2000 02-22MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 22, 2000
Chairman Keith Borup called a special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher, Sally Norton.
OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, David Swartley, Will Berg.
Borup: We’d like to begin the meeting this evening. This is a special meeting of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission February 22nd
. All Commissioners’ are in
attendance with the exception of Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brown did have
a conflict on Item number 3 and 4, the Touchmark, so he would not be able to
participate on that.
1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR FOUR 2,880 SF OFFICE TRAILERS AND TEMPORARY
GRAVEL PARKING IN AN I-L BY MICRON TECHNOLOGY—3475 E.
COMMERCIAL COURT:
Borup: We do have a letter, we’d like to open the public hearing. I don’t believe we
have the applicant here but they have requested withdrawal of this application in their
letter dated February 17, 2000, simply stating they have alternate plans in place and do
not wish to proceed with this project. Any comments from the Commissioner's?
Anyone from the public wish to comment on this?
Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we just need acceptance of their withdrawal letter. We don’t need a motion
for that do we. Let’s have a motion on the acceptance of the withdrawal letter.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the motion to withdraw letter.
Barbeiro: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 2
2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITION USE PERMIT
FOR EXISTING CAR DEALERSHIP (2 BUILDINGS) ON FRONT 4 ACRES AND
PROPOSED 72,000 SF MINI STORAGE (FAIRVIEW MINI-STORAGE) ON
BACK 4 ACRES BY L.B. INDUSTRIES, INC—1005 EAST FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
Borup: I’d like to open this public hearing and first ask for a staff report.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's the vicinity map for the project is on the
screen above you. This site right here where the arrow is pointing is the Rountree Car
dealership, the Fairview Mini Storage would actually be on the rear portion of that same
lot. You have our comments dated January 7, 2000. The highlights that I would point
out is that this is their site plan. The long narrow structures that you see here are the
storage units. They do show a 20 foot landscape buffer adjacent to Danbury
Subdivision around here. But as you know, the for a conditional use permit the entire
site is part of the conditional use permit and needs to comply with the City Ordinances
at this time in order to get a building permit. The site is out of compliance with our
requirement for the one 3 inch caliper tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt and we have
noted that in comment number 5. We have asked for a revised site plan that reflects
that requirement. We have also asked in number 6 for a 20 foot landscaped setback
along Fairview Avenue that will not be used for vehicle display and will be landscaped
with the trees. Other issues included the parking requirement there. Their site plan
only showed 3 spaces adjacent to the manager’s house in this location right here. We
have no specific requirements in our zoning ordinance regulating parking at mini
storage lots. We felt that 3 would be inadequate based on our past experience with
other mini storage and have recommended at least 5 or 6 stalls. In conversations with
other mini storage lots they talked about frequently having groups show up to help one
person move and needing some parking for that. The applicant would be free to make
the case for the number of stalls that they thought that they needed. The only other one
that I would point out is number 13 and that is that the private street that they will be
using to access this which is Kuba Road in this location off of Fairview to get back to the
entrance in here was provided to give access to this parcel over on this side behind the
Ultra Touch Car Wash and we need some verification that there is a cross access
agreement that allows them to use this road to access their site. That is all I have.
Borup: Any questions Commissioner's?
Barbeiro: Steve, what is directly to the east of the property. There are 2 different
properties there.
Siddoway: There is, if you look at the first page of our staff comment, to the east is
some commercial parcels that are in the County. They have Wireless USA and a
podiatrist.
Borup: Anyone else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 3
Hatcher: Steve, the site plan showing that a main entrance to the existing car
dealership is in front of the sales building. Was this a proposed relocation that is in front
of us or is this something that has all ready occurred because the existing conditions
don’t reflect that.
Siddoway: They do have one access onto Fairview. I agree that it doesn’t really
appear to be in the exact location that they are showing. I believe that it is further to the
east. The applicant will have to state whether they are proposing to change it or just
doing that to show their existing access. I don’t know.
Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward.
Moody: My name is John Moody. I am Vice President of L.B. Industries. In answer to
that question, we would keep the same access for the dealership. The dealership won’t
change.
Borup: Mr. Moody would you state your address also.
Moody: 1401 Shoreline Drive, Boise Idaho. We don’t intend to chance the dealership
that much except for the landscaping in the front. We will keep the existing entries and
exits there. We will use Koba Road as the main entrance into the storage units.
Borup: Probably the short version of our questions would be if you had a chance to
read the staff comments and I believe 3 or 4 items was specifically mentioned. If you
had any response to those. If your short response is you comply with everything or—
Moody: I think we can comply with everything. We may have a problem with the 60
foot right of way in the front. That is an issue that we have to deal with basically
internally. It is not a problem as far as planning is concerned.
Borup: Which 60 feet.
Moody: ACHD’s requirement on the right of way. We need to deal with that but it has
nothing to do with the planning department.
Borup: Did they indicate that that is consistent with what they have done with other
properties on Fairview?
Moody: I think it is. I just need to deal with it. We don’t own the property. We land
lease the property. It is a tenant/landlord situation more than anything at this time.
Borup: The question I’d have would be on the access road. Is there an access
agreement or something been worked out with the neighbor on that.
Moody: Yes. I will provide that. I don’t have it now.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 4
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moody I had a questions regarding your storage units. How
many storage units are you considering.
Moody: I don’t remember how many storage units, but there is 73,000 square feet.
They all come in various sizes, 10x10, 10x20 and so on. I think somewhere on the
application it gives the number of storage units.
Norton: Your bigger storage units looks like it is going to be on the west side. Is that
correct?
Moody: The idea was to buffer the residential and they will be facing away from the
residential on the south and on the east so the lights are directed that way and they’ll
be, I hate to use this term but it is chicken shit type construction. All the drainage is
going into our project rather then onto the neighbors. When we had a neighborhood
meeting we talked about lighting and so on, so we are going to us the lighting that
doesn’t go over the roofs, more down under the eaves and so on.
Norton: I guess I have a main concern about how big are your biggest storage units.
Moody: 10x20.
Norton: 10x20 and how let’s say a truck wants to go in there to deliver stuff for the
storage, how big of a truck do you think could get into your storage area to deliver
furniture. Like the biggest U-Haul truck.
Moody: The roads are designed at 28 feet and on the north, I think is says 30, but it
would be difficult for a semi type moving van. All your other delivery trucks would not
have a problem.
Norton: Let’s say there was a semi that needed to pick up a unit, where would that
semi park for instance to get this unit.
Moody: I would have to think on the main entry there and I think it is a management
problem more than anything.
Norton: On the road or on the used car lot.
Moody: On the north entry where it is so wide there at the top, that’s where that would
work.
Barbeiro: Mr. Moody, will you be using a (inaudible) steel building or will you be using
masonry or a combination.
Moody: We haven’t decided on the framing yet. It will be metal siding though, so it
doesn’t matter if it is steel or wood framing. It is still going to be metal siding. I think I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 5
put in a color, more earth tones with forest green roofing and so on. But, it will be
metal.
Borup: Any other questions?
Norton: Did staff get the number of units. Did you find that.
Siddoway: I have not. I was just looking for that and did not find it.
Borup: It’s got the square footage.
Moody: That’s what the impact fees go by. That’s how we deal with it.
Siddoway: I just saw 72,000 square feet of storage units and 700 plus or minus for the
manager’s quarters.
Borup: I guess we’d have to count them. Any other questions for Mr. Moody?
Hatcher: Is there any particular reason for the question on units that I am not aware of
because the square footage is really adequate.
Norton: Just traffic, that’s all.
Moody: Traffic is very low for these units as a history. They do not create a lot of traffic.
Borup: Thank you sir. Do we have anyone who would like to come forward and testify
on this application. Seeing none, Commissioner's.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we close the public hearing for discussion.
Barbeiro: I’ll second the motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Now, do we have some discussion. I guess we are ready for a motion.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend to City Council conditional use
permit on Front Street –excuse me for a 72,000 square foot mini storage, Fairview Mini
Storage on the back 4 acres of L.B. Industries, Inc. at 1005 E. Fairview Avenue.
Recommendation to include all staff comments.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 6
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 157.876 ACRES FROM R3 TO LO BY TOUCHMARK LIVING
CENTERS/JOSEPH A. BILLIG – EAST OF EAGLE ROAD (ST. LUKE’S)
BETWEEN FRANKLIN ROAD AND I-84:
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, this evening are we going to be discussing the annexation and
zoning separately from the conditional use or are we going to attempt to do them
together as we have in the past.
Borup: We’ve done both in the past.
Hatcher: Recently we’ve kept them separate and things have flowed smoother.
Borup: I agree that on the most part. I’m—what would be your pleasure. The thing
that we’ve got that may be a little bit different here is that we are talking about an LO
zoning. If we feel comfortable, that would be appropriate for that then I’d think it would
make sense to address them both separately.
Hatcher: To address them separately?
Borup: If the Commission feels comfortable that is the appropriate zoning for there.
Any comments? Your preference to keep them separate.
Hatcher: Experience has been proving that it makes things smoother keeping them
separate. It’s your call.
Borup: Let’s proceed with that basis and see how it goes. Okay, staff report. Mr.
Siddoway.
Siddoway: Do you want comments just on the annexation and zoning or—
Borup: Yes, it looks like that’s the way we may be going here.
Siddoway: Okay. The definity map is on the screen. The large gray area that you see
in the center and all of this is land that is part of the Touchmark application. This blue
area right here is currently zoned LO and is the St. Luke's site. The Montview
Subdivision fits right here to the west of Touchmark development. Across the street on
Franklin, R.C. Willey is on this corner and on this side is Edgeview Subdivision. It is in
the County and is on the border of our urban service planning area and impact area.
Our comments for annexation and zoning that were in the November 4th
staff report, still
stand. We agree with the proposed LO zone. We requested certain landscape buffers.
Those buffers appear to be met in the revised site plan that has been submitted. That
is all I have at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 7
Borup: Any questions from the Commission for Steve at this point? Is the applicant
here this evening and like to come forward.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt. Briggs Engineering. 1800 W. Overland Boise. We will save
our full presentation for the CUP as with staff, so I’ll just basically address the
annexation and rezone on this property. If you recall, the members that were here
when we came through with the Comprehensive Plan change here a few months ago, I
noticed there is some new faces. Just to bring her up to speed, I think it was about 4-5
or 6 months ago we came through with a Comprehensive Plan change. We asked that
this property be designated mixed plan use development. A portion of this property was
all ready designated mixed plan use development and the remainder of it was
designated single family. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council did
approve that Comprehensive Plan change. Once that was accomplished, it allowed us
to submit this application for annexation and rezone. In my pre-application meetings
with staff, because we do have mixed uses on the property, it was determined that the
LO zone was probably the most appropriate zoning designation for this type of use. We
have a retirement community. It is on approximately 134 acres. We have a continuing
care retirement center here or what you may know as a nursing home. We have
retirement cottages attached and detached. We have medical office that would be
associated with this complex and the St. Luke's complex, a chapel, pocket parks and so
forth. Due to that mixture the LO under the conditional use allowed these particular
uses and we felt that that was a little bit better zone. It gave the City a little bit more
control. Everything in this mixed plan use development overlay requires a condition use
approval and we are here this evening to obtain conceptual approval of the entire
development and specific approval of the phase one which is right here in this mid
section on the collector roadway outward. All the subsequent phases which will be
between 6 and 7 phases over approximately a 7 to 10 year period. We will have to
come back before this body with detailed drawings and elevations and obtain your
approval. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Thank you. This is a public hearing for annexation and zoning. Do we have
anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application.
McCreedy: John McCreedy, attorney. The address is 1275 Shoreline Lane in Boise,
representing the majority but not all of the Montview Subdivision residents. As I read,
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's, as I read the Meridian City Code, the findings that have
to be made to support the zoning amendment are similar to the findings that have to be
made to support a conditional use permit. Our comments relate basically to the
proposed access and the public and private street plan that Touchmark has put forward.
I submitted a letter this afternoon. Hope you got a chance to get copies of that. I do
have extra copies of that letter along with three other documents. I can certainly save
our detailed comments for the conditional use permit, which seems to be the way things
are going, but I would want the comments that the group of Montview Subdivision
residents submit tonight to be considered as part of both of the decision making
process. So, if that is acceptable I will only do it once. If it is not, then I want to load the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 8
public hearing with all my comments and documents, but I would be happy to do that
during the conditional use permit process.
Borup: Okay, I think that is the process I’d like to take. We did receive your letter this
afternoon. I think everyone has—
Hatcher: I got the letter but did not get a chance to read it.
Borup: No, we got it just right before the meeting so I don’t think anyone here has had
a chance to read it. It was in your box Mr. Barbeiro.
McCreedy: I have extra copies and I can run through the points that we made in the
letter during testimony on the conditional use permit.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to comment on the annexation. Seeing
none, Commissioner's any other questions.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we close the public hearing.
Norton: I second.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council.
Borup: Oh, I’m sorry. Did I ask for a vote on closing the public hearing? All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for the annexation
and zoning of 157.876 acres from R3 to LO by Touchmark Living Centers east of Eagle
Road between Franklin Road and I-84 to include all staff comments related to
annexation and zoning.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
4. 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 –EAST OF EAGLE ROAD (ST. LUKE’S)
BETWEEN FRANKLIN ROAD AND I-84:
Borup: Steve and Bruce, staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 9
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission the revised plans were
delivered to the City approximately a week or week and a half ago. Upon cursor review
of those, staff was I guess maybe a little confused as you might be. We didn’t think we
had a complete packet because we were still looking for a plat. With some discussions
we had today with the applicant’s engineering firm, we got some of those questions
cleared up. There will not be a plat. This is all going to be under one single ownership.
Everyone of the cottage homes, everyone of the townhouses all under one single
ownership. Therefore, since we didn’t have or it was staff’s impression that this
application that was or packet that was resubmitted was incomplete, we did not do
detailed review and comments. Larry is here to night from Ada County Highway
District. He can give you a condensed version of the staff report that they have
prepared. I guess from our prospective we would propose that the applicant do their
presentation. We go ahead and hear what the public has to say, but continue this so
that it would afford us time and you time to dig in and look closely at it. On the surface
this project is—I think they have done a plan. It looks really nice. What they propose
doing tonight is getting approval for their general concept for the whole project and then
conditional use approval of phase one. Those are shown on your plans that you should
have in your packets. That is all.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Freckleton?
Norton: I have a question. What is or what do you mean by one ownership?
Freckleton: The applicant would own the entire project. They would not have individual
lots under individual ownership. Each of the houses would be owned by the
management and they would be leased. It is a very new concept. For this whole valley
I don’t know of another project in this valley that is like it.
Borup: You said there were some things you still had –anything specific that you felt
that you still wanted to dig in deeper.
Freckleton: There was a few items that Becky and I discussed today dealing with
routing of utilities, this sort of thing. I have expressed to her what we would like to see.
Borup: Some standard design details.
Freckleton: Exactly. I think Steve did have some things flagged on his earlier staff
report that he wanted to talk about.
Borup: Then are your staff comments from November still pertinent? Are we looking
for a new set of staff comments then or some of the stuff kind of answered itself like you
know at that time waiting for the ACHD report, which we now have.
Siddoway: I would say that our staff report stands for the overall general concept, but
we still need to do comments on the details of phase one which now have more
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 10
detailed information regarding the parking for the care center, the landscaping and
things like that were only conceptual when we prepared these comments. The things
that I have flagged, they have submitted details for their entry signage on the wall, but
haven’t yet seen any signage for the continuing care retirement community. I am
assuming that they will need signage of their own. The storage areas. This could be
dealt with tonight. They are showing a storage for RV’s and boats as we had
requested. It is obvious that it is not at one per 2 dwelling units, the way our ordinance
reads, but they can appeal justification for that being reduced. They may have be able
to talk to that but I haven’t seen anything in writing. One of the larger issues that I know
Shari has—Shari Stiles—with the project is the illegal split of the property that
happened prior to this application and our comment in number 26 has asked the
applicant to combine these parcels into one in the county before it is annexed. That I
haven’t heard any discussion of that, but I do know that that is still an issue. The City
has no ability to combine lots and with the land swoop that is going on with St. Luke's,
this issue with the lot splits needs to be resolved. Number 22 on our comments
requests a phasing plan. Bruce and I found out this morning that they are actually
planning to do 6 phases. The first phase of which they are asking approval of tonight
and they are willing to go through separate CUP applications for the future phases, we
would support that but we haven’t yet seen that phasing plan.
Borup: Are you saying you want to phasing plan in advance as far as which phases
would be.
Siddoway: Yeah. Just like we do on the plats.
Borup: Okay is there any flexibility there depending on market conditions or if it
changes the combined phases, is that what your saying. If they want to do a couple at
the same time. I guess that don’t make any difference anyway, does it. Okay, go
ahead and continue.
Siddoway: Those were the bigger issues I had. Over all I want to make it clear that we
like the project, the concept of the project. From a planning perspective, it seems very
innovative. We do like the ideas of the smaller lots with the additional open space. The
alley loaded lots. Things like this that they are proposing, but I feel like we need to do a
more detailed review of the phase one specifically and prepare our comments on that
because right now our comments are general to the concept of the entire development.
Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. I might just mention here
our, I guess our basic policy is 15 minutes we allow for the applicant and as mentioned
on our sign, 3 minutes for other testimony. I think one of the information sheets back
there mentioned if we have representatives speaking for a group of people there is
leeway for additional time there of course.
Bowcutt: Beck Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland in Boise. I am
representing the applicant. This is a colored rendering of what the project would look
like. Touchmark has built this type of facility in other states. It has been very
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 11
successful. As you well know, with the population in this country aging and that
percentage increasing of those who are now of retirement age, these are becoming
very, very popular. As you can see, they would have perimeter fencing. What they plan
is white vinyl with brick pillars evenly spaced and that would be their exterior fencing
along Franklin Road next to Montview and next to Edgeview. Along Interstate 84 they
would provide berming and a fence in combination. All of these buildings as you can
see have a mixture of brick and vinyl siding and it looks like a real nice community
where everything meshes in and all of the architectural styles are very similar. Going
back to the site plan, this is the project here, here is Franklin Road. We have two
approaches to Franklin. This particular roadway will be public. It will come down here.
The public roadway will extend over and stub in to the Montview Development providing
them public street access. It will go through this rotary and the public street will end at
this rotary located here. At this point, this would be a gate. We talked with staff. We
have not met with the fire department but my clients are willing to work with emergency
services to come up with some type of a gated concept that is acceptable to them.
They feel it is important that this be a gated community. It gives the residents a sense
of security and a sense of community. We have a public street coming off here. It
comes through this rotary and then terminate to the east and then everything else
would be private. There will be internal sidewalks. They are off set sidewalks so you’d
have back a curb then landscaping and then you sidewalk. As I stated before, the main
facility is here and this is the first phase of the this project is this core of what they call
their continuing care facility here. We’d be building all this collector roadway. This
intersection would be signalized. This second intersection would also be signalized at
Franklin Road. We’ll come through and build a portion of this loop here and then build
the properties the cottages right here adjoining Interstate 84. As I stated, we have
berming and the landscaping and fencing combination. We have a central park area
located here. It is just a little bit shy of 6 acres. They have a little, what they call a 6
hole pitch putt golf course and then over in this area there would be areas for croquet or
other type of lawn games. We have pocket parks throughout the facility located in
different areas for their enjoyment. All of the cottages are very similar in style, very
elegant and some of them are detached single family and some of them are attached
meaning we have say some duplexes and triplexes. These are single level all along
here, Edgeview and right through this area. The main facility is 3 story and if you get
back into this area, these are more like apartment buildings, two story, but would be
isolated right here along Franklin Road. We propose medical office to be right through
here. The medical office would support different doctors and uses at St. Luke's plus
support the community that we are trying to create here. They try to provide different
activities on site or services such as beauty shop, banks, they have a fitness center.
They provide different types of care depending on the needs of their residents. They
provide van services to things like the mall. Compared to your standard single family
development, this generates less traffic then we see with the standard. We will be
making a connection to St. Luke's. There is a future spine road here. This would also
be gated and the two projects would share traffic and that traffic would be able to
interact so these residents would have codes to go through and go out to the signal at
Eagle Road and then come back through and vice versa. That traffic would go back
and forth to try to eliminate or alleviate some of that traffic that’s at the intersection of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 12
Franklin and Eagle Road. There was statement about the parcels. This property is
make up of multiple parcels. The parcels are legal parcels of record. They are just
putting together multiple parcels. St. Luke's is also going to swap them and purchase a
portion of their property. This can be done through a lot line adjustment under Ada
County. That would be done prior to annexation. We do a lot line adjustment and then
a one time division of the Thomas Tullis property right here because they are retaining
portions of the property further east that lies within the Boise area of impact. What
parcels we do create here will end of being legal parcels of record prior to annexation to
the City. I’d like to show you some larger elevations. I think you probably got some
reductions in your packet. This is an artists rendering of what the –this is the park area
showing some water (inaudible). Here you see some architectural styles of office.
What the type of environment they are trying to create is pedestrian friendly with the off
set sidewalks, some limited parking along the roadways. That creates a narrower
roadway which therefore slows traffic down. This is the first phase right here. We’ll be
building the westerly approach coming in here with the collector roadway and then this
is the first phase. As you can see, this is the core of the building. The building would
have subsequent wings coming out here. The core is approximately 180,000 square
feet. It will have around 106 living units. The total square footage of the care center is
approximately 450,000 square feet. You can see the breakdown of the different uses.
This is just a blow up showing you the off set sidewalks, landscaping creating a tree
canopy as you would drive into the project along the roadway and then showing the
rotary which is landscaped in the middle. This is a blowup where we have broken down
the number of units, parking spaces based on the ordinance and it just allowed staff to
go through and do a more detailed review. These are street sections as you can see. It
showed you the landscaping. This is one of the round abouts. The landscaping in the
middle, the cars and then the offsets for the pedestrians here and here. This is the sign
which looks like a brick stucco combination and that would be on the exterior of the
project. That’s an elevation of the main building. That is brick and vinyl siding
combination with architectural shingles for the roof. This gives you an idea of the
cottages. As you can see they are real quaint. They have varying front elevations so
they are not all exactly the same. The elevations are going to change depending on
whether they are detached single families or some of these attached single family
dwellings. I think I will turn the podium over to Bernie. He is the expert on this type of
community and I think he can probably answer your questions.
Neil: Chairman and members of the Commission, my name is Bernie Neil. I represent
Touchmark Living Centers. Touchmark of the Treasure Valley is a multi use continuing
care retirement community. Let me describe the 3 general uses we will be developing
in approximately 6 phases over the next 7 to 10 years. The first is an office and medical
office park that will serve the public. It will be developed and brought to the City
conditional use approval process at a later time. The second use is for multi family
rental apartments. It will primarily serve active seniors and younger empty nesters of
which my age group would be typical and possibly have a neighborhood that would
house younger families as a housing alternative to the employees in the surrounding
medical and retirement facilities. We would anticipate some units would be available to
families of St. Luke's and Touchmark patients for convenient short term stays. This
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 13
portion of the project will also be developed and brought to the City conditional use
approval process at a later time. The third and last use of the Touchmark of the
Treasure Valley is for a multi level service retirement
END OF SIDE ONE
Neil: This continuing care retirement community will provide services to the 55+ age
group with independent cottage homes, congregate apartment homes, assisted living
homes, skilled and Alzheimer’s care and a health and fitness club. These housing and
care choices are designed to allow seniors gracefully age in place while maintaining
both independent choices and a health and social safety net that becomes more and
more important to all of us as we grow older. Part of serving the senior community is
having often and universally used facilities readily available. These facilities within the
Touchmark Building include a beauty and barber shop, a convenience grocery, a library,
activity and meeting rooms, a theatre, a chapel and a health and fitness area where low
impact water aerobics and low impact low noise fitness machines and fitness trainers
share a physical fitness in the quantities and speed that is tuned to the seniors lifestyle.
Preventive nutrition and health maintenance is also available from the full time and
visiting professionals. Another part of serving seniors is in providing housekeeping
services, meals in a central dining area, a group transportation program as well as
abundant opportunities for friendship and socialization, through group outings to the
theatre, to musical and sporting events and within the facility there are areas and
opportunities for musical presentations, dancing playing card games and puzzling and
on the grounds and parks there are facilities for barbecues, picnics, horseshoes, lawn
games and a 6 hole pitch and putt within the 5.8 acres central park. In the later stages
of care, we focus particularly on the unique and sometimes difficult needs of
Alzheimer’s disease and we provide a licensed medical professionals necessary for
skilled and long term nursing care. All of these services are part of the main building
and the immediately surrounding several acres that are built in this first phase. The
final part of this continuum of care that we will highlight tonight is the independent
cottage homes. These single family and duplex attached homes are designed for the
entry level senior and provide independence in the style of living as well as help with
home and yard maintenance, weekly housekeeping and a choice for easy access to the
other services and facilities of the whole complex. These seniors are generally a little
younger and specifically more active physically and in their attitudes. We will begin with
approximately 50 cottage in this present conditional use application and as the market
demands we will add several more phases that will come before you for later approval.
This gated and fully maintained community provides another level of security and
service that is important to the comfortable life style of seniors. We have worked with
our neighbor St. Luke's Hospital and with the Ada County Highway District to arrive at
the present site plan and have agreed upon our collective conditions and issues. We
have met with the Montview neighborhood at John McCreedy’s office as well as with
various neighbors in a public neighborhood meeting and have provided public access to
Montview at our expense. In our 27 years of owning and operating housing and
providing care for seniors, we bring together the best of our experience in this ambitious
project to provide a warm and comfortable home for the seniors of the Treasure Valley.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 14
I hope you will join us in this effort tonight and I stand for questions with Becky, Joe
Billig our architect and with our counsel Steve Bradbury. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Neil.
Barbeiro: Mr. Neil in the projects completion, how many employees do you anticipate
the project will have and how many residents will the project have.
Neil: The first question about employees, I’ll answer it in two levels. In the first phase
that would encompass—all this technology running here—we would have in this first
phase which is about the 106 living units that Becky mentioned and the senior health
and fitness center, we would have about 80 employees. As we then would complete
that building to be the 45,000 square feet of continuos building. We would be
exceeding 200 employees. In terms of the number of residents, in the retirement potion
of the project, we would have in the range of 700 living units. A portion of those would
be attractive to couples and our experience has been about 50 percent couples would
reside in cottages. About 40 percent single ladies and about 10 percent single men.
As we move through the continuum then into the congregate care of the apartments, we
(inaudible) 80 percent single ladies and 10 percent couples and about 10 percent single
men. Once we get past the cottages we are not adding many more residents than the
number of units. As we move to assisted living it is virtually all single people which is
also true then at the skilled nursing level and at the Alzheimer’s level where one unit
represents one resident. If we have 700 living units, that could take us to about 1000 to
1100 residents.
Barbeiro: And that is in total throughout the entire 6 phases.
Neil: That would not include of course the office park portion nor the apartment style
rental units that will be along Franklin that we would be bringing forward later to you.
Barbeiro: In the number of employees I assume that the employees that you have
discussed were professional employees—nursing, health care professionals. Your also
going to have housekeeping, landscape maintenance, etc. I want to get an idea of how
many people we can expect coming in and out of there.
Neil: The numbers I gave to you would be all of those people. Those would be full time
equivalents and we also, in looking at traffic patterns, you would want to notice that our
staffing during the day, our staff changes happen at 7 in the morning, 3 in the afternoon.
Our heaviest staffing is in that 7 to 3 time. 55 percent of those staffing numbers I gave
you would be onsite at that time. That would cover then also that morning peak traffic
time. In the afternoon then, or evening then we drop back to about a 35 percent level
that would cover the afternoon peak traffic time. Then there is a much smaller staff that
would be on through the night. My point is that about 55 percent of the staff is on the
site at the highest concentration of staff. We operate 24 hours a day and 7 days a
week. Our staffing patterns are away from the 8 to 5 schedule.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 15
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Neil. I would like to have Mr. Larry Sale
come forward from ACHD and maybe –do you want to do a report or open for
questions. Bring us up to date on where ACHD is. We do have your report. Read it.
All 15 pages.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, for the record I am Larry Sale, Supervisor of Planning and
Development Services for Ada County Highway District, 318 E. 37th
Street, Garden City.
For the pleasure of the Commission, the information the Commission the highway
district Commissioner's did act on the conditional use permit before you on January 5th
,
2000 and passed that on to you with 10 recommended conditions of approval. More
important of those to you, if you have that report on page 14, site specific number 3. It is
very important to the transportation system and to the highway district that there be a
full time connection between this site and St. Luke's Hospital. If that connection is not
made in a satisfactory manner, then we will impose fees to offset the costs or some of
the costs of reconstructing the Franklin Road, Eagle Road Intersection. That
connection is very important to us. I have to apologize. I probably was not paying as
close attention when Miss Bowcutt was up here as I may have but I heard her say
something about one of the connections to St. Luke's being gated. Mr. Siddoway could
you put—thank you. Let me read on but keep that one on the screen please.
Commission also recommends that the primary streets within the development be
constructed and dedicated as public streets. The locations and extent of those public
street was to be coordinated with district staff. In meeting with the developer and St.
Luke's, this will be a public road to the extent of this turn-around between Franklin Road
and the entrance to their major park. This will be a public road from this turn around to
connect with Montview Subdivision’s east boundary. We are not particularly concerned
over the location of that connection to Montview. It has tentatively been shown at a
location between two lots in Montview. We did make a requirement that that be located
a minimum 400 feet south of Franklin Road for its connection with the main road. In
future phases, this will be a public road from Franklin Road into this turn around and
then extending over to this out parcel over here that will be developed for some
commercial or office type uses. There will be 2 public street connections to Franklin
Road located at appropriate locations for traffic signals. Finally, to assure all this as you
are tonight, our commission was working with the conceptual plan for the project and
the Commissioner's were somewhat concerned that it was somewhat or that
enforcement of our conditions might be a little bit loose. Condition number 10 was
added which specifies that the developer enter into a development agreement with the
district that specified where the public streets are going to be, location and extent of
those. The location and configuration of a public street connection to Montview
Subdivision and the specific location configuration in terms of a vehicular connection
between this site and St. Luke's. That was the point I made earlier. This southern
connection between this development and St. Luke's campus is one which the highway
district has concurred in. It is our understand and our recommendation or request to
the City that that not be allowed to be a gated street. That that be –can be a private
street, but that it should not be should be available for use at all times. The Ada County
Highway District staff and the developer have reached agreement and principal of the
issues that are important to the highway district. A written documentation of that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 16
agreement is in preparation but not yet available. That agreement will be taken back to
the highway district commission for review and acceptance when it has been agreed
upon by highway district staff and the developers representative. Does this
Commission have any questions of me?
Barbeiro: Mr. Sale could you elaborate as to why they would prefer that the entrance
into the private lot of St. Luke's hospital not be gated.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro if it is gated, it takes away its value as a
detraction from the Franklin Eagle Road intersection. If that connection is gated, then
all this traffic has to go back out to Franklin Road and go through the Franklin Road
interchange to get back to the interstate or to get to Eagle Road. That is why it is our
strong request that that single connection not be gated. There are other connections
that will be gated and will be card operable I understand. We strongly urge that that
southern connection between the two sites not be gated.
Barbeiro: I am surprised that you are recommending the two stop lights there on
Franklin. They seem awfully close together and then backing up into the Franklin Eagle
Road intersection and since Franklin Road is currently two lanes, while I expect Franklin
will be four lanes in the 7 to 10 years this would fall out. I am not certain when Franklin
Road is intended to go to four lanes in that area.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro the signals will be located at one third mile
intervals which is the appropriate and desired location for traffic signals on an arterial of
the speed at which Franklin Road is or will be posted. They are appropriately located.
Please take my word for that. With regard to the timing of construction, we will know in
a few weeks, 3 or 4 weeks, the Commissioner's will adopt an update of our 5 year work
program. While I am not sure how things are going to fall out right now with regard to
funding, staff is recommending that this section of Franklin Road be moved up in the
program and would be my or I would give you my full assurance that it will be widened
to 4 lanes with left turn lanes at intersections within the time frame that this project will
be built at.
Borup: Any other questions? Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: Two questions. First one is where do you currently stand with the developer
on your development agreement.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher we have reached, I don’t know what the
attorney’s would call what we’ve reached. We have met and reached accord among
between the staff and the developers representatives. That has to be memorialized on
paper—all of the proper language put together and then taken back to the Commission
for adoption, but we have agreed in principle with this plan, the location of the streets,
the configuration of the streets, the connection to St. Luke's, the connections to Franklin
Road and all the other or all of the 10 conditions that we included in the Commission
action.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 17
Hatcher: I see. The second question. We are talking about this road being public up to
this point here. The applicant talked about having a gate here, but you are requesting
that this road be open to the public and that the proposed gate at this location not be
put in there. For that to be a thoroughfare for the public, you’d have to remove both
those gates and open this up as a public street. Now, where I am heading with this. I
am looking at an earlier layout which obviously is not before us, but I think ACHD has
seen this one where they have the public road coming through St. Luke's and
connecting up basically from this point here, the public road coming up –this has been
reconfigured a bit but the potential of this development here, the public road connection
through here not interfering with the secluded community here was something along
that means be acceptable to ACHD?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher the previous route would have been great
for a cut through and at one time we supported such a route until it was pointed out to
us that if it served the public more than it served the development that the highway
district would probably pay for it. Our goal is that this development take care of itself
and it can do that by a connection out to the southern part of St. Luke's property and
then travelling through St. Luke's property up to their driveway. This road here will not
be gated. This road will connect this turn around and this connection to St. Luke's so
that this will be a way that the traffic from the project itself can get to either Eagle Road
or Franklin Road conversely, traffic from St. Luke's can use this route to get to Franklin
Road, all of which will combine to lesson the impact on our little, fragile Franklin Road,
Eagle Road intersection that is right now our primary concern.
Hatcher: It was mentioned earlier that if there wasn’t an open public road that ACHD
would be imposing impact fees for the improvement of that intersection. Could you
elaborate on that. If this all remains as private roads, please elaborate on the impact
fee versus private versus public road.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher we have to be careful with our –my use of
the term public road. A public road in my context would mean on owned by the
highway district and the public and open to use by the public. Context here is a road
that is going to be privately owned but it’s use will not be restricted. If I choose, I could
drive from my home in Boise, off Franklin Road and take a turn and drive around
through the project—which I will probably do when it is complete, and exit through St.
Luke's. The alignment of that route is such that I am not going to save any time in my
trip between Franklin Road and Eagle Road and vice versa. Henceforth, I would not
use it as a cut through if that were a part of my daily commute. I would go ahead and
fight the Q at the intersection and make my way through the public road system as best
I could. With regard to the impact, the extraordinary impact fee or just an exaction, if
this road is not constructed in a manner that there can be unregulated traffic between
the complex and Eagle Road, then as future phases come back to you and presumable
to the highway district, we would require a contribution toward the reconstruction of the
intersection.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 18
Hatcher: Normal impact fees or additional?
Sale: We can do it in one of two ways. We can impose an extraordinary impact fee on
the project or we could exact a requirement to do a specific improvement to the
intersection.
Borup: Commissioner Sale, at this time though sounds like your saying it does have
access to St. Luke's. That the gate would be on this side of the turnaround. This would
be an open road?
Sale: Mr. Chairman that’s the agreement we have reached.
Borup: So at this point, at least the conceptual agreement is that you do have adequate
access.
Sale: That’s correct.
Borup: Thank you. Was there any projected time frame on the development
agreement? Is that something that you feel would or should necessitate the need to be
completed before approval of this project before recommendation of this body anyway?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, we had all good intentions of having a completed and having been
to our Commissioner's by tonight. A funny thing happened on our way to the meeting.
The legislature came to town and while it is not a matter that would concern the City,
there are 5 bills introduced in the legislature which if passed would make it all most
impossible for the highway district to buy right of way for improved roads. So, our legal
staff has had its attention diverted to conversing with the legislators and therefore I
stand before you tonight naked of a development agreement. I would have loved to
have come here and waived it and said it’s signed.
Borup: But you are comfortable with the progress to this point.
Sale: Mr. Chairman I am comfortable with the degree of the cooperation we’ve had
from the developer and their expression of agreement with conditions of the highway
district. Does this conditional use permit go to the City Council?
Borup: Yes.
Sale: What time period would that take?
Borup: Next month. It’s got to pass here first and then it would be the following month.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, perhaps as a –we could satisfy both your concern and my concern
and the concerns of the developer in regards to timing, if you would incorporate our 10
conditions of approval in your action that then says that they will enter into an
agreement with the district and so they could not implement or perfect the conditional
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 19
use permit without that agreement having been entered into. I would hope that within a
month we would have the agreement and have it signed by both the developer and the
district commissioner.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Sale? Okay, we’d like to start public
testimony. Mr. Creedy do you want to come up here first.
McCreedy: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, however you want to
handle it. I am happy to go now. John McCreedy, representing most but not all of
Montview Subdivision residents. My address is 1275 Shoreline in Boise. I guess I was
a little confused---
Borup: Hey John before you start could you clarify the representation and also are you
going to be speaking in lieu of their testimony.
McCreedy: I believe a couple of the residents are going to want to make specific
comments on items, brief comments that I am not going to comment on, including the
value of their real property and some recent appraisal work that has been done by Ada
County. I will ask them to come following me and keep their comments brief. As far as
the representation in the preceding that was before this on the St. Luke's matter, I
submitted a map as a part of that showing the specific people that I did represent. I
don’t have that map with me tonight.
Borup: How about just a show of hands.
McCreedy: That’s fine. As far as the people that are here from Montview. I did sent
over by fax today a letter I wanted to hand to you, 4 documents.
Borup: Is this different then from what we have all ready received.
McCreedy: The letter on top is the same document. The 3 documents that follow I will
discuss here briefly. I did make an extra copy for the Clerk and there are 4 other
copies. I had understood previously tonight that the public hearing would remain open
on the zoning and annexation request until all of the comments were in and also the
conditional use permit. That might have been my understanding. In any event, the
testimony that I am going to provide and that my clients are going to provide does
relate both to the zoning and annexation and the conditional use permit. I recognize
that you have all ready voted to approve the annexation and zoning application, our
request would be that you reconsider that vote in light of the testimony that we are
about to provide. We have basically two requests. The first is that you defer the
zoning, annexation and conditional use permit application until ACHD has taken final
action. The second is that if you decide not to defer it, that it be denied until certain
conditions are met. Regarding the request for deferral, I understand what Mr. Sale has
said, having been to everyone of the ACHD commission meetings that have been
considered on the application. I have a little bit of a different take then he does. At the
last commission hearing on January 5, 2000, the applicant presented, for the first time,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 20
a plan regarding the configuration of public and private streets. That plan did not
consist of the plan that you have in front tonight. That plan consisted of a verbal
explanation of certain proposals regarding what might be public and what might be
private. We were very concerned about that. Primarily from the access issue. So the
commission voted that those issued be resolved and I wanted to point out for you page
13 of the ACHD commission Findings and Conclusions. Item 7 where the applicant is
required to bring the development agreement that identifies the various public and
private street connections back to the commission for review and approval. So as we
stand here today, the ACHD commission, not the ACHD staff, but the body that makes
the decision, has not seen a specific site plan that shows the various gates, the public
street, the private streets and the connections. We think until that commission does see
that plan and makes a decision on it, it is premature for this body to consider the
application. Assuming that you do consider the application tonight prior to the time that
ACHD acts on the issue of what should be public and what should be private, I wanted
to point out certain facts that are in the record in front of you which we believe a support
a denial of this application until additional public access issues are resolved. I want to
make reference to your Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the fourth document that I
provided to you tonight is a copy of a few selected pages from you plan simply so we
can emphasize that. Your transportation goals are set forth at page 54. I would submit
to you that current plan for public and private access streets with in this development as
explained tonight does not comply with these goals in your plan. First goal is to
monitor and coordinate the compatibility of land use and transportation system. This is
item 1.4U on page 54. Item 1.4U says encourage clustering of uses and controlled
access points along arterial, collector and section line roads. Your plans defines Eagle
Road as a arterial road. So the plan encourages controlled access points along Eagle
Road. As we explained many times in the past, the prior studies that have been done
on Eagle Road encouraged the connection of the Montview to Eagle Road at the St.
Luke's signalized intersection. Items 1.8U and 1.9U also bare some emphasis. They
state that this commission in reviewing development applications should reserve and
protect future transportation corridor rights of way through land use planning. Require
all new development to provide adequate easements for future pathways and
encourage non residential developments to provide adequate easements for future
pathways. Similarly, and I am sure you are all familiar with your own zoning ordinance,
but I wanted to emphasize section 2-418C of the Meridian City Code which is very
similar to your standards for approving a zoning amendment, and it requires that
proposed developments be adequately serves by essential facilities and services and
essentially that they not be undo impact as a result of traffic related issues. If you take
a look solely at the ACHD staff report without reference to any of the documents that we
have submitted to this body in the past, including the very large package of exhibits that
I asked you to include in your decision making tonight that we submitted on the St.
Luke's phase 3 application that was previously in front of you. There are several things
that are crystal clear. One, Eagle Road had traffic counts in August of 1999 of over
43,000 vehicles. In this staff report, ACHD staff is telling you that the high end level of
service for Eagle Road, level of service is 42, 000. The conclusion is, Eagle Road is all
ready beyond level of service F. Now last year you were advised, and this is application
MAZ99-008, I believe it was the McDonald’s Chevron application that you heard, that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 21
the acceptable level of service on Eagle Road was E and that was 37,000 vehicle trips
per day. Regardless of what figure you do accept from ACHD, Eagle Road is all ready
beyond capacity. ACHD advises you that in the staff report, the Eagle Franklin
intersection is over capacity. That Franklin Road is level of service E and as I
understand it, approaching F unless major changes are made. We submitted testimony
previously to you that the Montview and Eagle Road intersection operates at level of
service F and that is it quite unsafe. The conclusion that ACHD made was that in order
to accommodate the Touchmark Development, Touchmark and its customers and its
employees and the public that visits Touchmark, has to have access to the St. Luke's
signalized intersection. There has to be some interconnection. I ask you to just think
about the logic of this for a second. According to ACHD the primary streets have to be
public. It is critical that there be a connection between Touchmark and St. Luke's so
that Touchmark traffic can access the St. Luke's signalized intersection. Well, if that
critical connection is not one of the primary streets in the Subdivision, then what is.
That is the primary street and according to ACHD, the primary streets have to be public,
yet Mr. Sale is testifying to you tonight that it is okay for the street that connects the two
properties to be private. That just does not make sense. It also make absolutely no
sense under your own Comprehensive Plan for Touchmark and St. Luke's to be
connected so that the traffic from each development can have access to the signalized
intersections on Franklin and Eagle Road and that Touchmark provide access to the
Montview Subdivision which we think is in keeping with good planning, but that
Montview Subdivision not have access through St. Luke's for the signalized intersection
on Eagle Road. We have to connect two portions of the puzzle but we’re not going to
connect the third portion of the puzzle. We think that is contrary to the provisions of
your Comprehensive Plan that require proper transportation planning. The numbers
that are in the ACHD staff report are a little over 9,000 vehicle trips per day. I don’t
know if you’ve had the opportunity to look at the traffic reports that were prepared
regarding the Touchmark application. If you haven’t I would again request a deferral
and an opportunity to submit those traffic reports to you. I don’t know if they are in your
staffs file yet or not. The two traffic reports that are relevant as far as I know are the
traffic report I sited in my letter which was done by Six Mile Engineering and it is I think
from the September October time frame of last year. Well Six Mile Engineering
estimated that 40% of the traffic from the Touchmark development would use the
Franklin Eagle Intersection. That is 40% of 9,000 vehicle trips per day. ACHD has told
you that the Touchmark application can’t be approved unless there is a condition that
that traffic be diverted away from that intersection, the broken Eagle Franklin
intersection, and pass through the St. Luke’s site. So presumable there is going to be
approximately 3600 vehicle trips per day from the Touchmark development going
through the St. Luke’s site. And, as it stands right now, through the parking lot at St.
Luke's. If it is important for the 3600 vehicle trips that Touchmark develops to go
through the St. Luke's site, in order to avoid the broken intersection, well why in
heaven’s name is it not just as important for the Montview residents who currently have
very substandard access to Eagle Road, to have the same benefit. Also the same
benefit for future uses of the Montview Subdivision. That just doesn’t make any sense.
I did provide to you a copy of a letter that I sent to Touchmark’s counsel, Mr. Bradbury,
who I have had a long and good working relationship on a number of projects. I wanted
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 22
to give you this letter simply so you’d know that we have been working somewhat with
the Touchmark people. We haven’t reached agreement with them on everything, but
we do sincerely appreciate their offer to provide public access stubbed to the Montview
Subdivision to Franklin Road, a signalized intersection. That is part of the process
here. That is part of the battle. Now, our position is, and we thought we had this solved
the last time we appeared in front of this body, that that property also needs to be
served with an access to the signalized access on Eagle Road. The logic is this,
otherwise if all you are doing is stubbing a public road into the Montview Subdivision in
order to access Franklin, your doing exactly what ACHD doesn’t want you to do and
that is force the Montview traffic out through that intersection and through the broken
Eagle Franklin intersection, which is defeating the purpose. I would submit to you that
ACHD commission has not had an opportunity to look at all of the various gates and
card readers and the whole concept of mixing a number of private roads with the
number of public roads and separating those roads through gates. I think that is a fairly
novel concept for this Commission and for the ACHD Commission and it requires some
serious study. I would note that there is no traffic report that we are aware of had
ACHD or hear that studies that specific issue. The use of the gates. Whether they will
be sufficient emergency access, so on and so forth. (inaudible) a copy of a letter we
wrote to ACHD on November 17 of 1999 and on page 2 of that letter I summarized what
Mr. Sale testified to in front of this commission on September 16, 1999. I just wanted to
remind this commission what the substance of that testimony was and at that time, as I
understood it, the highway district as a body firmly believed that a public street should
be put through the St. Luke's site at one time or another. Our position to you is now is
the right time. It looks like a public street. It is going to act like a public street. It is
going to be open to the public. Mr. Sale himself will be able to use it as will every one
else. It has been described as a full time connection. It is supposed to allow traffic to
be diverted away from the Franklin Eagle intersection. It will not be restricted. It will not
be regulated. I could not think of a better definition of a public street myself with the
exception of the dedication of the public street. The money issues. The transportation
planning is there and the need for it is there and the need for it is there under your
Comprehensive Plan. We would encourage you to either defer or deny until this public
street connection through the St. Luke's site to the signalized intersection is firmly
identified and the condition is incorporated to that effect. I certainly would stand for any
comments and appreciate your patients.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. McCreedy.
Barbeiro: With staffs assistance, I do recall that this body here, our Planning and
Zoning Commission, did request that a road go through to the St. Luke's intersection
and that there was a difference of opinion in a final vote with City Council. Can
somebody please refresh my memory on what City Council’s final decision was on that
and
END OF SIDE TWO
No recording first minute or so on Side Three.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 23
Borup: Okay. Mr. McCreedy it sounds like the majority of your testimony is having a
public street through to the St. Luke's intersection. I am sure you realize that is property
that is not a part of this application. It’s off site improvement. Do you have a
suggestion how this commission can even put such requirement.
McCreedy: Well, I think that is a good question. But, I think the assumption has been
that you do have that legal authority. Let me answer it this way. In 1995 ACHD
recommended on the E.L. Bews Development applications, and I submitted copies to
you—
Borup: Wait a minute. Those projects have all ready gone through this commission. It
has gone through City Council. We are talking about a separate issue here. I am not
sure what was or wasn’t done in the past has much application here.
McCreedy: If I might be able to respond. In 1995 a condition was imposed on the
property that is now before you (inaudible) a prior applicant that there be a public road
connection from the property now before you to St. Luke's signalized intersection. That
recommendation is now before you again. And, in fact ACHD has made it a condition
of approval that this applicant obtain access through the St. Luke's signalized
intersection.
Borup: Where did they mention that?
McCreedy: It is in their findings and recommendations. It’s item number 3 on page 14.
Borup: And where does it say it goes through—that was your words I believe.
McCreedy: Item 3 page 14 ACHD findings and conclusions. Provide an adequate
vehicular connection between the subject site and the St. Luke's Medical complex. Mr.
Sale testified to you tonight that the purpose—
Borup: Your statement was it that provide through St. Luke's complex to Eagle Road.
Isn’t that what your trying to say?
McCreedy: My understanding is it is a given.
Borup: This says provide adequate vehicle connection between the subject site and St.
Luke's complex.
McCreedy: Right and Mr. Sale testified to you tonight based on the discussion and
agreements that ACHD staff has had with the application and the commissions
deliberations on January 5 that the purpose of that vehicular connection—
Borup: Well, your just adding words here Mr. McCreedy and I just trying to clarify what
was stated and—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 24
McCreedy: If I might finish, what was stated was that the purpose is to allow the
Touchmark traffic to access St. Luke's signalized intersection in order to avoid the Eagle
Franklin intersection.
Borup: That would be for employees, residents that want to access the freeway and not
have to go through the intersection.
McCreedy: Well with all due respect Mr. Chairman I would say that would be for the
members of the travelling public who are also using those two facilities. And in answer
to your question of what legal authority does this commission have to impose a
requirement, that one developer obtain access through another property owners
property, I think it is a condition that has been recommended by ACHD time and time
again on development applications and it has been a condition imposed on
development applications. I would say that the commission has preceded in the past
on the assumption that it has that authority. In addition under you Comprehensive Plan
and under your zoning ordinance, there are criteria and findings that are required to be
made in order to support a zoning amendment and a conditional use permit. One of
those criteria is that the property will be served adequately by essential public facilities
and services such as highways. ACHD has recommended to you that in order for that
condition to be met essentially, there has to be a connection through St. Luke's. That is
also another basis for authority. If I might Commissioner Barbeiro answer your question
on what happened with the City Council, as I recall and I read your recommendation
again today, this commission recommended to the City Council that St. Luke's be
required to dedicate 200 feet of right of way for future public road. After this
commission made that recommendation, we met and discussed the issue with Mr. Sale.
He issued a letter to the City Council saying in order for that public right of way to serve
its intended purpose to allow future commercial development in the Montview
Subdivision to make use of that public right of way, it should actually be a 400 foot right
of way, not a 200 foot right of way. Mr. Sale issued that letter in order to clarify the
testimony that he has provided to this commission on September 16th
of 1999. We
appeared in front of the City Council and they rejected all of the public right of way, not
just 200 or 400, but the idea that St. Luke's be required to dedicate any public right of
way what so ever and since that time we have appealed that decision to district court.
That matter is now before Judge Bale. We are waiting for the record to be developed
by the City of Meridian and then we will argue that issue to the judge and await her
conclusion.
Borup: Does staff have anything to add to that? Any other questions?
Barbeiro: John on your discussion about providing an adequate vehicular connection, I
do not read this to say that Ada County Highway District requires access through St.
Luke's Medical Center, but that they wish to have that. If it doesn’t happen, then they
will impose additional fees on the developer. While I do see this being fairly clear they
are stating that if you do not provide access through St. Luke's you are going to have a
tremendous amount of additional traffic that is going to go through Eagle and Franklin
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 25
and that because of the added traffic, we are going to require additional fees. I am not
seeing the requirement of access through St. Luke's which seems to be your premise,
which is ACHD is making a requirement of access through a neighboring property—a
neighboring private property. Could you elaborate on that please.
McCreedy: I’d be happy to and that is a good point. Commissioner Barbeiro and
remaining members of the commission, I agree. What ACHD said was you have a
choice. You can pay a lot of money to fix the intersection or you can gain access
through the St. Luke's site—is the way I read their conditions. The next question
becomes, what choice has the developer made? Well, the developer has made the
choice to gain access through St. Luke's site. That is the terms of the development
agreement that I understand are-—hat ACHD staff and the developer have reached
accord on that we haven’t see and we have not yet had an opportunity to comment on
to the ACHD commission. That is the choice the developer is making. Having taken
that choice, the other alternative is not open at this time. Or at least it does not appear
that it will be open. Therefore, I think it is save to conclude that the developer is not
going to pay money to remedy the problems at the Eagle Franklin intersection. Which
further reinforces my point, why would we want to allow one body of traffic to avoid that
intersection and not allow another body of traffic. I think the choice is there. I don’t
think the developer is going to take the choice of paying the additional money. I think it
is a choice that in my mind is probably a loser or its not going to have any practical
application.
Barbeiro: John I agree with the premise but again please don’t infer that ACHD made
the requirement that there be a roadway through another private property owners
facility.
Hatcher: Mr. McCreedy. I want to clarify my points on this discussion. We are talking
about two specific issues. One is Montview's connection to the signalized intersection
on St. Luke's. That was a discussion, another hot discussion in our recent past that has
come before this body and passed on the City Council. Has been acted upon, and in
your own words has gone on to district court. With that said, the time that we spend
here discussing that is a mute point, in my opinion because what we are talking about
here is Touchmark, not St. Luke's. The connection between Touchmark and St. Luke's
per the recommendation that you pointed out does not use the word through, does not
use the word to. It uses the word between and it states provide adequate vehicular
connections between the subject site and St. Luke's medical complex—period. That
requirement is because of this facility needing to have connection to the medical facility
of the St. Luke's Hospital. That is what this requirement is for. Now if that connection
isn’t there, then this facility has to go around Franklin, down Eagle to access that facility.
Then that impacts the all ready over burdened intersection. That is the way I read
ACHD’s written requirements. No assumptions. No premise. No reading between the
lines. That’s what the written words are. I empathize with the Montview residents.
They are in a rather tight predicament and I would love very much to help them. We
are giving them an opportunity here to help them and ease their burden by stubbing into
their east side. And, with continued talks that you have acknowledged that you have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 26
been in, discussing with the developer you can help alleviate some of the burden with
Montview. But, my recollection is that you as a representative of the Subdivision have
also talked with and carried on a conversation with St. Luke's who was willing to provide
to you your clients access to their facility and to their signalized intersection—at their
costs might I add, to help alleviate that problem. I see both past applicant and present
applicant being quite neighborly in trying to alleviate this problem, but I see the burden
or the bottle neck not of the applicant.
McCreedy: Do you want me to respond?
Hatcher: Yes I do.
McCreedy: I complete disagree with the concept that ACHD wants the applicant to
make a connection to St. Luke's but does not necessarily go through St. Luke’s. With
all due respect Commission, having attended all of the ACHD Commission hearing and
having been involved in this debate for quite sometime, I think you have to turn a blinds
eye to reality to not except the premise that the vehicular connection is to allow the
Touchmark traffic, as Mr. Sale himself stated, to access the signalized intersection that
abuts the St. Luke’s property on Eagle Road. That is not an assumption that is taken
out of thin air. It is a valid, good reasonable assumption.
Hatcher: I concur with that but I don’t –what I am stating here is what I am seeing your
standing at the podium saying this is what is says and I’m sitting here reading that is not
what it says.
McCreedy: I think the truth will be told when the development agreement, if it is
considered by ACHD in a public format, is spells that issue out. I think that will make it
painfully clear that the connection between the two sites is to allow both sites—here is
the discriminatory nature of the applications that are in front of you.
Hatcher: You have answered and question and concerns. Thank you.
McCreedy: I want to make a comment on the fact that St. Luke’s and Touchmark are
being quite neighborly and we are being very obstructionist. That is very inaccurate.
The offer that was made by St. Luke's had a number of very onerous restrictions
included. I can repeat those restrictions here but we made it record on that last time.
Therefore, it was unacceptable to my clients because it was essentially the predicate to
St. Luke's having the ability to control future use of that Subdivision. We have tried to
work with both of the developers and we have not reached a complete agreement. One
of the reasons I provided you with my letter to Mr. Bradbury on January 3 was to
express our appreciation of the fact that we have worked well with the Touchmark folks
on the connection to Franklin Road.
Barbeiro: Mr. McCreedy lets get back to the focus of Touchmark. Is the access into
Touchmark’s property to the Montview residents adequate.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 27
McCreedy: It is a start. It starts to solve the requirements of your own Comprehensive
Plan. That is to plan for controlled access points on principle arterials.
Borup: John you want additional access to the Touchmark property then?
McCreedy: No. What we want—
Borup: That was Mr. Barbeiro’s question I believe.
McCreedy: It starts to solve the problem in the sense that it gives the Montview
residents, and I stated this in my letter and I stated it before, access to Franklin Road.
What they now need is access to Eagle Road.
Barbeiro: So today, with what we have before us and the people at Touchmark, the
actions that we can take with regard to the Touchmark Development, there is no
necessary action because Touchmark has provided you with adequate access as you
have requested.
McCreedy: No. What you have in front of you is a series of public and private roads.
Montview Subdivision has access to the public roads. Since it is a private road, the use
of that road will be controlled by Touchmark in the future. Therefore, Touchmark can
restrict our use of their private and we will not be allowed to access their private roads
to get to the signalized intersection. Only with those roads becoming public are we
allowed to gain access both to the St. Luke's signalized intersection and the Franklin
Road signalized intersection, which is our request.
Borup: So where you concerned about the access would be restricted? Your saying
somewhere in the future they may put a gate in. That is not indicated now.
McCreedy: It is a private road. The owner of the road can restrict its use to whoever
the owner wants to restrict it to.
Borup: Okay any other questions? Thank you. Any one else who would like to testify
on this application?
Owenby: My name is Jim Owenby. I live at 3359 Montview. In looking at this and
looking at what Touchmark has laid out here, it looked really good but there is one thing
that I don’t see that they’ve addressed and that’s the irrigation rights that we have
downstream of this. We don’t know are they going to put an enclosed line in, this being
a closed campus, are they going to maintain this system themselves. Are we part of
the maintaining the system. Where does this go. There is some real questions and
with them turning water in on the 15th
here in April, I don’t know as we need to be
dragging a lot of dirt out there. It would be nice to have that issue under control before
we get an irrigation.
Borup: Would you like to address that Bruce.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 28
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, state code does require that
water be passed through historical flows. Can’t be uninterrupted. Our city ordinances
do require that inside the development that it be piped. I have not seen a piping plan
myself either, but our ordinances do require that it be piped. As far as maintenance of
it, I believe that they would be required to take care of the maintenance within the gated
area. We do have ordinance requirements as far as the number of clean out boxes and
far they can be spaced apart. I believe that would be all their responsibility.
Owenby: Is it my understanding that they have purchase or they have what we call the
old Holloway property. That borders right up to the east side of Montview. Is that
correct? Do they assume the responsibility of repairing or fixing any of those boxes that
was put in by St. Luke's.
Borup: Bruce state that the water would be uninterrupted. It will have the same flow
through to your property as it has historically.
Owenby: Okay I guess kind of where I am headed is we got some problems with that
system all ready. If we were to get this fixed in a timely fashion before we get water, I’m
saying who do we deal with here.
Freckleton: It is my understanding that that property is part of the land swap be St.
Luke's and Touchmark. I am not sure who the ownership lies with.
Borup: That is what it was previously by St. Luke’s so at this point no swap has taken
place. Anyone else? At this point that property is owned by St. Luke's. There is
intention for Touchmark to be trading that. Come on up. Anyone else.
Griffith: Tricia Griffith, 3295 N. Montview. You wonder how St. Luke's is involved in this
formula. If St. Luke's still owns that land and they are considering public access to
Touchmark, I think we have to deal with St. Luke's. It is still owned by St. Luke's so I
think if the road to the east goes through St. Luke's property (inaudible) Touchmark, we
dealing with St. Luke's so I think we could deal with them on other road issues too. At
the January ACHD meeting all the Commissioner's talked about was connectivity
between all the developments. On every hearing we went to we heard nothing but
connectivity. We asked for connectivity with both of the developments. Commissioner's
(inaudible) it was always their intent to give us access to St. Luke's signalized light
because they knew we were going to develop commercially. She says how did it
happen that they don’t have access. I asked Larry Sale. So why weren’t we stubbed to
St. Luke's road. He said we made a mistake. We meaning ACHD and the City of
Meridian. He said that everybody was in such a hurry to approve St. Luke's that they
kind of forgot about us. Any questions.
Borup: Your talking public connectivity.
Griffith: Yes I am.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 29
Borup: Isn’t that true that St. Luke's did offer access to your Subdivision.
Griffith: Private access with conditions that were not acceptable to our residents. It
would just meant that it would have just been private. We couldn’t develop and use
their road.
Borup: But you could have got in and out as often as you wanted without any
restrictions.
Griffith: They would have developed their side of the road and we would have to had to
pay the rest to connect.
Borup: That was what the original was when St. Luke's went in you mean. I was
thinking of the one where they offered to pay I think $100,000.
Griffith: Right just to their property line.
Borup: Any one else.
Hull: Jeff Hull, I am the director of architecture and construction services at St. Luke's.
We are here tonight to share with you our support of this project. We think Touchmark
has planned a very nice development. We have been working with Bernie and his team
for some years now. They have been very responsive to our concerns and issues and
the roadway planning that has been tonight, we have been very much a part of and we
are again just here to support the project. It is a nice application and we welcome it as
a good neighbor, we hope, in the near future. With that and hearing some other
questions this evening, I will make myself available to answer anything you so desire.
Norton: Mr. Hull, I am the newest member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I
am not privy to previous conversations, but what I have heard tonight so far, it seems to
be a problem with Montview wanting to get out through your light at St. Luke's. It is also
my understanding that it is being provided by Touchmark and St. Luke's has also
offered to pay for a private road for those residents. Is that correct.
Hull: Yes that is correct. We have had more applicants and more neighbors then just
Montview who wanted to enjoy public access to our campus. We have expressed for
many years, I think there is only a few faces that have been here as long as we have on
this issue, concern with the unknown and the traffic impact on our campus to and
through the signal. When we have an application or a project or developer who has a
quantifiable project where we can look at traffic numbers, their engineering and impact
on our system, we can then work in more detail and come to a more specific conclusion
as to what we want--support and cooperate or fight against if you will. The reasons
there were some conditions placed upon our offer to Montview, there is not a project
proposed for the Montview properties. It is residential today. Our traffic engineer says
we can handle their residential volumes for our signal without any impact on our
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 30
delivery system on investment there. Montview could develop into any number of
developments, commercial, retail etc. that the traffic volumes generated to compromise
our ability to get and out of our campus. That is why we have been so careful in
considering the different requests through our campus and to the signal.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions. Any one else.
Bair: My name is Lile Bair. I live at 3975 E. Franklin Road. I can see my life is about
ready to chance. I am the little white stub in the middle of that and I want to say that
I’ve been very impressed with Touchmark. They have been very open with me. I have
met with Bernie. He told me what they had in plan or what they were going to do. I do
have some concerns. She said something about—I don’t know what the policy is but I
have never been notified period about any meetings that has ever taken plan in the City
or County. If is had not been for Bernie, I probably would not have know the project
was going to take place. I have never been legally notified and I am engulfed by it.
Hatcher: You have never been notified.
Bair: No. My neighbors has called me and asked me about it. I said what do you
mean. I’ve got a certified letter. Well I have never received one. What I’d like to talk
about tonight we’ve spent a lot of time on access into Montview. Touchmark looks like
they said they would be willing to make an access. You can see, my property is long
and narrow. If I was ever going to have the opportunity to develop I think that I would
need some kind of access. I see that you know people said that they made mistakes in
the past. They have not got the accesses taken care of. I would like to consider some
kind of a stub road that I would have access to down the future if I ever decided to
develop that that it would blend into the area. If not, I can see I could become land-
locked and not really be able to do much with my property. As far as Franklin Road, I
am glad I don’t have Mr. Sale’s job. We now—the two stop lights they are talking about
putting in, they are all ready backed up at the stop light from Eagle Road past my
entrance sometimes up to an hour and an hour and a half in the evening. By putting
two more lights there, I don’t know if I will ever get out. I don’t know what your planning
requirements are for barrier walls around developments. This is a large development
engulfing one person. I don’t know..they said that they would put fences. I do have
live stock. I am an old farm boy. I have lived in Idaho all my life. I have horses I bring
in. I have cattle. I have chickens. Talked about getting a pig or two for the kids and—
they are going to be a good neighbor but I don’t know how good a neighbor I am going
to be and I don’t want a lot of complaining coming because I don’t know you know when
you bring in young calves they bellow a lot at night and it takes a while to get whined.
That is about all I am concerned with. The only other concern I have is everything to
the east of me, I’ve been there 11 years has never been farmed, and I am concerned
about the 2 million golfers, where they are going to go. They are going to look for haven
and I am afraid I might be it. That’s all I have Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 31
Borup: Mr. Bair, just a point of clarification. Your address is 3975.
Bair: 3975.
Borup: That is the address that our letters show that a letter was sent to you.
Bair: I did come in after my neighbors said that they had received them and I talked to
somebody and they said oh, we did not have your address right and sorry.
Borup: Mr. Sale, just a question that you can answer from right there, if you’d like. Just
comment on what procedure on developing a piece of property like he has with—I
assume his access to Franklin Road is –if a residential is grand-fathered any other type
of development that be maybe right in right out restriction or something like that—would
that be the extent of it?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission Larry Sale responding I did not
observe what parcel was his. The western out parcel or the eastern out parcel. The
property obviously has access to Franklin Road now and will continue to have access to
Franklin Road. It is located such that it will meet our requirements for a full access
driveway. You’ll be entitled to left turns in and out. There may be times of the day that
will be a little bit inconvenient or time consuming but actually the addition of signals will
improve the chances of getting out because they will cause interruptions in the flow of
traffic between the signals whereas a mile of road with out signals the traffic tends to be
uniformly strung out and makes getting onto the road more difficult. After those signals
are installed, it may actually help his chances. He will always have access to Franklin
Road. We can not take that away unless we want to buy his 5 acres or whatever. We
are not in the market for anymore land.
Borup: Anyone else.
Willis: I’m Thora Willis. The address is 3555 Montview Drive. While I was listening to
the representative Touchmark, he talked about his employees leaving at 3 o’clock.
Three o’clock is the same time our middle schools and our high schools and almost the
elementary schools get out. We have 10 schools that use Eagle Road and Franklin
Road at that time taking children home. That is going to be a really large impact on
Franklin Road and Eagle Road at 3 o’clock. Do you want those 10 schools? You know
them. Okay.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else.
Fuss: Jeff Fuss, 324 E. Montview Drive. Just a couple of quickies. On this deal on the
St. Luke's private access, currently (inaudible) public road, their deal was open ended
deal, $100,000. When the money runs out that is it. I deal with projects all the time on
a smaller scope and we can eat that up in engineering. There was no quarantine that
the project would be completed. Even if it was committed and completed, we’d had a
private access and at some point they are going to shut off our access to Eagle Road.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 32
We’ve all ready been told that. There is no getting around it. We’d be left with a private
road instead of our public road with controlled access. That is why is wasn’t
acceptable. We have had some other offers that we’ve had similar types issues with.
Borup: Who told you that you access was going to be shut off?
Fuss: He just left the room. We’ve been told that several times at ACHD that in ITD’s
plan for the future of Eagle, they are going to have to –the first thing they are going to
do is limit us to right in right out and at some point that is going to become useless
because we are going to have a right hand turn lane right in front of our Subdivision.
Either we have to go down and on to Franklin Road to Cloverdale to Overland to get on
the interstate or else we don’t go.
Borup: Okay but they didn’t say that they was going to close your entrance though.
Fuss: That is being thrown around as an option, if they could get us access somewhere
else. With this public access that they are talking about through Touchmark, once they
have that then we have completed a public and at that point if they so choose, they
could shut it down. The other thing is we have not have any chance to meet with ACHD
over where this public street is going to stub into our property, which brings up another
point, if it is stubbed in, and they do need to shut off our access to Eagle Road, we
won’t have any type of plan or anything up before this board, but somehow that land will
be taken and the road will be put into our Subdivision. That happens all the time, so
what is the difference between that and what we were talking about with St. Luke's. If
they can do that to our Subdivision, then why is that different then doing that with St.
Luke's. I wasn’t quite sure on that. That’s all I have.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Anyone else before we wrap things up. Okay does the
applicant have a summary they’d like to present.
Bowcutt: Before we presented this project, my clients Touchmark met with St. Luke's
and they had what I consider a very cooperative effort in trying to get some inter-
connection between the two projects. It isn’t very often that you can get two separate
parties or two separate entities to agree to some type of mutual cross access,
especially when it impacts both properties but yet benefits the public as a whole,
considering the Franklin Road Eagle Road current capacities. They were able to do
that and they signed an agreement between the two agreeing to enter into an
agreement for the cross access. I think the City should give them credit for that. The
main issue all the time when we’ve been meeting with ACHD, St. Luke's has been
involved in some of those meetings, was the fact that we maintained the integrity of
both of these campus’ so we don’t have cut through traffic. Cut through traffic is very
devastating and Mr. McCreedy talked about the traffic studies that were done. There
were two that were done. One on this particular project, they looked at if is made no
connection to St. Luke's and was solely accessing Franklin Road, the highway district
then on their own dime, expanded the study to look at the other uses in the area like
there is a large amount of ground next to R.C. Willey’s that is eventually going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 33
develop and so what is planned for the future as far as the traffic needs in this vicinity.
It was determined that some type of a public street collector roadway going through
Touchmark, through St. Luke's, bypassing that intersection, would not alleviate the
current problem and it would be monies that the highway district would end up spending
and then they would have to turn around and upgrade that intersection in the near
future. So, that was not an option. I think that one thing you need to keep in mind is,
Montview wants access. We are giving them public street access. We are paying to
make that public street connection and we are doing our part. As far as St. Luke's is
concerned, this is not a St. Luke's application. We can’t make any binding comments
on their part. I believe that when they get connection to this signalized intersection at
Franklin Road then that will alleviate the problems that they say they are having on
Eagle Road. That will allow them to make left hand turns onto Franklin Road and
therefore get up and make a left hand turn at the intersection is they want to go to the
interstate. Mr. McCreedy talked about the development agreement. The development
agreement is just like the annexation rezone development agreements that we do at the
City. We go through your process. Your staff’s review, staff reports, findings, etc. and
then one of the conditions is we enter into a development agreement where we put the
specifics to the paper and make that a binding document. The highway district is doing
that. The reason that they asked for that was they said, you know, this is a retirement
community. That’s what we are approving. We want to make sure that that’s what
happens here. It is a retirement community. We want to encourage you to make public
street connections to Montview, so yes you were correct. We are penalized if we don’t,
but it is not mandatory as Mr. McCreedy implied. We’ve got a good project here. They
have spent a lot of time. We have worked with your staff over the past, I think in excess
of a year, to come up with a plan that we felt could meet your ordinance requirements,
benefit the City of Meridian, enhance this area and be a good neighbor to St. Luke's
and a good neighbor to Montview. We feel that we have a project that can do that.
One thing I’d like to address, one of the comments about the irrigation facility. We have
all ready started working with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District in preliminary
discussions on pressurized irrigation system and pump locations. The piping of the
ditches which traversed this. Under state law we can not interrupt their irrigation. My
understanding talking with some of the Montview residents, there is a box out there that
is currently leaking at this time that they believe needs some attention. There is issues
as far as the irrigation that we’ve got to deal with onsite, meeting with the neighbors,
meeting with the district and those are things that we can work out. All of our piping or
gravity irrigation plans go to your staff at Public Works for their review. They also go to
Nampa Meridian, so there is kind of a two leg review. We ask you this evening to
approve the project. We think it is a good project and phase one that we have
submitted has detailed information. There is only two items that your staff commented
on and that is we need to look at the parking and we need to look at the landscaping. I
guess what I would suggest is that you incorporate whatever staff’s comments are, that
be incorporated into the record as it moves on to the City Council for their review.
Those are two pretty minor issues that typically we are working with the staff on how
they want the islands configured, etc. Every X number of spaces as (inaudible) in the
ordinance. They make sure we got 9X20 spaces. We got wheel restraints. Basic
design information that I feel we can deal with prior to the council meeting. We’d like to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 34
go forward. We want to build this this year and it is all ready close to March and it will
take us at least 120 days to go through the process of plan review and so forth. We ask
you and hope that you could move us forward. Any questions.
Barbeiro: Becky can you tell me what you can do to insist that interior lot owner to
access his property.
Bowcutt: Oh, forgot to mention that, thank you. We show 3 potential points of access.
The roadway comes right here, so here is a potential point of access. This culdesac
comes here. Here is another one. And this culdesac abuts that also. What I have
discussed with my client is the possibility of entering into some cross access agreement
allowing that property to, at some point of time, get access into our project. Typically,
that is a private agreement that the highway district at one time use to mandate cross
access agreements. Now I think they encourage them, don’t you Larry. Wasn’t there
some legal problems with mandating? Typically, they encourage these cross access
agreements. I would hope that my client and the property owner can get together. I
know that they have met a couple of times.
Barbeiro: Of the assumption that Montview residents appeal to district court is denied,
here your going to have residents here and here and the medical complex here.
Access to these two properties the medical complexes would likely come through this
public access. Let’s assume that after this is completed, Montview is sold off and you
have a Albertson’s and a Home Depot there. Here is where the access is going to go
through and that is the only access that they will have because we know that Eagle
Road is going to be cut off. They may have a right in and right out on Franklin Road.
Do you think your residents prepared for that much traffic going into a commercial
development and that being their only access.
Bowcutt: We discussed that in the site planning process with the applicant and the
architect. As you can see, this project is separated by these rotaries. That is kind of
where we delineate the end of the public street, the beginning of the private network. It
is done here and here. As you can see, this is the first rotary here but the public street
comes to the second one. Everything is kind of isolated as far as the complex is
concerned off that public street or away from the public street. You’d have
END OF SIDE THREE
Bowcutt: which would obviously serve as the public and then we have this one here
and this one here. The multi family—it is taking access off the loop. The same here
with the cottages. As far as the impact on the interior residential, or the core of the
complex, I don’t think that is going to happen as far as being devastating. As far as the
stacking, obviously that would create more stacking at that light.
Barbeiro: Are these commercial or residential?
Bowcutt: Those are medical office.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 35
Barbeiro: So they are commercial. Is this rotary and this roadway large enough to
allow for delivery trucks coming in and of a commercial development.
Bowcutt: Yes. These would be built to collector standards. I had our engineering
department review this rotary here to make sure that this turning radius would be
acceptable for fire trucks and obviously delivery trucks. They said yeah, it’s works fine.
It would work very, very well.
Barbeiro: And what is your goal for abatement plan? I know it sounds funny but it is a
serious matter.
Bowcutt: A gopher crossing right here to the north. We are going to work with Larry
and his sign staff for that. Gopher abatement, I probably recommend that they get with
Ada County—I know they have some programs. Maybe it is through the extension
service, I’m not sure, but you can retain them and they will go out and trap.
Borup: Any other questions? Go ahead Sally.
Norton: Mr. Commissioner. I have one question—actually two questions. The first one
is what is your answer to Mr. Sale’s suggestion that ACHD does not want gated street.
Bowcutt: My answer to Mr. Sale is we are obviously going to have to discuss the
location of the gates. I think his concern is not necessarily at this location here as it is
this location here with St. Luke's. It is kind of a three party system. Where ever those
gates are located, we’ve got to satisfy ACHD or assure them that we are going to get
that interconnection between the two projects. We also need to assure St. Luke's at the
same time that we are not creating a public through fare and we are preserving the
integrity of their site. If you noticed on that one drawing, this gate is in-set here. We still
have a connection at this point and this point. There was a gate here. That is going to
be delineated in that development agreement also. I am quite sure of it. Where those
gates would be located exactly.
Norton: Your still talking gates. He is talking no gates.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Norton: So your going to be talking .
Bowcutt: Talking gates for the development agreement. Yes I think we need to talk
about that.
Norton: Touchmark has done this for 27 years. Do you have other developments like
this in other cities such as Boulder and Evanston and how are they working.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 36
Bowcutt: I think Joe can answer, Joe do you want to answer that one. I know they are
building a new one in Ogden aren’t they.
Billig: Joe Billig with Touchmark. We are currently building a new project in Appleton,
WI. We are opening a new community in Bismarck, ND. Basically we are through
North Dakota, Montana. We have one in Kalispell and Helena, actually we are going to
be building one in Kalispell. We currently have one in Helena and in Butte. We’re
going to be starting a community in Ogden, UT and in Edmonton, Alberta.
Norton: Do you have existing communities?
Billig: Oh Yeah.
Norton: How are they working?
Billig: They are working beautifully. The traffic is what the traffic report said it would be.
I think probably our oldest community is in Spokane. That is Waterford and South Hill
and that is a fully phased community at this point. That’s been 10 years running now.
The one in Vancouver Washington is about to see its second phase start.
Borup: Any other questions. I still have a question Becky. You’ve covered some of the
staff comments but not all of them. Storage area. Any comments on that.
Bowcutt: I think asked staff asked us to (inaudible) on the site plan where we would
have potential storage/maintenance area.
Borup: I think they were talking storage also for the residents.
Bowcutt: Right, like if they had an RV or something. Those were delineated right here
in the southwest corner, next to Interstate 84 which is a real good place for that to be.
This will be the maintenance facility with the building and then this would be an RV/boat
storage right here.
Borup: Any comment on the number. If there is adequate number of spaces for the—
Bowcutt: I think Bernie will probably want to answer that because the spaces were
determined on what their needs are. A lot of their residents obviously would not have
RV’s because they need assistance. They do have residents that are very, very healthy
and very active and may have a trailer or boat.
Neil: Bernie Neil, Touchmark. This would be project number 16 for us of this character
and type. We have presently no residents with RV’s or boats.
Borup: Of all you other projects?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 37
Neil: We have none. We have no residents with RV’s or boats. That is not because
we have chased them away or forbid them or whatever, but that is what the reality is.
Our anticipation is that we do need to provide a space here, but that it will be under
utilized. We are, our criterion was 1 per 100 cottages or was it 1 per 50 or 20 cottages
and we came down to more into the 1 to 20-30 cottages.
Borup: Out of all 16 projects you don’t have a single RV or motor home. Wow. Thank
you.
Barbeiro: In your presentation you had discussed that there maybe housing on the site
for possible younger housing. I assume you said something along the line of maybe
employee housing or housing for non-retired. Could you elaborate on that and where
that housing might be set and what kind of housing it might be.
Neil: In this part of the project here along Franklin Road, we are anticipating that this
will be rental apartment housing, probably configured in 6 to 12 plex units and that it
would be unserviced, so it would not be taking part in eating in the dining room and that
sort of thing. In this area here, these would be 6 to 12 plex units, multi story, likely two
story and that their use then would be available to the senior public but in an unservice
way. No in the same since that senior housing goes on here. It would also be then to
people my age group—empty nesters. Then we would like, probably I know this is
not—you don’t like to hear this probably and maybe and someday sort of thing—but
that is the stage of the planning that we are at. We want to create a neighborhood and
you can see here that there is several culdesacs that provide for separate
neighborhoods and that one of those neighborhoods would be available then to not
necessarily seniors or even empty nesters, but with the employees as St. Luke's
reaches their build out here, they may exceed 1000 or maybe even reach 2000
employees that would be involved there. With the employees that we would be
generating in our project on the retirement side, and the employees that would be within
the medical office building complex, that would make sense to have a neighborhood
there for people who would want that kind of housing opportunity next to their work.
That was one part of what I said. Another was that for people who would be visiting St.
Luke's, patients, family and that sort of thing, same way here, we do have a regional
pull, so family that may be visiting from some distant away that we would have some of
the units then set up here as it were for short term stay and they’d be fully furnished and
be able to be utilized that way. So, not necessarily seniors.
Barbeiro: Those units be transient for families and patients. Would they also have
access to the entire –are you going to allow children to bicycle throughout the area as
they live there.
Neil: That leads me to a further discussion of how we treat gates. We don’t gate
sidewalks, for instance. Or pathways. What we are trying to do is control vehicular
access after dark and before sun up. It is during the night time. In practice, we have no
facilities where our gates are closed during the day time hours. The gates are open at
7 o’clock, some places 6 o’clock in the morning and remain open then generally until
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 38
after dinner time. Depending upon the time of the year, in the winter time, they may
close at 6 and in the summer time when there is daylight hours they may stay open until
10 o’clock. Our purpose for the gates is not exclusivity it is security. It is the night time
security. We aren’t trying to stop people from climbing the fence. We know that we’d
have to go to tremendous lengths to do that. We are not trying to keep people from
walking into the project. In fact, we encourage it. What we are trying to keep from
happening is that vehicles keep going all through the night time hours. That is the
function of our gates.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Neil. Becky, just a clarification. You did answer that but that was
one of the concerns on staff was on the lot split situation. I think you stated that you felt
that could be handled with a lot line adjustment.
Bowcutt: Yes, through Ada County.
Borup: Have you discussed that with staff at all.
Bowcutt: I discussed it with Shari a few weeks ago and I did discuss it with Bruce and
Steve this evening—how it works at the county. What is the time frame. I think their
question was, if you submitted a record of survey at this point of time, how long does it
take to process. My answer to them was then 4 weeks. The key time would be prior to
the adoption of the ordinance by the council for annexation and rezone, which also
would coincide with approval of the development agreement. We’d have to have that
record of survey recorded and our approval from Ada County. I don’t see that as a
problem. Oh, Steve did want me to address the signage. We show a rendering of the
sign on the plans. It is a monument type sign that would be at the exterior at Franklin
Road. The height of that monument is 5 feet. The width, its kind of on like a it has
columns, brick columns on the side. My question to your staff was, do they count the
columns as part of the square footage. They think—if they did count the columns, the
square footage would be 100 and Steve indicated they are trying to keep it around 75. I
am not sure, or like I said that is something we can work with staff. I think the key, the
city is trying to make sure that people don’t have those R.C. Willey signs. It would be
very similar to a residential sign into a residential Subdivision.
Borup: And, there has been some consideration on the size of the project can have
some bearing on the size of the sign too. Anyone here have any questions on the sign.
Thank you. Does staff have any final comments? We can ask you later too, but—okay.
Commissioner’s what’s you pleasure here?
Hatcher: I have two questions to pose for discussion, well actually discussion. First
question is since ACHD has put a development agreement requirement in their
conditions of approval, can this body make recommendations and push the project
forward with an outstanding condition of approval from ACHD, i.e. this development
agreement. The second question is can this body move this project forward with an
approval or denial to City Council without current and up to date staff review
comments? We currently have staff review comments that are 90 days old with brand
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 39
new information that is just a couple of days old that we’ve talked about but is not been
documented and recorded. Those are my two questions. I had asked legal counsel
and the Chairman on those two questions.
Borup: Would our attorney like to address that first? Mine would be more opinion
probably, but go ahead.
Swarthy: Mr. Chairman, we could move forward with that but it is probably not in your
best interest. Both questions, because they did put the development agreement in
there as a condition not a requirement, essentially the same thing. I would feel
uncomfortable recommending to City Council approval. It sounds to me like the gate
issue is a major issue that is part of the development agreement, correct? That is going
to go to City Council and there is going to be a argument on that side and I don’t feel
comfortable that way. It doesn’t sound like staff has spent much time at all, if any
except for tonight, looking at this application. You could go forward but it would be
awfully sloppy.
Borup: Where is the concern on the gate issue. My understanding was it was no gated
access to St. Luke's. Was there another—
Hatcher: The applicant just proposed that the road that gives them access to St. Luke's
be gated. ACHD is saying no gate. The applicant is saying we want a gate. They
need to resolve that. It didn’t sound like it was going to get resolved tonight.
Borup: I did not see where they were showing a gate. I don’t believe—did the applicant
talk about a gate. If you did, I missed it.
Bowcutt: This is still open here. This interconnection here and here still open into the
complex. The gate is inset back here at the island, so we still have the interconnection
between the projects and if you turn—coming out of the rotary right there. The gate
would be inset at the island so we still have the connection north and south into the
project. We are not closing it off. It will still be open.
Hatcher: It was my understanding and I’ll let Larry address this question, it was my
understanding that there was an additional concern beyond that. That the direct
connection is the connection they are looking at, not the indirect connection or the
public access but the direct—I’ll let him address that.
Borup: Could you address that Mr. Sale. Was there a concern on any gates, if so I
didn‘t see it in the staff comments.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Larry Sale responding. The prime concern is that there be
adequate opportunity for communication between the two projects. I don’t think the
highway district has any problems with that being restricted to (inaudible) provided at all
times other than night time. We are mostly concerned with the business traffic and the
customer traffic two and from the two complexes. As it was explained by Miss Bowcutt,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 40
there is an un-gated route through the complex and as Mr. Neil explained, all the gates
would be open during the day time. I think that resolves our concern about the gates.
Borup: Your concern was some of these other gates getting from this complex to St.
Luke's and whether that traffic would have been through a gate.
Sale: That’s correct. If there can be unrestricted flow of traffic between the two major
sources of traffic, then the two complexes were satisfied.
Borup: But it would be unrestricted 24 hours a day for any residents. I am assuming
they are going to have a code for the gate. The only people that would be restricted in
the night time hours is non residents. You don’t have any concern with that.
Sale: That’s correct.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Sale. Does that clarify? Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if Commissioner doesn’t have any more points—
Hatcher: No, just those two questions.
Borup: Any more discussion on those two. My opinion and as Mr. Sale stated, we can
make recommendation incorporating a part of that is that the development agreement
as—essentially there all of ACHD’s site specific comments be incorporated, which
would answer that development agreement. The question on the staff review is maybe
a different matter. Probably because it is a different project then they reviewed earlier.
Do you have additional comment?
Swarthy: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that just a couple weeks ago one of our
favorite applicants was here asking for staff approval or asking for recommendation of
approval and then working with staff while before we did the recommendations, this
Commission did not allow that. That is not what this applicant is asking. It is similar, so
I would ask that or point that out. There are not asking to negotiate any thing away,
correct staff, so the difference would be that they are basically guaranteeing that they
would go along with any staff recommendations, correct. Okay, so in that respect it is a
little bit different but –
Borup: Yeah they were—the other applicants
Swartley: You could go ahead—(Inaudible over talking)
Hatcher: Final written staff review comments can be compiled and be available for City
Council’s final review with adequate time for the applicant to review and respond at that
meeting?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 41
Barbeiro: I still think we are going to get into the same problem we had. You told us not
to make approvals on something without staff comments.
Swartley: That was a little different. They were trying to negotiate out of a lot of stuff. I
think the applicant here is just saying we will go along with what staff says, which is not
what the other applicant said.
Barbeiro: But they don’t know what staff is going to say yet.
Swartley: So, that is the risk you run.
Barbeiro: Okay, in that case if they are going to make a public statement now that we
will go along with staff comments, if they should decide to change that, then it comes
back here again and we start over.
Swartley: True.
Borup: (Inaudible) staff comments weren’t specific as far as what they require they just
wanted a clarify, such as the storage space. I think Mr. Neil’s comments answered a lot
in my mind on the storage space. That really surprised me.
Barbeiro: I’d like to ask staff a question and Becky you may want to jump in on this too.
When we have had platted plans and they go through phases, at lease we have the full
plat. We have here a single ownership, one piece of property. My fear is that if we
approve it, and it’s a single piece of property without having final designs on the entire
sets of phases, that there may be no reason for them to return here for phase 2,3,4.
They could come in and say, you approved it. This is our one property. This is it. Just
because we are calling it phase 2,3,4 we are still going to build it and we don’t have to
come back to Planning and Zoning Commission for those phases.
Borup: So the question is probably is can they obtain a building permit. Would that be
what your wondering.
Barbeiro: Yeah.
Siddoway: You don’t have this in writing but as per the testimony that was given tonight
by the applicant, they said they pointed out the different phases and said that this will
be coming through with a separate conditional use permit. That is what we will expect
to see. We would not be granting building permits in those phases without a new
conditional use permit, but it does need to be in writing.
Barbeiro: So that would be included in staff comments.
Borup: It could be included in our recommendation. Their request was conceptual
approval of the entire project – a specific approval of phase one. CUP only phase one
and all of the approved—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 42
Barbeiro: I am trying to put it in perspective with the Crossroads Shopping Center
where Dakota came in and gave conceptual but they were going to phase it in and they
would come back each time as a new property was (inaudible) If it differed from their
conceptual plan.
Borup: This is a step beyond that. They are saying this is really—what we see here is
all that’s being approved. The other, even though it is conceptual, they still be come
back with additional CUP on each one.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, back to the gate issue. I thought when we were starting to talk
about gates, there were two issues. One was at the second round where that access
is. Is there a gate there.
Borup: Yes there is a gate right there.
Norton: I have a question regarding irrigation that Mr. Owenby is concerned about.
Those ditches need to get repaired so that the water comes when you start April 15th
.
How has that been handled last year when you were going through all this. Will it be
handled properly again this year so those residents can get their irrigation water.
Hatcher: It still isn’t. The property in question is still in control by St. Luke's. It is St.
Luke's responsibility at this point of time to maintain those ditches…period. No matter
what condition they are in. If they are broke, they need to be fixed. It is not a
Touchmark issue. It is a St. Luke's issue.
Borup: Once this is approved it becomes a Touchmark issue.
Hatcher: Not until the land swap has occurred.
Borup: Could there be some clarification on that. The question was on the
maintenance of irrigation ditch, at what point does it become a Touchmark issue. It
sounds to me like Touchmark wanted to get started right away. If there is going to be
construction starting---go ahead Mr. Hull.
Hull: Jeff Hull, St. Luke's. The transaction of the land exchange and or purchase has
not occurred yet. I believe, not wanting to speak for their phasing, but their phasing of
their improvements does not affect any particular property that St. Luke's owns today.
So, irrigation is our responsibility and I have asked our superintendent to look into it.
Maybe he has just not gotten that done, but we will follow through on that. We
appreciate the importance of water and irrigation and as it passes to and through our
property, it is our responsibility.
Borup: Any questions. Does that answer your question completely? Okay. I think we
are still back to Mr. Hatcher’s two questions and maybe we need to discuss this with
staff a little bit and what their comfort level is. Any comments on that Steve. At the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 43
beginning you mentioned I thought basically three things. The signage, storage area,
the lot split situation. I can’t remember is you touched on any others.
Siddoway: There are some other potential issues that may come up regarding their
design standards, matrix on setbacks and thing like that. The 25 percent bonus density
thing.
Borup: Are those things effecting this first phase you mean.
Siddoway: Possibly. It is kind of a unique situation in that we have minimum lot sizes
but these aren’t going to be on separate lots. The minimum lot size in LO is 7000
square feet. A 25% reduction in that doesn’t allow this type of development and that is
an issue that we need to resolve with a planned development ordinance to see how it
relates. I don’t have an answer for that right now.
Borup: In this case there are no specific lots. I guess just a designated lot line. A
designated boundary as such.
Siddoway: Therefore, I think it will be fine. The reason why they are showing what
looks like lot lines on their plans is to show their where they are going to be measuring
their setbacks from. I think we would support that but we need a chance to review that.
One idea to throw out would be continuing this just for two weeks to the next regularly
scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on March 14th
. I believe that we
could have a staff review of these site specific requirements for phase one done and to
the applicant before then and you maybe just leave the hearing open for staff
comments and ACHD comments if their development agreement is finalized by then
just to incorporate those two. That would not be a major setback with getting them on—
they still on the next, the same City Council agenda that they would if they were
approved tonight and it would not be a whole two month setback. I think we can make
that work. The other option is special meeting that is set for the 22nd
of March and we
could move it to that agenda, but I think we could make the 14th
work.
Borup: Does the 14th
give us adequate notice time for City Council.
Siddoway: One question for the attorneys if the public hearing would need to be left
open in order to incorporate staff comments so that we may not need to notice it again.
I don’t know if the public hearing needs to remain open to incorporate staff comments or
not. So it would need to be opened and noticed.
Borup: We will continue the hearing, right. We are fine. If a recommendation was
made this evening, which City Council meeting would it be on. It would be March 21st.
So we went to the 14th
and it would be into April, the first meeting in April. We’re talking
2 weeks is what it will effect.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 44
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I personally would feel more comfortable in taking with Steve’s
recommendation and continue this for another 2 weeks to iron out these loose ends.
My vote tonight would reflect that.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with Commissioner Hatcher.
Borup: Okay, and you two have the majority of the three votes here.
Barbeiro: With that I wish to make a motion to continue the public to our next regularly
scheduled meeting March 14, 2000.
Norton: I second that.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any questions from the applicant. Okay so we are looking at giving staff
enough time and then I assume you will be meeting with them during that time also.
Siddoway: Yeah I am sure we will be on the phone and possibly have a meeting to
resolve the remaining issues.
Borup: Okay, I think what I might mention, I don’t know that we have a guarantee from
ACHD that they would necessarily have their development agreement but as testify with
Mr. Sale he felt that that would be our priority to make recommendation incorporating all
of their comments which—so if we go ahead with that understanding, we may or may
not have the ACHD, but sounds like we will have our staff reports. I guess the other
thing that we should ask, have we got enough room on the agenda on the 14th
. Okay
and we do all ready have a second meeting set up in March on the 22nd
, so we may be
shifting something into there if necessary. Okay. Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a motion to adjourn.
Hatcher: I second that motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Adjourned at 10:12 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
February 22, 2000
Page 45
(Tape on file of these proceedings)
APPROVED:
__________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK