2000 01-12MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING – January 12, 2000
The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Kent Brown
ABSENT: Richard Hatcher
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Will Berg
Borup: I’d like to convene the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening. This was
a rescheduled meeting from yesterday, which we needed to reschedule for lack of a
quorum. First Item on the agenda is minutes from our previous meeting.
Commissioner's, any comments or questions.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes from our December 14th
meeting as submitted.
Brown: I Second.
Borup: We have a motion and second, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 157.876 ACRES FROM R3 TO LO BY TOUCHMARK LIVING
CENTERS/JOSEPH A. BILLIG:
2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CONTINUING
CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE AND RETAIL USE BY TOUCHMARK LIVING
CENTERS/JOSEPH A. BILLIG:
Borup: We do have a letter from the applicant requesting that this item be continued to
the February 8th
meeting. It was continued previously, waiting for the ACHD report.
ACHD did meet on that but apparently they had some details and a development
agreement worked out with ACHD, so that is the reason for that request. That would
include both items 1 and 2. We do need a motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Item number 1 and 2 for Touchmark
Living to our February 8th
meeting.
Borup: I second that motion. Mr. Brown is abstaining. All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 2
MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES, 1 ABSTAIN
2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 8.25 ACRES FROM RT T0 R8 FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN
SUBDIVISION BY DAN WOOD/D.W., INC. – WEST OF EAGLE ROAD
BETWEEN OVERLAND AND WEST VICTORY:
Borup: I think you’ve received a supplementary staff report with some additional
information. Steve, was there anything that you wanted to add?
Siddoway: The vicinity map is up on the screen. You can see it is near the intersection
of Eagle Road and Victory Road. This is a blow up of their plat that they are showing
with the smaller lots. This shows their landscaping plan. They do have a common lot.
They are showing a neighborhood park, common open space here in the center and
some common lot landscaping along Eagle Road in these lots here. This will show you
its relation to the adjacent site, adjacent properties. There are to the north is Thousand
Springs Village and 3 phases of Thousand Springs Subdivision. To the south, the
McDonald lateral runs right along the south border of the property and there are several
large single family homes zoned R-1 and RT that are in Ada County and have not been
annexed to the city yet. On the east there are four single family residences, currently
zoned RT in Ada County on the other side of Eagle Road and to the west is the
Thousand Springs Subdivision currently zoned R-4. This is a photograph of the site
taken from Eagle Road looking west into the site. You have Brad’s staff report that
adds to the previous one dated December 29th
. That’s all I have at this time unless you
have any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's for Steve? The applicant here and like
to come forward with anything you’d like to add to last months testimony.
Wood: My name is Dan Wood. I live at 13141 W. Blue Bonnet Court. I was just going
to turn around and comment on the previous staff report. I just received this report. I
am taken by surprise on this one. I guess I’ll just go on with what I did have previously
in the past staff report. Staff had recommended or staff had agreed with the proposed
R-8 change and found that it was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Item
number 2 in the staff report dated December 6. On the very last page, land use
chapter, policy 6.83 or 8U states that in the past that the city has looked at it as
compatible buffer more toward 10 acre parcel, not the R1 and RT, so they look at it as it
is compatible. Other then that—the only other item looking at Meridian’s
Comprehensive Plan, the actual map, it definitely shows this area being a mixed use
area, so I am just trying to follow your Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Wood from the Commission?
Barbeiro: Mr. Wood, have you made any changes to the plan since our last meeting or
is it being submitted as—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 3
Wood: As is.
Borup: I don’t think I have any questions pertaining to the zoning, so I’ll save my other
comment for later. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to comment on this
application.
Young: My name is Rex Young. I live at 2950 E. Victory Road in Meridian. My property
lays immediately to the south of the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision. I have 2 acres.
I have lived there for nearly 30 years. The comments that I have really pertain to all of
the neighbors who have homes there to the south. My lot is about 87,000 square feet.
The smallest lot there is about in the neighborhood of 45,000 square feet. As we look
at this proposed subdivision, the average size lot there is about 4,500 square feet. I
don’t have a large elaborate home or anything like that, but my floor space and garage
space are about the same size of those lots that are being proposed. I don’t want to go
into a lot of detail. I know it is on the public record, but I do have here a petition that
was put together that was signed by about 17 people and in essence it asks you folks
who uphold the Comprehensive Plan, specifically paragraph 6-8U, providing transitional
lots. We also urge you to uphold the Comprehensive Plan and provide a project at a
maximum of R-4 and we recommend design of the entire project, so I’ll give this to you
for the record, if I may. I would like to address very briefly the revised planning and
zoning staff comments dated 29 December. They indicate that the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinances both support and oppose the R-8 zoning proposal and that
the decision must be determined by the site specific conditions. When we take a look
at the sites specific conditions, we’ve got about 160 acre parcel of property here. 140
acres of that property is currently zoned R-4 and is made up of Thousand Springs
Subdivision and Thousand Springs Village Subdivision. Then you have about 12 acres
that fronts along Victory Road that has your larger rural residential lots that are 1 and 2
acres. The majority of them are 2 acre lots, and the proposed Woodhaven Subdivision
is a strip of land that is about 160 yards wide. There is just not enough property there in
our opinion to make a decent transition. It is unfortunate that the hours caught up to us
at the last hearing and it is also unfortunate that Mr. Hatcher and Mrs. De Weerd are not
here, but I would like to quote their comments kind of as a wrap up, if I may please. Mr.
Hatcher indicated during the hearing that I think the present owners of the lot deserve
adequate transition as the adjacent lots currently have, but I think that this location may
not be the most adequate site. Mrs. De Weerd indicated during the hearing, I like
PUD’s and I like mixed density, but I do believe in transitioning and the highest density
in this subdivision is abutting the largest parcels. I know several instances where we
have taken a look at the neighbors and have tried to work out transitions, and as far as
the lot size transitioning into a higher density is actually going the opposite direction. I
like mixed densities but this may not be the spot. There is not enough room for
transition like that. Now the average lot size in Woodhaven is 4,545 square feet, which
is approximately 70 percent of the size required for a straight R-8. We believe that R-4,
which was granted to Thousand Springs and Thousand Springs Village, should serve
as a precedent for Woodhaven if not in consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
does not define mixed residential. Also, we strongly support the comment in the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 4
revised staff comments that no 2 story structures are permitted on lots contiguous to the
McDonald lateral. On Thousand Springs Village, which abuts larger lots there to the
south of it, we did receive concessions there from the developer that there were to be
single story structures on several of those lots and briefly just to wrap it up I would like
to summarize the position of the neighbors there to the south. We do not oppose the
annexation but we do oppose the R-8 zoning. We believe the zoning should be no
greater than R-4 which is consistent with the other 140 acres to the north and west. We
believe that transitional lots should be provided, consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan to the south along McDonald lateral. The transitional lots should be no smaller
then 12,500 square feet which is the smallest transitional lot that was provided by the
Thousand Springs Village Subdivision. We believe that fencing along the south, along
McDonald lateral, should be the same as provided by Thousand Springs Village and the
fence line should be built up as necessary to equal the same level as the access road
along McDonald lateral. We believe the homes should be constructed to the south
along the McDonald lateral, should be restricted to single story thus preserving our
view. This is supported by the revised staff comments. We want our ability to burn with
appropriate permits and raise livestock on our property. We want equipment work
hours controlled and dust controlled during construction and we want the McDonald
lateral undisturbed until or simultaneously with the installation of an alternate water
delivery system installed by the Boise Project Board of Controls. So, that is kind of the
position of the neighbors there. I have summarized on a separate piece of paper this
information. This will give you a summary. There is one other comment that I would
like to make and in the revised staff report, we previously expressed our concern about
the possible degradation of the property values with the small lots and the small homes
going in. In the revised staff comments it says that additionally, local comparisons i.e.
Ada County Assessor’s Office and national studies i.e. Urban Land Institutes, show no
evidence that property values of large residential lots decline when high quality, smaller
lots are constructed adjacent to the large lot boundaries. I understand what they are
saying there, however, we the neighbors don’t really feel that this is a high quality
subdivision. It may look nice, but when you’ve got homes that are going in that are
going to be in the—starter homes, smaller in size and so forth, we do feel in fact that it
will have an adverse impact on our property values.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Young?
Barbeiro: Mr. Young, in regards to your item number (inaudible) we want the McDonald
lateral undisturbed until or simultaneously with the installation of alternate water delivery
system installed by the Boise Project Board of Control, is it your concern that the
delivery of the water would be interrupted during construction.
Young: Yes. That property there, not only those that abut up against this subdivision,
but also the property on to the west, the larger lots there, all depend on that water out of
the ditch and we have to pump. Now, when Thousand Springs Village went in there,
initially Thousand Springs Village agreed that they would provide individual pumping
stations for us. When they went to the Boise Project Board of Control, they said, no
they did not want them to do that. I went down and met with the Board and then they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 5
sent me a piece of paper in writing where they said that they would install a separate
delivery system to the neighbors there so we would have pumping stations. They said
that they would do that after the McDonald lateral was de-watered this fall. They have
not done anything yet. We’ve got neighbors to the west that are off water. We believe
that the Boise Project Board of Controls will put that system in, hopefully before that
water goes into the ditch in the spring. If they do that, then we will on water. If they
don’t do that, then we want to preserve our ability to continue to get water until such a
alternate system is put in. If I understand there is going to be another pipe that is put in
with individual pumping station for us.
Barbeiro: If I may ask Bruce, what is customary under these circumstances and is Mr.
Young’s concern justified.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, typically an installation where they do have a live ditch they
do try to get those done during the winter months when the water is out. Boise Project
Board of Control is one that we don’t deal with a whole lot. There is very few ditches in
Meridian that are under their jurisdiction. I do remember what Mr. Young is talking
about. I do remember seeing those letters. I have not seen any action on it either.
Young: The last time I talked with Mr. Hensley, this was probably a month ago, he
indicated that they were working on some other projects and certainly intended to get
that put in before the water come back in. He also indicated that if they did not get that
put in, he’d give me a bucket, which might be rather humorous until you start trying to
pack water for 2 acres of property. I think they will do what they said they would do.
Barbeiro: This is you lot here, is that correct. If Mr. Wood were to maintain the density
in the subdivision except for the lots on the south and were to build a house on every
other lot essentially, which would bring them to a R-4 design for the southern lots.
Would that be an acceptable compromise.
Young: If he was to build one on every other lot, if you look there in the corner, the
largest lot is about 6,700 square feet. The average lots as you go across there based
on the planning and zoning amended report, is like 4,545 square feet. If he built on
every other lot your looking at around 9,000 square feet. If you look at my property that
abuts against Thousand Springs Village, the lot that abuts me there is 16,000 square
feet. If you proceed on to the west, the smallest transitional lot that abuts against that
property is right at 12,500 square feet. We think that we ought to have transitional lots
of at least that size.
Barbeiro: You would not even entertain the idea of doubling the lots on the south so
that you would have about a 9,000 square foot lot. That appears to me to be something
of a compromise and would allow you to have a 9,000 square foot lot versus a 4,500
square foot lot abutting your property and your neighbors. I have not presented this to
Mr. Wood. I just wanted to –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 6
Young: I understand. A person needs to try to compromise. I don’t remember which
lot it exactly is there, but one of the lots is 2,900 square feet. I think it is the one against
the back of my property. So if—I think based on (inaudible) not only in Meridian but in
Ada County, City of Boise and so forth, those transitional lots have been provided. I
don’t think we need something a half acre, but I think 12,500 square feet is a
reasonable compromise.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Do you ever anticipate you or any of your 4 neighbors ever changing the use of
their properties.
Young: I’ve read Mr. Brown’s comments in the minutes of the meeting. The way I feel
now in my lifetime, I don’t intend to change the use of the property. That is not my
intent at all.
Borup: Would you feel comfortable with putting a restriction on all that land. That is
would never be able to change. Stay strictly a single family residence on the acreage
that is there now.
Young: Would I be comfortable with that? I don’t know. Would you be comfortable with
putting such a restriction? Could you?
Borup: I don’t think we can. That is what I am asking. One of the things we have to do
is planning and so many times you hear where were the planners 20 years ago. Why
didn’t they plan for what is going to happen here. This is an intersection, a mile
intersection on a state highway and logic is going to say that that is in the
Comprehensive Plan you usually designate those as a commercial intersection. Logic
to me would dictate that that is going to be commercial some day. When values of
property go from so many dollars per acre to so many dollars per square foot, the
owners of those properties may have a whole different attitude on whether they want to
stay there or what they want to do with their property. If it is reasonable to assume that
those properties could go commercial or at least half of them or what ever it may be,
then we are talking about definitely needing transition between residential and a
commercial. How do you make that transition at that point.
Young: I guess just like you do at any other place where people did not plan on—
Borup: That is what I am saying. We have an opportunity to plan. Your saying we
want to go ahead without planning again.
Young: No, I am not saying that. I understand you’ve got a tough job, but when I
bought the property 30 years ago, I bought it because I wanted to get out of Boise and
get in an rural environment. When we moved out there, we were way out. It is my
intention now that I will live there until I die.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 7
Borup: How about your other 4 neighbors?
Young: Can’t answer the question. If somebody comes in and buy the 2 pieces of
property or the 3 pieces to the east of mine and they are going to put in a Albertson’s or
something, I may be interested in selling and moving north to a rural environment. I
don’t know. As of now I don’t visualize that I would be selling that off. There is not
commercial development there now.
Borup: I don’t see what it would be. It is not a logical place for residential development.
No one wants to have a residential on a busy street with other buffering on that street
too. You needs to have a lot of property to put buffer in.
Young: One more thing. I understand that the engineering firms have got on the
drawing board of dividing the property to the south of Victory Road across the road from
my property for residential.
Borup: Don’t know. Can’t comment on that. It is in our impact area so someday I am
sure it will be.
Young: That is not zoned commercial at that crossroads now.
Borup: No it isn’t. It is in Ada County. Thank you Mr. Young. Anyone else.
Marquart: Good evening. Dave Marquart. 3100 E. Victory. I’d like to comment on a
couple things. I believe in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. There is no commercial
plan for that intersection at Eagle and Victory. It is planned for one mile south in your
Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: Our 93 Comprehensive Plan. How about the 2000.
Marquart: We have to use the one we have right now. I think your Comprehensive
Plan called for that not to be one mile to the south. I would like to agree with everything
that Mr. Young had said and concerned primarily about the McDonald lateral. Drawing
attention to the staff report that was just brought out, the second paragraph, the last
sentence, the staff supports a common planning standard that transitional lots can
mean that no more than two new lots be allowed immediately contiguous to or with in
the side boundaries of one existing larger lot. That refers to those to the south that
would be in here. Also, on the second page I find it interesting when I read that the
standards for R-8 are listed there at the top of the page, minimum lots size of 6,500.
Then in the very first sentence of the next paragraph, it says lot 14, block 2 is the only
buildable lot that meets that minimum lot size that the Comprehensive Plan sets out. In
the third page, I’d like to compliment the staff on fixing up the transitional distance that
they wanted to have as forty feet but now is 21 and that is correct. Then those 2 items
at the bottom where they have no 2 story structures permitted. I certainly agree with
that. The existing plan calls for combined driveways on some of the planned housing
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 8
and in number 2 it asks for to separate that to have some kind of planter strip in there.
Those are the comments that I have.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else.
Allen: Jim Allen. 3040 E. Victory. I am between Mr. Young and Mr. Marquart. I
appreciate the work that staff went to re-looking at this thing. I guess I could live with 2
houses to the north of me. I would certainly rather have ½ acre lot up there, but so be
it. Whether we plan on living there the rest of our life, we plan on it but times change
and times are changing. At the time it ends up being commercial, we might have to
take another look at what we want to do. I do appreciate staff re-looking at what they
are doing.
Borup: Anyone else?
Hepper: Hi, I’m Teddie Hepper. 3130 E. Victory. I am the second on over. I am the
one it seems to effect the most. I have 5 lots in my backyard there. Five roof tops. I
got the petition signed by all the people on Eagle Road. They have commented to me
that they were really concerned about the exit, the entrance there because there is one
up where there is no platting and there is the next one. The way the traffic backups
there, it is just going to be a mess. At 5 o’clock it is all ready backed up a half mile. If
we have 3 entrances within a half mile there, I think it is going to be quite a mess. If
they could have them come in through Thousand Springs like the road is there, it would
certainly help. Plus I agree with everything Mr. Young said. I am going to live there
forever and I don’t want it turned into commercial.
Marquart: My name is Barbara Marquart. I live at 3100 E. Victory which is one of the
four lots that we have been talking about. I just want to point out the fact that 100
percent of us have been represented and all coming from the same angle. I want to
remind you that as of right now, no one is living at Thousand Springs Village
Subdivision. They obviously are absent from this meeting. I thing that we are
representing them also in our concerns about what is happening. I think it will be a big
impact on those homes being sold and I guess I am asking you to represent them in
your decision tonight, because it will have a impact on them as it is 100 percent of us.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you. Commissioner's, any comments. Again, I remind
everyone this is Item, even though we have had testimony to all phases of the item on
the agenda is zoning and annexation. Anything the applicant like to conclude with
pertaining to the zoning. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner's. Would you like to close
the public hearing or have some discussion first.
Barbeiro: Each of the speakers have a viable argument. We can go ahead and do
annexation and zoning without regards to the PUD, is that right. With that I move we
close the public hearing.
Brown: I second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 9
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any discussion?
Brown: The item before us is the annexation from a RT to and R-8. I believe that is
appropriate in this area as previously stated by Mr. Young, in looking around the area as
you see different intersections throughout our community, especially the busy ones and
I would imagine Victory Road currently is pretty busy but it will be busier in the future.
There is going to need to be some transition of home types as you go toward Victory
Road. I believe the R-8 zoning is appropriate.
Borup: Any thing you want to add Tom. Is anybody ready to make a motion?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to City Council the approval of
request for annexation and zoning of 8.25 acres, RT to R-8 for proposed Woodhaven
Subdivision by Dan Woods/D.W., Inc.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 45
LOTS ON 8.25 ACRES FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN
WOOD/D.W., INC. –WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND WEST
VICTORY:
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR RESIDENTIAL PUD FOR PROPOSED WOODHAVEN SUBDIVISION BY DAN
WOOD/D.W., INC.—WEST OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN OVERLAND AND VICTORY:
Borup: Steve, did you have any additional comments.
Siddoway: I only thing that I would like to add is something that I found in the PUD
ordinance this afternoon. It says that someone applying for a PUD can request higher
densities then are allowed with the straight minimum lot sizes and such, but that those
shall not be a increased density of more than 25 percent. The density at a average lot
size of 45, 45 is approximately 30 percent increase in density. This would be more than
that 25 percent that the ordinance speaks to. Also, in order to get that increased
density, it says that we need to provide one of several options that the ordinance gives
in additional open space, additional landscaping and things like that. The applicant is
required by the PUD ordinance to have at least 10 percent open space and in order to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 10
get the bonus density would have to provide additional open space. Above and beyond
that, I do not know the percentages on this site but I would just point that out.
Borup: Mr. Wood, any additional comments.
Wood: The original plat that they had before you shows that we had 10 percent. We
exceeded the 10 percent. That was one of the conditions that was required. Another
condition is that you have access to an arterial or main arterial street, which Eagle Road
is. That is the reason we stubbed it out that way. One of the things I’d like to comment
as far as my thinking there with—I plan on doing 2 stories against the McDonald lateral
for the fact that those are larger houses. Those are 1600 square foot units and with
that, getting larger homes buffering the neighbors houses is what I though would help
their values, if they were concerned with that. The other thing I was looking at is I am
surprised that they do not want 2 stories for the fact that they are higher then me all
ready. Usually, it seemed like the condition that was imposed on Thousand Springs
was for single levels, but Thousand Springs was higher then the neighbors. In this case
they are higher then I am. I am surprised—I did not know that was on the comments in
the staff report that was dated yesterday. I did not receive it so it is something that I
oppose as to the requirements of not allowing 2 stories up against the McDonald lateral.
Brown: What is your open space?
Wood: The open space is that big green—okay. It is over 10 percent.
Brown: So, 10.5 or 10—
Wood: Twelve.
Brown: That open space is including the park in the center and the landscape island or
the landscape berm.
Wood: That would include the island in the center, the entrance coming off as well as
the strip along the (inaudible).
Brown: And it does not include any of the McDonald lateral or any of that.
Borup: I don’t think so. That was our understanding from last time. Anything else Mr.
Brown.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. There was a project summary on there .91 acres on the
amount provided.
Borup: Mr. Wood, you understand that 10 percent is referred to in a planned unit
development. Did you understand the other item that Mr. Siddoway was talking about
on the bonus density. Well, R-8 zoning, the minimum lot size in R-8 is 6500 square
feet. There are some provisions to increase the density by adding some other details.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 11
That is what he was talking about by increasing—open space, design features, etc. A
lot of subdivisions have increased their density by doing things along that line. The 10
percent is just a given. That’s requirement for being a planned unit development. The
other open space is –any other thing (inaudible) bonus density are things that would
allow a higher density. I guess the question is, other then the common lot open area
that you have, I think that is probably the extent of what you are looking at. The other
concern was and even with allowing maximum bonus density, it allows for the density
increased not more than 25 percent, which a 6500 foot lot, 75 percent gives about a
4800 foot lot as an average. That is one of the concerns that I have. It still does not
seem to meet, even with a bonus density allowance, it doesn’t meet with the ordinance.
This commission, that is one restriction we have or should be following is that we need
to rule on things as they pertain to the existing ordinance. We don’t have the flexibility
to change that. That is City Council’s option.
Barbeiro: Steve, while we have Mr. Wood up here, the first item was the 25 versus 30
percent in changing the size of the lots. The other is the letter of the law versus the
spirit of the law. More than 1/3 of the 12 percent open space is the landscape buffer
along Eagle Road. Isn’t it more customary that the 10 or 12 percent would be on the
interior of a planned unit development and not taking account the landscape buffer
along Eagle Road.
Siddoway: Two things. First, in the past the landscape areas have been counted on
other projects. Our current draft landscape ordinance which will be coming before you
soon hopefully, would eliminate them from future open space calculations. We are
planning to eliminate those landscape strips from the open space calculation but they
have been used in the past.
Barbeiro: Mr. Wood, not taking the landscape buffer into account, less than 8 percent
come into open space with that it doesn’t have the openness that I am accustom to
seeing a PUD.
Wood: It is like you just said. Current policy says that included so I guess that is all I
can go off of. The options are is to turn around and go with the PUD and go with
something that is a little different then what you’ve seen in some of the other R-8 zones.
What I was trying to do here was come up with some. Useable space. Granted along
Eagle Road isn’t as useable, but the island in the center, a lot more people will be able
to
END OF SIDE 1
Wood: I guess if the council feels that (inaudible) I could go back to something
different, but we are trying to do something that is more usable.
Barbeiro: Earlier when Mr. Young was up, I had asked him if you were able to half the
density along south, essentially build on every other lot, if that would be a compromise
to him. Apparently, he was not very open to that. Let’s go to you. With the difference
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 12
of getting this approved or not would the option of building of every other lot on the
south be a consideration.
Wood: Consideration, yes but you’ve also got a couple of things that I am looking at to
is the fact that you don’t want 2 stories. We are getting to a point of putting too many
restrictions on it and I am also potentially hearing your comments about the open space
and its going to be to the point, if we loose too many lots, we don’t get the open space
that I had there, maybe I should just go with an R-8 standard subdivision. That would
be my alternative. I cut my lots down so much that I can’t justify as much open space.
To answer you question, yes I be up to it so long as I’ve got some room on some of the
other items too.
Barbeiro: I personally don’t care for the two triplexes. I find that to be overly
congested, even in (inaudible) that you’ve laid out an R-8.
Wood: The reason behind the triplexes is you put it as trying to meet with staff and get
their comments. Their comments were you need at least 2 uses. My thinking was
single family and a townhouse. That is the reason why you see two of the two uses.
Barbeiro: Okay. Understand that. We do have one duplex in here. Steve would a
single duplex in this PUD allow to fill the requirements for mixed use. I’m sorry did you
say mixed residential.
Steve: The idea is to get a mix of residential uses in this area instead of just (inaudible)
R-4 zoning, so I would say yes.
Barbeiro: So we could with a compromise go to duplexes and not necessarily a triplex.
Siddoway: Yes.
Barbeiro: In the future, it is my belief that the corner of Victory and Eagle Road will
likely become a commercial development. How do you see that mixing with your
development?
Wood: That’s what I think the intent was in your Comprehensive Plan. If I am required
to put R-4 and big houses, they are obviously going to fight your commercial corner
someday down the road. Whereas, if this is approved, this follows your Comprehensive
Plan. It is pretty hard for them to argue.
Barbeiro: If we were to keep the plan as it is now, would you consider increasing the
size of that neighborhood park in the center by eliminating lot 5 and lot 4 of block 3 and
making that center park larger.
Wood: I’m sorry, which lots are you talking about?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 13
Barbeiro: In Block 3 there, you have lot 1, which is the neighborhood park, would you
consider eliminating lots 5 and 4 adjacent to the park to make for a larger open area—if
you were allowed to maintain the plat as submitted.
Wood: If I understand Chairman Borup’s comments, potentially I am over the limit right
now so I might have to cut back on some any way so if that is the case, that is where I
will gain the most additional usable space. So to answer your question, yes.
Borup: You comment on you plat called the neighborhood park—the landscaping detail.
Is that fairly representative of what you plan on doing there. That would be—so this is
the overflow, still the drainage overflow.
Wood: Yes.
Borup: That would be of the design with a level essentially fairly level bottom. And as
designed, it would be used as a park.
Wood: Commissioner Borup, I would probably defer that to my engineer.
Lee: Gary Lee with JUB Engineers. I would like to address your comments about the
storm drain multiple use facility in the center of the project. It will act as a temporary
detention facility for the 100 year storm event, which is required by ACHD in their
design. It will likely have a combination of infiltration galleries to help dissipate that
water. Generally those designs include a infiltration system in such a way that your
pond is rarely wet until you have a large storm. During the small storms or the nuisance
water during summer when people are irrigating or washing their cars, that sort of thing,
you not going to see a lot of wet grass.
Borup: I am familiar with—my thought was are you looking for something 3 or 4 feet
below the grade or one of these are 8 feet.
Lee: It won’t be that deep certainly but we have not put a final design on the depth.
Typically they will run from a foot to 2 feet.
Borup: That’s pretty minimal. That makes a nice usable area.
Lee: Yes, and we will have gentle slopes going down to the pond as well. I guess I had
a point of clarification on the discussion about densities. I borrowed the book from your
staff. In the planned used development section 12-6-6, Item G, it talks about bonus
densities. It talks about the open space, but it is also say that you are allowed a 10
percent increase in gross density on the planned development. On this particular zone
that we requested, which is an R-8, the standard density on that in your ordinance is 8
units per acre. This particular development, if you use gross acreage which is 8-1/4, 45
units, that equates to 5.45 lots per acre.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 14
Borup: Let me interrupt you there Gary. I know where your going to. I understand
what your saying. Have you ever developed a—designed a subdivision as a R-8 that
had that much density.
Lee: No sir, I have not.
Borup: It can’t be done.
Lee: It can’t be done. It brings me to a point. We were talking about lot sizes, and I
think if you look at the definitions at the front of the book, it says gross density, the
number of dwelling units per acre of total land being developed, including public right of
way, and that density being the number dwelling units per acre of land and acreage
involved includes public and private rights of way. I think what I am saying here is
overall density is the issue here not necessarily the lot size. We still are looking for a
fairly sizable building unit on those lots. They are going to be in the neighborhood of
1300 to 1600 square feet, which is your minimum by the way in a R-8 zone. They just
happen to be on smaller lots because of the zero lot line configuration. I no other
comments at this point.
Borup: Realistically what would your definition be of increasing the density 25 percent?
Lee: Well, if you go by the letter of law, that would be 25 percent of 8 which you have to
get into some fairly high density—
Borup: My definition is the density is 6500 square feet, which is the minimum lot size.
Lee: I am just reading what the definition of the book says. Lots per acre, dwelling
units. It does not say square footage.
Borup: That was back on –
Lee: I am not sure the old ordinance which is one we are really using has a definition in
there for density. I suppose it does. It is on page –oh there is no pages. I think that is
the way other cities interpret densities as well. Pretty normal.
Borup: It just doesn’t jive with lot size then. So do all other cities have the same
conflict?
Lee: I think what your looking at in planned unit developments is you get more multi
family units. You probably get 2 to 3 –not 4 story very often but 3 story units. It is real
difficult to get 8 units on every acre in a standard residential development
Borup: Difficult or—and meet the minimum lot size. It is more than difficult isn’t it. Any
questions for Mr. Lee.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 15
Brown: Gary I think as I listen to the Commissioner's on either side of me, we feel that
this should be an R-8 and we voted that way, but I don’t know that we are really sold on
the plat. As we listen to other comments from anybody that is going to comment,
maybe you can sit with you client and give up some compromises because, I don’t
see—I don’t see the votes to approve your plat without some changes—something to
take place. Maybe that is just because there is 3 of us, but there needs to be some
compromise here about the density and I’m not swaying that they all have to 65, but
there has to be some compromise.
Lee: I understand that and I will certainly look into and once we know where the city is
on the issue, that will help.
Borup: Do you have any idea of what the net—is that on the chart here. Net acreage
would be.
Lee: We have 8-1/4 total and if you look at (inaudible)
Borup: I met density after street right of way. Which is the other definition of net
density.
Lee: I don’t have that calculation. Your talking about the right of way within the
development. I don’t have that calculation.
Borup: Isn’t that the definition under net density. Yeah. I’d be curious to how that
compares. I don’t know if you have enough information here to figure that. We’ll have
you sit down and see if we have anybody else. Anyone else like to testify on this baring
in mind we’d be looking for new testimony, something in additional to what has been
testified earlier. Seeing none. Commissioner's any discussion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, with Mr. Lee and Mr. Wood here, I’d like present to them and
to you. I am not inclined to recommend the plat as submitted to City Council. Options
to either have them a consider a redesign and returning to the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the option of sending it to City Council with a recommendation to deny
(inaudible) City Council to submit a redesign to City Council for them to review or to
take their chance with City Council. Can the developer take a revised design to City
Council after he has left here, regardless of what we approve or not approve.
Borup: City Council should receive the same plat that we review.
Swartley: Planning and Zoning Commission is to look at the planning and design
issues. If you are going to request design modifications to the plat, you should review it
before sending it on to City Council.
Barbeiro: Then it is my opinion that the developer would have a far better chance of
approval on this were he to bring a revised design to the Planning and Zoning
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 16
Commission at our next meeting and of course, be before a full commission where we
have all 5 people available.
Brown: I feel that if we are going to do that, we need to give him direction as to things
that need to be changed.
Borup: That makes sense. Dan you want to come up for a couple questions. Did you
understand the options that this commission may feel like facing. We can talk about a
continuation, and give you a chance to revise plat or at your option, we can send it on to
City Council.
Wood: Lets give me the option of resubmitting something.
Borup: What Mr. Brown suggested makes a lot of sense. We realize of course this is
your design and it is up to you to design it. We are not here to design your project.
Maybe a few guidelines may be appropriate for what—
Wood: Keep in mind, if we turn around and change the density, we will end of having to
get rid of the open space and go back to a traditional R-8. If that is what the
commission wants, that is what I’ll do. I was thinking the commission wanted something
hopefully different then a standard R-8.
Borup: My feeling you have read more into what they wanted, I don’t know. We have
all ready voted on the R-8 so I think there is no disagreement there. Maybe just what
the project looks like. There could be some questions on definition of density.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, does the developer have the option of bringing before the
commission a revised PUD or a basic R-8. Could he present two different plats for the
same property.
Borup: We have not seen that before.
Swartley: I don’t know. I haven’t seen it before either. I don’t really think it would
prevent that the idea is to have the applicant make a proposal and the Planning and
Zoning Commission act on that proposal. If you wanted him to present options, I know
of no provisions in the code that would prohibit that.
Borup: (Inaudible) not if your doing a straight standard R-8, staff would need to review
that, I’m assuming. Where I think a revision to this without I mean assuming your not
making major changes, I don’t think staff would necessarily need to review or the review
could be done very quickly.
Siddoway: I think we would want to review it and make comments on it because it
would be a new plat at that point. The most prudent thing would be to give the
applicant some direction as far as what types of transitional densities you feel are
appropriate and that you would support. Open space requirements, if any that you are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 17
inclined to require and let him come up with the revised site plan that meets those
criteria.
Barbeiro: Mr. Wood, the open space lot here to the right of (inaudible) is that a swale or
is that a flat level lawn.
Wood: I would assume and I would probably have to check but the plan were for it to
be flat. The only place your going to have a swale would be in the center of that.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, If I may I had some suggestions for Mr. Wood that would—
Borup: Okay, go ahead but again I am assuming that you would like to hear—
Barbeiro: First with the allowance of that mixed residential would allow for the
duplexes, I would prefer to see the triplexes disappear. That either the open space on
the interior of the be a little larger or the density on the south side be open up to allow
for a little better transition between your neighbors. Those are my two suggestions.
Brown: You have a triplex at the southwest corner of your development. I believe a
triplex would be more appropriate along Eagle Road or duplexes—townhouse, single
family residential dwellers are a lot different. They are looking for a different life style
the a single family resident would. I think that the lot sizes need to come up. I am not
saying a whole lot but they need to come up a little bit. The common private drive
seems a little deep to me at this point. I personally feel that a landscaped buffer is an
appropriate common area. I don’t think you need to increase your common when you
have a landscape buffer. What you are doing is creating—when a landscape buffer is
put in, it is buffering the residents within the development, that is a good use of space.
It is like having a meandering ditch. It creates a space. A farmer will think of it as a
waste but people like watching water. This is a very usable space because it is killing
the noise of Eagle Road. Your open space in the center could be a little bit larger and
that should help shallow up any concern about the pond.
Wood: The question you asked on the net is at 6.88 units. That is now—the way the
plan is submitted now.
Brown: I think if your lot sizes went up then it would be (inaudible).
Borup: I have no additional comments. A little different on the density as far as the
design and where your redesign your open area. You need to see where your going to
gain the most. As far as usable area, having it all in one spot will do more usable but
may not get the landscape effect that you want.
Wood: The two questions I am going to ask the Commissioner's. One is the two story
issue, backing up the McDonald lateral and would you be opposed to looking at a
straight R-8 standard subdivision and forget the PUD.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 18
Brown: I am not opposed to a strictly R-8 subdivision and I am not opposed to a 2
story. I think there is plenty of transition in the distance from those people to the homes
and my—I am working with a project myself and we had the restriction of the single
story. As I have driven around and looked at different developments your talking 10 feet
at the most between a single story and a 2 story.
Borup: Your talking 9 feet.
Wood: It is just like I mentioned, the two story potentially my bigger homes, so I was
thinking it was more of a buffer for them also. Is that the way everybody feels?
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: That was why I asked the option of preparing two different layouts. You could
very well come to us and go here is my PUD. You don’t it, then here is my straight A
and get you out of here.
Borup: Which way you go would be up to you. I know interpretation planning act by
several attorneys is that view is not something this commission should be taking into
consideration.
Barbeiro: With that Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public on both line item
4 and 5, request for preliminary plat for 45 lots on 8.25 acres for proposed Woodhaven
Subdivision and request for conditional use permit for resident PUD for proposed
Woodhaven Subdivision to our scheduled meeting on February 8, 2000.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Before we go on just in case there is any one here for items number 12 or 15.
We have letters from both those applicants requesting that they be postponed until our
next monthly meeting. We will open those when we come to that agenda item, but the
applicant is not here so, if anyone is here for one of those two, you probably don’t need
to be.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7.99
ACRES FROM R-T TO R-4 BY ROBERT GLENN—USTICK ROAD WEST OF
LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: Mr. Siddoway. Do you have any information for us?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's this is a request for annexation and
zoning for a parcel of land that is north of Ustick and west of Locust Grove. It is north of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 19
the (Inaudible) subdivision otherwise known as Pheasant Point. It is a R-8 subdivision
located south of this property. This is the subject property right here. I do not know of
any specific issues on this. We did receive one phone call from a concerned neighbor
who raises some live stock to make sure that they would still be able to do so. They
may be in the audience tonight. That is the only issue I know on this. This is a photo of
the property taken from Ustick Road at the southwest corner of the property looking into
the center. That is all I have.
Borup: Is the applicant here and like to come forward.
Pavelek: My name is Richard Pavelek. I represent Tealeys Land Surveying. We are
the firm looking after the rezone for Mr. Glenn. We have reviewed basically whether the
services are available to this property or a development of the property. We stopped by
the highway district and shown them a preliminary layout and it basically has ability to
provide access onto the property. The services in terms of sewer and water are
available in this particular area. I believe a request for a R-4 zone in this property for a
single family subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a suitable plan
can be developed for the subdivision of this property and also provide the frontage and
access to the existing house in the middle of the property. That is all I have to say at
this time.
Borup: Just a reminder and others this is for zoning and annexation and they have
submitted a concept layout at this point.
Barbeiro: What are the existing buildings there now. There is a home. Is there a barn
and a couple out buildings.
Pavelek: I believe that is all that is on the property. Basically, the setback requirements
of the existing buildings that are to be retained on the site will meet Meridian’s setback
requirements.
Borup: Anything to remain other then the house.
Pavelek: I believe that is the sole structure that would be remaining on the property.
Do we have anyone from the audience or anyone with questions.
Parish: My name is Tom Parish at 1370 E Ustick. We are just to the east of the project.
We contacted Mr. Siddoway on the item here. There is a ditch that runs to the north
behind the project that is –it is our ditch. We will be concerned with how that is dealt
with. I guess we are going to see a further development plat map for further comment
on the project.
Borup: The ditch is on this property on the other side.
Parish: The ditch runs to the north from Locust Grove heads to the west.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 20
Borup: It is on the south of this property line or is it on the adjoining property.
Parish: It is on the north side the very skinny parcel just to the east. There is also a 10
foot ditch that goes along the back.
Borup: The ditch is in your property line. On you side. Did the staff answer your
question as far as animals. Did you have the question?
Parish: We still have some questions and prepared a letter.
Borup: Did he talk about the right to farm act and etc. when you called in.
Parish: It wasn’t me who actually made the call. I was told to prepare a letter to
present to you.
Borup: That is a state ordinance—the right to farm act – that anyone can continue on
with raising the animals. That is something that people move into a transitional or rural
area need to realize. That can even be added to the plat, so the homeowners coming
in have written notice. You had something to hand to the Clerk. Any questions for Mr.
Parish?
Brown: How wide your property Mr. Parish. It is 80 feet at Ustick and it widens—it is
about 90 feet wide. It is 600 feet deep, off of Ustick. I believe it is roughly 600 feet of
ditch that runs in the back of the property by 10 feet wide. We would be concerned with
access to the ditch and how that would be handled. I am assuming there will be further
discussion and further meetings.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else.
Campbell. Hello. My name is Bond Campbell. I am at the property next door in the
yellow property. Approximately 2 years we zoned R-3. I haven’t seen a concept
drawing. My question is at what point, I got zoning R-3 on the property next door there.
The neighbors asked to see my preliminary plat and we talked about some contiguous
stub roads. I am wondering if they have made those same sort of considerations now
that they are platting their property.
Borup: Again, this is a preliminary concept map but it does not show a stub road. That
was something that you desire.
Campbell: Yeah because I currently have a stub road that I designed onto his property.
Borup: It would be nice if they connected maybe.
Campbell: Right. I have a preliminary plat design that was approved at one point.
Borup: How many years ago?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 21
Campbell: 2 years ago. May have been as much as three. All three of you fellows are
new since last time I was here, but yeah, I am just curious to see that concept and also
curious about the fact of whether they have entertained R-3 zoning versus R-4 zoning
in conjunction with what I am trying to do there.
Borup: Is your plat still active. Have you renewed?
Campbell: No. I am in a holding pattern right now.
Borup: Was it just a concept design also?
Campbell: No, it went all the way to preliminary—approval of preliminary plat.
Borup: At this point you have not done you annual renewal so it is expired. That is
something ACHD takes a close look at also.
Campbell: I guess my question would be at what point then..
Borup: At this point I think we would encourage the applicant to make sure that they
are in contact with you to coordinate the design. Perhaps, where did Richard go.
Maybe you two could get together and exchange phone numbers.
Campbell: Is there a concept drawing here tonight?
Borup: Yeah, they really applying for it, but I think we could. Let me give you my copy.
That is the latest one so maybe that will give you a chance to look that over and then
get with the applicant.
Campbell: Is this a copy that I can keep?
Borup: Yes, go ahead. I will get another copy. Thank you. Anyone else.
Commissioner's, we have no other public testimony.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Brown: I second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to City Council request
for annexation and zoning of 7.99 acres from RT to R-4 by Robert Glenn Ustick Road
west of Locust Grove Road.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 22
Brown: I second.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: I would recommend that the applicant for this annexation work with his
neighbors on both sides to provide connectivity. Mr. Parish’s property only being 80 feet
wide, I’ve seen one of those in Boise that ended up still having one house on it and a
bunch donkeys and subdivisions coming in on either side and it just makes it impossible
for you to do something. It appears to me that the road lines up and maybe your road
should go along your easterly boundary but that is something we will look at in the
future. When you come back, that is the question I will have about the plat. I am just
making information so that there would no be a problem when you come back for your
plat. I see you concept here and it concerns me that Mr. Parish’s property is 80 feet
and yet your not extending the road that was on the south side of Ustick going north. If
it was extended similar to what was to the south, it would be able to provide frontage for
his property to redevelop and then—
Borup: What can he do with 80 feet. He can’t put a road down there.
Brown: You do a half plus 12 down his easterly boundary. At least it would be better
than Mr. Parish ending up with 600 by 80 and those things do happen. Somehow there
needs to be some thought taken. Maybe that will come from Mr. Johnson to east of
there, but that is a concern that I see right now.
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 5.029
ACRES FROM R-T TO LO AND R-8 BY CENTERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.—
WEST SIDE OF LOCUST GROVE ¼ MILE NORTH OF FAIRVIEW:
Borup: Steve. Commissioner Brown.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I formally worked on this project. I don’t believe there is a
conflict. Mr. Centers is no longer my client and I will not financially benefit from that.
Borup: So noted.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's this is a request for annexation of just
over 5 acres currently zoned RT in the County. They are asking for a combination of
LO and R-8. There is one acres that would be LO and just under 4 acres that would be
R-8. It is located along Locust Grove. Probably the most recognizable landmark is the
Fred Meyer complex here at the intersection of Locust Grove and Fairview. There is a
mini storage here. The Gem Park Subdivision borders the property to the north and
Doris Subdivision borders the property on the south. This is a photo of the property
taken from Locust Grove, looking west. Staff feels that the proposed LO zone would be
a good buffer along Locust Grove, buffering from the commercial uses and transitioning
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 23
to the residential uses that are existing. There was a concept plat submitted with this
one as well, but the annexation and zoning is all that has been requested at this time.
That is all I have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's?
Brown: Steve, where is the line located. I guess how far back off Locust Grove is LO.
Siddoway: Looks like about 216 feet, I believe that is a measurement from the center
line of Locust Grove. 216 feet from the center.
Barbeiro: Steve could you back up the plat.
Siddoway: I do not have a copy of the plat itself—the concept plan to show on the
screen.
Brown: 216 feet Steve. How far does that come to like the center line to the northerly
culdesac.
Siddoway: It roughly makes a perfect square if you can just envision something about
like this for that zone.
Borup: Is the applicant here?
Canning: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, my name is Joe Canning.
My address is 5505 W. Franklin in Boise. I am employed by (inaudible) engineers and I
am here tonight with the applicant on the annexation request. We don’t have very
much to say as far as the annexation request goes this evening. This is a area that is
surrounded pretty much by development. It is rather narrow and deep. It is
approximately 220 feet north south on average and of course considerable deeper then
that. I believe staff introduced you to the area that it is in. I would just like to stop
comments at that point of time to see if the commission has any specific questions of
me. Thank you.
Borup: Okay Commissioner's. Did you both find the plats in your packet? That should
have been in your packets. I think that came earlier. I think that part of it we got in
December.
END OF SIDE 2—TWO TESTIMONIES MISSING ON TAPE
Jenson: How large could it go and still stay within a LO designation.
Borup: Are you asking how large of a building.
Jenson: For instance, could it be 2 story?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 24
Borup: I would depend on how it is approved with the conditional—and I am assuming
we would probably do it with a conditional use permit. That has been our policy in the
past so that we would have the option to review the building, the layout, the use, etc.
Steve, would you like to comment on how many square feet a building could be on that
side of the parcel.
Siddoway: Sure, first of all if you want that building on the LO property to go through a
conditional use permit, they do –there is a site plan submitted that will be a hearing for it
next month. Copies of that are available today at the or tomorrow at the City Clerk’s
office, here in this building. You can review that. They are submitting a conditional use
permit for that because they are doing the entire site as a planned unit development. It
could be 2 story. The maximum lot coverage in the ordinance is 70 per cent but a lot
could be covered by a building, but that is never possible because of the parking
standards they have to have. I would suggest just get a copy of the plan that shows the
building and the parking and see if you have concerns.
Jenson: The one right now, they have a plat for right now?
Siddoway: Yes, there has been a plat and the conditional use permit submitted for
consideration next month.
Jenson: That is one that I have seen. Personally, I have no problems with that. I
figured a doctors office is as good as anything. My concern is, if it has been designated
LO, this guys plat falls through and something else comes in. I wanted to know if
there—
Borup: That is one of the purposes of the conditional use permit. It would be approved
for that specific project. Anything else come in they would have be come before the
commission at another hearing. Another public hearing and you would definitely be
notified. Thank you. Any one else.
Jones: Jay Jones, 1426 N. Carol. I have the two small parcels in Doris Subdivision
approximately 300 and some feet that (inaudible) this property. A couple of concerns
that you just addressed. My real question is to go ahead and approve this as a R-8 and
LO without a conditional use permit and without a preliminary plat, I think is probably a
little pre-mature. Maybe it ought to go together so that the whole thing can be reviewed
as far as exactly what the development is going to be on this piece of property. I have
seen the plat. We have talked with them. They have several things that they proposed
and felt they would get back to us on some of the issues, pedestrian access to schools
and a couple other things plat related. My only request would be that maybe this be
postponed until the plat can be approved at the same time.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Jones?
Brown: Do you have a problem with the LO or the R-8.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 25
Jones: R-8 in conjunction with Gem Park, no. If its similar design to that as the plat is,
I’ll have ten new neighbors I have a little concern about that. Our subdivision is R-8 but
it is county R-8. We have about .75 per acre.
Brown: County zoned it R-8 so that it could change in the future to that higher density.
Jones: I think their definition on R-8 then the last time I understood it.
Brown: It is real similar.
Jones: Is it?
Brown: Yeah. You have a problem with R-8 zoning. That is all we are looking at today
and I guess I am not really seeing any—we’re going to take the plat on its merits and
whether it complies with the zone we approve or don’t approve.
Jones: I guess I was a little confused before I got here. I assumed that Gem Park and
Settlers Village were all R-4 just because basically that is the density that they are, but
where the zoning is R-8 I guess it is a similar type thing. There is not much to say
about that. I would just be concerns that they—likewise the LO comes in as a zoning
and anyone can do anything under that zoning rather then be approved as a conditional
use permit by what has been applied for.
Barbeiro: Jay is there any access from your subdivision here into any of the
neighboring roads that children could walk—
Jones: Right now the children use my property as well as the gentleman who lives on
the corner there in the yellow—(inaudible). Prior it was granted permission for him to
use a ditch bank and they still currently use that. Both I and the gentleman on the
corner have agreed that we might can work something out to allow access—pedestrian
access from Carol Street on over. Right now under Boise School District regulations,
our subdivision is a bussing subdivision because of the traffic on Locust Grove, even
though we are less than a quarter of a mile from school, if you would.
Barbeiro: As this new subdivision comes in you would like to see—I’m guessing
because I know where you live and I know the school there—but the children could
walk to (inaudible) without having to come around Locust Grove and walk over.
Jones: That has been a concern of many of the neighbors in our subdivision. That
would be something that we would look at.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman is that something we could take into consideration or should
the 2 or 3 neighbors in that group could work out and bring to us. It is a major concern
because with the school that sits back here, these children now are essentially walking
in mud. With this division here now, the children would have to walk around Locust
Grove and come back out to get the school bus right here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 26
Borup: I don’t know that we can address property off site of the application but I think
we certainly can for the property itself. I am not sure what type of agreement, other
then an informal that we are talking three separate pieces of property here that this
affects. If you are trying to get a permanent easement through into Settlers Subdivision
that goes into that culdesac. Is it fenced off from their other property or they just
walking through the yards.
Jones: There is a barbed wire fence and we have created an access, if you would, a
bypass post for the children to get through there.
Borup: Once they go across, then they are just walking through their yard.
Jones: Their yard is about 6 feet wide right there. The same as where the sewer
easement will go.
Borup: Oh, there is a sewer easement there now?
Jones: Well I think so. That is where the sewer is going to come through at for this
project.
Borup: Okay, that puts it in a little different light to then if there—Bruce is there a sewer
easement –is that where the sewer easement is?
Freckleton: It is a storm sewer. However, that is how the applicant proposes sewering
this project.
Borup: So there needs to be an easement established?
Freckleton: Yes.
Borup: Would this be similar to other easements? Is that going to be –normally there is
a walk path over –
Freckleton: That is probably the ideal situation would be that it be incorporated into a
pedestrian path.
Borup: (inaudible) happen when the sewer easement is connecting two separate
roads.
Freckleton: Yeah, that way it can be double use. The earlier comment regarding water
pressure, I know Gary Smith, our City Engineer, had received some calls. I will follow
up with him tomorrow to find out where that went. I was not involved in those
conversations but I can definitely check on that. Looking at the plan, I guess one thing I
would probably propose to the applicant too is extending the water on through there as
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 27
well in order to loop the system back to Locust Grove. That will help balance water
pressure and hydraulics.
Borup: Extend the water through that same easement and then have a loop through
the project. Something you would be looking at when you see the plat.
Freckleton: That is correct.
Borup: If we are still on the subject of the path through the school, it looks like it can
probably be accommodated if there can be something from your subdivision.
Jones: It would just be the matter of the land –a piece of my land depending how wide
that was and what it would have to be to accommodate that. Something we need to
work out with the developer.
Borup: It looks like it may be worth –finding out the technicalities of what that would
entail. I don’t know. Any other questions for Mr. Jones. Thank you. Anyone else?
Brian: Don Brian. 2070 N. Locust Grove Road. My property is directly east of the
proposed R-8 property. I have a problem with the zoning. I have a problem with the R-
8 because the density as you heard from other testimony here, the traffic very big
problem out there and which is the reason I have to leave early and go to work or I can’t
get out on Locust Grove. It is that heavy in the morning and in the evening.
Borup: Don, do you realize that the subdivisions on all three sides of this is zoned R-8.
Brian: Yes, but do you realize that the Doris Subdivision is all mature one acre or
bigger lots and it will never change into an R-8 unless they tear down houses to redo it
all.
Borup: I do.
Brian: If there was never a better place for a transition between R-8 and
Borup: R-8.
Brian: Well if your talking about two different things. Your talking about Ada County
from 50 years ago and your talking about Meridian today. Anybody that drives through
Doris Subdivision knows that you’ve got these huge acreage backyards that abut right
to these R-8 developments and the people that come out of that R-8 development, it’s
so long and skinny they will be lined up along the south side waiting to get out on
Locust Grove unless they put a light there. They all ready have a light on Chateau.
They are going to end up putting one on Oakcrest, because it is going to tie back into
subdivisions back behind the church, if they ever sell that parcel back in there—that one
acre parcel back behind the intersection of Fred Meyer and whatever that is. Dixie
Lane. All that traffic will eventually come this way once they condemn the guy that is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 28
living there. So you going to have a light at each one of those intersections is the only
possible way your going to keep traffic moving. They are going to be stacked in this
development. I live across the street and I will never get out unless I put my own light
in. That is a real big problem in that area. I don’t know if Ada County—I know it is not
your problem to direct traffic, but if Ada County can’t come up with a system to move
traffic through there, the R-8 is not a good idea for there in my opinion.
Brown: What is a good idea?
Brian: I don’t have any idea. They tried to move this through here 3-4-5 years ago and
it was too long and skinny to do anything with. It use to be a farm land. It had one
dwelling on it and they proposed putting duplexes but it was too long-a culdesac length.
It is so long and skinny it was undevelopable so that guy sold it to either somebody else
that bought it and present owner now owns it from whoever he bought it from. They
decided they couldn’t develop it then. I don’t know what the answer it. You guys—I’ve
got the same problem. I live across the street. I have an acre and a half. What do I do
with mine? What is the good use for mine other then what is in now. I’ve got horses
and it is all pasture and a small farm house. That was the original farmhouse for that
whole area and they are just closing in around me and all the build up and all the
development is building up around me literally—height wise, elevation wise I am in a
hole. Every time there is a problem with water, I’m flooded, as any one in here can
attest. I have a real good history about being flooded so we won’t get into that. We will
stick to the traffic problem. I have a problem with the LO. Once we approve a LO zone,
the only restriction we have is a conditional use permit and when we had our
neighborhood meeting with the developers, they said what we are going to do there is
put in a nice small office and it is going to be the home builder that is going to build the
homes in there and there will be very few traffic problems and a very small office space.
That is fine and it can go through a conditional use permit but if that doesn’t happen,
can we come back to the city make them either change their conditional use permit or—
what are the restrictions on this office building.
Borup: If what doesn’t happen? If the building is not built you mean.
Brian: No, if they build like a two story multiplex theatre or something. What ever they
are—more then just a small doctors office.
Borup: That is the reason for the conditional use permit. It has to come before a public
hearing.
Brian: If they don’t adhere to the conditional use permit then we come back to City Hall.
Borup: No, they can’t build it.
Brian: (inaudible) a small office space and it will only bring in—
Borup: The design of the building itself will be brought before.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 29
Brian: And it will go through a traffic study with Ada County on traffic use. My concern
is cars coming and going all day long.
Borup: It will be like any other project. ACHD needs to review it then and the
conditional use permit will be for specific buildings, specific design. And, limited uses
also. That is the only thing that can be built there. They couldn’t get a building permit
otherwise.
Brian: So that would be the time we need to pursue what we don’t want in there.
Borup: Right. And we can put other conditions—there can be conditions placed on it in
addition to. We have done that in the past. We have limited specific uses even though
they may have been approved allowed in a zone we’ve limited to more specific
Brian: I am talking about enforcement. Once you put the restrictions on what they can
and can’t do and they come and tell you that there is going to be a small traffic flow and
it ends up being a daycare center, where you have many traffic flows.
Borup: That is where the uses can be –that is part of the conditional use.
Brain: Okay. Getting back to the R-8, I am sure the developers will argue otherwise
they have but being surrounded by R-8 and knowing first hand, the R-8 subdivisions as
history goes, after of course a 3 to 5 years a lot of houses in there become rentals. I
am dealing with a renter behind me right now with problems. People come and go and
they don’t take care of the place and kids and dogs run wild and I have problems with
that. Once you start renting them out the neighborhood goes right down the street and
things do get taken care of. I have a big berm on my north side that is supposedly
being taken care of by the homeowners association. That has gone out the door after
the first 3 years that subdivision was in there. They have gone through there and
cleaned it up and pruned the trees once in the last 10 years. It looks like a trash—all
the bark gone off the berm, the trees are all over grown. You can’t walk down the
sidewalk without hitting your head. It is a mess and I guess the subdivision there does
not care.
Borup: I don’t think I see anything we can address here.
Brian: Well, we are talking about the R-8 zoning and that is what R-8 zoning turns into
is my point. That is my last point, so I'm done.
Borup: Thank you Don. Anyone else. Need to hurry if you do.
Powell: Wes Powell. I live at 2089 N. Sapphire Place. Basically, as it is set up right
now they would be backed up right against my property. Right now we have an
easement where we can’t build 30 feet off the property line which if that is the case,
then that is what they should have to do, so it gives us that much more if they are going
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 30
to build R-8 houses—I mean according to his plan as shown right now, I’d have 3
houses, trailers, whatever you want to call them, butted up against my fence. That is
the disagreement I have is if he is going to come in here and build these small places,
or actually I think he should build them as large as the surrounding houses. My
concern is right now we have kids that run through the field and stuff. If anything they
should take it and build a park and put some good use to it. Traffic problems like
everybody else, same complaint is all I have to say.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mortson: My name is Lane Mortson. I live at 2092 Sapphire Place directly in the center
on the north side in the pie shape lot. I have the same concerns about the R-8 that the
density is going to show a lot smaller lots and I don’t think that the people that live there
are going to be long term residents and that they are going to take care of their places
very well. It is just my opinion. I am also concerned about the water and the pressure
and basically the concerns about the other folks who have voiced their opinion also.
Borup: Thank you sir. Do we have anyone else or are we done?
Mortson: My name is Tina Mortson and I live at 2092 Sapphire Place. I know at the
time that we had bought our property 8 years ago, we were told about the easement
that ran along our property. At that same time they talked about the easement on the
other side. So there is a concern. Is that easement going to effect where they are
going to build. That is consideration and the water pressure is another consideration
and then the kids that will be going to (inaudible). They all ready have over crowding.
That was a issue years ago. We have been here twice since we lived at 2092 in
regards to people building there. These are all the same concerns that we had at that
time that we still have now. I would like to know about that easement also. I am sure
that it runs on that property line.
Borup: Is that a sewer easement. Is that a main trunkline easement?
Mortson: I think it is a irrigation, if I’m not mistaken, that runs—we have to pay irrigation
charge and I am sure that it is irrigation ditch that was supposed to be back there. If I’m
not mistaken, our easement is like 30 feet from our back fence. There is no way that
we can build back there.
Borup: It would have to be something addition to a irrigation (inaudible). There may be
two, but-- Isn’t there a trunk line running through there—a major—No?
Freckleton: Not sewer. A few years back, Don would probably remember this better
then myself. He was pretty involved in that. ACHD went in a few years ago and put in
a new—I guess it was a irrigation run off combination storm drain. He is shaking his
head no.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 31
Borup: Okay so the statement was there is a 24 inch irrigation easement. That is a 30
foot for 24 inch.
Freckleton: I don’t know what the easement is. State statute requires that all
easements of record be shown on a preliminary plat and we don’t have a preliminary
plat to look at, so I am sure that we’ll be addressing that issue.
Borup: Which lot were you on –which street.
Mortson: 2092 N. Sapphire. We are the center culdesac that butts up right there.
Borup: I think at one point there was an easement through those—I am going back a
few years—that easement may not be on the lot line. I may be through the property.
That will definitely shown up on the plat.
Mortson: There is definitely water problems. Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner's. Oh, would the applicant like to have a summary?
Canning: Thank you Mr. Chairman. All ready lots of issues coming up tonight. We
anticipate most of these can probably be better addressed with the preliminary plat and
planned unit development process. I think I’d like to speak specifically to the zoning.
We do have a piece of property here that is surrounded although I personally feel that
your going to be seeing pressures in the near future from the south going to the north
from Fairview for more intense commercial type zoning. I think Doris Subdivision will be
in transition over the next 10 to 15-20 years. What we were proposing, I believe, is
number one, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. We
do have the commercial zone directly kitty corner to the southeast. We feel a LO zone
is most appropriate for a buffer from Locust Grove. Immediately to the east of us, there
are some mini storage areas over there also. We feel this is a really good transition.
From a traffic aspect, we have had some preliminary talks with ACHD. Of course
Locust Grove will be restricted within the next year or two. That should alleviate some
of the issues. The traffic engineers so far have not seen a particular issue with what we
are proposing here. One minor advantage of the LO zone is that you see you traffic
pattern switching. The R-8, the residential has a tendency to –if you have peaks early
in the morning and after work hours, like 4 to 5-6 o’clock at night. With the LO zoning
you will find the reverse of that. The flow directions are opposite. It actually helps
mediate some of the traffic impacts from that residential zone. We feel that is a real
plus with that office area there. I don’t know how many other issues you want me to
address tonight. We feel the zoning is most appropriate. We are basically surrounded
by the R-8 and we do feel it is most appropriate for this property. I won’t touch any of
the other specific issues. I think that is most appropriate at the next hearing, but if there
are specific questions I would be happy to answer them.
Borup: Any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Commissioner's, what is your
pleasure.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 32
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, with regards to Mr. Canning’s comments about the Doris
Subdivision, except for those lots that butt up to Locust Grove, I do not see that
subdivision turning commercial. Since we have R-8 to the north, to the south and to the
west, it does fit the plan and motive of our Comprehensive Plan and the planning here
regardless of whether the south has 1 acre lots or regardless whether the south is
county or city.
Borup: I would have to agree with that.
Brown: Me too.
Barbeiro: With that Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we recommend approval to
City Council the request of annexation and zoning of 5.029 acres from RT to LO and R-
8 by Centers Construction.
Brown: I second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Commissioner's would this be an appropriate time for a break. We will have a 5
minute break at this point. If the other application move along, it looks like we should
get through our agenda.
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 3.68
ACRES FROM R1 TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED PINTAIL POINTE SUBDIVISION BY
JEFF MANSHIP—SOUTH SIDE OF CHERRY LANE EAST OF BLACK CAT ROAD:
Borup: Steve do we have a staff report.
Siddoway: Yes I do. First of all I’d like to ask number 9 on the agenda is the
preliminary plat. The difference between this and the other is this annexation and
zoning does have preliminary plat with it tonight. Would you like me to restrict my
comments just to the annexation and zoning at this point or do you want me to cover
the plat as well?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 33
Borup: Just cover both.
Siddoway: Okay. The lot is 3.68 acres. It is currently zoned R-3 in the county. They
are requesting to annex to the city and zone it R-4. They also have a plat for 11 family
lots. The site is located along Cherry Lane, east of Black Cat on the south side of
Cherry Lane. The north is Golf View Estates #3 Subdivision currently zoned R-4. To
the south is a vacant 5 acre parcel zoned R-3 in the county. To the east is a 5 acre
parcel zoned R-1 in Ada County with a single residence and Park Side Creek
Subdivision touches the extreme southeast corner of the parcel. On the west side is
phase one of the pending English Gardens Subdivision which currently has a
preliminary plat approved but no final plat. This is the proposed preliminary plat for the
site. Like I said, it has 11 single family lots. There are two main issues that I would like
to pull out. The first is that we have requested 20 foot landscape buffers along Cherry
Lane which they are complying with but we have asked for them to be on common lots
and maintained by home owners association. They have responded that they do not
want to do that. They want them maintained by the underlying lot owners. I point out
that we have had problems with this arrangement in the past with Subdivision’s. We
find they are better maintained when they are maintained by a homeowners association
and when they are left to individual lots owners, they are not maintained as one unit and
not kept up as well. The second issue has to deal with a requested stub street to the
east and Brad’s comments which you have talked about a stub street to a 5 acre parcel
to the east which is this parcel over here. Their response said the parcel to the east is
not 5 acres but is one acre and I believe they are talking about this parcel right here
which is not part of the plat. The intention was to suggest that Tutor Street be
continued through to stub into this property so that eventually this would go through
English Gardens and out to Black Cat Road and provide access to that as well as
Cherry Lane. This is a photograph of the site as it is currently taken from the north side
of Cherry Lane looking across Cherry Lane to the south. It shows the existing house
and shop and garage. That is all I have at this point unless you have questions.
Borup: Any questions for Steve? Do we have –we do not have a ACHD report—we do
have a ACHD report. Oh, it is in the next packet. Is the applicant here and like to come
forward.
Manship: Jeff Manship. 4375 W. Cherry Lane.
Borup: You can maybe explain a little bit but the easy way to handle it is if you had any
comments, concerns, problems with staff comments.
Manship: One thing I want to comment on. Taking Tutor Street over to the 5 acres.
That parcel since has split and a gentleman put a road down the east side of the other
side of the one acre parcel there and is going to build a barn and a shop and I have all
ready visited with him. That would be a obsolete to do that. That is why we designed it
the way it stands now.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Manship?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 34
Barbeiro: The owner of the 5 acre lot made a flag lot then where he has access running
along that property line up to Cherry Lane to a property behind the (inaudible) property.
Manship: That does not show it there. It since been split in the middle. It is a
easement.
Barbeiro: Under those circumstances carrying over Tutor Street (inaudible) the lot back
here will be built upon in the near future a home, a barn. The existing home sits up on
the front lot.
Manship: Yes, on the northeast corner of that.
Borup: Mr. Manship I have one. Are you going to have a homeowners association for
this Subdivision?
Manship: I was not going to have one due to the fact that there is only 11 lots and the
cost of that would be –not make sense. The 2 lot owners Lot 1 block 3 and Lot 2 and I
still live in the house there so I would be maintaining, not that is makes any difference
but I was going to have the homeowners just take care of that 20 foot section in front
(inaudible) part of the CC&R’s.
Borup: How are you handling your irrigation. That be maintained by Nampa Meridian, I
assume then.
Manship: Correct. I am also trying to –I have a meeting with Pinnacle Engineers next
Monday to possibly tie into English Gardens irrigation which was a recommendation
from Bruce.
Borup: I think that is what Nampa Meridian is going to want to do.
Barbeiro: Is this a hammerhead or tying into an existing road or—
Manship: I have a new design here that it’s actually going to be rounded off. That is
just the way it shows with the survey for the corners of the lots. Hot off the press here if
you want to take a look at it. (Inaudible) stub street.
Barbeiro: I’d like to see that.
Brown: Have you seen the new—
Siddoway: I have not seen it.
Borup: Obviously English Gardens did not have a stub street coming in at that point I
am assuming. So it never should have been designed that way to begin with.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 35
Steve: I did not prepare the comments on this. I did not do the research. I don’t know.
Borup: Mr. Manship said that English Gardens did not have a street tying in at that
point, so—that should not have been design showing a stub at that location anyway.
Where they were platted first, you would need to tie into their stubs. Any other
questions.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to point out, the reason you do have a revised
preliminary plat to night, it is a little—usually we don’t like getting these at the meeting,
but I will point out that the reason you do have this one is because of the way I had
worded my comment. It was not real clear. My comments were that the revised
preliminary plat should be turned in with the written response. Typically, I don’t ask that
the plat be revised until it goes to City Council, but somehow that comment—it is a
standard comment that got the wording changed on it so that is why you are getting it
tonight. One other item I did want to point out is you are aware that English Garden
Subdivision went through considerable debate regarding the sewer, Black Cat Trunk
Line, Ten Mile, trunk expansion fee and that sort of thing that was proposed by Brad
Watson. This property will be sewering to English Gardens and therefore would be
subject to that same fee. Currently I believe that fee is estimated at $1500 per lot.
Could be more.
Borup: Have you read ACHD’s comments.
Manship: Yes I have and I am willing to abide to all of them.
Borup: For some reason I don’t have it in my packet. So ACHD did not talk about a
stub street to the east.
Manship: No. The house there with the one acre lot would not meet setback
requirements if I did stub that.
Borup: I meant the one further to the south—Tutor that staff had made mention to.
ACHD did not. Did they make a mention of that? They don’t make any mention of it.
Okay, they do make mention of it. They say the applicant is not proposing to extend
Tutor Street to the east. District staff does not recommend a stub street at this location.
They made mention of it and are agreeing with—Thank you. We have anyone from the
audience who would like to testify on this application. Seeing none, Commissioner's.
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 36
Borup: Looks to me like the only issue was the landscape buffer. Never mind there
wasn’t any issue on the annexation and zoning.
Barbeiro: I make a motion that we recommend approval to City Council with staff
comments, Item number 8 request for annexation and zoning of 3.68 acres from R-1 to
R-4 for proposed Pintail Point Subdivision by Jeff Manship.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 11 LOTS ON 3.68
ACRES FOR PROPOSED PINTAIL POINTE SUBDIVISION BY JEFF MANSHIP—
SOUTH SIDE OF CHERRY LANE EAST OF BLACK CAT ROAD:
Borup: Steve anything additional.
Siddoway: Nothing thanks.
Borup: Mr. Manship, anything additional you’d like to add. We will incorporate your
previous testimony into this hearing. Commissioner's any questions or comments.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, with regards to the comment about the homeowners
association caring for the landscape buffer, if no homeowners association will be
formed, what are our options.
Borup: Maybe Kent would like to address that but the ones I have been involved in the
developer put in the landscaping, put in the buffer and had it in the covenants it was to
be maintained by the particular lot owner.
Brown: That is one option I believe. The other one is that we can require them to have
a homeowners association and my recommendation would be that the CC&R’s be
reviewed by the City Attorney to make sure that its going to maintained. The other way
that you can do it is ask the homeowners to do it, but if it is not maintained, then the
homeowner is responsible. But I don’t think that—
Borup: The one I was involved in there was a notation right on the plat, even showing a
landscaped easement with a statement that it was to be maintained by the adjoining
property owner. I don’t know if that was necessary but it was on the plat in addition to
the covenants.
Barbeiro: Steve, did you have any suggestions on the assumption that no homeowners
association was (inaudible) and how we might make sure that—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 37
Siddoway: I don’t know. I can sympathize but the issue is that the city cannot enforce
CC&R’s. So, if it is simply left up to the CC&R’s, even if we approve them and they are
in there and we agree that they are good, the city has no teeth to enforce those. If they
are or if it is a common lot with conditions put on the plat, to be maintained by a
homeowners association, then we do have the ability to enforce that. That is our
perspective.
Brown: You can put into them that CC&R’s be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney and that they cannot be changed or devolved without specific approval from
the city.
Siddoway: We can do that but if they are not living up to the CC&R’s, we can’t enforce
that is my understanding. Maybe the attorney could speak to that.
Swartley: That is correct Steve. We would have no enforcement on that. The thing to
do would be to have a homeowners association to enforce that.
Borup: Let me ask another question. Is the city enter into an agreement with the
property owner as far as maintenance?
Swartley: We could. I don’t know that we would want to.
Borup: No, no not for the city to maintain it. Just an agreement where he would agree
to maintain it.
Swartley: Again, we could but there would be no enforcement behind it.
Borup: Something like a conditional use permit. I don’t know if a conditional use permit
would be the proper way to go, but some type of similar agreement.
Swartley: You could come up with an agreement, but again whether or not we could
enforce that would be the question.
Brown: You have the same trouble with the homeowners association. The previous
hearing we just had, the neighbor was complaining that the homeowner association
was not maintaining the berm.
Siddoway: We would have to enforce that one. We basically been dealing with those
on a complaint basis and we have not received a complaint on it. If we did, we would
send the code enforcement officers out.
Borup: How do you—
Swartley: Those are code enforcement—Meridian City Code Enforcement Violations.
They are not homeowners association violations.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 38
END OF SIDE 3
Borup: What if the homeowners association says sorry we don’t feel like it. What is the
next step.
Swartley: There is a difference between the CC&R’s of the homeowners association—
Borup: I’m talking about—I understand.
Brown: How is this a code violation?
Swartley: It wouldn’t be.
Borup: So the homeowners association did not maintain the landscaping buffer, how
does the city enforce that.
Swartley: It wouldn’t, unless it violated Meridian City Code. The homeowners
association is there to enforce the covenants, conditions and restrictions which may or
may not be the same as the Meridian City Code. They can be completely different. Our
code enforcement officers enforce the Meridian City Code, not the CC&R’s of the
homeowners association.
Borup: Understand that. So it’s got to be a Subdivision where the people care what it
looks like.
Swartley: Exactly.
Brown: Why would these people care that the landscape buffer that doesn’t come into
their lots that is facing out onto Cherry Lane—
Borup: One and two would care. I think saying everything south of the –
Brown: Everything north of the fence or whatever they put in because the lots are
taking access from the internal street.
Barbeiro: The non maintenance of that be a code violation and allow the city to go in.
Swartley: It could conceivably be.
Brown: The weeds get so high that becomes a violation. So just not pruning their trees
or changing the bark it looks shabby, its not.
Borup: Steve should their normally be a landscape plan submitted?
Siddoway: We will require one with submittal of the final plat.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 39
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: I heard some discussion up front about it would become a code violation if
the weeks got high and such, I guess that code violation be the same in his favor
whether it is by homeowners association or individual lot owners and we could enforce
those codes either way. If you do approve this without a common lot, I’d like to point out
that any fences erected on those lots would have to be at the easement line so they are
not part of the lots. So that landscaping serves as a buffer as they are intended for the
street.
Borup: The concern here—this is a corridor into the city. I can understand the concern
on forming a homeowners association for a very minimal purpose. Ninety percent of
that annual budget is going to be insurance—liability insurance unless they form a
association without any. It is expensive to have something that has a very minor
purpose.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Brown: I second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we recommend approval to City Council
for Item 9, request for preliminary plat for 11 lots on 3.68 acres for proposed Pintail
Point Subdivision by Jeff Manship—the amended plat that was submitted today at our
meeting with staff comments with a note that there will not be a homeowners
association in this—excuse me the developer does not intend to have a homeowners
association for this group and that the buffer on Cherry Lane would be maintained by
the individual property owners.
Borup: And all other staff comments in tact except for the stub street.
Barbeiro: Okay well excuse me –and in keeping with the Ada County Highway District
recommendation that their not be a stub street on Tutor.
Swartley: Could you say it one more time. I’d like to hear it again.
Barbeiro: That we delete the recommendation by Meridian City Planning for a stub
street extending Tutor Street through to the east adjacent unplatted lot.
Swartley: I’m sorry, Commissioner Barbeiro.
Borup: Then the other is Item number 2 under Planning and Zoning requirements,
page 4.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 40
Brown: If I could clarify, Mr. Chairman. What you are asking for is staff’s
recommendation on page 4 that condition number 2 be removed. That there is no
homeowners association, but that you would require in place of that that there be an
easement maintained by the homeowners of those two lots and if I could recommend
that that be a note on the face of the plat.
Barbeiro: I would concur with that.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that only the portion relating to the
homeowners association and the common lot are deleted for number 2 and that the
requirement for the detailed landscape plan be submitted with the final plat remains.
Barbeiro: Correct, we will go ahead with that. The line under planning and zoning
requirements number 2, page 4, the (inaudible) shall be come a common lot of the
Subdivision and be maintained by the homeowners association be deleted (inaudible).
Borup: Well then the sentence right before that. Staff recommends this buffer be
designated separate lot. So, those two sentences.
Barbeiro: I’m sorry. What was the recommendation for the Tutor Street.
Siddoway: It is number 4 under planning and zoning requirements. If I might, maybe
the clearest way to say this would be deleting the first two sentences of number 2 under
planning and zoning requirements and requirement number 4 and all other staff
comments remain.
Barbeiro: That would be the second and third sentence on number 2. All of number 4
deferring to the ACHD –
Swartley: And are you requiring an easement also?
Barbeiro: Yes.
Brown: I second that.
Borup: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 1.761 ACRES FROM R-8
TO R-15 TO ENTIRELY R-15 BY LYND HOOVER—1318 E. 4TH
:
Borup: Steve, any staff report.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, this property is currently split zoned. The northern half of the
property is zoned R-8. The southern half of the property is zoned R-15. It is one
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 41
parcel. The located is the hashed area right here. The address is off an unimproved
section of East Forth Street. It is west of the existing Creekside Arbour apartment
complex which is currently zoned R-15. It is south of the proposed expansion of
Creekside Arbour which was before you a couple months ago. The area surrounding is
predominately apartments and duplex units with some single family housing. The
parcel itself has 2 existing single family homes on the southern portion and on the
northern portion contains an old mobile home that's reported to be occupied at times
and has several old automobiles and weeds as you will soon see. This is the northern
portion of the property the part that is currently zoned R-8 with the two houses. This is
the southern portion of the property currently zoned R-15. The main question on this is
whether its appropriate to be zoned all R-15 as the applicant is requesting. Most of the
zoning around it is R-15. The only hang up and question that we have as staff is that
the R-15 zone definition requires that it be adjacent to a collector or arterial and have
open space requirements. I would point out that none of the other R-15 that surrounds
this property meets that. Shari points out in her staff comments on general
requirements number 5 that the clean up of the site needs to be done within the next 30
days to bring it into acceptable condition to meet current codes. That’s all I have at this
point.
Borup: Any questions for Steve? Steve I thought I heard you say that the southern part
was R---
Siddoway: R-15. It is currently R-8 and R-15 split zoned.
Hoover: Lynd Hoover, 3420 Sugar Creek Drive, Meridian.
Borup: Maybe I can make this short. Is there any -- We have the staff comments,
have you had a chance to review those.
Hoover: I have reviewed the staff comments. I have reviewed Ada County Highway
District comments. I have no problem with any of their comments.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's?
Barbeiro: I was curious what you would do with the property.
Hoover: Well, as it is it’s not sellable. I can’t go to somebody and say I have a place
that you can develop or put apartments on, but part of it is zoned this and part of it is
zoned this and you can do it. They are not going to listen to be until I say it is zoned
this way and you can do this with conditional use permit.
Barbeiro: So you have no intention to –
Hoover: I use to live in the house on the front and since I’ve moved it is a rental house.
I don’t plan myself to develop it—at least for the next couple years and I doubt it then.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 42
Borup: Thank you Mr. Hoover. Anyone here to comment or testify?
Leavell: My name is Lucy Leavell. I live at 2720 S. Aerial Lane in Meridian. My
husband and I own the property to the east of this piece and to the north. We have 2
concerns with this property and staff addressed them quite well. Mr. Hoover is quite
willing to work with them, so perhaps they don’t need to be restated. We were
concerned—there was a drainage area through this property when we built to the west
of it and or to the east and north, developing our partially, our street there to the north of
it. We were required to accommodate the drainage and we did that with our
development. Since that time, the drainage has just been filled in with loose dirt and it
no longer drains and it has become a swampy area that is of concern.
Borup: Does it back up under your property?
Leavell: No. Actually some of the dirt filled in—it is above our fence line, but we did
construct a fence there and it is not backing, to my knowledge, backing onto our
property at this time. However, we have not had a wet year. The other concern that I
had was just that the staff report didn’t acknowledge the fact that they do have access
to Badley which feeds into 2-1/2 Street. They do have a reasonable collector access
for a small lot. I do think that the R-15 for the entire parcel is the reasonable use of this
land. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else. Commissioner's.
Brown: I recommend we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Steve was there any comment on the drainage?
Siddoway: I don’t know of a drainage issue and public works might be better suited to
address that.
Borup: Why don’t you turn around and ask Mr. Hoover.
Hoover: (from the audience) When they developed the apartments to the east
(inaudible) the water ran off over there to a drainage ditch and collected (inaudible)No
irrigation so there is no drainage. As far as the ground being built up higher along the
fence line, that (inaudible)there is nothing to drain because there is no irrigation—
Siddoway: The applicant is saying that there is nothing to drain because when the
property to the east was developed with apartments, the irrigation ditch was abandoned
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 43
and removed as opposed to tiled and still there, yes. It did drain across the property
toward Badley, but since that ditch was abandoned there is nothing there to drain
anymore.
Borup: Okay, if the project was developed and there was an existing drain that needed
to go through there that would be addressed on the plat, so if there was something that
would come up at that time on a plat.
Siddoway: Yes, any such easements would show up on the plat and you could deal
with them at that time.
Barbeiro: I move that we recommend approval to City Council Item 10, request for
rezone of 1.761 acres from R-8 to R-15 to entirely R-15 by the owner Lynd Hoover
incorporating all staff comments.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
10.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPOSED TEMPORARY PARKING AND PRODUCT STORAGE ON ADJACENT
LOTS ZONED C-G BY GARY BODILY-BODILY RV—MERIDIAN ROAD BETWEEN
FRANKLIN AND GEM:
Borup: Steve.
Siddoway: This is the existing Bodily RV facility that fronts on First Street in downtown
Meridian. The lot actually extends from First Street to Meridian Road. It is north of
Gem Avenue and South of Franklin Road. They are proposing due to the rapid growth
of their business, over flow parking and product storage to be approved on the two
areas that are hashed on the map on the wall. In-between it is the existing Bodily RV
facility. It would be restricted to or have a time limit of 12 to 18 months and we would—
there are some issues whether the pavement—we would like to see some paving
extend off of Meridian Road into the property to keep the gravel from migrating on to
Meridian Road, but have no major hang ups with this. If you have any questions, I
would be happy to answer them.
Barbeiro: Steve, the pavement or paved road coming in essentially a little drive way
(inaudible) off of Meridian Road in to that larger parcel.
Siddoway: Yes actually I have a photograph that I forgot to show you. This is that lot
behind Les Schwab. This photo is taking from Meridian Road looking east. This is the
larger of the two lots that they are proposing to use. You can all ready see some RV’s
on there. They have been using it and they are going through this to formalize their
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 44
permission to do so. The existing Bodily RV site as viewed from Meridian Road is this.
I don’t have a picture of the smaller one because its land locked in the middle. The
proposal would be to –I’m standing at the edge of a curb cut that goes into the site
where you can access it and we would like to have some paving there to enter into the
site to keep the gravel from coming out on to the road.
Borup: Is the applicant here and like to come forward.
Vance: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission my name is Mike Vance. I am with
W.B. Consulting Group and I am representing Gary Bodily. My address is 825 E. State
Street in Eagle.
Borup: My quick question would be do you have concerns with staff comments?
Vance: We have no concern accept for number 3, which I would like to very briefly
discuss. One thing before I get into that I did want to mention, this is a temporary
conditional use permit unlike most of them. This has a sunset of 18 months. Mr. Bodily
in all likelihood will be before you very soon for a new facility in a different location. The
only thing that I would like to mention to you is that (inaudible) or on the southerly
piece, the southerly lot is not going to have anything for sale on it. It is for overflow
parking. How you get into that southerly cross-hashed area is you go up the northerly
side. There is a driveway that goes all the way from First Street all the way through to
Meridian. What that is used for is for overflow parking for the vehicles, the recreational
vehicles that go in there. ACHD, when they just redid Meridian Road, put 2 curb cuts
into that lot and they paved them back something like 6 or 8 feet.
Borup: Beyond the sidewalk?
Vance: Yes. It is not paved back the 30 feet that ACHD normally would like to see and
probably would. Under normal circumstances this is a CG lot. The whole thing is going
to get paved when a building goes in there anyway. There is some paving there today.
For the most part, the access into that graveled lot is through the east/west roadway
that goes between First and Meridian Road. It is not a killer condition, but common
sense would say you should put the 30 feet in. Those two driveways are really not
used that much. If it is a condition that the city insists on, ACHD did not make any
comment regarding paving that 30 feet. That is a city request that the planning
department is asking for. All the other conditions are perfectly acceptable. We would
just ask for some compromise on paving that back. That lot does not belong to Mr.
Bodily.
Barbeiro: Mr. Vance between you and Steve, granted that Mr. Bodily does not own the
lot, could we put those little temporary fences that you put up there at the curb cut.
Would that be sufficient to prevent migration or would that be a problem with fire.
Vance: Well, there is nothing there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 45
Borup: Fire would go right over it if there was a problem.
Barbeiro: As a curb cut, that would be where people very well may come in and drive in
and out of that area. If you want to prevent people from coming through that curb cut
and use the main east/west artery that putting up one of those very similar to what we
have in the Subdivision where the street is stubbed off and in anticipation of another
Subdivision to come in. Steve, would that be acceptable? Again, it is just to prevent
people from going through that one curb cut into the parking lot.
Borup: Steve, while you are commenting is there indeed 6 feet of pavement back there.
Your picture did not show that. Was that because there was mud on it?
Siddoway: Yeah, I’m actually not sure if it does. I can only take his word for it. I did
drive onto the lot using that curb cut, but all I remember is lots of dirt. It may very well
be.
Vance: Your off the sidewalk pretty quick. It is about 6,7 feet of asphalt.
Siddoway: Beyond the sidewalk, or
Vance: Beyond the sidewalk.
Borup: Mr. Vance, it just got come mud on it and that is why it don’t show up.
Vance: It has a little on it. You can see it.
Siddoway: Mr. Barbeiro’s question, the –it is not a bad idea to block it off. My hesitation
is with esthetics, just having those barricades on Meridian Road which is a major entry
way corridor concerns me.
Borup: Like parking lot bumpers.
Vance: Mr. Chairman, we agree to all the conditions of approval.
Borup: Are you going to put a new gravel base in?
Vance: It’s all ready graveled.
Borup: So it is done to the extent that its going to be?
Vance: Yes.
Borup: Cause there is a lot of mud there now.
Vance: It’s not for public use. It is only for employee parking and for parking for
recreational vehicles that can not be parking along the east/west roadway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 46
Borup: You have all ready stated—you said you would comply to all this. My concern
would be if that is the condition it is there is going to be mud tracked out if your going
directly onto the street.
Vance: Nobody goes directly onto the street because there is quite a drop off going
down to the street.
Borup: Okay thank you. Any one here wish to comment or testify on this application.
Commissioner's.
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Brown: I move approval of Item 11 request for conditional use permit for purpose of
temporary parking and product storage on the adjacent lots zoned CG by Gary Bodily,
Bodily RV incorporating all staff comments.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
12. 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: I’d like to open the public hearing on Item number 12. We have a letter from
them requesting continuation. I would suggest that we may want to move this to the
end of the agenda and decide what dates at that time to look at our schedules. We will
move Item 12 to the end and in fact while I am at it, lets move Item 15 to the end of the
agenda also.
13.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PAPA
JOHN’S PIZZA-TAKE OUT, DELIVERY, EATING ESTABLISHMENT BY COLE
ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS—1580 4TH
STREET, SUITE 103:
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 47
Siddoway: This is a conditional use permit for Papa John’s Pizza. The reason why this
is before you as a conditional use permit is because they are proposing to go into a LO
zone as a restaurant use. All restaurant uses are conditional uses in LO zones. The
property you see hashed on the vicinity map in front of you, the property across the
street to the north is the Embassy Mobil Home Park and there are also some office
buildings in the other lots that you see, zoned LO with the same color. To the south,
this large parcel here is the LDS church. They have ball fields back in the back here.
The church sits on this part of the lot here. On these lots to the east, there is a
Laundromat and a dental office, to the west there is chiropractic office that sits here and
two residences in these locations here along 4th
Street. This is the existing site plan.
Papa John’s would be going into this tenant space here. Meridian Computer Center is
in the space adjacent to them and H&R Block is also in this building. This is a photo of
the site taken from across Cherry Lane at the entrance of Embassy Mobile Home Park.
The site that they would be occupying is this area right here. The only two comments
that I would have – one Shari wanted some clarification on the hours of operation to see
if the adjacent homeowners that are along 4th
Street would be impacted by delivery
trucks driving at all hours of the night and the second issue was in relation to the
existing sign. Just make the point that no new signage would be approved and that
they would be expected to use the existing multi-tenant sign that all ready exists on the
property. That’s all if have.
Barbeiro: Steve does that prevent them from putting a sign on the building also?
Siddoway: No. They can have on-building signage but no new free standing signs is
what I should have said.
Borup: Is the applicant here? Apparently not. Is there anyone here who would like to
testify on this application or comment? Steve, do we know anything about hours of
operation or whether they even have delivery?
Siddoway: It is primarily delivery and take out. I do not believe they have any dine in
facilities. That was one of the questions I was intending to ask. Without those
questions answered, I don’t know.
Borup: Isn’t there a Papa John’s down at Albertson’s at Ten Mile?
Siddoway: No, there is not one in Meridian. It is not a sit down restaurant. It is mostly
take out and delivery.
Borup: But they do have tables?
Siddoway: I do not know. I do not believe so.
Borup: Someone in the audience said there is not a sit down in the Nampa store.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 48
Siddoway: I have been to the one in Boise and do not remember any tables in there
either.
Borup: Do we have enough information Commissioner's?
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I’ll second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: I move approval of Item 13, request for conditional use permit for Papa John’s
Pizza Take Out Delivery eating establishment by Cole and Assoc. Architects subject to
all staff comments and requirements.
Barbeiro: I’ll second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
14.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EXPANSION OF EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY IN AN R-4 ZONE BY MERIDIAN
FRIENDS CHURCH— 1021 W. PINE STREET:
Borup: Steve.
Siddoway: This is an expansion of an existing church along Pine Street. The reason it
is before you tonight is because the property is zoned R-4. Churches are not permitted
use in R-4, therefore this is a non-conforming use and Meridian Ordinance requires a
conditional use permit to expand or enlarge any non-conforming use in the city. You
see the site in the vicinity map in front of you. It is right here on the south side of Pine
Street. The church is located on the north 1.6 acres and the back 3.5 acres is currently
vacant. The site itself is just over 5 acres. To the south you’ve got the railroad here
and some industrial uses. (Inaudible) Subdivisions are to the north. The recently
approved Tremont Place Subdivision is to the east and these LO properties to the west
are currently vacant. This shows their site plan north being to the right in this case.
This would be Pine Street. You have 2 entrances off of Pine Street. The only concerns
that we had which weren’t major was the fact that these entry ways go from 2 way to a
1 way loop that circles around the church in this location. Most of the church is existing
here, this portion here the addition. The applicant may want to speak to the phasing on
this because I don’t know if they are prepared to do the entire site improvement at this
time. This is a photograph of the existing church on Pine Street. That is all I have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 49
Borup: Thank you, any questions for Steve. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Cooke: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission my name is John Cooke. I am the
project architect presenting Friend Church. The project is being developed to be
constructed in 2 phases at this particular point of time. We are looking at some interior
remodel to bring restrooms up to ADA standards and possibly move a few interior non
bearing corridor walls. The second phase that we are looking at would be to develop
the parking which is located on the east side of the building and that could possibly be
developed in phase A and a B depending how soon the new addition to the sanctuary is
put into place. We are looking at a time period of approximately 24 months to develop
out the project in an interior construction phase and an exterior construction. Like most
projects that require funding which is basically contribution funds. The church would
like to have the commission consider a phased construction. Any questions?
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Cooke? Any comments on staff recommendations Mr.
Cooke?
Cooke: The church has reviewed staff comments. We don’t find anything that we don’t
agree with.
Borup: Any one here from the audience who would like to comment or testify on this
application. Seeing none, Commissioner's.
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: I move approval of Item 14, the request for conditional use permit for expansion
of existing church facility in R-4 zone by Meridian Friends Church subject to all staff’s
conditions and comments.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Item 15 has been moved to the end of the agenda. Wow, we’re on Item 16.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I’m just wondering if the commission would like to add any
time limitations for the phasing on that because they don’t exist in the staff comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 50
Borup: Commissioner's, do you want to consider revising or amending that motion.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would amend my motion to limit it to 26 months.
Barbeiro: I would concur with that Mr. Chairman.
Borup: So we’ve amended the motion to add 26 month time period. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
16.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
COMMERCIAL-EXPANSION OF THE MERIDIAN CROSSROADS SHOPPING
CENTER (WALMART) BY DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED REALTY CORP. C/O
DAKOTA COMPANY, INC.—SOUTHEAST CORNER RECORDS DRIVE AND
FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: This is the new Walmart site along Fairview. It is the expansion of the
existing family center development at the intersection of Eagle Road and Fairview. The
Shopko currently sits in this location. This expansion would be to the east abutting
Crossroad Subdivision here and then extending to an undeveloped parcel here. This is
their proposed site plan for the conditional use permit. I will come back to this in just a
second. This is how the site currently looks as taken from Records Drive looking into
the site with Crossroads Subdivision in the background there. Most of the issues are
dealt with in the staff comments in front of you. The outstanding issues that remain to
be resolved that I expect to come up tonight. One is staff comment that 35 feet of
landscaping along Fairview Avenue, they currently have 20 feet in this location and 30
feet in this location. In comments with the applicant, they have stated that they could
comply with that request but it would mean shrinking the buffer that they have against
the Crossroads Subdivision where our current City Ordinance requires a minimum of 20
feet and they are providing 41 feet in this location and 31 feet in this location. We have
also asked for an additional 10 feet of buffering between the Walmart building and
loading docks and the adjacent cemetery to get some additional buffering between what
we would consider compatible land uses at that position and that is also needing to be
resolved. The trees that are shown along Venture Street at this point, appear to be
planted in the sidewalk, so they can be shifted but in here where there is off set trees
there could be some issues with spacing. I think they might be fine if they were just
moved over and it would just a tight spacing of trees. That is all I have at this point.
One more, the parking requirement
END OF SIDE 4
Siddoway: Based on the square footage of the building as a retail use at one per 200
square feet, they are meeting that almost to the exact number. I believe they have 3
extra spaces. The calculation does not include what is shown on their site plan this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 51
location as the outdoor garden area which would roughly require 50 additional stalls. If
you count that as additional retail space. I bring that up for your own decision. I
personally don’t feel like it needs to be included in the calculation simply because the
parking lot is so large all ready. The outdoor garden will be full of trees. I bring it up as
a potential issue because it is an area that will be used as retail space that is not
included in their parking calculation. That’s all I have.
Borup: One quick question Steve. Did you clarify the setback on the existing shopping
center.
Siddoway: The existing shopping center I believe was approved with 20 foot landscape
setbacks. It appears to be more because the landscape out into the right of way a
ways. The end of asphalt is not at the property line. They have 20 feet plus some
additional that is in the right of way for a total of around 30.
Borup: There is no curb and gutter there?
Siddoway: There is I believe.
Borup: I’ll ask that question in a little bit. Thank you. Will the applicant care to come
forward or do you think we have enough information.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center Blvd. Boise, ID.
Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I am the president and owner of the
Dakota Company Inc., a Boise based development company. I am here tonight on
behalf of the applicants, Developers Diversified Realty Corp. Our request tonight is to
gain your approval for a conditional use permit for the next phase of our development.
This phase includes a 206 thousand square foot store and related improvements. We
will submit a separate conditional use permit application for the proposed retail building
that is identified on the site. I think in the interest of one of the newer members of the
commission and the residents present, I would like to take a brief amount of time and
give you a little history of the project and to do that I am going to walk over to the board
and switch microphones. Just to orient everyone, this is Fairview Avenue. This is
Eagle Road. This board is not quite large enough to identify all of the property. For
your information I am not trying to hide anything, but there is another parcel as part of
our shopping center to the south of Presidential Drive here. We are not developing it. It
is not developed now. I choose not to get a bigger board then I needed. As you can
see, this is the Shopko that is now open and operating. We have new construction
under way right now. The Sportsman’s Warehouse store right here. This is the very
busy Texas Road House. We have new buildings that will begin construction if they are
not going right now, right in this area. We do have a number of other uses that are in
for building permits on some of our pad buildings throughout the shopping center.
various restaurants and uses like that. When we did our original application, we had
about 136 thousand square feet of buildings approved on this property right here,
backing up the new homes built here and facing out toward Fairview Avenue.
Obviously this side next to Records Drive. We then came back to the city. We are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 52
acquiring this property here and we did a Comprehensive Plan change and a rezone to
add this to the project. Tonight we are talking about the conditional use permit for this
building and related improvements. We are identifying this on the site as a future
building but we are not prepared to give any information on it tonight. When we do, we
will submit for a separate conditional use permit. We also identified this corner as a
possible future building area. Again, if we were to apply for anything there, it would be
a separate conditional use permit. So, just to zero in, we are talking about this use right
here. The use of that building is general merchandise and grocery store sales. I think
some of you may recall that we had a number of people testify their desire to have
grocery sales in the area and this will accommodate that. We also had a number of
calls and requests for that over the years. This whole project started about 2 years ago,
2 years ago this month as a matter of fact. We had our first public hearing and went
through 6 or 7 months of hearings for necessary matters that had to be handled for the
improvements here. This part of the shopping center from Records, Presidential, all of
the site work on site and off site is now complete. It has been done in accordance with
the conditional use permit that we have for that. It’s been just recently signed off by
Shari Stiles that was developed in accordance with that conditional use permit. The
buffering along Fairview Avenue in our permit requires a 20 foot buffer along Fairview
and we have a 20 foot buffer along the back residential area here with a matter that we
discussed a lot, but we have a 6 or 7 foot, it varies in height, masonry wall along here
as well. Our application for this phase is in strict appliance with the conditional use
permit that we put the conditions of approval that have been imposed on the entire
shopping center. We tried to do a few things differently. We increased the buffer area
along Fairview Avenue and we increased the buffer area along the residential. This
modification that I want to identify to the commission and to staff tonight. This buffer
area right here along these residents is shown at 41 feet. Some of you may be aware
of a drainage canal in there and this is shown at 31 feet. The drainage canal comes in
here—it is open to this point. We have enclosed it and somehow it meanders off and
crosses Eagle Road. It is our intention to ask you to change our conditions to have this
be 31 feet of landscape buffer instead of 41 shown here. That will allow us to
accommodate the necessary work to enclose the canal. That is a change in the site
plan that I just want to make you aware of. For us to increase this buffer area, we
would have to shift everything down. And shifting everything down we’d have to reduce
this to the 20 feet that is in this area. I think that is a pretty sensitive issue and it is our
desire to have more buffer here then this area. That is why we are showing it that way.
In an area that we have extra room on the site to do it we have a larger buffer area
along Fairview Avenue here, this 31 feet continues. This area of land right here is
vacant land. It is not platted. It is recently gone through a Comprehensive Plan
change, but there is nothing going on it that –I am not aware of any further applications
for that property. There may be. The Ada County Highway District last Wednesday
night unanimously approved our plan with these three access points along Fairview
Avenue and these three access along Records Drive. We all ready enjoyed 3 access
points on Records Drive and they just reaffirmed that . We had in our previously
application, two access points on Fairview Avenue. The property we are buying has
two access points. We are eliminating one of those so then that result is instead of 4
access points on Fairview, there will be three. The street alignment here for Ventura is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 53
done in accordance with Ada County Highway District requirements. What their future
plans are for that street, I do not know. They do have a map on the wall down there
that does show it going further, but there have been no plans for that that the staff was
aware of at this time. The sensitive issue has been Florence Drive. It presently comes
up and dead ends right here. There is road block at the end of it. It doesn’t take a road
scholar to figure out that probably somebody has in mind to bring that through to
Ventura Street. That isn’t an area that we control. It is just an Ada County Highway
District issue, but it is just not a street that we are building and I have encouraged the
neighbors to contact the people at ACHD on that matter. As I mentioned 2 years ago,
we started this process and at the end we received approval for 855 thousand square
feet of shopping center. With this application and the approved addition to the center, it
results in 75,000 square feet of additional building area to the overall shopping center.
We are adding 13 acres to the project. A 13 acre development anywhere else in
Meridian would have several times as much building square footage then we are adding
and it certainly would have more traffic. This project will add about 1000 cars per day to
the overall project. Yet, if the project were built across the street or down the street, the
traffic would be much, much greater. We received unanimous approval from ACHD for
this development and as I mentioned we are exceeding all of the conditions now in
place for Crossroads. We have read and agreed with most of the conditions in the staff
report and offer the following comments relating to the site specific conditions. Item
number 6 on the site specific conditions, my understanding that is has been corrected
on the plan submitted. Item number 8, this request as I mentioned on the plan would
require some reduced of buffering along the existing subdivision and our hope is to
proceed with the plan as we have tonight, with the modification to allow the enclosure of
the ditch drainage area along there.
Borup: Larry while your one that item, could you clarify the existing buffering.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the buffering along the Subdivision?
Borup: No, along Item number 8 on Fairview.
Durkin: The buffering along Fairview Avenue is 20 feet. That is our requirement. As
staff mentioned it may appear wider then that.
Borup: So there is no curb and gutter and sidewalk.
Durkin : There is curb, gutter and sidewalk all along our project on Fairview Avenue.
Borup: So there is some distance from the sidewalk to the property line. There is extra
right of way there, okay.
Durkin: The sidewalk is built in Ada County Highway District right of way and they have
room to widen Fairview, move the sidewalk back somewhat.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 54
Borup: Okay so that is what Steve was referring to then. There is some extra land –
that you landscape that area now. I assume that be the same on the new section.
Durkin: I believe so. That would be the same circumstance. The new section we are
adding excel lanes and decel lanes to Fairview Avenue as a requirement of ACHD. I
think you have received those conditions in your packets. I think we are going to be left
with that same—there is going to be an additional gap between—we will landscape it
down to the sidewalk. Item number 10 on the sites specific conditions, we have
previously submitted a sign program to the city and have received approval on it. We
have, I think you have in your packets, some of the different signs that have been
approved by staff. It would be our intention to go forward with that same sign concept
that we have for the over all center that we all ready have approved. Item number 12 is
the point where with all due respect to staff, there was a comment here about—it talks
about adding buffering along the future roadway. What’s compatible with an existing
use cemetery? I think it is important to point out here that we have a great distance
between the back of the store and the buffer and then there is a wall and then there is a
sidewalk and then there is a 60 foot right of way for the street. There is a sidewalk on
the other side, but the cemetery services that would take place would be 100’s of feet
away and adding and additional 10 feet, would exceed the city normal requirements. It
would be a burden on their site parking that was mentioned earlier and I really don’t
think is would accomplish any more compatibility with graveside services. In addition,
the owners and operators of that cemetery have been supportive of this plan.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Durkin I guess I was not aware of the wall and I am just
curious where is it on the back side of the landscape buffer, the 10 feet of landscape
buffer will be along the road and the wall will be on the back side of that.
Durkin: Along Crossroads Subdivision there is a wall along here. Our plans show
continuing that wall along here and along this area, so there will be a six foot masonry
wall screening the noise and the view all along the back here. It is actually shown on
the—
Borup: That’s not on the landscape plan is it?
Durkin: It is marked on here and it has been in our other testimony, but I don’t think it is
as clear as it could be. It is our intention and commitment through the Comprehensive
Plan process and the rezone process that we will do so and it might be more clearly
shown on –
Borup: That wall be within that 10 foot.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman I would like to hand you a blue line drawing that is more clear.
Borup: Do you know what the plan number is. We may have it.
Siddoway: The plan number is CU-2.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 55
Borup: Is that L-1?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Durkin I guess I would just comment that that wall should
be shifted to the –right now it is shown centered in that 10 foot setback and I think it
should be along the western side so those trees can be planted in that 10 foot setback
adjacent to the road.
Borup: My shows it on the western side.
Siddoway: Okay, my shows it center.
Durkin: I guess when it come to that point I want to be on the record tonight that we are
going to build a wall. I think that the staff would be qualified to pick the exact spot for it
and if you would—
Borup: Oh, Steve is right. The elevation shows is on the eastern side. The site plan
shows it on the western side.
Durkin: We will put it on the eastern side. The bottom right is the buffer area between
(inaudible).
Siddoway: I was referring to along Ventura. It needed to be shifted to the western side
so that the landscaping was against the street.
Borup: Okay I still didn’t see it on my plan, but-- That was your intention anyway.
Durkin: Yes. Item number 15 on the staff comments, the pedestrian walkway. I think
that this should be discussed a little bit tonight. It is our intention to all pedestrian
walkways will be striped in accordance with the ADA requirements. It is not our
intention to put sidewalks down the middle of the parking rows. I have a --I can go on
with that at length. I was not certain what staff’s intention were there, but actually we
researched that extensively for our recent Fred Meyer project we just received approval
on in Boise. There are no grocery stores in the state of Idaho—
Borup: Let’s just ask Steve—the striping cover that.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Shari added to my comments and I have not had a chance to
talk with her, I believe that her intention was to get the sidewalks in the parking areas
the way he is describing so that, since it is such a large and lengthy parking stall with 50
deep, I think she wanted to get some way for the people to walk from these back
parking stalls to the building without being forced to walk through the drive isles.
(Inaudible) issue would be access from the sidewalk along Fairview into the site which
maybe more easily accommodating.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 56
Borup: I think the Boise Walmart does have a sidewalk pretty much down the middle of
their parking lot to get to the store.
Durkin: I will try not to act this out. At the city of Boise I actually brought a Fred Meyer
shopping cart to the hearing and they are still talking about it. I did not bring a cart with
me tonight. I’d just like to describe the circumstance. This is a blow up of the other
section of the plan. When you are dealing with the retail operation that has grocery
carts of shopping carts and your dealing with a municipality and a developer and a
tenant that is in favor of having of having landscaping. If you are to run a sidewalk
down in here then you have to say okay, we can’t have trees there and sidewalks as
well. I think that an esthetic matter but there is a more importantly there is a safety
issue. The safety issue goes something like this. A grandfather leaves the store with a
cart full of groceries and merchandise. Maybe his grandchild is in the cart. He is going
along that sidewalk and encounters an abandoned cart. The grandfather needs to
make the choice, do I leave my child in the cart and carry my stuff to the car and come
back and get the child or do I leave my stuff in the cart, take the child, leave the child
alone in the car and come back and get the merchandise. That is really what happens.
The city of Boise make that a requirement for the Walmart at Overland and it has been
a disaster and city staff and commission has agreed with that in the city of Boise. In the
mall it is different. You don’t have the shopping carts. Or worse, you can come down
and find a stalled cart and try to cut through parked cars to get out. It is a design
feature that does not work. We spent a lot of time researching it trying to figure out how
it can work. It does not exist anywhere in the state of Idaho right now. There are some
other areas and other parts of the country where it does. It is not save. In addition, if
the staff’s comment is from a safety standpoint, for the Fred Meyer project on Federal
Way in Boise, we researched with the Ada County Paramedics and they have no notice
of knowledge of any accident that has occurred in any grocery parking lot in Ada
County, any serious accident that has occurred with this type of activity. It is just the
way we go shopping today with carts and I don’t feel comfortable as a developer,
having an experiment in Meridian ID and having an accident because of it. It is a
position that we are adamantly opposed to from a safety standpoint and it’s a position
that we are opposed to because we can’t accommodate then the landscaping and
lighting requirements. We ask you to have that –I did not want there to be a
misunderstanding of what Shari’s intentions were but it is not our intention to go forward
with any sidewalks down the parking areas. The last comment I have on that is item
number 26 on site specific. The subject property is in the annexation process. The law
firm representing the city has provided us with a draft of a development agreement that
was sent back to them with some survey corrections and some name, identification
corrections and that should be approved soon. We would expect that as a condition of
our approval, we obviously have to complete the annexation and rezone matters that
are going through the city process at this time. That concludes my prepared comments
and I’ll happily answer any additional questions that you have and I’d like to have the
opportunity to come back and have a rebuttal when everyone else if finished testifying.
Borup: Larry, maybe just clarify from item number 8, number 15, number 12 –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 57
Durkin: 8, 10, 12, 15 and 26.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Durkin: Maybe a further clarification on that number 15 matter. I am not pleased with
lack of striping on the site plan showing pedestrian access from Fairview to the store. I
think that will be used heavily. There is a bus stop out there and we will certainly strip
that in a safe way.
Borup: Thank you. I don’t know if we have anyone here who would like to testify, but
this is your opportunity. Come on up. I might say because the lateness of the hour, and
we want to have an opportunity to hear as many as we can, two things are in place. If
we have someone speaking in behalf of the neighborhood as a whole, a person is
usually allowed a little extra time. That is assuming that everyone won’t be standing up
and repeating the same thing later on. Depending on it goes, we may have to limit the
time as we go along.
Yehle: My name is Ray Yehle. My address is 3607 E. Congressional Drive in the
Crossroads Subdivision. I am also the president of the Subdivision which I took over in
July of 99 from Capital Development. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's at this time I’d like
to reserve some time to come back to the podium, but first of all I’d like to address one
issue and then I’d like to be excused and then be allowed to come back to talk about
the project. Right now I’d just like to confront you with the fact that we never had an
opportunity to meet with the developer as the association. Normally in Boise, on a
project of this size, they allow, I mean it is one of their mandates that they meet with the
associations, particularly if it is the size and so forth and with the traffic and everything
involved as Walmart. I am just sorry that Mr. Durkin and his staff never contacted us
and gave us that opportunity. I am representing 260 homes here tonight. We just feel
that we were short changed in this because, we had a lot of issues to discuss about
this. There is a lot of issues down the line that effect our Subdivision, our safety, health
and welfare as well as traffic problems and future problems and other streets involved
there, which is Presidential Avenue, as well as East Florence Lane, as well as north
Records Avenue and we should have had a pre-meeting with him and the association
and had that opportunity to discuss things before we ever had this meeting. Also, I
want to say that we never received any notices about these hearings. Our address, the
address that they were sent to by the City Clerk’s office I assume, after talking to the
City Clerk and talking to Steve Siddoway and one of his assistants and with Steve, she
had mailed it I think to Capital Developments address.
Borup: We do have your letter Mr. Yehle.
Yehle: Oh you do. But we have people here that don’t know what happened. There
was no notices that we received. I hear that there is a claim that there was a forwarding
notice sent, certified mail and so forth to the post office to our P.O. Box and we never
picked the notices up. They said that you would present those to us at the meeting
showing us that was so tonight. I would like to see that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 58
Siddoway: It is right here. This is the letter sent December 21, 1999. It was addressed
to Crossroads Neighborhood at the address he says in Boise, which was then
forwarded to P.O. Box 409, Meridian, ID. The post office put a stamp saying first notice,
second notice and return and it was returned to the City of Meridian. We received it
back on December 30th
.
Borup: Does that answer your question?
Yehle: I would like to see it if you don’t mind.
Borup: I think that can be arranged. If your done with your testimony or is that going to
be a part of it?
Yehle: This is part of it. It was sent here. The P.O. Box is right there in the post office.
Borup: Is 409 correct?
Yehle: That is correct and also the land board had our correct address. We paid our
taxes in 99 in November and that is the City Clerk’s office to get our correct address
from the land board. These hearings, we are supposed to be represented here. We
are not—
Borup: Let’s go back. 409 is the correct address. The post office has stated that they
sent that to that address.
Yehle: They sent it to Boise to Capital Development’s address to Crossroad
Neighborhood to 2304 N. Cole Road. It doesn’t say anything else on it.
Borup: Let me take a look at it. This says it went to Post Office Box 409 Meridian ID.
Yehle: It was forwarded but we never received it. (Inaudible)
Borup: All we can rely on is what the post office tells us.
Yehle: I would like to have this to take to the post office because this is a government
affair now and I want that as evidence and I want a copy of that because I going to the
post office (inaudible).
Brown: Certified mail requires that someone be there to accept it and if they don’t then
they send it back.
Barbeiro: These are all issues that the commission has no bearing on. If there was a
problem with the post office we can not address this.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 59
Yehle: The city code states that we are supposed to receive notices and nobody has
done that and that is a requirement. Now the other –everyone within 300 feet out there
and we own property as the association so had we received notices, we would have
had meetings on this. We would have met with him. We only knew about this as of
around December the twenty some whenever it was published in the newspaper. That
is the way we found out about it, so this meeting shouldn’t even be going on tonight.
Barbeiro: I’d like to make a point and with Mr. Dunkin’s verification the Comprehensive
Plan change which did call for a 200,000 square foot building to go on here, went on for
3 months and were held for 5 hearings including the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting and the City Council hearing. We have had five hearings over the last 4-1/2
months on this particular issue. You were unaware of any of those 5 hearings over that
3 month period?
Yehle: You were in zoning changes and so forth and it had to do with land. It did not
have anything to do with a store. Nobody knew Walmart was going in there—260
homeowners out of 260 I took a petition to which has to do with streets and everything
that is going through to the ACHD, and you have a copy of that, there was only 2 or 3
that knew anything about a Walmart store.
Borup: That is correct sir. The name was not mentioned but the size of the building
and that it was a multi-use retail and grocery store was told.
Yehle: It was changed. Infact—
Borup: What was changed sir?
Yehle: The building. After all, if you don’t know about something, you don’t know about
it.
Borup: The building got bigger or what changed?
Yehle: The size of the building and everything. Originally there was a smaller building
on the property.
Borup: Your talking originally from two years ago.
Yehle: Well, yes.
Borup: Okay we are talking from 6 months ago.
Yehle: There wasn’t anything about a building. It was only land changes. There wasn’t
anything about building. No Walmart or anything like that.
Barbeiro: Sir, the name if the retailer was not included, but in each of the five hearing
over that 3 month period, it was decided and clear that there was going to be a 200,000
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 60
square foot, both grocery and retail development going on that site. You had
representatives from your neighborhood here. I can think of four or five people who did
come here and did comment. In fact a number of those people met in the lobby with
Mr. Durkin after the first of the five meetings to discuss what was going in there and the
details for that.
Yehle: Sir, I disagree with you. I don’t want to argue but I will leave it open to some of
the other residents to comment on that, but I did not know anything about it and as
president of the association not my vice president or assistant vice president or anyone
on the board of directors and I am on the board of directors. I am at every meeting. It
has never been discussed. This is the first time this has come up that we knew
anything about it. December, when it was published in the paper and that is where we
got wind of it. It was published on the site out there. This is just an unfair situation
when it involves 260 homes and we are being cornered in there by a commercial
development. We have not had a fair shot at this. That is why I recommended in that
letter that you delay this hearing for a month and give us a chance to meet with Mr.
Durkin and so forth and resolve all our issues with him and that would be fair. This is
not a fair hearing.
Borup: We are here to gain testimony not to argue the merits of what was right. Sir do
you have any concluding comments.
Yehle: That’s where I stand at this time. I’d like to reserve to come back and talk about
this.
Borup: What would you like to talk about later?
Yehle: I’d like to talk about a lot of issues.
Borup: You’ve been here for 10 minutes and that is what your supposed to be talking
about.
Yehle: Okay. You should have just held one hearing for this issue of Walmart. You
shouldn’t kept it this late and then give us time to resolve these issues that should have
been resolved prior with Mr. Durkin and—
Borup: Is there anything concerning this that you’d like to comment on other then what
we’ve done wrong.
Yehle: I’d like to comment on a lot of things. Okay, first of all the drive. It comes right
off our entry way of 41 feet. Then you want to reduce it. First of all we don’t appreciate
blocking our entrance to Crossroads Subdivision on North Records Avenue with that
traffic, with the trucks that is going to be pulling in there and with the other traffic that—
Borup: What trucks? The delivery trucks are going to be coming off of Fairview.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 61
Yehle: No, the delivery trucks is coming off of North Records Avenue.
Borup: Records to turn in the other way.
Yehle: Right 41 feet off of our entrance to our Subdivision. They come down North
Records they are going to have to make a left hand turn across us in front of our entry
way and down along the back side adjacent to our property and then back to the back
side of Walmart. That is one issue we don’t like.
Borup: Would it work better for you if the loading docks were facing toward the
Subdivision rather than away from them so the trucks can come in the other way.
Yehle: We would much rather the trucks come in another way. Because of the traffic
congestion—
Borup: Do you realize what that would do. That would put the loading dock facing the
Subdivision rather then facing Fairview.
Yehle: Well their design they should have thought about all of this before they
presented it and talked to the homeowners. We are talking about the truck noise.
Trucks warming up and coming down there constantly, lined up there. We are talking
about the lights, the glare and everything and so forth all along that back wall where the
neighbors back property is facing North Records Avenue. We are talking about a lot of
issues there that exist now over there on the west side of the shopping center with glare
lights and so forth the neighbors have complained about and the lights are still glaring in
their windows and nothing has been done about it. We’ve got a lot of problems over
there that we can eliminate over here by meeting with him first. That is why we should
meet with them as a board of directors and homeowners and resolve all these and we
wouldn’t have to be here for a couple hours. We got a lot of other issues. Safety
issues. Right at the entry of our subdivision on North Records Drive you got all the
parking and everything and it is all facing west to North Records. Okay, we have
common areas just a few feet across the street on East Florence Drive. Okay, all those
houses are backed up to this common area. They have little wood fences 3 foot high
see through. Our covenants state we can’t allow them to put 6 foot high fences up to
protect their property. They are stuck with these fences.
Borup: Sir.
Yehle: Wait a minute.
Borup: No, you wait a minute. What does a park in the middle of your Subdivision
have to do with this project.
Yehle: Because you open this up to crime and everything else and to people walking
across the street, walking in to our Subdivision in our common areas, particularly at
night and when people on vacation—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 62
Borup: Okay there is your point. What is your next one.
Yehle: Okay, that’s a big problem right there. Another thing, Presidential Avenue isn’t
developed yet. When it is developed we will have the same problems here we are
going to have on North Records with the traffic. Okay, going in and out. Having to wait
on traffic coming out from the parking lot, turning on North Records and we are going to
be like all those people on Locust Grove that’s been complaining except we will be ten
times worse. We are going to be very angry and upset.
Barbeiro: But now you’ll have a traffic light on Records Drive which you did not have
before which will greatly relieve you. You could never have made a left hand turn off of
Records Drive prior to having that stop light there. Now you will have the opportunity
with the light and safely to make that turn.
Yehle: Mr. Barbeiro, have you ever been to Walmart on Overland Street and shopped
there. I have probably at least 50 times and it is the worse place for me to go in this
town. The traffic there is terrific. Sometimes I can’t even get parked. Sometimes I
can’t even get in the street to leave there and it weaves in and out and people don’t wait
on you. They just pull out from the stop sign and cut you off and everything else. They
have a terrible traffic problem over there. We are going to be even worse then they are
on Overland with the Walmart. We are going to draw people from areas that won’t go to
Overland, will come to Meridian. It is going to compact or impact us considerable more
than even at Overland and make the problem way worse. First of all and in the
beginning, we had a private drive so to speak. It was a public road but we didn’t have
those accesses coming in and Capital Development sold that to this organization
without 2/3’s of the class A and class B membership of our Subdivision.
Borup: What did Capital Development sell?
Yehle: They sold our common areas on Eagle Road that was right at the entry to
Presidential Drive where our big rock set which no more belongs to us but to this
development company. They sold our islands in the middle of Presidential—
Borup: Could we get back to items that are pertinent to this.
Yehle: Well that is a civil matter and we could take that outside of this courtroom, but it
does cause a problem because there is no stop light on Presidential and going in and
out of this Subdivision and with that traffic when they get it built up its going to be a
problem and we won’t be able to make a left turn onto Eagle Road so we will have to
make right turns so the only street we can depend on for 2 years until they get Pine
Street in, is going to be North Records Avenue.
Barbeiro: So it is your contention that a left turn is more difficult now from Presidential
on to Eagle then it was two months ago.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 63
Yehle: Oh definitely. Not only that everybody that comes into there and everybody that
comes to turn in there and everybody that sits in the middle and everybody that goes to
turn left gets out there and gets in the middle, your sitting there a sitting duck for cars
coming 50 mph coming this way and 50 mph –
Borup: Can we get back to the—
Yehle: Well, this is traffic. This is something that planning should consider whenever
you approve a project like this. What you are doing is causing us to risk our lives sitting
out there and so forth. That is a state issue because that is a state highway. Let’s go
back to the other street, North Records. It is no more a residential street. It used to be
and it was supposed to be put in there for a fire access but it was sold out by Capital
Development to this organization. They developed it and now they want accesses off of
it because they got buildings in there and everything. We don’t have any type of a
residential street.
END OF SIDE 5
Yehle: It is all commercial streets now. We are hemmed in there. We are blocked in
there and it should never have happened. With Walmart going in there its going to
make it worse. With all the other developments that is going to go around us, and the
development that is going to go east of us by Clark Development and then if they come
in there and tie East Florence in to this Ventura Street, then they are going to take it on
south and go to the other Subdivision. Then they will go east probably to Cloverdale
Road and then they are going to come through our Subdivision. All we do is just have
all this cross traffic going from one end of the Subdivision to the development to the
other. When they get Pine Street in they will be able to cut through there and go to the
west and go to the north and then go to the east. We can’t have that. We can’t. We
can’t put up with it. It’s got to be stopped now. We’ve got to do something about it now.
We should have all this taken care of prior to this hearing and come in here and then
talk about the building. That is where I’m at.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any one else like to come forward in the little time we have
left.
Fugel: My name is Kent Fugel. I live at 3943 E. Presidential Drive in the Crossroads
Development. If I could I’d like to talk about the traffic and my background is that I am a
professional engineer specializing in traffic and I see some problems with ACHD’s
report on this project that I’d like to talk about for a second. I would like to go over to
the board. The concern that I have with this project is that the ACHD report addresses
a number of trips that will be generated. It talks about the fact that some of the trips
generated by the development are pass by trips. They don’t really add new trips. All
that I can concur with. The one thing they leave out completely in their analysis is the
potential for cut through traffic for Crossroads Subdivision. I think we can see that a
little better on the other map over here. The problem that I see on this is the further the
parking get—the closer they get to the Crossroads Subdivision the greater the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 64
likelihood of people using the Subdivision as an alternate route to get out as these other
intersections become congested. If this project had been developed the way the way it
was originally planned, would have had a building here, parking would have been out
close to Fairview. There would not have been as much as a tendency to come back
this was through our development. I don’t have any beef with this project becoming
retail commercial, which is what you just went through with your Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Given the nature of Fairview Avenue, that is probably appropriate. What I
do have a problem with is taking all the retail commercial space for this entire piece
here, putting it all in this location that puts all the parking in this location right next to the
entrance into our development. It is going to have a much more serious effect on our
traffic then it would have had this been developed according to the previous plans that
you approved. That is where I have a complaint with this and I think this is an issue that
you need to take into consideration. I don’t have a problem with this property being
developed as retail commercial. I have a problem with the layout.
Borup: Your saying that your preference would be to have the building against the
south border.
Fugel: I am talking about a traffic standpoint which is my background, yes. I am not a
homeowner right here. I don’t know what their preferences are from a visual, esthetic
standpoint, but in terms of traffic and how that impacts our development, I don’t think
there is any question but what the impact would be less had this been developed the
way it was originally planned. Even if you were to put in this much square footage and
stretch it out with the parking all fronting along Fairview Avenue in stead of along
Records Drive. So would be my comment to you. For that reason I strongly urge that
you not approve this. They need to go back to the drawing board, get the parking back
out by Fairview where it belongs and thereby minimize the impact that they will have
and the amount of cut through traffic through our development that would be
encouraged by what they are doing here.
Barbeiro: It is your argument that people would rather cut through here and go to a non
stop lighted area with an impossible left hand turn, verses coming back up Records
Drive to a lighted turn and turn left.
Fugel: The problem is that won’t always be a situation where the only thing you can get
to is a non stop lighted intersection with no left turn. As Pine Street get developed,
which will happen within the near future, there will be access to Pine Street from the
Crossroads Development and that provides the (inaudible). If you look at cars that
come off here, they make this one little jog over to Principle Drive right here and they
have a clean shot all the way through the development without stopping to get on over
to this other side. That is where I see that we are going to have problems. The more
we can keep that traffic out here as we are doing with what you have all ready
approved, the more we can do that the more we discourage people from coming back
and trying to find an alternate route through our development.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 65
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. How did you find out about this public
hearing?
Fugel: I found out about this public hearing by a flyer that was brought around today.
Swartley: Will, did you just send out –did you send out notices for all affected property
owners within 300 foot radius for this conditional use permit here.
Berg: Mr. Chairman, Dave I sent out as per ordinance property owners within 300 feet
of the project, which was submitted to us I believe November 18th
.
Swartley: You didn’t just send out one letter to homeowners association.
Berg: No. As a requirement they posted the property and we noticed it twice in the
newspaper.
Borup: Anyone else.
Bossinger: My name is Don Bossinger and I am a homeowner at 3890 E. Presidential
also in this subdivision. My concern was that I wasn’t pre-notified so that I could
discuss some of these but luckily out here in the hallway I was able to meet with Mr.
(inaudible) and talk about some of those issues. That helped a lot, but unfortunately
you can’t think of all the issues and look at the plans and get all your issues addressed
in the short period of time before the meeting here. I think that is important. The only
concern that I have at this point after resolving with Mr. Larkin is the increase in traffic.
When our subdivision was first started and of course it has been in 7 different stages,
but when it was first started we had E. Presidential that was exiting onto Eagle. Of
course we know that we have increased the traffic on Eagle quite a bit. We had
Records. Records gave us a second way to access our neighborhood. Then with the
development that was coming in we put the light on records, which was on Fairview and
Records and helped a lot. Now we are going to a 200,000 square foot store and the
amount of increase in customers that is going to be at that store and the traffic is going
to drastically effect Records and Fairview. I think that ACHD needs a recommendation
as after your recommendation not to approve the project and that they go back and take
a look to make sure that the flow of traffic is good or can be better. Also, ACHD future
plans include the development of Florence, which will connect up and should flow on
through. As Mr. Fugel has brought out, it will increase the traffic through our
neighborhood and we are very concerned about that. I thought Mr. Fugel has an
excellent idea and should be very well considered by this planning commission that by
rearrangement of the parking lot and building we can alleviate that. That is what my
concern is. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else.
Pearson: My name is Eric Pearson. I live on 1225 N. Principle. The street is directly
off North Records. You just take a short jaunt on Florence and I maybe 100, 150 feet
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 66
from the buffer zone, as it goes along the back of the homes. One of my biggest
concerns obviously is traffic. We’ve gone over that. The other concern I have is in the
parking lot it is awfully large. With the construction of Shopko and all the lights in there,
from my backyard I can look directly into that parking lot and at night it all most looks
like I live next to a car dealership. It all most looks like it is in the daytime. My big
concern is with all that light. I honestly can not see out my back windows at night. It is
hard to see if I want to see if anything is going on, I have to go outside and see if
anything is going on. I feel sorry for the people that have to live up against Shopko, but
I’m hoping there is something that can be done with that. The other concern is with the
truck traffic. As mentioned before, as they come in off of Records they go along the
buffer zone to get to the back of the store. Having driven a large truck myself, I know
that when you’ve got a lot of those lined up the resonation of the engines is enough to
make your windows vibrate, make appliances or lamps resonate as well. During the
construction of Shopko, with all the equipment driving and I’m not just talking about the
pavers, if you will, I am talking about trucks going in and out. My lamps and windows
would vibrate. If we have trucks coming in all the time, it is going to be non-stop.
Everything vibrating. I honestly think there could be a better way to design the truck
traffic to keep it away from that north end of our Subdivision and keep it toward the east
side. I think it is possible considering how those trucks can maneuver to all most make
a 180 turn coming in or going out so that we don’t have them as one of the other people
mentioned sitting along the back side, just sitting there as truck drivers I know tend to
let their engines run and let that all effect people who live up against there. I am not
thrilled about the whole project myself. I understand that there has been a desire for it
but I really don’t see why it needs to be set up the way it is. I have a problem with the
traffic. I have a problem with that much people with the possibility of going through
there, but I don’t know what else I can add that some of my neighbors have all ready
stated.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Pearson? You said you don’t know why it
needs to be done—built the way it is. You mean the building location?
Pearson: Building location yes. Of course I don’t think the solution is to put the back of
the building up the way it was originally set up like the way Shopko is. Once again,
your running into the problem with the loading docks and the trucks having to go
between the homes and the store and again with—
Borup: So, where should it be located.
Pearson: To be honest, I can’t give you a good answer. Closer to the street possibly. I
have heard a rumor that this is suppose to be the super store, bigger then the one that
is on Overland and I don’t think this is the right area for a super store. I think there is
still too much residential to be impacted by such a large commercial development.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, sir when did you receive notice.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 67
Pearson: I received a flyer in my door when I came home for lunch announcing that
there was going to be a hearing on Walmart. I also noticed when I read the paper also
at my lunch hour, that there was a little notice on there. I have not received anything
else regarding what is going on.
Borup: Anyone else.
McKnight: I’m Becky McKnight. I live at 899 Principle Way. Safety is the big issue. My
biggest question is I want to know where the truck will be coming in at. From what I am
noticing they are coming in on Records Way and I just want to make sure that is
appropriate so to speak. I don’t understand why they can’t take the easeman that is
behind the building up by Fairview out and have the truck coming that way. For me a
big issue is the trucks coming in on Records where as opposed they can’t –I don’t
understand why they can’t come in on the other side.
Borup: Coming down Fairview you mean.
McKnight: You see where Ventura is going to be supposedly, why can’t they take out
where the wall is back on the back side. The first entrance closest to Ventura. I don’t
understand why they can’t take—
Borup: Because they’d have to make the turn.
McKnight: Why can’t they take the trees and stuff out and widen it there and have the
truck come in there.
Borup: The trees would not be enough to make the turn. They could enter from
Fairview.
McKnight: That’s what I meant, I’m sorry. I meant from Fairview coming in off Fairview.
Coming in the back side of it instead of the front going all the way around.
Borup: I don’t know what that does to the building design, but that would put the
loading docks facing the Subdivision—well there is no Subdivision in that area though.
Thank you. Anyone else.
Hughy: My name is Don Hughy. I’ve lived on North (inaudible) just off Records for a
year and a half, I have been advised by my son who is a safety Ada County Highway
Department to not use Eagle Road, because you can’t get off Presidential Drive on to
Eagle Road. He says it is unsafe and it is dangerous and he advised us to go down to
Records stop light, go down Eagle and then get on Eagle. I noticed that before they put
the stop light on Fairview I was able to make a left hand turn. Maybe you couldn’t, but I
could. Another thing I’d like to bring up he mentioned sidewalks into the parking lots
and what not, maybe that’s not right, but you think it is safer to push a kid through a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 68
parking lot with cars backing up down the driveways. When I was notified of this was
today. First I heard.
Borup: Are you within 300 feet of the project?
Hughy: 300 feet. I am located just—I come in on Records and make a jog there and
then turn on North Caucus Way, which is down there just a little way.
Barbeiro: So you are more then 300 feet from the border of the project?
Hughy: Oh yeah, I am farther away then that, but then I am just speaking of a danger
point of Eagle Road and stop signs and not being able—
Borup: We just wanted clarification on the notification aspect. Anyone else. Mr. Durkin
do you have final comments or would you just like to go with our questions.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the gentleman that I was just
speaking with who testified earlier and said he was within 180 feet and did not get
notified is closer to 500 feet away –
Borup: If he was across the street it would have had to been 500 feet. You said 500
feet.
Siddoway: Yes, and I believe that mailings were sent out to all of them within 300 feet
and the only reason that the homeowners association was sent a letter was because
they own common areas that have their name and address on them within 300 feet of
the property. If they did not own any common area of 300 feet, only those property
owners within 300 feet would have received those notices. That’s all.
Borup: Mr. Durkin, do you want to try to make this—
Durkin: I have an important comment. First of all, I want to confirm the number of
meetings that we had on this matter. I want to represent to you and I know Will could
go back to his storage room and get these right now, if asked. The site plan—that is a
very, very close representation of the site plan that we used at everyone of the public
hearings. We did talk about the buildings. I really wish Meridian would go back to the
swearing in of parties testifying because I think that the testimony is a little more
accurate when you did that. I have met with several board members, including the
gentleman that testified at previous meetings and I have asked to come to their board
meetings. I have been told that they meet infrequently and that they would contact me
when these meetings occurred. They have never done so. I have given them my card
and I have stood up here in front of this group over the years. We wanted to be a
member of the Crossroads homeowners association. We wanted to be a contributor to
the Crossroads homeowners association. We want to be a good partner and a good
neighbor with them. We have not been welcomed with open arms. As far as the traffic
matters are concerned, as I mentioned we had a hearing Wednesday night at Ada
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 69
County Highway District. The president of the homeowners association was not at that
meeting. To my knowledge, no one from the board has contacted ACHD with the
concerns expressed tonight, but the concerns expressed tonight regarding the streets
and where they are going and how they get there, is fully out of my control. There is a
big map and we are told where they go and what happens and it is out of my control. I
don’t believe it is in the City’s control. They are not matters that we can have any
impact on. Yet, as a former president of the Lakewood homeowners association, a
group of about 950 homes, I was the president for 3 years, just leaving about a year a
go. I can tell you it was very effective when we had traffic concerns as a homeowners
association to contact Ada County Highway District and I have recommended that to
the –a couple of the board members this evening. We had talked as a group before
these meetings. The plans that were shown tonight are consistent with all the plans
that have been all the meetings. I am positive that Will keeps these props in a safe
place. If the matter ever comes up I am sure that he could go get those. Regarding the
cut through traffic, or cross through traffic, I’ve built a lot of these shopping centers and I
know a little bit about it, but Pat Dolby is here tonight. Pat is a traffic engineer. Did the
original traffic study for the entire shopping center for Planning and Zoning and for the
City of Meridian. He has done a number of updates and modifications to it as the plans
changed over the years and has submitted those updates and had those updates
approved by ACHD on a regular basis. I have asked him to come to night because I
figured that some of the traffic questions would come up and he is available to answer
any of your questions that you may have regarding cut through traffic and what he feels
is likely to occur and what isn’t. Another point I wish I had mentioned in my earlier
testimony, although it does not have any bearing on this particular application. I think it
should inform you and then I will sit down. We recognize, I drive Eagle Road everyday,
I recognize that it is busy. I think it is too busy. I don’t think it’s real safe. When we
went through our original approvals with ACHD for this overall shopping center, ACHD
put 34 requirements on us for various different improvements along Eagle Road and
Fairview. Two of those requirements were to widen the Eagle Road and Fairview
intersection and to construct and install a stop light at Pine Street. As hard as we have
been trying over the years, I think many of you are aware of this, Ada County Highway
District, nor the state of Idaho will allow a stop light at Presidential, but they will allow
one at Pine Street. When we develop an area south of the property we are required to
install that stop light. About 2 months ago we went to ACHD and had a meeting with
their staff, that we would like to ask you something unusual. We would like your
permission to expedite this, because I think it is dangerous because I travel it everyday.
The design is underway right now for the full widening of the Eagle Fairview
intersection. The design has been by us and paid for by us. In addition, the preliminary
design work is complete for the stop light at Pine Street and Eagle Road and I would
expect those –I can represent to you tonight that those improvements are going forward
several years ahead of schedule and accordance with our requirements with ACHD.
We think it is the right thing to do and they are underway right now. I am happy to
answer any other questions you might have.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Durkin. Mr. Brown.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 70
Brown: Parking lot lights, do they have cut off shields or anything like that.
Durkin: Yes we do. Our parking lot lights are done in accordance with the Meridian
code and they are shielded. My office is near BSU stadium and I can see the lights
from 5 miles away. They are not shining on me, but I can see them. I can tell you that
no lights on this shopping center property at all should have any glare across the
property line on to the adjoining residential properties. If they do, we will fix it. They are
not supposed to. The lighting contractor that installed them is supposed to make sure
that that does not occur. They do have shields and protection so that is not supposed
to happen. It is a pretty common adjustment in the first 6 months of a new center.
Brown: Is Mr. Dolby going to address the truck traffic.
Durkin: I think one thing on the truck traffic that we talked about or came up, I don’t
know what Pat knows about it and he is certainly welcome to talk about it, the truck
traffic projected for this building is comparable to the truck traffic at the Fred Meyer at
Locust Grove and Fairview. That estimate is about 18 trips a day-—18 vehicles a day
during the normal course. I think it is fair to assume that during Christmas time you will
find a little heavier and during the slower times it will be later, but that is the forecast for
the trucks.
Borup: Anything else? Would the expected route for the trucks be down Records, left
in to the project and then behind the building on the east.
Durkin: I would expect for the traffic for the trucks is going to come back up here and
this is a right in right out only—
Borup: That would not work for an entrance for deliver then.
Durkin: Well it would if they came this way. There is a couple types of delivers. You’ve
got semi’s and you’ve got vendor trucks- the beer guy, the bread guy, they would have a
lot of options to use other entries. But the semi’s unless you reconfigure the building
and the dock and everything else, our feeling was that this design from a loading and
unloading standpoint, and go back to the Home Depot saga on Milwaukee Street, you
did not hear many complaints about the trucks delivering the inventory. Your complains
that you hear are from the loading and unloading of the truck. It is our desire to have
that occur in the absolute least offensively way as possible. All these people aren’t
going to be too concerned about it. I don’t know what is going to go here, but if this row
of houses were to continue or whatever the way this is configured, we feel the design is
the least—will have the least impact on any of the residents. To re-route that and
change that, if they came in here, they would have to go out this way. It is 6’s. I think a
lot of people have a miss understanding on how many trucks there are a day and it
would be unusual for there to be anymore than 18.
Borup: And one of those would be a semi.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 71
Durkin: I am talking semi’s.
Borup: Oh, 18 semi’s. Fred Meyer has that many.
Durkin: That is what I’ve been told that Fred Meyer has 18 semi’s. This is the same
kind of store, similar size.
Borup: I drive by Fred Meyer a lot and very seldom see them. I don’t know what time
of day they come. Any comment on relocating the building. You partially answered
that. You felt that would be least offensive with the loading docks. Any comment about
relocating the building on the south property line.
Durkin: I think we have heard testimony from the Crossroads residents, they like to look
at the mountains, they like to do this. The building the way it is now has the least
impact at least from a view standpoint. We still have the benefit of the screening from
noise—it will actually reduce the noise from Fairview. To turn the building around and
put in on the south line, it is a fairly long back wall to that building and that will be
backing up roughly 80 feet from the houses—85 feet from someone’s—not their back
lot but their back door. I think the way it is now, it is backing up to another street and a
occupied cemetery. I can’t believe the president of the homeowners association or
anyone else would stand up and say no, turn it around and back it up to our residence.
I think that would be a real negative.
Barbeiro: Larry, as I recall in one of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings we
had for the Comprehensive Plan, at least of three of the residents came in and were
extremely concerned that your placement of the building would cut off their view of the
mountains and you were able to discuss with each of those three, both here and out in
the hallway and explain and show them that the placement of the building would not
interfere with their view of the mountains toward the north. Now, of course if you turn
the building you will anger a number of residents who you made assurances to that
their views would not be interrupted by a building.
Durkin: I think some of those people were concerned. They weren’t quite sure where
they lived and then they weren’t sure where the building was going. When they saw the
plan, they figured out exactly where their house was and where the building was going.
I think there is record and letter in your file from the council and planning and zoning
hearings that people saying that they did not feel that their view—but that was a big
issue.
Borup: Anything else for Mr. Durkin. Does anyone here like to hear from Mr. Dolby.
Any questions on the traffic.
Barbeiro: I would like the neighbors to hear his comments. Pat, prior to your testimony,
could you for the neighbors describe your education and certificate so that they are
aware of your background.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 72
Dolby: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's my name is Pat Dolby. I am a traffic engineer.
My office is in Boise Idaho. My background is –I am a civil engineer. I use to work for
the Ada County Highway District and I prepared the original traffic analysis for the
Crossroads Subdivision and for the commercial portion of the Crossroads Subdivision
fronting on Eagle and Fairview. What is proposed here is the manifestation of the
original plan for that development. The question was raised about cut through traffic
going from the commercial area back through the residential portion. My experience tell
me that people cut through neighborhoods only if they can save time. If it is a shorter
travel time to stay on the arterials, they will stay on the arterials as opposed to
wandering through the Subdivision. With the improvements that have been made with
the signal at Records, the additional lanes that were added to Fairview Avenue, the
duel left lanes on all of the approaches to the Eagle/Fairview intersection and the signal
timing changes that are going to be made at that location. It is going to be much more
efficient and much quicker to stay on the arterials then to wind your way back through
the roads in the Subdivision. It is not a very direct alignment through the Subdivision to
get out to the future Pine Street. It is even less efficient to get out onto Presidential
Drive because it is not signalized nor is it going to be. Another comment that was made
that should be addressed is it has become more difficult for that traffic to make a left
hand turn onto Eagle Road. The difficulty in the increased congestion is not a result of
the development here. It is the result of the increased traffic on Eagle Road. The
capacity of an unsignalized intersection is determined by the flow of the traffic on the
arterial. As you probably heard from the Touchmark project or the St. Luke's project,
the volume of traffic on Eagle Road has increase substantially over the past few years.
Since that five lane section was complete, they’ve been experiencing a 20 percent
annual growth traffic volume. That is the major problem that is interfering with the
operation of that intersection. When the signal is installed at Pine Street, things will
improve because Pine Street Signal will work in conjunction with the Fairview signal and
it will tend to group the traffic and bunch them up and create gaps in the traffic stream
that don’t exist right now. The traffic is fairly random on the time it gets down from
Franklin and the Pine Street will tend to aggregate the traffic and it will make it easier to
come out of Presidential Drive. The majority of the commercial traffic over on the Eagle
Road side of the project, will filter down from the Pine Street signal or they will tend to
aggregate at the Records signal and I really see no reason why they would cut through
the Subdivision unless they lived there. I think the highway district reached the same
conclusion and that is why they did not recommend any discontinuity be introduced into
the road system.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Dolby.
Brown: Can you address the truck traffic.
Durkin: I’d like to correct some testimony I just made because it is a significant change.
The 18 trucks a day estimate was for all of the inventory for this whole store. We have
an engineer here tonight from Seattle who is intimately familiar with this store and the
operations and she just informed me of a mistake that I was making. There is two
different loading areas for the store. There is one here and there is one here. This is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 73
the grocery loading and unloading area and this company by the way, the vast majority
of their trucks are owned by the company. The drivers work for the company. It is
consolidated or yellow freight they are employee of the company. This is the food
delivery area only and this is general merchandize. What they are anticipating and they
will be directing their drivers to do –this is the general merchandize entry loading and
unloading. By the way, we have the same quiet wall going in –it is a sound wall. The
trucks will be between here and a 24 foot—12 foot sound wall backing up to this and
that same thing goes for over here. The total semi deliveries for the store would be 18
but certainly no all of them would be going this way. One a small number of them would
be going this way.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner's, what would you like to do. Any discussion at this
point.
Fugel: Kent Fugel. In rebuttal to one of the comments that was made regarding the cut
through traffic, it is true that people will take the shortest route time wise. The problem
is, the intersection out on Fairview and Eagle Road do not operate at optimum levels of
service. They are very congested. There is considerable delay at those intersections
and as the traffic continues to increase over the next 2 or 3 or 4 years, that congestion
is only going to get much worse even with the proposed improvement. Therefore, it will
be quicker to cut through the development then to go out and fight signal at Records
and Fairview then at Fairview and Eagle and then head west on Eagle Road that way.
That is why I say there will be cut through traffic and that is why I don’t think you should
development as its proposed.
Borup: Commissioner's, how would you like to proceed.
Barbeiro: We still have the discussion of the items Mr. Durkin brought up over 8, 10, 12,
15 and 26 to concern ourselves with.
Borup: I think that would be a good place to start. Number 8 was in the landscaping
setback on Fairview. I think the reason staff put 35 in there, that’s been somewhat of a
desire for entry way roads. My concern would be—it was all ready approved at 20 feet
on the previous face which was—I am not sure if we wanted 35 feet, it was stated back
then. Does staff have any different views on any of those 5 items after hearing
testimony.
Siddoway: I do not. The 35 foot has been a standard request along all entry way
corridors in the year that I have been here. I was not here 2 years ago when this went
through its original approval process, so I can’t speak to why they got approved at 20.
The signs, I put in there that, Item 10, I had raised a question that other businesses
along Fairview in the last year have been held to 72 square feet and commission and
council need to decide what is appropriate for signage. The signs that they are
proposed are in line with what was approved for phase 1, so no real issues there. The
25 wide planning strip adjacent to the cemetery, I was not aware of the wall at that time.
I would agree that the wall would provide significant more buffering I was anticipating.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 74
The walkways continue to be somewhat of a concern. I understand the issue of the
grocery carts being left and not being very usable. I guess I would defer to your
judgement on that. We certainly need to make sure that as he suggested he will do
strip access areas for pedestrian to come off Fairview into the site and get to the
building. The ordinance does state that off street pedestrian pathways should be
encouraged in all new developments. I would raise the issue but understand the
potential problems. On item 26 the rezone and the annexation having not finalized, I
think the issue there that the final action on the conditional use permit by City Council
can’t take place until those items are in place. I don’t know if that hold you up as a
Planning and Zoning Commission. That is it.
Borup: Thank you. Back to number 8.
Barbeiro: On number 8 my thoughts would be to remain consistent with the shopping
center as was before and continue with the 24 setback.
Borup: The 20 foot is just a parking lot area and they’ve gone to 30—
Barbeiro: I concur with the developer, keep it as he has it on the plan he presented to
us tonight. On number 10, the proposed sign height and mass, similar signs approved
for the current phase of the family center, Steve do you recall how big the R.C. Willey
was. That was far larger than 72 is that correct. Was it 120.
Siddoway: Boy I—
Borup: Yes, it was bigger then the 72 and the comment I remember that the size of the
project has some bearing on the sign sizes.
Barbeiro: I would concur with that. (Inaudible sentence) I would defer to the developer
on that. I’m not—
Borup: On number 12 your saying?
Barbeiro: Yes.
Borup: I have looked at that again. The landscaping plan did not indicate the fence,
but the site plan did .
Barbeiro: Okay. The five foot wide sidewalks must be provided along Fairview Avenue.
I am not following what—is that in addition to what (inaudible) standards are or—
Siddoway: That is standard. It is a City of Meridian requirement, so we state it as part
of our ordinance as well.
Borup: So I think the interior, the second part of that is the issue.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 75
Barbeiro: And Mr. Durkin with all due respect, I do like walkways down the center even
though I do understand the possibility of having carts congested in there. I imagine that
there is manner to build those. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a concrete sidewalk. It
could be some other manner that allows for a dedicated walkway and still allow for a
inversion
END OF SIDE 6
Barbeiro: shopping cart collectors at a various stage along that may work well. I would
like to keep the provision for a pedestrian walkway but I don’t necessarily believe it has
to be a concrete walkway. Item 26 of course is a procedural item that will be taken care
of within the City Council.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barbeiro I would point out that requiring the walkways to
go down the center of isles would eliminate the landscape islands that they show
because those islands simply create compact parking stalls and putting the walkway
down the center would remove those. If you do require those walkways then the
islands should be required to be more to take a place of a stall in the center of the
island so that we are not loosing the landscaping by putting the walkway in, which
would also reduce their parking to below what our standard is and require them to get a
variance.
Barbeiro: I understand that. I am stating what I prefer. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t
work and you don’t do it.
Borup: Your talking one walkway down the center of the parking lot.
Barbeiro: Larry said he had an engineer here from Seattle. What means have they
used for dedicated walkways in the parking lot. I know that the (inaudible) Walmart in
Boise has a concrete one but I have also seen ones where they have just gone down
through the center (inaudible) which is a striped area of asphalt and this is essentially a
dedicated area that might have a curb or cars might come into it without having a
dedicated concrete sidewalk.
Dailer: I’m Rhonda Dailer with Pacific Line Design out of Seattle Washington. We are
the civil engineer on this project. They would weight the option of either doing a asphalt
strip or a concrete curb. The ones we’ve been dealing with have been the concrete
curb sidewalk that would go down the middle of the parking lot area if they have to go
with that option. We would have to consider that you'd have the cars that would go on
either side then that would limit your pedestrian pathway as we have to determine the
width we would have to go with that. More or less, probably a six foot sidewalk. We
also would have to consider the fact we going to lose some stalls and we are also going
to lose some landscape area.
Barbeiro: In the event of placing any sort of dedicated walkway no matter how it is
designed, does take away from the required parking and of course we can’t do that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 76
because of the city ordinance and their requirement. The dedicated walkway is nearly a
preference not a requirement.
Dailer: Right and we can take a look at that and meet with planning and zoning to
determine if this option would work.
Barbeiro: And that would be what I would ask them. If you can prepare a dedicated
walkway without impacting the required parking that would be a preference.
Dailer: Yes we can definitely do that.
Borup: Is that possible without reducing some of the buffering. I don’t see how. Your
going to a dedicated walkway, is it 6 feet? Your going to need another 6 feet from
somewhere.
Dailer: We were just saying we’d probably lose some stalls and so we will go back—
Borup: I don’t think there is any stalls to lose.
Barbeiro: In the event of that – no stalls could be lost-- If they could do it and not
lose—
Borup: Are you talking about a design of the parking layout.
Barbeiro: Yes. If it is not viable then so be it.
Borup: Does the Boise mall, it is all parking lot isn’t it. No sidewalks anywhere. I don’t
think there is any anywhere in the mall. Thank you. Mr. Barbeiro your only comment
was on 15 which we just--. Mr. Brown any comment on any of those five items from
you.
Brown: I think I am ready to make a motion. I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: I would move approval of the Item 16 request for conditional use permit for a
commercial expansion of the Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center by the developers
Diversified Developers Realty Corp. c/o Dakota Company, Inc. subject to staffs
conditions and requirements with modifications to site specific comment 8, a minimum
20 landscape setback as required, required right of way along Fairview per existing
conditional use.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 77
Swartley: Mr. Chairman it would be much better if he spelled it out what his motion and
recommendation is, otherwise it is going to be very jumbled at City Council.
Brown: What I am recommending is that we cross out where it says minimum 35 foot
and cross out the last sentence.
Borup: Why cross out the last sentence.
Brown: Proposed site plan shows 20—
Borup: And 30.
Brown: Okay that is fine.
Borup: Crossing out the first sentence would be approving it the way the applicant
submitted it.
Brown: No the first sentence—all I’d be doing is crossing out 35. Everything else would
stay. A minimum 20 wide landscape setback. Does that make sense.
Borup: Well the way I’d read your motion is your saying your reducing the 30 feet to 20,
I mean they could.
Brown: The proposed plan shows 20 right?
Borup: And 30. The proposed plan had 20 the parking lot section and 30 at the
building section the new area.
Brown: (inaudible)
Borup: Well you could just like you said delete 35 feet, just say a minimum landscape
setback—our attorney is saying spell out both 20 and 30 is that what you—
Swartley: Just cross out 35 foot and put in 20 foot like you said originally.
Brown: A minimum of 20 is still minimum. Item 10 be modified proposed sign shall
meet current condition use with regards to height and mass is currently approved with
current (inaudible) of Family Center and then striking the rest. Item 12 striking up to
minimum. The minimum 10 foot wide planning strip is needed to be provided along the
future roadway.
Borup: Changing that to 10.
Brown: Yes that would be appropriate. Minimum 10 foot wide
Borup: Do you want to mention the wall as per plan, as per submittal of plan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 78
Brown: 10 foot wide planning strip in wall and Item 15 5 foot sidewalk must be
provided along Fairview. Note, encourage developer to provide pedestrian walkways in
parking areas. I feel that Item 26 should stay.
Barbeiro: I would second the motion Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Any discussion. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I’d like to thank everyone for being here. This item will move on to the City
Council where there will be another public hearing. Yes it will go on to City Council. It
will be the same notification so I guess encourage you to check your post office box
and then maybe the neighbors who live along Florence, hopefully they will notify the
homeowners association also.
Borup: Commissioner's do we want to get item 17 out of the way or address the three
continuations.
Brown: Mr. Chairman I would (inaudible) the continuations.
Borup: Earlier we made a motion to continue Touchmark to the 8th
. We’ve got not a
real heavy schedule on the 8th
, but we have also continued Micron and mini storage.
We do have another opportunity for another hearing on the 22nd
. The question is,
would it be better to do Touchmark as a stand alone hearing.
Barbeiro: Do you anticipate that we will have the large public influx like we did last time
with Touchmark.
Borup: What has there with staff regarding phone calls and such anticipating a big
turnout again.
Siddoway: I would anticipate a large turn out but have not had many phone calls.
Brown: They still have the attorney so still have the issues.
Borup: We still need time to—hopefully we will get the ACHD report in time to review it.
Brown: They were at the highway district I think he told me 2.
Borup: And they asked for postponement so they could work out some issues on the
development agreement with ACHD.
Barbeiro: So would you like to consider having a meeting on the 22nd
and in the off
chance that we have items that go past midnight on the 8th
.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 79
Borup: It does not appear that is will probably happen but we’ve continued—
Barbeiro: So we will want to confer with Richard and the new commissioner to insure
that there will be a quorum.
Berg: We have continued 6 items. We’ve got continued Items number 1,2,4,5,12 and
15. Just so you know for the record we have right now 6 new hearings for the 8th
.
Daycare, conditional use permit for Cherry Lane which may bring in a few people.
Centers Construction which is a conditional use permit and preliminary plat which you
had a few people here tonight concerning that. And a preliminary plat for Woodbridge,
which usually brought a few people in to at least know what was going on. Then you
have a preliminary plat/final plat for Diversified. So you do have issues that could bring
people, not saying long testimonies, but the interest is there.
Barbeiro: And we could also go to a much more authoritarian manner. Here is what we
have and we need to speed these along.
Swartley: If Rossman’s here he’ll cut them off.
Berg: I guess I am the bad apple that suggested the 22nd
only because there is 5
Tuesday’s next month and I want to make it a catch up month because it is not going to
get any slower.
Borup: There is a possibility that we could get out before midnight on one those two
nights too.
Barbeiro: I see that a lot of people want to get spring and summer starts and February,
March, April we are going to be going back to the two meetings a month.
Borup: We need to be caught up before then.
Siddoway: I also point out on Touchmark that we requested a whole lot more
information in our original staff report and have received none.
Borup: They could use another two weeks. Notify them and tell them since we have
not received anything it appeared they needed more time.
Siddoway: So you are talking about another date in February or another date in
January. Oh February 22nd
.
Borup: They requested the 8th
, so we gave them two more weeks. Maybe we ought to
wait and tell them two days before the hearing that it has been moved. And if they think
they have the original deadline they may get it in on time.
(Inaudible commission discussion)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 80
Barbeiro: That would work well because then we could ensure that we are going to
have a meeting and if the information has not been received by then we could cancel
the meeting (inaudible discussion) we will be here and we will know if were going to
have to continue items to the 22nd
. If we don’t have any to continue, we’re done.
Berg: that is a good point because Dan Wood is going to be bringing his project back
on the 8th
, so there might no be enough room for everybody (inaudible).
Brown: I would move that we take Item 12 and Item 15 and have them come on before
Touchmark and (inaudible) Touchmark go.
Borup: 12 and 15 move to the 8th
.
Brown: 12 and 15 items go to the 22nd
with Touchmark. That would be my
recommendation.
Borup: Oh really. Do you think those are going to take a lot of time?
Brown: No I don’t. Put them before Touchmark but move them back so that you will be
able to get everything done.
Borup: We’ll have a shorter meeting on the 8th
.
Brown: If you wanted to shorten the meeting you could put all the items we continued
today to be moved to the 22nd
and then just handle the—
Borup: Well if we know we got the 22nd
we’ve got the option of moving those.
Brown: I know they went out of here with the 8th
in mind, but if these guys want
something to comment on, are they going to get it in time that they are going to get
comments.
Freckleton: I did ask Dan Woods engineer that exact question and he felt that he had
plenty of time. My only concern on the Touchmark –what we have been striving for is 2
full weeks. That gives staff a week to prepare comments, give the applicant a week to
respond back, so I guess that is what I would propose is that we would tell them if we
have the information prior to the meeting—
Borup: We need them by the 8th
and if we don’t have them by the 8th
we won’t
schedule that meeting on the 22nd
possibly. If we didn’t have Touchmark then we’d
have a meeting for 2 10 minute items. Let’s leave it at that. We need a new motion
for—
Brown: I would move that move Items 1,2,12 and 15 to February 22nd
at 7pm.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 81
Borup: We have a motion. We don’t have a second on it.
Barbeiro: I will second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
17.PUBLIC HEARING: ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ZONING SCHEDULE
Borup: I don’t know if you looked at the original ordinances written but I think the
amended ones sure takes care of my concerns a lot better. David was there anything
that you would like to background on this. I understand the attorneys felt we were
better off with it in the ordinance then not have anything at all.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately this is the first time I have taken a look at it. I
am going to assume that Mr. Gigray drafted this and I am sure that he has covered
everything that you could think of.
Borup: The first time it had adult entertainment businesses as a permitted use and CG
and industrial zoned.
Swartley: As a permitted use?
Borup: Yes.
Swartley: That is not something the public or the City of Meridian wants is it.
Borup: I did not open up this public hearing, lets open this public hearing on Item 17.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Steve and I had a
conversation with Mr. Gigray about this subject this afternoon and Bill prepared this
ordinance. It sounded like it was a hurry up deal to get it moving forward. He did
distribute it for comment. He did not receive any comment back. I don’t remember
seeing it, but we get a lot of paperwork.
Borup: So he prepared his comment not necessarily as a ordinance to stand as written.
Freckleton: That is correct, and when I brought it to the –Mr. Siddoway and myself did
prepare a recommendation to Planning and Zoning Commission and Mayor and
Council for some recommended revisions and those are identical to what you have
before you for the revised one that was submitted, I think today. I think everyone is far
more comfortable with this one.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 82
Borup: This one shows a conditional use in 3 zones. An industrial zone, CG and RSC
is regional shopping center which we don’t have anything Meridian zoned.
Swartley: I am sorry Mr. Chairman mine still has it in CG as a conditional use, is that
correct?
Borup: Yes. A conditional use in everything.
Swartley: Well in the three, not everything.
Borup: Well those 3.
Swartley: Not R-4.
Borup: RSC, CG and I – those three zones as a conditional use.
Swartley: I’d like to reiterate that I am sure that Mr. Gigray covered all bases no matter
how quickly he put it together.
Borup: Are we supposed to make a recommendation? The public hearing is closed.
Let the record note there was no public here to testify.
Brown: I would move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Oh, I can’t do that.
Barbeiro: Second.
Brown: I would move that we approve the staff report of January 12th
.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
January 12, 2000
Page 83
Brown: I move that we adjourn.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 12:51. We made it out of here before 1 o’clock.
(Tape on file of these proceedings)
___________________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK