too. You talking about putting it on top the birm?
Hatcher: Possibly. There is so many different opportunities here at this time. That
large of a birm it could be a meandering fence that goes along with the birm.
Strite: Mr. Chair, if I might. You also must understand part of this is in the ditch
company right away and we are subject to what they will allow us to build. Generally
there are no permanent structures (inaudible). That is why I thought wood might be
more appropriate because if they come in and tear it out—
Hatcher: It can’t be flammable.
Strite: They have allowed us to put fences as long as they are on our side of that right
of way. That is why I was suggesting that maybe do it within 10 feet of the 20 foot, raise
the birm, put the fence up and then the back side is going to be basically controlled by
the ditch company, which it is today anyway.
Borup: You could see a birm there with a fence on top.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
66
Hatcher: Six foot fence on top of a 3 foot birm.
Strite: Midway in the 20 feet so that the back side of which is part of the right of way of
the ditch company can be done. They are going to let the weeds grow anyway.
Borup: With the birm there they should be able to control it.
Strite: I would certainly think so. Again, that is something you can make a condition as
approved by the ditch company and then we’ll do what we can.
Borup: I think the concern from the commission is very much the lights on the street.
Lights is more of a concern then noise.
Hatcher: I think they are equal, but light is more prevalent.
Borup: Your not going to stop the noise.
Hatcher: (inaudible) but die to the distance that we are talking about it is kind of a mute
issue.
Strite: To shorten this so other applications can be heard, we would recommend that a
condition be placed on the application that we work with the ditch company on parcel B.
Parcel A, I would strongly suggest that a condition be placed on Ada County Highway
District to resolve it to the neighbors satisfaction. They are going to have to purchase
the right of way if in fact they purchase it doesn’t seem to be a big problem.
Borup: Any other questions Commissioner's?
Hatcher: We could move that we could continue on with this project but to address the
issue with ACHD how do we go back and put requirements on them.
Borup: On the previous parcel or on this parcel.
Hatcher: Both.
Borup: Mr. Brown have you got a suggestion on that?
Brown: No, but I’ve got one comment. I know you don’t need the exercise but there is
really no need that that property be sold to them. It could remain as a part of that
parcel. I don’t see a purpose in it. They would have it as a easement. They do it in
residential—
Attorney: Mr. Chair, Mr. Brown I think that I read in here that they have all ready made
an agreement to purchase. You’ll find that in their staff report. This is going to become
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
67
a public rights away and they are going to purchase it. The purchase agreement is an
off set to the impact fees.
Brown: If they purchase the right of way, but that area that we have a concern about,
you could still keep that in your ownership.
Borup: They can still do that. That is what happens in residential subdivisions.
Strite: Perhaps it might be most appropriate that you make that recommendation at
Ada County Highway District. We certainly have no control over it. I went through this
as you know for 4 years on Eagle Partners and I lost on every count. I would think the
city has a little more clout then I do. You might make the suggestion to Ada County
Highway District take some precautions to satisfy the neighborhood concerns. They
certainly have not done it to date and I’d be the first to admit that. That is not the
subject tonight. The application before you has to do with Magic View Subdivision and
Winston Moore, but I think certainly (inaudible) is a condition that Ada County Highway
District take a strong look –
Brown: Doing it that way you can grant to the highway district. They are still going to
maintain their easement. That part is not any different. That would give us the ability to
require the same fencing that we are talking about—the entire distance of the project.
Strite: If that is in the (inaudible) to recommend to Ada County Highway District
certainly we would be amenable.
Borup: Thank you. Are we formulating here. Hold the public hearing open in case we
want someone to come up for additional information. What ever your pleasure is.
Discussion then if no one is going to make a motion. Looks like Commissioner's what
do you see the concern here? One the restaurant and building uses I think we’ve kind
of covered that. It looks to be like the main thing is the buffering.
Hatcher: The buffering and whether or not we have a development agreement and we
don’t.
Borup: Right. I don’t know what we can do about the other parcel with ACHD cause
what is there now is sure not what I envisioned a year or two ago. Things may have
changed after I left this commission, it usually does, but—
Brown: We can request the staff that they go and look and see what was previously
approved and bring it back to our next meeting and we can address it and have them
take some to the highway district at that time. We can also make it a part of this motion
that they talk about it, but I think that we can handle this entire site as a part of this.
Hatcher: We need to address this entire site tonight.
Borup: I don’t know what we can do about the previous.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
68
De Weerd: It is not part of this application. By doing it tonight they can bring that
recommendation tomorrow night at the ACHD hearing then. If we have desires, we
need to let them know.
Hatcher: We should have staff confirm the original requirements where incase there is
a violation.
Borup: We got two wishes. Let’s get the development agreement out of the way first.
Kent feels strongly about having it, or semi strongly.
Brown: I think it gives the developer the flexibility that he needs and at the same time
protects the city. I would feel reluctant in approving the annexation without a
development agreement.
Borup: Any other comments? I guess I am not seeing the need, if it is restricted to an
office building. Anything other than an office building its going to come back with a CUP
anyway.
Barbeiro: Is that entirely true because of the way that the developer has described it. If
there are two buildings on one lot it would come back, but if he should later decide –
Borup: No. That would be the condition we would annex it. That would be one of the
conditions.
Barbeiro: Can you elaborate. It would be two buildings or—
Borup: No, no. Anything other than office building would come back before us with a
conditional use permit.
Barbeiro: I thought one of our concerns was –
Borup: The restaurant. In other words, if the restaurant goes in, it comes back before
this commission.
Barbeiro: While the discussion about the 24 hour restaurant, it seems very feasible in—
Borup: Well, whether it is a 24 hour or 6 hour restaurant, it still comes here.
De Weerd: You did not place that condition on Walgreen’s, which had a building we
had no idea –it had the basics, it had the materials like you have in front of you and a
plan, it’s a shell. If it is anything other then that, they are going to have to modify the
agreement.
Hatcher: I feel comfortable with conditions tonight, based upon what has been
submitted. The only clarification that I would want is these submitted elevations do
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
69
show a 2 story building and I am unclear as to what do the four buildings would be
proposed as 2 story.
Borup: It was not on your first plan. It was on a later plat that came in.
Hatcher: And, we have on record what the materials are.
Borup: So, question on the birm. What Commissioner's feel needs to be there. The
buffering birm, or whatever the buffering.
Hatcher: The biggest, tallest birm possible.
Borup: Let’s start with size distance. The first plan was showing 30 feet. The second
one was 20. Staff recommends 35, I believe. We have 3 choices there or anything
else.
Hatcher: Requirements are only 20 and if we put a fence on a birm, requirements are
only 20, proposal only 20. We have 20-30 feet of ditch, between the residents in this
property and I think what is being submitted is adequate.
Borup: Are you saying we can get a 5 foot birm.
De Weerd: Five foot with a 6 foot fence.
Borup: Eleven feet. That would take a pretty tall car. Okay are we ready for a motion.
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Anyone want to start putting things together for –
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to City Council for the
annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for the proposed Magic View Office
Complex by W.H. Moore Company with the recommended staff comments, the
construction of the suggested 20 foot landscape birm or landscape buffer with 3 to 1
ratio for the birm with a 6 foot fence on the crest of that birm—
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, 3 to 1 is the recommended maximum if it is going to be
mowed and maintained—the grass. You can go steeper then that such as Locust
Grove along Fred Meyer. That is probably 2 to 1 but it is not grass covered. It is bark
and ground cover.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
70
Hatcher: If we are talking only 10 feet—let’s go with the designated height—designated
birm height of 5 feet with a 6 foot privacy fence at the crest of the birm—
Borup: That may be more than necessary.
Hatcher: That is what we talked about. You think it is over kill? Five and six.
Borup: It is your motion. I guess I could see 4 and 4 and a six foot fence is a pretty
good-but
Hatcher: I am not opposed to that. I’ll amend it and say 4 and 6 and I think we need to
address this project in hold in regards to the maintenance of the easement that would
be turned over to ACHD, so that these requirements would be placed on that land as
well. I am not exactly sure how we would do that.
Borup: It is your intention that birm and fence be along the whole northerly property
line. Both the parcel they control and the one ACHD does at this time.
Hatcher: That is correct.
Borup: And as stated, I don’t know why your commercial development would be any
different than a residential, but that can stay as a common lot within the project
maintained by the owners. Unless ACHD has some policy that prohibits that.
Hatcher: I think we should make that a condition of approval and force ACHD’s hand.
Did I cover everything?
Attorney: If I was to clarify your motion your asking that condition 14 be deleted, there
not be a development agreement. Your also asking that condition 10 be modified to a
20 foot buffer.
Hawkins: And note number 12 on page 3. You need to do something with that
regarding the subdivision.
Hatcher: Yeah, number 6. Number 6 we reduced to 20 feet. Bare with me. (Inaudible
discussion amongst Commissioner's) Ten would be modified from 35 to 20 and 12—
Borup: Kent your saying on item 12 because it referenced the development agreement.
That is the only modification there? That is the motion? Do we have a second?
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: Okay, motion and second. Any discussion?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
71
De Weerd: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear discussion from the silent
partner over there, Commissioner Brown.
Borup: On the development agreement part? He just..
Brown: I thought that it was clear. I think that the applicant is asking a little more of us
then—development agreements are usually every city in Idaho, it is a state law. It does
allow flexibility doing—it requires them to negotiate with staff (inaudible). I will not
support this motion.
De Weerd: Brad, is it typical that we have been requiring development agreements in
all of our applications or is that not.
Hawkins: Annexations and rezones has been the standard. That’s the only
applications the state law allows you to do a development agreement. Only rezones
and annexations, but it is an option. It is not mandatory, but legal department has been
highly recommended that they be adopted.
De Weerd: And why is that?
Hawkins: We have some internal conflict in staff about whether they should or not. I
think the primary reason is when they annex—potentially they could turn around and
sell off one of the lots or sell both of them or –so when you say you put the
development agreement on, even if they sell it off this plan gets thrown out and
someone else comes in. They can’t just put anything on there. They are still bound
because a development agreement is attached to the land so regardless of—
De Weerd: But in this case, aren’t we approving a conceptual along with this
annexation and zoning?
Borup: But it is not coming back before us.
De Weerd: But staff would be making their decisions based on that, right?
Borup: Well the two options to have the control is to have the development agreement
or conditional use permit on everything that goes in building by building. That would be
the two choices that would still give the city the same control essentially. We have not
been talking about a conditional use permit here. I think that is what we have normally
done in the past. It has either been a development agreement it has been a conditional
use permit on all future.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman may I ask Brad what the internal conflict –Does staff agree
with it—the development agreement concept or is it the city attorney that is promoting
that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
72
Hawkins: They are pretty labor intensive. For planning and zoning staff, they are
actually not so much labor intensive. It does make it difficult in 3 to 5 years to
remember that there is a development agreement associated with this parcel. There is
a triggering mechanism that we are lacking. Shari is very supportive of them and has
been. She is very strong. I think that the annexation ordinance is another mechanism.
It is not just a condition use, it is an annexation ordinance and you can put some
attachments in that as well.
De Weerd: Which by approving the conceptional drawings on this, you are putting
those conditions on there, is that correct?
Hawkins: Right. If you are saying this is going with that, then it is going to run with the
land.
De Weerd: I know a lot of the problems in the past is P & Z hasn’t even seen these
development agreements until after it is signed anyway, so..
Borup: Do we even see any then. I do, but I don’t think the rest of the commission
does .
De Weerd: No, we don’t. Okay, thank you.
Borup: We still have a motion on the floor.
Hatcher: I was re-thinking though, we are dealing with annexation and zoning right
now. We go off track even with my motion.
Borup: I don’t think so. Staff had that under the annexation and zoning. Ready to
vote? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 3-2
Hawkins: Mr. Chairman, could staff just get a clarification. On Item number 12, page 3,
what was commissions—
Borup: To eliminate the reference to the development agreement. Is that what you
meant to clarify Brad. The platting was not addressed. So that was left in. That was
part of the motion the recommendation on the platting. Do we need to hold up here a
little bit?
Hawkins: There was a resolution passed by City Council last week that allows one time
splits which the City has not had. In the meeting between staff and the developer, we
didn’t really complete this issue correct. (Inaudible discussion from audience). If you let
the motion stand, that can be modified and (inaudible) by staff when we go to City
Council. It stays in the recommendation. That way it will give us time to look it over.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
73
10.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
PROVIDE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE SITE AND AN ANCILLARY
RESTAURANT IN LO ZONE FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE
COMPLEX BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY—EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC
VIEW:
Borup: Our general policy has been not to take anymore—we are trying not to take
anymore applications after 12 o’clock and close the hearings at 1. Again, that is subject
to modification by this commission. I assume we would like to at least deal with number
10 and then go from there. That correct Commissioner's.
De Weerd: Yes, but I think it would be fair to open the public incase anyone here would
want to issue they testimony.
Borup: That is what I said. We will proceed with number 10.
De Weerd: No, 4 items—11—
Borup: Oh yeah. Then we will address that as soon as 10 is over and see what the
time looks like.
Hawkins: I would point out 2 items that I don’t think got addressed. Page 5, number 1
deals with the conditional use permit—shall become null and void if the work does not
commence within one year of approval and that was something that staff discussed.
We would have no problem moving that to 2 years and I think the developers would like
that too.
Brown: So then at the applicants request, they will be back with a detailed conditional
use permit on the restaurant. Are you willing to remove your recommendation 5 that
there is no details –
Borup: You talking about page 5 and 6.
Brown: Yes. So it is portion 2 what we are going with.
Borup: Anything else we need to be aware of?
Hatcher: Consistent with condition of the annexation and number 14 needs to be
modified to 5 foot, is that correct?
Hawkins: 14 goes with a different issue. That is on the south side of the road.
END OF SIDE 6 **
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
74
Borup: Applicant come on up. We are ready for the applicant. Oh, I didn’t open up the
public hearing. I asked for a staff report within the public hearing be opened. The
public hearing is open.
Seel: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company, 600 N. (Inaudible) Boise Idaho. We are in
agreement with the comments that Brad made and our previous testimony stands and
we won’t take anymore of your time.
Brown: I think the only thing that needs to be added to 15 then is the fence is going to
be solid and 6 foot, per requirements of the annexation.
Borup: Any other questions Commissioner's? Anyone here from the audience? Now is
your time. Step forward quickly.
Hrueax: Just one clarification I wanted to ask is probably of staff, on the birm height
again and there was some clarification here I did not quite understand the motion.
When were talking about the 20 foot buffer only on the west side or was that—but this is
still 30 something on the other side. Then the height of that birm, was that a fixed
height or was that based on the ratio previously stated.
Borup: The motion was 4 feet with a 6 foot fence, total boundary, the whole length. To
comply with that, they may have to move their pond or redesign it or something, but that
is the intent of the motion—the whole length of the boundary.
Hrueax: Would that include mosquito abatement?
Borup: The pond is a run off. You don’t have water in those anyway. Anyone else.
Thank you.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: I’ll make a motion that we approve Item 10 conditional use permit for a multi
building on a single site with some kind of restaurant, subject to staff conditions with a
previous stated modifications to condition one being 2 year requirement, highlighting
that condition 5 were making reference to submitting a separate CU for the restaurant.
Condition 15 that it is a 4 foot birm and that the fence be constructed to 6 foot and it is
solid for the annexation requirements.
Hatcher: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
75
Borup: Discussion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman perhaps that needs to make clear that that is through the
entire property line, that the buffer and parcel A would be the 20 foot buffer and parcel
B have the 30 foot that they agreed upon ACHD whatever and that be continuous.
Borup: And you expecting Mr. Strite to convey that to ACHD at the meeting tomorrow
night.
De Weerd: We can’t require that. It would be advantageous for him to do so. It would
be in his best interest.
Brown: I will accept that amendment.
Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, if we could also instruct staff to communicate that to ACHD
so they have that.
Borup: I am really concerned that the first section didn’t have the buffer in that we
thought we was going to have.
Hatcher: Could we request of staff to look into that?
Hawkins: I’ve got it down.
Borup: Commissioner's, we still have 3 items. Actually 4 items. I guess I would be of
mind to open the public hearing and see how it goes. We say 1 o’clock is when we
want to shut things off. Can we get things done by then, fine. Let to let the applicant
know this may be continued if we don’t. We are not going to do anymore 3 am
meetings. No one thinks straight at that time. We have a lot of people here so we’d like
to go ahead and open the meeting.
11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 8.25
ACRES FROM RT T0 R8 FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN
WOOD, D.W., INC. – WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND
WEST VICTORY:
Borup: Might mention we had to have 3 hearings on this same application. One is for
annexation and zoning, one for preliminary plat and the third for conditional use permit
for PUD. Item 11 is annexation and zoning. Brad.
Hawkins: Commissioner's, again request that these comments be combined for all
three applications. Memo dated December 6, 1999 that these conditions be included
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
76
for your consideration. I think the overhead shows fairly well what piece we are talking
about. Eagle Road north and south, Victory here to the south. Currently Ada County. I
believe we have two lots that are zoned R-1 and others RT that are immediately across
McDonald lateral on the south side of this parcel. The all ready approved Thousand
Springs Village Subdivision raps around to the north and the west. The annexation is –
the request is legal. It is contiguous to city limits and the legal description has been
approved. That’s fine. One of the main issues on this piece, we have the
Comprehensive Plan calls this out as mixed residential. I went into some detail on the
staff report so won’t go into it verbal other then to say that mixed residential, we have
interpreted since there is a single family designation in the Comprehensive Plan and
that single family has been interpreted as R-4, that in order to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan designations mixed residential, we feel that it needs to be
something other than R-4 in order to comply with it. It would have to be greater density.
That has been our interpretation and that is talked about on page 2 of the staff report.
We have our –the applicant has responded in writing and you should have their
comments in your packets on these issues. They have..this is the proposed layout of
the plat. There is as you can see a couple..landscaping 30 foot here which continues
the Thousand Springs Village buffer. I believe they are looking at a similar design in
terms of getting continuity there. An entrance on to Eagle Road here, an access and
then also an access through the existing stub to the north boundary. The proposed
neighborhood park here in the center of the plat which is also proposed to be ACHD
storm water area. There is a common drive here, which is 20 feet wide and that serves
4 different lots. There are some small frontages here. Everything that would require a
variance since this is a planned unit development, they are not going to be required to
get variances for these less frontages here or this common drive because as a planned
development they can request that in their application. They have submitted today the
list of those specific lots and blocks and the variances that they are looking at. They
have provided some detail here on the landscaping here and signage. I guess I will
leave it at that for a staff report.
Borup: Any questions for Brad at this time. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in Boise. I
guess for the sake of time I will do the same that the staff has done and that is make
our presentation on all three applications during this first public hearing if that is okay
with the commission. As stated earlier, the request is for annexation and zoning from a
current zone of RT to R-8. Along with that, we are requesting a conditional use permit
and a PUD application to allow for reduced sizes of lots in this R-8 zone for higher
density mix. The site location was discussed. It is surrounded by Thousand Springs
Village on the north and west side, Eagle Road on the east with some existing rural
county size lots on the south—one to two acres in size. Present use is agriculture.
Comprehensive Plan as identified by staff is for mixed residential use. Gross density on
this development has stated it is 8-1/4 acres. We are looking at a gross density of
about 5-1/2 units per acre over all. Lot sizes in this development will range from 2970
square feet to 7690 square feet. It will be a mixture of attached units as well as
detached. All of the detached units will be a zero lot line townhouse/patio home type of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
77
style. Unit sizes will range from 13 to 1600 square feet. The developer is here this
evening and will talk a little more about the types of units and the look of the
development. Amenities offered would be a open space neighborhood park in the
center with some landscape buffers along Eagle Road as well. We calculated about 12
per cent open space and I think the PUD application 10 per cent is required. There will
be CC&R’s and homeowner association for maintenance of those open space areas.
City services are available. Sewer and water. The streets will be public built to ACHD
standards. There will be pressure irrigation and under ground utilities. We have
contacted Boise Project Board of Control. I spoke to Troy Upshaw about the
McDonalds lateral. It will be piped and there will be an easement provided for their
requirements. With that I think I will turn it over to Dan Wood to present some
information about the units unless the commission has specific questions of me of what
I have presented at this point.
Brown: Gary, if I understand correctly your in agreement with all of staff
recommendation on the annexation, preliminary plat and the conditional use permit.
Lee: Yes, we submitted the tabled summarized and lot sizes and frontages. There
were a couple of the lots that required a reduced setback on the street site setback.
Brown: But other then that, you don’t have a problem with any of staff conditions then.
Lee: No. Sidewalk was discussed. As you know the bordering subdivision has a
detached sidewalk going through the development. We are proposing a contiguous
sidewalk, curb and gutter so we’ll have 5 foot side walks adjacent to the curb line as per
standard requirements.
Brown: I thought that the only condition they had was like on the annexation was
compliance with the ordinance that you have sidewalk on both side. Did they asked for
it to be detached.
Lee: Well there was discussion and a recommendation for that point, just to match
Thousand Springs on the north. We really don’t have the room there to do that.
De Weerd: The 12 per cent open space or space requirements usable or how do you
come about the 12 per cent.
Lee: Well the lot along Eagle Road at 30 feet wide is part of the open space. There is
a strip coming in on the main entry road on the south side that is open. Then the center
block, there is large open space. This will be our neighborhood park.
De Weerd: What is the percentage of that?
Lee: The park? I don’t have a calculation on that but I would estimate by looking at
that map, it is probably about half of the 12 per cent, probably 6 per cent.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
78
De Weerd: And serving as your retention, is that usable?
Lee: Yes.
De Weerd: Is it pretty flat or is it a big dip.
Lee: It will be flat and shallow. There will be some opportunity to discharge some of
that storm water off site (inaudible). It will be gone most of the time.
Borup: I’d like clarification on definition of shallow.
Lee: It won’t be any deeper than 2 feet.
De Weerd: I know that staff has been reworking the PUD section. How far along are
you with that?
Hawkins: There is a draft that’s been submitted by Carla Olson, independent
consultant. She has the first cut done, but we have not reviewed internally yet.
De Weerd: I seem to recall when we were looking at Wilkins Ranch, wasn’t the open
space requirements being looked at as usable that did not include the landscaping
buffer and setbacks, those kinds of things.
Hawkins: That is the proposed. That is in the landscape ordinance too.
De Weerd: But that is also how we’ve been kind of looking at them.
Borup: That was a discussion on Wilkins Ranch. Go ahead.
Wood: My name is Dan Wood. I live at 13141 W. Blue Bonnet CT in Boise. I will be
quick because I appreciate you guys listening to us. I know there is a lot of neighbors
who would like to voice their opinion too. Briefly, what I will go over is to remind
everybody that I will turn around and fence the southerly boundary in-between myself
and the neighbor. We will tile the McDonald lateral. Minimum home size in the
subdivision is going to be a minimum of 1300 square feet and what I’ve got here is a
number of different elevations just to kind of take a look at them. It shows the difference
of two stories, single levels and they range anywhere from 1300 to (inaudible). All have
double car garages. They will all be totally fenced. They will have landscaping.
Pressurized irrigation will be at every lot. Gary has covered pretty much everything.
What I’ve also, I am not sure in you packet, originally I submitted some photos showing
some ideas that I was working on. I’ll point out on this particular map, this is an aerial
photo showing the parcel and the 3or 4 neighbors abutting here. Mr. Marcus home is
not on this picture but his house is right here in the center. The closest one is
approximately 150 from the ditch, well call it. I have shown here on these pictures to
give you an example of, this is a home in southeast Boise that is on like a 30 foot lot.
The lots I am proposing are 44, so it would allow you, in fact you could put a double car
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
79
garage and still stack on top of your garage and still meet you 13 or 1600 square foot
house. This concept up here what I was trying to illustrate is the fact that you’ve got a
little courtyard so you can have—this is a picture like the inside of a courtyard you’d use
the side of the house like a wall and you’ve have a courtyard here and have a fenced in
area where you could have some privacy. These are examples of potential attached
units like a townhouse concept I’ve got there or the one spot where I’ve got 3 units is
another idea right there. It is part of your packet there. Also, if you need to ask
questions, there is a larger layout of the total subdivision. All the green area is what we
consider as common area. We will carry birm along here. I don’t know if it will be as
high as Thousand Springs but we do plan on having birm along here. It is fenced all
ready on this side and there and we will fence down here. If need be we can put fence
on top of the birm. Other then that, questions.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. What are you doing in buffering between this development
and the existing residences. Along the lateral.
Wood: One is planning on using the pathway will have to be left open as a buffer. I am
planning on putting my fencing along here as the buffer.
De Weerd: So no plantings or…how about maintaining their access to their irrigation.
Wood: I have talked with the irrigation company. They do want this lateral tiled and
they realize these people have been pumping water out of here and it is something that
will have to be worked out, somehow. What he suggested was another pipe be
installed along the pipe that I install to provide ways for these people to get water along
here. That way they could still stick their pumps into that pipe to get water.
De Weerd: You’ll be providing them that access.
Wood: The irrigation company said they will—at this point, they are pumping water out
of the ditch and I am not sure that originally they are suppose to. They have done it for
years, so the irrigation company indicates that they have to provide water to them.
What they have done or what I’ve been told, down here by Thousand Springs is done
similar to what I just mentioned. But what they did, the developer from what I was told,
did not put the pipe in and the irrigation company is going to go back and put it in later.
Borup: Any other questions.
Barbeiro: What is the anticipated sale price of the units. The lowest would be 110 and
it goes as high as 140.
Borup: You submitted some elevations. Are you going to be doing the building or will
the lots be sold to other builders.
Wood: Keith what’s fine there is one builder will build them all. It won’t be me. The one
builder provided me with all the different elevations you’ve got right there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
80
Borup: Any other questions. Thank you Dan. This is a public hearing testimony.
We’ve got about 20 minutes. We see how far we get. Come on up.
Young: My name is Rex Young. I live at 2950 E. Victory Road in Meridian. I live on
approximately 2 acres of ground that I acquired back in 1969. We built a home on it
and I believe we’ve been there since 1971, my wife and I. We’ve got some problems
with this subdivision. I had some maps here that I’d like you to take a look at.
Borup: I think we’ve all got those.
Young: Well, there is a little bit of writing on there that in my opinion kind of brings out
some perspectives that you may or may not be interested in, but anyway I want to
provide them to you. The proposed Woodhaven Subdivision is about 160 yards wide
and it is sandwiched in between Rural residential lots to the south that range in size
from 87,100 square feet roughly down to 43,600 square feet. To the north and to the
west we have Thousand Springs Village and we also have the Thousand Springs
Subdivision which take up 140 acres. It is all zoned R-4. We strongly disagree with the
proposed zoning of R-8 and we believe that R-4 would be appropriate and more
compatible with area. It is interesting to note over in Eagle they just recently turned
down a subdivision because it was not compatible with the surrounding. In the staff
comments, they indicate that R-8 they feel is appropriate because of the mixed
residential designation. But when I asked somebody to give me a definition of what
mixed residential is, nobody can give me a definition. I heard their comments tonight,
their interpretation, well their interpretation, our interpretation you know they don’t
necessarily agree but I really think that in view of the areas to the south and also the
areas to the north that have been subdivided and zoned R-4 that it would be
appropriate to continue on with the R-4 zoning. As far as transitional lots is concerned,
the way I read the Meridian Comprehensive Plan specifically page 30, policy 6.8U,
which reads new urban density subdivisions which abut or are approx.- to existing rural
residential land uses, shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger, more
comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural
residential densities. I’ve got 87,000 square feet. With this proposed subdivision I will
have 2 lots in my backyard and they both will be townhouses. The one lot is 67 or 6900
square feet which is the largest lot in the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision. I take a
look to the west of my property, where I abut up against the Thousand Springs Village
Subdivision. The transitional lot that lays right against my property is 17, 273 square
feet. If you proceed further to the west, where the other lots abut up, the smallest
transitional that they have provided is 12,500 square feet. We believe that we should
have transitional lots consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of at least 12,500 square
feet. There is an item in the staff comments which talks about that area down the
McDonald lateral and there is going to be a 40 foot distance between the property line.
This is not correct. My property lines have not changed. I bought my property. I use
my property. I pay taxes on my property and my property line runs down the center of
that ditch. The fact that Woodhaven plans to deed over 21 feet of their property to the
ditch company or whom ever, really has no bearing on my property line. So the correct
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
81
distance, the separation of the lot lines is going to be 21 feet. I think that needs to be
noted. There was a question concerning the McDonald lateral. When Thousand
Springs Village was put in, we were all concerned about the fact that we’ve drawn water
for over 30 years and we have pumps in the ditch and they were put in the ditch with
the permission of the Boise Project Board of Controls. Now their memory gets dim at
times and it had to be refreshed. We did do that and they agreed that they would
provide what they call a concrete delivery structure with (inaudible) and said that the
work would commence following de-watering at the lateral in the fall. Work has not
commenced. The McDonald lateral from the mid point of my property on to the west
has been put in pipe and we still don’t have that alternate delivery system. They have
assured me that they will put it in and we have it in writing that they will put it in. As far
as the part of McDonald lateral which is behind the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision, I
would understand that it will be put in pipe and I understand that and don’t have a
problem with that. I would assume that the Boise Project Board of Control will construct
a similar or the same concrete delivery structure. We would ask that that lateral not be
disturbed until the system is put in by the Boise Project board of control or
simultaneously with that being put in. Then they could go ahead and bury that. We
want to be able to continue to get water. The neighbors to the west of me, if that
system does not go in, they are denied water and we don’t want to be in a position
where we are denied. If we could just have that stipulation in there that there would not
be the burial of that lateral until that alternate system is in, then that would protect us
water users. We are concerned about the adverse impact that a subdivision of this
nature would have on our property values. I don’t have a big home. I have a
comfortable home. I have got about 4000 square feet in it. When I look at a
subdivision going to go in my backyard around 50 per cent of the lots don’t contain any
more space than what floor space I’ve got, this concerns me. I think that something
really needs to be done to have larger lots, a little nicer homes and so forth so we will
not suffer any loss by degradation of the property values. It is interesting to note that in
that some subdivision I alluded to over in Eagle that was turned down, they had
language in there that said mixed density and different size homes sounds pretty, but it
effects other people’s property values. We feel it will definitely effect ours. When I walk
out to the back portion of my lot I have a great view of Shaffer Butte and that mountain
range and I am concerned about keeping that view. In addition to larger lots,
transitional lots, we want to have that view protected and we would ask that those lots
to the south be restricted to single level structures, thereby preserving our view. Even
though there may be a 21 foot strip along the McDonald lateral, still with no deeper
those lots are they will be practically on top of us. Also, another item is the fencing that
is proposed along the McDonald lateral. The people at Thousand Springs Village, they
agreed to build up the land along the McDonald lateral so that the fence was put in at
the same height as the roadway that goes along the lateral. We would want that same
thing done to be consistent with all ready has been done there. I have quite a few trees
and shrubs on my lot. For years I’ve been getting burning permits. It is difficult to figure
out just how far away those homes will be, but it appears to me that they will be within
50 feet. I am just concerned as I don’t want to start a fire hazard but I don’t want to be
stopped from burning with proper permit. That needs to be noted. We are concerned
about the zero lot lines. The lack of ability to park. Recreational vehicles and this sort
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
82
of thing. There is two things that I wanted to bring up as far as the construction phase
is concerned. When Thousand Springs Village was going up during the summer
months we had equipment going as early as 6 o’clock in the morning and as late as
10:30 or 11 o’clock at night. We don’t think that this is reasonable. I just wanted to get
that on the record and serve notice that if this thing goes we would expect something
different then that. Also had problems with the dust and something needs to be done to
control that. I think that sums up my comments.
Borup: Mr. Young, I don’t know if you discussed with you neighbors, but you’ve done a
good job of representing all you neighbors along that whole stretch there.
Allen: Jim Allen. 3040 E. Victory Meridian. I have 2plus acres. I am concerned of
what it is going to do to me. First off, the board needs to be aware that Idaho is a state
that likes to farm. I do raise horses and will continue to raise horses. Comprehensive
Plan, City of Meridian—support a variety of residential categories, urban, rural, single
family, multiple, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condos, so forth for the purpose of
providing city with a larger housing opportunity. Also in this paragraph, in this section it
deals with cost of buildings. The four of us have probably invested more money then
what we would have liked to. My tax value is probably 200,000 dollars. That is more
than what their houses are going to cost. I think you need to look at your
Comprehensive Planning on cost where their houses should be costing in comparison
to the other houses in that area. Thank you.
Marquart: Good morning. Dave Marquart. 3100 E. Victory. I live right next door to
Jim. A couple of things. He brought up some excellent questions and I don’t want to
keep you too long here. The common area is miss-marked on your maps. They say 3
actually it is 4. This right here is a road which is considered to be a common area.
Along with this piece out in front which was identified earlier and this one here and you
asked how big this one is. It goes from here all the way around the outside and wraps
around. So you have 1,2,3 and 4. I don’t know that that is usable but maybe. I would
agree with Mr. Young in that we need larger transitional lots, especially in the RT area,
which you have to the south. I received this paper here from the City of Meridian
Planning and Zoning staff to you guys from Bruce and Brad and I would like to agree
with the staff on Item 2 on page 2. The staff agrees while the Comprehensive Plan
does not define mixed residential and I would agree that. Yet, the next sentence the
staff believe it to be. Well, I am not sure I can live with all of that. I think we have mixed
residential areas there. We have our R-4’s to the north, R-T’s to the south, R-1’s. We
are mixed right now. Does it need to be more? Also like to bring up page 4 item 4, the
staff requests 250 watt and/or 100 watt high pressure. I would recommend that it just
250 or, no reason for the and there. You do need both?
Borup: One is a plain 250 watt and the other is a high pressure sodium.
Marquart: I would agree with Mr. Young on page 6 of the staff report. Policy 68U. 40
foot of separation on the rear lot lines—again my lot did not move. That is not a 40 foot
of empty space. Part of that is my property and I don’t think it can be used as anything
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
83
to determine that it is going to be any kind of a area for buffering. If I may on page 5,
just for clarification. I know that Mr. Brown asked the question if they were will to agree
with all the staff recommendations. I would like to ask them about number 9—sorry
number 10 where storage areas provided for anticipated boats, campers and trailers.
According to the map I see up here, nothing has been changed. I don’t see that. Nor
do I see where they are going to be putting anything in there for storage of their
maintenance of their common lot area. If that could be addressed, I would appreciate it.
I would like to ask, where in the Comprehensive Plan does it say that density must be
denser? I don’t know that it said that in the Comprehensive Plan that I read. Also, Mr.
Wood mentioned that the birm would not be quite as high as Thousand Springs. For
those of you who have driven Eagle, know that Thousand Springs is up north a bit.
This birm is lower then all ready a Thousand Springs. If this is lower and less
substantial, then what was proposed up above here I think that would not be acceptable
either. I think that that birm should not be less then what is there, but at least as great
as. I would encourage the board to postpone this and take a look at those transitional
lots for those of us to the south and to those Thousand Springs folks who aren’t there
yet.
Borup: Okay Commissioner's our time is up. At least the arbitrary time we set. Does
anyone feel there is something we could adequately handle tonight. There may even
be others who want to testify.
Hatcher: I’d like to let the testimony to continue. We stuck it out all night, we can stick it
out a little longer.
END OF SIDE 7**
Irwin: Vern Irwin. 1803 Primrose Drive, Nampa, Idaho. I own the corner property. The
one that is exactly on the corner of Eagle & Victory. I use to own the whole thing at one
time. I farmed the property that is in question here for about 20 years. I do know a little
bit about this property. Unless the water table is changed out there, if he digs a 2 foot
hole he will have water standing in it year around, because the water table is really high
there. There use to be a trailer house there on the front part and in the summer time
the septic tank floated all the time because the water table is so high. I concur with the
other gentlemen’s opinion of the lot sizes. I was in the real estate business and
development for 20 years and every time we seen a subdivision or development go in
like with high density, it ended up being a getto. It won’t be complimentary. Once the
developer has moved off, you might ask the question who is going to police this thing to
keep the houses in good condition because most of the time, once the developer is
gone, the condition of these type of properties go down. They don’t go up. It ends up
being something less desirable then what you would want with what is being built in the
Thousand Springs and the other development there because of the high density and
the small lots. That is my concern that it will end up being a poor compliment of what is
all ready out there in just 2 or 3 years down the road. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Next.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
84
Marquart: I’m Barbara Marquart at 3100 E. Victory Road. I won’t take time except that I
appreciate your consideration on the big term of transition. From our lots as you have
been noted on Victory and the Thousand Springs subdivision and the consideration that
was given to the property owners along Victory Road as term the transition. We simply
ask that the same consideration be given to this parcel and that it would continue with
the sizes that you have noted in Thousand Springs. Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else.
Allen: My name is Mary Allen. I live at 3040 E. Victory Road. My concern is the
transition and those houses abutting our properties, obstructing the view and lowering
the property values. We have a responsibility not only to the new subdivision that is
moving in with their investment and their trust that you will be looking after them as you
will be looking after us. We are not objecting to the growth but reasonable growth. If
we could have you consideration there and thank you for staying late and hearing us.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner's. Would the applicant like to come forward for final
comments.
Wood: A couple things. What I meant by the birm, yes I will carry on what Thousand
Springs Village has. Thousand Springs itself seems like the birm was way too high. I
don’t have any problem with carrying on what Thousand Springs Village has. To assure
the neighbors, for the record, I will make sure that we don’t disrupt their water. Just so
they know that.
Borup: To clarify that on the water. You stated that Nampa Meridian was going to be
putting in an auxiliary pipe to give them access to the water.
Wood: Keith, from Ken Hensley indicated he said what we are going to have to do
hopefully at the same time that I am tiling the ditch, that we can throw in a pipe to turn
around and take care of the delivery system for the neighbors there. Put the head gate
up there close to Eagle Road so they can measure their water.
Borup: That’s what I was wondering, you said you would guarantee it wouldn’t interrupt
but how—
Wood: All I can tell you there is I am going to make sure when I am going in there,
either I will put it in at the same time or I will wait till the irrigation district is ready to put
theirs in.
Brown: Could Gary speak of boundary of difference. (Mr. Brown not up to the
microphone).
Lee: The map represents the boundary as being the center of the ditch as was testified
earlier. We were going to identify 21 foot strip to that line for the irrigation easement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
85
Thousand Springs Village just to the west evidentially had dedicated that property to the
government. We are considering that option. I guess there is some different things we
need to look at to make that final decision whether it will be an easement or an actual
(inaudible) dedication. It is 21 feet on the preliminary plat.
Brown: Approximately how close (inaudible).
Lee: the houses out there along Victory Road set closer to Victory Road then they do to
the south boundary or the north boundary of the property. I did not measure those, but
looking at the aerial photography, probably the closes one is I guess 100 to 150 feet to
the boundary. Less the 21 feet, less the 15 foot rear yard setback so anywhere from
150 to 200 feet separation between buildings.
Brown: The elevation there also—are you higher
Lee: No. We are lower, set down below the bank of the ditch. I looked at the quad map
today and there is about a 10 foot difference give or take between the property on the
south and this parcel.
Borup: 10 foot difference which way?
Lee: We are lower 10 feet.
Borup: Your lower then the property to the south. Clarification again on this 21 feet.
You are saying that is entirely on your property.
Lee: It’s in our property now.
Borup: The whole 21 feet. One of the neighbors said their property line went to the
center of the ditch.
Lee: As ours does. We both go the same ditch. We are going to show 21 feet from the
center into the project.
Borup: Then you are re-piping it inside your 21.
Lee: Yes. Well, whatever line that the board is going to require. I assume it will be
inside the property. We will leave 21 foot of easement access on our side for the board.
Borup: So then where will that parallel ditch go for access to them? On their property.
Lee: Well I understand it will be a pie. It will probably go in the same (inaudible) the
main lateral I would guess. So it would fit within that 21 foot.
Borup: So the access would be off their property then. To this area you said you going
to deed to the irrigation company.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
86
Lee: Well, that is a possibility. That is what Thousand Springs Village—
Borup: That’s what I was wondering. Okay.
Brown: On your side street do you have the ability to transition from the detached
sidewalk to an attached.
Lee: Yes.
Brown: That is what you are going to do?
Lee: Yes. As well the width of the road too.
Brown: Would that come all the way down to your entrance road then.
Lee: The sidewalk?
Brown: Well the transition.
Lee: Oh the length of the transition.
Brown: Yeah. Is that transition immediate at your northerly boundary or is that –
Lee: We will do a taper in there of some sort, probably a 10 to 1, whatever the
landscape buffer is. I think it is about 3 feet. It could be 30 to 50 feet. I had a couple of
comments I wrote down as the neighbors were testifying. A question about parking of
RVs boats and that sort of thing. The CC&R’s have a section that prohibits those items
to be kept on the property. They have to be kept off the property in a storage facility.
Common area was brought up about that lot 27, lot 2. It is common driveway and not
included in the common percentage calculation of open space. That’s a specific
common use for lots 28 through 31. Storage sheds are not required on this particular
project. All the open space will be maintained by private entity under contract with the
homeowners association—mow laws, trim trees that sort of thing. The water table was
an interesting comment. We did have and we did submit geotechnical report with our
preliminary plat application. It did not indicate that water table that shallow. It was done
during the peak time of the season, that would be the first of October when we
measured it.
Borup: You say it was the first part of October. The report just says October. Oh,
10/19. Any others for Gary.
De Weerd: Gary, did you get comments from the Meridian Fire Department on your
driveway common lot 27 regarding comments from staff number 8 on page 5.
Lee: I believe we did. I was just looking at those tonight
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
87
De Weerd: They are okay with that?
Lee: Yes. We will work with the fire district and emergency personnel and that was
probably what their comment was.
Borup: Anything else from the Commissioner's? Thank you.
Brown: Brad, in your analysis I am sure you looked at the RT parcels to the south and
with the Comprehensive Plan, what is it calling out for those parcels. There are larger
parcels. What is the smallest one.
Hawkins: I believe in your packets they—I believe it was the Young’s that had it actually
attached a good analysis that showed the sizes of those lots. Actually listed it out.
43,000 there are just 3 of them starting from Eagle Road going west. The first three
look like just over an acre 43,560. And you’ve got 287,000 after that heading west. On
the Comprehensive Plan those are also designated mixed residential.
Brown: so with the mixed residential you would be looking at those parcels also
changing over time.
Hawkins: You know the city is currently updating the Comprehensive Plan and we as
staff are highly recommending that that classification be tossed in the circular file and
something better to come up with. It has been a problem that the fact that the 93 plan
has no definition and I don’t know, if was well before my time, how Thousand Springs
got through as an R-4 in there because that is also designated mixed residential. There
are only 3 areas in the entire Meridian impact area with the mixed residential
designation. 75 per cent or more of our land area in the impact area is single family
residential. When you start talking about low densities at that level, I think the mixed
residential –we don’t any high residential designations in the Comprehensive Plan. We
have single family, existing urban and mixed residential. Then the commercial and
industrial. I can only believe that the authors of the Comprehensive Plan intended the
mixed residential to be some kind of high residential densities. The testimonies are
right. There is no definition and it is simply a matter of interpretation, but in terms of
your question about what those lots could be in the future, I think the Comprehensive
Plan process over the next 5 to 6 months will hopefully talk about those areas.
Certainly when you look at Eagle Road as a state highway, maybe it is not down that far
as a designated state highway. You are talking about a major arterial that future growth
is only going to continue to be there and I think you are looking at—I don’t know what
ACHD has got in their long range plans but future mass transit who knows. It is
designated single family on the south side of Victory all the way down to the (inaudible)
impact area right now.
Brown: I see a difficulty in along Victory Road in saying those parcels long term are
going to stay there. Not that you guys won’t live there for a long, long period of time, but
we are changing. When you look at how urban growth goes and takes place, when you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
88
have an intersection like Victory and Eagle Road, those parcels do change, similar to
the hearings you just sat through with this other residential neighborhood at Locust
Grove and Fairview. I see the transition taking place but I also see that those parcels,
your parcels long term are going to change in its use. That will be over a long period of
time as the property becomes more valuable. I don’t live that far from you and I
remember the day that there was a barn and a big peacock that use to be at Eagle
Road and Franklin and every time you came up the hill, there is that peacock. As a kid
driving up the hill there was always a peacock at that intersection. Well, those things
change and I see those parcels changing and I don’t know that necessarily from my
standpoint that this isn’t a good use. I don’t know that I am ready to make a decision
tonight on that but I just want to make you aware at the way I look at it, that Victory
Road is going to redevelop and eventually your going to have people offer you money
for your parcels to do, if not this kind of residential development, maybe some kind of
office use or some kind of retail use. The intersection at Eagle Road and Victory is
going to be a prime intersection. I am not saying it needs to happen right away, and I
am not saying that you guys don’t need a quality of life for living there, but I am just
telling you how I feel. As I look at growth throughout the valley and I am a long time
Idaho, I went to Meridian High School, that those things happen and the transitions take
place.
Borup: Any other Commissioner's. We need to decide how we would like to proceed
this evening. We are still on Item number 12.
Hatcher: I just want to make a quick statement. (Inaudible) numbers real quickly a little
bit ago and as far as density for land use is currently, the land on the southern lots are
roughly 2 acre lots with a single house giving a density of a .5. The Thousand Springs,
which is currently going in, is roughly around a 2 to a 2.2 in density. The proposed
project before us right now is 5.6. We are looking at all most three times that of
Thousand Springs and a astronomical amount compared to the southern lots. I concur
with Commissioner Brown in his future projections but I doubt very much that is 10
years from now but who is to say it is 20 or 50 years from now. I think that the present
owners for the lots deserve adequate transition as the adjacent lots currently have and
that this, I am not opposed to the project, but I think that this location might no be the
most adequate site.
De Weerd: I will throw my comments in to this then. I like PUD’s and I like mixed
densities, but I do believe in transitioning and the highest density in this subdivision is
abutting the largest parcels. I know several instances where we have taken a look at
the neighbors and tried to work our transitions in as far as the lot size transitioning into
a higher density. It is actually going the opposite direction, so on a PUD I believe that
the 10 percent needs to be usuable open space, usable in my definition is something
that I can play on or my kids can play on. I don’t play on birmed landscaped areas. I
think it needs to be usable open space. I like mixed densities but this may not be the
spot. There is not enough room to transition like that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
89
Borup: Anyone else? Then I ask the Commission do we want to try to do that tonight.
Are we looking to continue? We still have two others.
De Weerd: From the looks on peoples faces I think it should be continued until they are
awake.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the public hearing to our next regularly
scheduled meeting of January 11, 2000.
Brown: I’ll second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 TO 1
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher which way did you go?
Hatcher: I said aye. I could vote no or I could continue. I won’t be here for the January
11th meeting.
De Weerd: Me neither.
Borup: Are you prepared to vote on all three of them tonight? I guess it would depend
on how the first one went. It has been voted to continue. I am assuming we need to do
the same on 12 and 13. Do we need to open those.
12.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 8.25 ACRES
FROM RT TO R-8 ZONING FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY
DAN WOOD, D.W., INC. –WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND
WEST VICTORY:
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for Item 12.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 TO 1
13.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
RESIDENTIAL PUD FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN WOOD,
D.W., INC.—WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND WEST VICTORY:
Barbeiro: I move we continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled
meeting January 11, 2000.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
90
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: 3 TO 1
Borup: Thank you, those three items have been continued to the January 11th
meeting.
I think we should try to get Item 14 out of the way. Just a sign.
14. DISCUSSION: SIGN APPLICATION DESIGN/REVIEW FOR OFFICE VALUE –
WEST OF EAGLE ROAD ON SOUTH SIDE OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
Borup: I believe when the building first went in they did not request a sign. They felt
building signage would be enough for them. Now they come back with a request for
sign. They are proposing pylon type sign, which did I summarize that close enough.
Any comments you want to make first Brad. Did any one respond to your request.
Hawkins: Tammy and Richard Hatcher did respond.
Borup: And that’s the way I’d lean. The only variance from that would be the sign of
the sign. I think they are looking at the other tenants. The request came from the other
tenant. Not Office Value as much as the other tenant in there.
Hatcher: I don’t think that the sign that they are proposing should be any bigger then
the Snake River Yamaha sign. Kind of in-between a monument sign and a pylon sign.
De Weerd: It’s obnoxious.
Hatcher: Yeah but it is better than a poll sign. That I don’t like at all.
Borup: That is why I brought up the question on the size. Snake River is larger than 72
square feet.
Hatcher: Yes, it’s not the ideal condition but it’s not that we can’t hold them to it
because of the conditions of the original –
De Weerd: Those are exposed poles.
Borup: I would like to see—(inaudible discussion)
De Weerd: You need the address on there though.
Hatcher: Well put it up underneath—
Borup: They can put it up. They can redo that. So anybody—that is Richard’s opinion.
Tammy? The sign is okay like it is, just down on the ground. That’s 3.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
91
De Weerd: I don’t know. I would kind of like to keep a little bit of the bottom, covered.
Borup: Well it will be—it is going to be on some kind of base.
De Weerd: Yeah. It could have a base. No more than 3 feet.
Borup: Is that enough direction from this—I think they are saying the signs okay. Get it
down on the ground on a small base. It’s big. Down on the square part. That’s 10.
Yeah, 120.
Hawkins: That’s good. We just put out a sign ordinance. Today was the last meeting
of the sign ordinance so you should be seeing a draft soon. We are basically looking at
lowering it and a little bit smaller.
Borup: What is the size of Yamaha’s?
Hawkins: I don’t know.
Borup: Can we say no bigger then theirs is?
Hawkins: Actually, the height would be all most exactly the same if you left it like—
Borup: That’s what it looks like. Before we go, as every one knows, this is Tammy’s, I
am assuming Tammy. This is your last meeting?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: You can’t sit in next month? So we are sorry to see you go but we are glad you
are there. Now when your sitting there in City Council you’ll be thinking of us. And
you’ll read the minutes.
De Weerd: You bet. And I will actually ask for dialogue so you might have to start
coming to our meetings.
Borup: I will come as requested. Commissioner's we do have the turkeys outside.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 14, 1999
92
Brown: I move we adjourn the meeting.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:31 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
_________________________________
CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP
ATTEST:
________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK