2000 03-20MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 22, 2000
A special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order
at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Sally Norton.
OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Hawkins Clark, David Swartley, Will Berg.
Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We’d like to convene this special meeting
of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. This is a special meeting because
we felt because of the magnitude of the project had deserved a meeting by itself. There
will be 6 public hearings tonight. Essentially all relate to the same development. I
would like to mention that the Planning and Zoning Commission is a adversary panel
essentially. We make recommendations to the City Council and the City Council is the
one that can take our recommendations and then they will act on it. Basically the
procedure will be that the staff will give a report on each application public hearing. The
applicant will have an opportunity to present their project. After the applicant, we take
public testimony and finally the applicant will have final summary comments. Before we
start, we’d like to go ahead and take roll call. We do have a quorum but we are missing
a couple Commissioner's. We have Commissioner Norton, Commissioner Barbeiro,
Commissioner Borup, with Richard Hatcher and Kent Brown absent. Having said that,
the other item I might mention. Because of the complexity of this project and to try to
keep things straight in our mind and probably benefit of all of you, we will essentially be
handling testimony on each public hearing separately. Often times we will take
testimony on both annexation and zoning and conditional use permit and maybe a
preliminary plat that all have to do with the same project. Since there are several
different projects involved here, we thought it be less confusing and to make the
evening run smoother if we take testimony on the specific item that the hearing is on.
We’d like to proceed with that. If someone forgets about that when they are up here, I
will try to remind you. Having said that, we would like to start with the staff report. Let
me open the public hearing first.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 16.119
ACRES FROM RT TO CG FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK
BY G.L. VOIGT DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND AND
LOCUST GROVE ROADS:
Hawkins Clark: Good evening Commissioner's. Just as a general comment to remind
the Commission and those present this entire area in question here was changed on
the Comprehensive Plan this last summer. It was previously designated as a single
family, residential and the designation in the land use map was changed to a mixed plan
use. That was a separate application and process that was made this last summer.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 2
This application here on the screen before you pertains to this cross hashed area which
is
the a little more than 16 acres immediately at the southeast corner. We just request
that our staff comments be incorporated. We are recommending that the requested
zone of CG be down zoned to a CN. Essentially all of the uses that are requested are
permitted in the CN, neighborhood commercial. Other than that, I don’t think there is
anything else on the annexation application other than what is in the staff report that
want to bring up. Thanks.
Borup: Oh your done. That was quick. Commissioner's, any questions?
Norton: I just have one question for Brad. The change from CG to CN, I understand
that the CN zoning would not allow auto repairs, service station, hotels, truck stops,
heavy equipment sales and auto sales. Is that correct?
Hawkins Clark: That’s correct. There are other uses that would be allowed in the CG. I
just simply listed a few.
Borup: The applicant or representative like to come forward.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland in Boise. I am
representing the applicant in this matter. The property is owned by Overland, LLC. As
Brad indicated sometime, I think it was late last year, we came through and asked for a
re-designation of this property and then the adjoining property owned by G.L. Voigt
Development to change the land use from or the designation from single family
residential to mixed planned use development. That application was granted. We’ve
been working with the city over the past probably 10 months for extension of public
services to this area, from the north side of Interstate 84. The sewer was located up in
Wells Circle, which is within the interior of that Subdivision you see, right above where it
says I-84. We worked with the city to extend the sewer to the south side of the
Interstate to Overland and in conjunction, the water line was extended westward on
Overland and taken north at the same time through the same bore to the north side of
Overland—north side of the Interstate for St. Luke's Hospital. That is creating a loop of
the city water system to increase the fire flow capacity that was necessary for the phase
3 of the St. Luke's Hospital. That part of the infra structure has been installed. It was
just completed here a few weeks ago, so now we submitted our applications and we are
before you on this corner parcel. Originally we asked for a CG designation. The
reason being after pre applications meetings with the staff. They said yeah, that is
probably the best zone because it is predominantly CG north of us. As you can see all
that orange area. When we received comments from the staff stating that CN was
probably more appropriate because it does have some limitations on some more
intensive uses. We discussed it and we concur with the staff. We believe that the
neighborhood commercial would be acceptable because that is the intent of this
application for development of this corner parcel is to provide neighborhood commercial
uses that would service this area. It was not intended to be like highway commercial
like you would find say on Fairview. Some of the uses that we have discussed would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 3
be such things as dry cleaners, video stores, maybe a deli, possibly a convenience
store. Maybe in the future a grocery store, if there is enough homes in that area. We
question the fact that we think it is longer term as far as development of this corner
parcel. We really believe that that overpass at Locust Grove would most likely have to
go in before you start getting enough volume to get tenants interested for commercial
uses on this corner parcel. We are looking long term and what we tried to do was come
in and put these two parcels together and come up with a planned unit development.
Trying to give the commission and council an idea of what can be done with these
parcels and how they can inter relate and serve this area. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Thank you. We would like to open this up for any public testimony. Again, keep
in mind the testimony we are taking at this time is on the annexation and zoning of this
parcel on the corner. The staff recommendation was to zone it Commercial
Neighborhood and the applicant said they concur with that zoning designation. So if we
have anyone you are welcome to come forward at this time. Seeing none—what we
are doing right now this is just on the zoning of this parcel. We will be getting to the
other ones on the office buildings, the skating rink, the apartment buildings—those are
all covered. There is an agenda on the back that lists the different hearings that will be
discussed. We are handling these one at a time so that we can keep the comments
pertinent to the area where that is the application. The comments that we had from the
staff and from the applicant was essentially requesting annexation and zoning of that
shaded area. Nothing else at this time. We still have a plat they need to file and a
conditional use permit—and then any buildings going in would some of the uses would
need to be under a conditional use permit so when they have a specific use for that
building, they’d come back before the commission with another public hearing for those
uses, because there is a lot uses on the neighborhood commercial that require another
public hearing if those type—there would be some permitted uses but other uses
require a conditional use. At this point we are not going to be going anymore detail
other than the land itself. The question was, what does RT to CG. RT is rural
transition. It is the county designation. This property is still in the county. CG is
general commercial. We would probably not be zoning it general commercial. Staff has
recommended neighborhood commercial and the applicant has concurred with that,
which is a lower zoning (inaudible) zoning, less extensive uses. It wouldn’t have the
heavy uses allowed in the neighborhood commercial. That’s a liability company. That’s
the owner of the property.
Barbeiro: If you would like I have a copy of the zoning ordinances here. If you’d like to
come up here I will loan you this while you’re here.
Borup: Are we okay to answer questions if I repeat them or do we need to get them up
here. You can come up, but the question was so we can get it on the record, does the
zoning allow gas stations and the answer is no. Is that correct Brad.
Hawkins Clark: I would just reiterate that we have requested as staff that any future use
in that (inaudible) will require conditional use permit. Even though it’s normal, so
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 4
everyone within 300 feet of that property boundaries that cross hashed piece would
receive notification by mail. Regardless of if it’s permitted in the CN.
Borup: Did that clarify that. There won’t be anything happening without come back for
another public testimony pubic hearing. Any building or any use. Just state your name
and address and then ask the question.
Demayo: My name is Michael Demayo. I live at 1986 E. Easy Jet Street, Los Alamitos
Subdivision. I am not sure of the procedures. Is this the time that we would discuss
what kind of improvements to the street and infra structure.
Borup: That would be coming up. Thank you. Anyone else.
Shipley: I am John Shipley. I live at 2770 S. Locust Grove, right where they are putting
in the bridge. I would like to ask the Commissioner's what does the law say about traffic
and how much traffic can be on a road before you even discuss anymore develops.
Borup: Our attorney may want to answer that but I am not aware of any law that
discusses that at all.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, no I am not either and those are issues that would be
addressed at ACHD not at this commission.
Shipley: I just wanted to verify that the other night I went over to Wal-Mart at 4 o’clock
and it took me 2-1/2 hours to get home. Any dumb plumber knows that you can’t stick 4
lanes of traffic into a 2 lane pipe. Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else. Commissioner's. Did the applicant have any final comment.
Bartell: Marian Bartell. I live at 2534 S. Velvet Falls. My great concern is that Overland
Road is over capacity now and my feeling is I’ve got the complete plat from Briggs
Engineering of everything that is going in proposed and we have talked to Ada County
Highway District. They don’t plan to widen Overland 5 years. They plan to put the
overpass in first and then it may be 5 years the soonest on Locust Grove if may be up
to 20 years and I am just speaking in general of all it going in. Everything north of
Overland, which we have no objections to, that’s good usable commercial property.
South of Overland, your dumping so much traffic, as he said, into a tiny space. My
opinion is it is highly reckless endangerment of lives and that there is no other way to
put it. You can not put that many cars into that area on a road all ready over crowded.
It won't work. Five years the soonest before it is going to be developed. Thank you.
Borup: I agree that’s a problem. ACHD has stated many times that it’s got to happen
the other way. They don’t build the roads without the cars. They build the roads for the
cars and—we’re going to need to keep this a little more orderly. We’ve been listening to
ACHD reports the last 5 years and we know what they say. They have told us that
repeated times. I might mention right now as we do not have the ACHD report on this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 5
project, that is something that this commission has always required before we finalize
anything. We are not sure of the status of that report and where as far as a time frame.
Did you have something new?
Bartell: Yes. In the mornings and in the evenings Overland—
Borup: Something pertaining to the annexation. This annexation has no buildings no
roads. It is not going to effect traffic.
Norton: I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I will second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: In light of that fact maybe we might want to discuss a little bit where we might
want to head. We do not have the ACHD report. It would be my anticipation that we
will probably be continuing the other hearings without the ACHD report. That has been
our practice in the past. Do the Commissioner's confer. Okay. Then, also keeping
consistent with our preference to submit all applications to City Council together. The
best option here is to table Item number 1. The attorney feels that the discussion
should take place right prior to the vote. If we vote on it tonight, within 45 days it needs
to get to City Council. That time frame may work out or we may have a situation where
it go to City Council prior to us acting on the balance of the items. I was saying we had
a couple of options but probably tabling it is the most viable, if the other Commissioner's
agree.
Barbeiro: Would that be necessary we go through a motion to table this. I wish to
motion that we table Item number 1 request for annexation and zoning of 16.119 acres
from RT to CN for proposed Resolution Business Park to our next regularly scheduled
meeting of April 11th
.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion and second, any discussion. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 37.64 ACRES FROM R-4
TO LO FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK BY G.L. VOIGT
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 6
DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST GROVE
ROADS:
Borup: Mr. Hawkins Clark, do you have a report for us.
Hawkins Clark: Yes Commission. Again the application before you we do request that
our staff report dated March 20 comments be incorporated into your action. On the
screen is the subject property. It is currently zoned R-4 and they are requesting to
rezone it to an LO, which is a limited office zone. As stated it is 37.6 acres. It is
bounded on the west by the Hunter Lateral and goes to the half section line. Here is a
photo of looking at the property, looking west. Staff does concur limited office zone
allows for a combination of uses and the planned development commercial project
which is going to be proposed later this evening, does comply and does fit with the
limited office zoning. We would concur with the rezone request.
Borup: Any questions from the commission. Miss Bowcutt.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering. I am representing G.L. Voigt
Development with this application. There is some history behind this particular parcel. I
believe it was 1996, I think it was, 96, 97 we came before the City of Meridian and
asked for annexation and zoning of this property to an R-4 designation which is a single
family designation. Accompanying that rezone and annexation application was a
preliminary plat and it had as I recall, 380 some homes that were proposed. Will might
correct me. It was something around that approximately. We got approval and one of
the problems that we saw was the fact that we needed to find a way to get that sewer to
the south side of Overland road. At that point of time the sewer was not available. We
debated on what to do with the property and just shortly before the preliminary plat was
going to or approval was going to lapse, the Meridian School District came to us and
stated that they wanted to purchase the 54 acres in the southern portion for a high
school site. They had found a site south of Victory, were very close to closing it and it
had fallen through at the last moment and that they had monies that needed to be spent
to acquire land for the next high school. So, the property was sold to the school district.
One of the conditions that they or that was discussed prior to that sale was the fact that
we would not put single family dwellings north of the school site. They were very strong
in their argument that they did not want to create another Borah High School situation
where you have a large number of high school kids cutting through, driving through
single family residential neighborhoods. We agreed that when we got ready to develop
the property we would not develop a single family. I asked them specifically what type
of uses would be able to co-exist with the high school and its traffic and any of the
adverse effects that come along with it. They stated multi family would be acceptable or
office or some limited retail—something along that line would be satisfactory. That is
one reason we are at the point that we are at asking for this to be rezoned to LO. We
choose the limited office zone because it allows the uses that we are proposing along
with the planned unit development. The LO zone for this parcel would be the same as
the CN where you have to have a conditional use permit for every single use on the
property. We know some of our users. We know that this is one of users, the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 7
apartment complex. The ice arena. That is one of our known users and then the LDS
Seminary, that is one of our other users that are know. As far as these users, we don’t
know who they will be. We have estimated that we for see this as kind of being a little
bit of a satellite for St. Luke's Hospital. Maybe some of their suppliers would have a
combination of office, small warehouse use. Those are typically pretty good users
because they generate less traffic then let’s say the commercial activities. We think that
the LO zone is appropriate. We have agreed to enter into a development agreement
and as I’ve stated everything will be a conditional use permit. If there was a particular
use that you found unacceptable, this body and the council would have the ability to
deny that. The public again would have an opportunity to express their opinion. Lastly,
I would just like to state one thing. We agree with the Commission on deferral of all of
our applications this evening. We would not feel comfortable moving forward on any of
these applications until the highway district has completed their analysis. They are
behind schedule. They’ve lost a staff member. It has caused some backlog, so we
really can’t hold them responsible for the delay. We accept it. One thing I would like to
state is as Commissioner Borup indicated, the highway district at this point of time
finances these roadway improvements in arrears. That means, until these monies are
generated through some type of development, they don’t have any dollars. Eighty five
percent of their capital creating additional road capacity is coming from impact fees at
this time and then 15 percent is coming from (inaudible) and taxes. That is the data
that I received from the traffic engineers that deal with the highway district on a regular
basis. This project is not going to be built immediately. It is a 7 year, maybe 10 year
project, who knows. It is a large project. They are usually typically phased. One
building at a time. The Century Landmark Center, is a lot bigger than this. Our firm did
that Subdivision and the conditional uses that went along with it. For many, many years
it was built and vacant and the first user was the Bureau of Land Management and then
as our economy started to heat up, and the Wal-Mart went in, then it started to take off.
This obviously does not have the high traffic volumes that you find at Overland Road
and the Cole Overland interchange, but my point is it is going to be a phase thing. We
want to get those improvements in there. We have talked to the highway district and
asked them to try to think ahead because sometimes they think in the short term and
they think yeah, we’ve got five year to go in and fix this. I made them aware of the fact
that the Meridian School District this fall will be coming before the voters for bond issue.
That bond issue is going to include that high school. They have informed me that if that
bond is successful, they will begin construction in 2001 because they anticipate that
they will need this school in the short term. Eagle High School population has
increased at a greater rate than what they anticipated. That is obviously going to
accelerate the need for signalization, road widening. They bumped Overland Road up.
It was designated as a 3 lane. They have bumped that designation up to a 5 lane
arterial and when I spoke with the highway district about was let’s look at doing some
type of a partnership. What can we do with this mile between Locust Grove and Eagle
Road. Can we do our part—we are a half mile long—then you do the other half mile
and work together to get signalization and so forth. What can we do. They said yes,
we think that is a good idea. Now that we know that that school is going to go in there
shortly, we are going to have to take a hard look at that. So that is where we are trying
to head. Whether that’s what Ada County Highway District Commission will endorse, I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 8
can’t say and we won’t know until we come back before you. But that’s what we are
trying to do. We are not trying to go out and build this thing out on a two lane section
line roadway. Thank you.
Barbeiro: Becky, in my discussions with the Meridian School District, they anticipate
the school to be open Fall 2002. Can you guess about how much of this development
may fill in at the time the school would open.
Bowcutt: I would probably –obviously the ice arena that is planned for hopefully
construction this year. That would be a nice service for that high school site. You may
see some spin off, something like arcade or something like that, maybe a deli,
something that could service these high school kids. I don’t think your going to see a lot
of heavy commercial. We are not seeing that out at Eagle High School out on highway
44 and Clark. Those kids are still driving into the City of Eagle. It may generate some
uses but I don’t see it becoming Burger King, McDonalds, Dairy Queen. It is not going
to be like the interchange. Overland Road has like eleven thousand two hundred fifty
trips a day. If they are located over at Eagle Road and the interchange, they can have
30 some thousand cars come by.
Barbeiro: So if you had to guess you would say that at the time the school opened, we
would see for instance the one development there, the ice rink and maybe two or three
other buildings.
Bowcutt: Possibly. The multi family users, the apartment complex, would like to build
their first phase or begin construction on their first phase 2001. That is a 2 phased
project.
Borup: Thank you. We would like to invite anyone from the public again. This is the
same situation as the previous hearing. This application is for a rezone. It is all ready
part of the city limits so they are not asking for annexation and we will be getting to the
meat of some of the other things on the next one. Any testimony on this rezone
application. Okay, thank you. Commissioner's?
Barbeiro: I wish to make a motion to close the public hearing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to request that we table the rezone of 37.64 acres from
R-4 to LO for proposed Resolution Business Park by G.L. Voigt Development.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 9
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 107.06 ACRES
LO AND CG ZONING FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK BY
G.L. VOIGT DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST
GROVE ROADS:
Hawkins Clark: Commissioner's this application does incorporate the high school site to
the south. This is the only one of the six applications tonight that does incorporate this
area. This was done at the request of the City. This was originally an illegal split. The
city requested that the developer’s incorporate the high school, Meridian School District,
into this preliminary plat application and they have stated that they do not either support
nor oppose the proposed development. The school district is simply willing to be
incorporated into this preliminary plat application. In order to formalize the division of
land here, this 107 acres, we do ask that our comments that are dated March 20, be
incorporated. I’d like to go through about 4 of those points. The applicant has given a
response to those. I would highlight number 8, which is on page 6 has to do with the
easements which are located they are currently here along the north portion of the
project along Overland Road and along the south, typically on plats. The city has
requested that landscape buffers that are along arterial be incorporated separate legal
lots and the applicant has stated they would prefer those to be easements. Staff don’t
have a problem with that. Our main concern is consistency of design and landscaping
maintenance in the future. In terms of that, we would be willing if the commission would
want to modify that and have those easements just along Overland and Locust Grove
landscape buffers. Overland Road is 35 feet wide landscape buffer. Locust Grove is 25
feet. Condition number 10 pertains to the fencing in the project and the applicant is
proposing to construct a fence along the east boundary of the Hunter. Again, staff has
recommending that Hunter be piped. They had proposed in their plat that that be left
over. There (inaudible) say that they concur with that and we would also concur with
their comment that the fence they are stating they would prefer to have a fence along
the boundary of that lateral in terms of the apartments. Our main point was as long as
there is some kind of cross connection there between the sites. Some kind of good
neighbor fence, preferably not a chain link. We would concur that if a fence if inter-
connection is provided is find in terms of that west boundary on the apartment complex.
Then, Item number 11 I think we are in agreement there. There in terms of getting
some kind of cross connection here as the plat currently does not propose any
connection between this area, which is the proposed apartment complex and this 16
acre piece. How that happens, where it happens we would leave up to the applicant.
Item number 13 deals with the private road. Here is the proposed private road off of
Overland, which would service this lot number 6 and then lot number 8 simply coming
down and making an “L” shaped. If it is only intended as a private drive which is stated
in their response to our written comments, basically just to provide some kind of access,
private access between these two future lot owners whoever the users are. This could
potentially be as traffic moves easterly this will be the first entrance and if it is to be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 10
private, staff just simply have some concern as to whether this would become sort of
the primary entrance into the site and don’t really have an answer but maybe some kind
of knuckle turn around instead of having that access directly onto Overland. Just cut
that off and buffer it across there. That is it on the preliminary plat application.
Borup: Any questions for Brad?
Norton: Brad, I have two questions. Back to your number 10 regarding tiling the Hunter
Lateral. In other words the applicant agrees to tile the Hunter Lateral and provide a
neighborly fence by the apartment buildings. Is that correct?
Hawkins Clark: Correct.
Norton: Then my next question is number 11, the suggestion of the cross access road.
What was the applicants response or did they respond to number 11.
Hawkins Clark: They did. If I can read it for you if you didn’t receive. It states a
vehicular connection between site A and B could be accomplished from the driveway
between building 7 and 8. So they are kind of combining applications here. Building 7
and 8 –here is the next project but so just so you’ll see what we are talking about. I
believe they are referring to this northern area here. Here is building 7 so it would be
essential be coming in off –the connection which they are saying would be on the south
here. It would be coming across through there. Here is the Hunter right here and in
order to get some kind of connection here, the proposed daycare is here.
Norton: So they are agreeable for the cross traffic then.
Hawkins Clark: I would point out they say could be accomplished. They have not out
right agreed in their response.
Barbeiro: Brad could you go back to the plat that we had before showing the school
district site. Incorporating the school district into this plat, will have the school district
site currently as an R-4. Then the school district would come back later to change the
zoning on that.
Hawkins Clark: High schools are permitted in an R-4.
Barbeiro: I did not read it as tiling the lateral. I though that was going to remain open.
Staffs recommendation not the way we had it originally. Okay, that’s why I was
confused.
Hawkins Clark: It is city ordinance. It would have to be waived by the City Council if
they were to leave it open.
Borup: The applicant like to come forward.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 11
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering.
END OF SIDE ONE
Bowcutt: Just for the benefit of the residents that are here, this application is that plat
which we are asking to basically subdivide the property or cut it up into those lots
shown. This does not approve any particular use on the property. This is just a plat.
As Brad indicated, when we came before the City with pre-application conference Miss
Stiles asked that we include the school district’s lot as part of this plat. She has some
concerns because it does not have frontage on Overland Road. It has an easement out
to Overland road but no frontage. We talked to the school district. At first they were
opposed then we stated it would be of no cost to you. We will put it in with ours, so they
said fine. That would be good just as long as it’s just the plat. That is what we have
done here. What we are proposing is to build this 60 foot collector roadway coming in
at this location here. In the preliminary site plans that I’ve seen on the school, they
anticipate the building being located in this particular area kind of next to the Hunter
Lateral. The school would be located in about this area and the reason being is the
demography of the site. That has a slope to it so the building and their parking lots
would go real well there. If they were to put ball fields they would have to do a
substantial amount of grading. They anticipate the flatter portions of this site being
utilized for their fields. This collector roadway will be bringing extending 12 inch water
and 10 inch sewer down the collector roadway to here, stubbing to this site. This street
here, the traffic circle and the stub street to our eastern boundary and then this roadway
here are all proposed as public street to be built to public street standards and
dedicated to Ada County Highway District. When the school is completed, the highway
district then anticipates a light will be needed at that location. The school alone will
generate approximately 3000 trips per day. The problem with the high school is its peak
hour happens in a 30 minute time frame. In the morning, at lunch and when they leave.
It is a short period of time. It is hard to manage that type of traffic. It’s been explained
to me that their peak traffic would be comparable to say retail uses that generate
25,000 trips a day because it is such a short timeframe. The little lane that we have
right here, we have viewed that not as a private road but kind of an access driveway.
Because the property line for the multi family would adjoin here, under uniform fire code
we’ve got to have vehicular access like around these buildings. Like here, around the
arena there is an access. That is what we intended this to function as. Each of these
lots having cross access agreements or easements we show that on the plat, if staff still
chooses for access, but we did not intend it to be like a public street. I see staffs
comments that their worried that somebody may come down and go that direction. We
may have to study that a little bit and talk to the traffic engineer and see if that would be
a problem. With kids, cause they cut through that driveway we would want to know that
now not after it’s built. In staff’s comments, just briefly I’ll go through them. We have
agreed to I believe most of their comments stated that we would comply. Pressurized
irrigation, we will be building a pressure irrigation system to Nampa Meridian Irrigation
standards, turning that system over to the district. I have contacted the Meridian School
District to see if they would like to participate in the design and construction of a large
regional pump station that would have the ability to service their ball fields and so forth.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 12
I have not received any answer. They may feel it premature at this time. If they have
no interest in the pump station then we would proceed with building our pump station.
Typically the way the systems are designed they have the ability to be upgraded with
larger pumps and so forth. There was a discussion on landscaping on Locust Grove
and Overland. We meet or exceed the requirements of the ordinance. We would like
that to be an easement. We would be glad to put that easement on the plat. It is an
easement for landscaping under jurisdiction of the association tying that into the
protected covenants. As staff indicated, the purpose for that is to have consistency in
the type of landscaping and the maintenance of that landscaping long term. Item 10,
staff asked that we pipe the Hunter Lateral. We have agreed in our investigations on
the Hunter Lateral we take a 36 inch concrete pipe approximately I believe your policy
has been if it is less than a 48 inch then you are required to pipe it. We have agreed we
will pipe it. The apartment complex, they feel it is important that they have some type of
perimeter fence there. For buffer, for security purposes it wouldn’t be like some
industrial chain link looking thing. They want something that would look residential. As
far as the interconnection we took staffs recommendation and we thought yep, that
makes sense. Then we could capture some of that traffic in-between the two parcels
and the two types of uses. If I may, this is kind of what we anticipate would work. It
would be an access point between building 7 and 8 just above the traffic circle,
interconnecting the two users. That would provide pedestrian access and vehicular
access between the two. We feel the fencing along the remainder of that western
boundary would not hamper interaction between the two uses. It would be—this access
would be extended. This building would be clipped off. This access would be
(inaudible) right here. I believe that is all that we have. The rest of the conditions we
are in agreement. Do you have any questions.
Barbeiro: On the road connecting in from Overland to the high school, how many lanes
is that?
Bowcutt: The highway district is going to determine the number of lanes. At this point, I
don’t believe it has been determined. We are providing a 60 foot right of way there
with a 41 foot section, is what we anticipated. Your going to have multiple turn lanes
out there at the entrance though. Like your probably –that entrance will be widened so
you have multiple left hand lanes catching the light. With the volumes, there are going
to have to do something like that. Maybe a free right hand turn. We will know that
within a week of what they anticipate the build out for that. If they need a little more
right of way, we do have quite a bit of landscaping running parallel on both sides of that
collector roadway.
Barbeiro: In the absence of the Ada County Highway District report then you would
intend to having one lane in, two left hand turns and one right hand turn lanes for a total
of 4 lanes wide at this point.
Bowcutt: Possibly.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 13
Barbeiro: And, of course you would not use the second left hand turn lane until
Overland was 5 lanes (inaudible). In the mean time that would be cross hashed.
Bowcutt: They’d have to obviously have to do something like that, unless they can
convince them to—improving that to 5 lanes, then it would be all ready to go.
Barbeiro: The Meridian School District in their notes asked for an additional access,
emergency access, to the north to Overland. The current plat that you have does not
address that and I did not see it in any of the additional notes.
Bowcutt: I took a copy of this plat over to the school district and asked for input. They
did not give me any comments to that effect, but they may have commented in writing. I
have not seen that. There is a stub street here, at this location here at the eastern edge
of Los Alamitos. There is a stub street located at the southern end in Los Alamitos.
The vehicular access is intended to be that collector roadway there. We did not want to
send the traffic this director here. That was based on the neighborhood meeting that
we had. One of the main concerns that we heard from the residents, I believe at
Sportsman Pointe, was we don’t want that traffic going on to Locust Grove. We are
trying to concentrate it at Overland. I think the secondary access is for emergency
purposes, was it not?
Barbeiro: That was the request. If I may quote Jim Carberry of the Meridian School
District, Joint School District #2 would like to see a secondary access road to the north
of the school site. According to the plat, there is only one entrance to the high school
site from the north. This particular one does not explain whether it was an emergency
or full access.
Bowcutt: We have multiple points along here that we could, depending on their
configuration because I don’t know what their site plan is. They don’t have one yet. I
was told that they have authorized the architect to begin the site planning, but I have
not seen any drafts other than a hand sketch that was given to us back in 97. There is
multiple points that we could create emergency vehicle access through the complex
itself. You could even come along here, here or along this parking lot. Like I said, it will
be contingent upon their site plan because if I put one over here and that is the baseball
diamond, it’s not doing them a lot of good.
Barbeiro: I was at the Meridian School District planning meeting for the new high
school. They do have two proposed site plans. One which is a single building site plan
and one is a campus site plan where the high school might have 3 or 4 different
buildings and how those would be situated with the field. I would hope that you’d get a
chance to meet with Jim Carberry. Again, I just happen to run into him today and he
mentioned that the road had not been included in any of the plats that he’d seen and
wanted to be sure that they wanted to do that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 14
Bowcutt: Okay. I’ll be glad to meet with them if they have something that is more
concrete then what they had a few years back and we can work with that and try to
satisfy them.
Barbeiro: The high school going in behind here and as you said your going to have
students flying out of there at lunch time, what provisions have you made for walking
access from the high school to the existing businesses.
Bowcutt: If you look at the colored—this is just a larger version of the site plan that is
up there except in black and white. We have meandering sidewalks that will meander
in the landscape area parallel with this collector road. They’d be off set from the
roadway which would be safer for the pedestrians then putting the sidewalk (inaudible)
a curb. They will meander through our landscaping all the way up to Overland and then
will end up putting sidewalk all along our Overland frontage. That is always a standard
condition of the highway district and the City of Meridian. We’d then end up putting
sidewalk all along our Locust Grove frontage and then there is pathways that are
delineated through out the multi family complex and then we show some pathways that
run through here to try to link everything up pedestrian. One of staff comments was like
to provide bicycle racks at some of these various uses. We concurred. That is an
excellent idea.
Barbeiro: Where I see a concern is since the building will be right here, they are not
going to bicycle over here and then come back around over here. They are going jump
side here, here.
Bowcutt: No, they come through a pathway there at that southeast corner here. This
would be piped, the Hunter Lateral. There would be no barrier for them here. We could
put a pathway and meander it in here to intercept with the sidewalks or walk ways within
the interior of the complex.
Barbeiro: That would be a very, very nice idea. Having taught at Meridian High School
and Centennial and Eagle High School, I have seen every traffic disaster that teenagers
can do in high school environment. Is this site here that the school site in total or does
in incorporate off to the side.
Bowcutt: No sir it doesn’t. What you see is everything that the school district owns.
The out parcel right there is owned by the city of Meridian. That parcel is 4 acres. That
parcel is 2.3. That parcel there in Thousand Springs adjoins it and I think it is 3 or 4
acres. That was going to be some type of a neighborhood park. Just to service the
neighborhoods.
Barbeiro: The plans that you have—do they—I thought the lateral would be open. Will
the landscaping remain along the tiled lateral.
Bowcutt: Nampa Meridian typically if we tile it, then they want a gravel access roadway
over the top of it and they won’t allow us to plant any trees. We can’t even plant turf
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 15
within their easement without their approval through the license agreement process.
We would have to work with them. Probably the optimum thing would try to have
something that could function both as their access drive and as a pathway. Even if it
were gravel, it could function that way.
Barbeiro: Assuming I am a teenager with a new drivers license, your proposed access
would cross over the lateral –zigzag through your multi family, I am the sixteen year old
going to make this run here –cross over to get to Locust Grove so I could make a left
turn, so on and so on.
Bowcutt: We’ve discussed that. That was one of the concerns of the multi family
applicant. One of the things that we talked about was possibly putting up coded gate
for the residents and the residents have the code. I’ve seen that done on some
retirement complexes in Boise. Older ones that back up, I think this one backed up to a
shopping center, they had a key pad. That one was pedestrian only, whereas this one
would be vehicular and pedestrian.
Barbeiro: So you’d put a center gate which would allow pedestrian traffic and bicycles
to pass at will.
Bowcutt: We don’t want to create a cut through situation either. So, something like that
could be done.
Borup: Becky, I think most of my questions have been answered. I am assuming that
you had mentioned (Inaudible) Overland is five lanes now. I assume you design
allowed for the additional right of way.
Bowcutt: Yes sir. The site planning for Overland and Locust Grove takes into
consideration of the future right of way needs to expand both the roadways to their build
out width.
Borup: Thank you. Now I’d like to invite up any public testimony, We do want to hear
from everyone this evening. This is concerning the platting. Not the specific buildings.
We may need to enforce our 3 minute limit but we will see how it goes.
Shipley: John Shipley. 2770 S. Locust Grove. Listening to you folks, I don’t recognize
anybody but Mr. Borup. I have not been here for a long time. Obviously, if you knew
what the law actually said about developing something ahead the roads and the
schools, then it would be appropriate to address these things after those things were
done.
Borup: Is there a law that you are aware of that we are not.
Shipley: I am aware that there can only be so many cars on the –
Borup: You specifically said a law sir that we weren’t aware of.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 16
Shipley: It was talked of in meetings and past times and I’m not aware of why nobody
here knows about it. I don’t know the number. If your speed is impeded by 1/3 the
speed limit because of traffic, then there is too many cars. If you go ahead and okay all
of this stuff without knowing what the highway district people have got in mind then it is
just like spinning wheels.
Borup: We agree. Maybe I need to repeat that again. Our intention—we have all
ready discussed prior to that we will not be making any recommendation without the
highway districts report. It is not our policy, especially on a project of this size.
Shipley: Is the man named Kent Brown is he the same one that works at the highway
district.
Borup: No he isn’t He is the same name, different person.
Avera: My name is Herman Avera. I’m at 947 E. St. Maarten Drive in part of the
Meridian Greens Subdivision. My concern if I understand the numbers correctly, is that
they are suggesting that the high school is going to add an additional 3000 trips per
day. At lunch time most of the fast food places that are there now are out on Meridian
Road, which means they are going to have to get out on this one road, make a left turn
onto Overland and go down to Meridian and make a right turn there to get to the fast
food places for lunch. It would seem that you make a 1000 trips for that and then 1000
trips to get out of here in the afternoon and there is no light or stop light at that exit and
that is the only exist out of there. My concern is for the safety not only for the students,
but pedestrians who might be walking across there, because I know that the school
buses stop along Overland Road now to pick up and drop off elementary kids. I don’t
know how that is going to be addressed.
Borup: You feel a signal is necessary?
Avera: Certainly a signal will be necessary by the time the school completes and the
children are driving in and out. Yes.
Barbeiro: Mr. Avera, if I may. If we used Eagle High School as a comparative, about 20
percent of the students at Eagle High School do leave and go onto Eagle Road for
lunch. Meridian High School is closer to 30 percent. I believe this high school will be
somewhere in-between. That would give you between 240 and 300 leaving at lunch
time, not the 1000 you had thought.
Avera: Do we think that 240 leaving here and turning left without a signal is safe.
Barbeiro: It is never—the school is not intended to open prior to a signal being at that
intersection.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 17
Christianson: James Christianson. 241 S. Brandy Jewel Avenue. I could not see the
plat of the apartment buildings of where the access was to the apartment buildings. Is it
coming off of Overland or –
Borup: They were talking about right here. This is the apartment buildings here and
there is—
Christianson: I met how do they get out of the complex.
Borup: Overland. That is the intention. Staff (inaudible) some access here so that
people who live in these apartments can get to the commercial buildings.
Christianson: (Inaudible) if they were going to the access road where the school is to
get out or if they was going out on Overland.
Borup: If they are travelling anywhere, they going Overland. If they want to get to
these businesses I would assume they would use that so they don’t have to fight the
traffic. Thank you. Anyone else.
Cushing: My name is Terry Cushing. I live at 1989 E. Doberman. My concern is that
and I know that some of this has been addressed but I talked to the Ada County
Highway District the other day and they assured me after their meeting that they was
going to they figured this complex would generate 12000 trips a day. What they said
was it would add 6000 and they figured the six was from people who would all ready be
on Overland road or in the area. As a person who has to come up Locust Grove and
turn onto Overland several times a day, I find it very difficult to do safely. I think that
adding any kind of load to the streets there, until that street or until the light is put at
Locust Grove, and in front of the high school, I think that it is an error that we should not
be in acting any –I am not trying to say not in my backyard or anything, but gracious
sakes, we’ve got to be able to get out on that road and right now it is difficult and if you
add 6000 trips, it is going to be impossible.
Hinkley: Nathan Hinkley. East Puffin Court. What I want to know is what else is going
to have to happen. There is no two ways about it. That land can't sit dormant forever.
They want to build an ice skating rink and put stores in there and offices and the high
school. I’m going to have to pay for the high school so are all my neighbors and my
daughter will be using it. That is only right. But, for the rest of it, why does Ada County
and the tax payers have to pay for the street improvements. I’ve done a lot of street
lighting and a lot of traffic signals, why does not the developer pay for it. The developer
should pay a little of it. They are adding the traffic. They are adding the congestion.
Just asking why.
Borup: Why they don’t pay 100 percent of it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 18
Hinkley: Not completely 100 percent but most of it. Why don’t we get the roads built
and the traffic signals in and then give them permission to go ahead and build. We vote
on these things as we go, public hearings, city approvals or whatever.
Borup: The applicant may want to clarify that but from her earlier testimony and
assuming that’s correct, she stated that 85 percent of the funds would be coming from
impact fees, which is paying by the development. So, that has to happen first before
the money is there. So the 15 percent would be from tax payers. 85 percent from the
impact fees. Yes, developers in this area.
Hinkley: Will we get the roads built and the traffic signals and then put all this stuff in.
Borup: Because you won’t have the money. They have to apply for the permit and then
they pay the money at the time they apply and then the money there. It can happen
gradually. Anyone else like to come forward.
Rassmusson: Sonya Rassmusson. I live at 1395 E. Peacock. I know there is a lot of
concern about all the traffic that will happen. There on Overland especially with all the
high school students. I am worried about it too but it is really important that we get a
high school because the high school is so over crowded and we do need on there. It is
a good location. I am hoping that there is a lot of neighborhoods close by and that I am
hoping that the school district will put walk way access from Los Alamitos. It would be
nice if the students from Sportsman and even Meridian Greens could walk to the
school. I am hoping that will alleviate a little of the traffic. I know a lot of kids will still
drive, but I think it is important that we work with the Ada County Highway District.
Even just getting a turning lane and a light at the beginning when the school is opened,
I know I talked to them. They are not looking at doing anything until 2004 and they
aren’t going to bump that up just because a school is going in. I don’t know. How does
the Planning and Zoning Commission—can you work together with the Ada County
Highway District in getting a turning lane and a light?
Borup: I agree. I think that is –again it’s my personal opinion. I think it is going to be
necessary for this. I think the applicant would agree with that too. Tom has said the
school is going to require a light and the turning lane is going to need to be without
stopping up traffic, so I think those are two very pertinent suggestions.
Barbeiro: I understood that before the school opened there would be a stop light there.
That was one of the requirements and also turn lanes. Are you referring to Overland
and Locust Grove or the intersection where the high school will be coming out.
Rassmusson: Right now the school only has that one main entrance. They were
thinking they should have another one but they have no plan for it right now. The ideal
location would be off of Eagle Road but they’d have to cut across. I don’t even know
what is going in there, next to the site. Is there anything planned for over there? The
neighbors are going to fight if you go through Los Alamitos as a—they don’t want
teenagers running up and down their streets. They need to find an entrance
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 19
somewhere else but have at least walk way access for the students to walk through and
for the community. They want to involve the community and use the facilities so it
would be nice if neighbors could walk.
Barbeiro: Are you referring to popping a little easement so that they can access the site
just by walking through it. The school intends to be right here and these are all going to
be lawn fields so of course you couldn’t have a driving access.
Rassmusson: No, but they are still going to be cutting through neighborhoods. If I lived
in that Subdivision, I would not want because if you had football games you’ll get a lot of
traffic going through those neighborhoods.
Barbeiro: I think this is one where when the final layout for the school comes out, that
would be the time to find out how you wanted to have that cross traffic going through. I
don’t see the cross traffic coming from the high school because it is intended to have
emergency access, but this road here will be the single entrance in with the hope that
an emergency road may come along.
Borup: Any one else.
Bertell: Marianne Bertell, 2534 S. Velvet Falls. In all of this development the impact of
all the homes, we still have two more Subdivision being completed also in that area and
all of this, I really fell the at the City of Meridian needs to put some bike paths and park
area usable to the public that live there now and pay taxes. Some of that area should
be set aside for the public who lives there.
Borup: Maybe like right down at this corner would be good.
Bertell: That is not big enough and it is not accessible. You can’t get through to it.
Borup: How many acres do you feel it should be?
Bertell: I don’t know. I just know more than 5 acres. You needs access also from
Locust Grove for people walking, biking etc.
Borup: That is a question I don’t know if we know how they are proposing access to
that park area.
Bertell: It would almost have to go up where your commercial zoning starts and cut
across somehow.
Borup: Right now there is street stubs right here that would get to the park.
Bertell: But again they are the Subdivisions and people don’t want everyone coming
through their subdivision. There is a lot of people needing access to a park area and to
the school from Locust Grove. A bike path. A walking path. Then, some sort of public
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 20
park large enough to accommodate that large of area of population. 5 acres is not
adequate for that large population. There will be thousands of homes there.
Traston: John Traston for (inaudible) sub. I was wondering if anybody considered
another option on the high school on which instead of having it located back off of
Overland, if it joined Overland there would be room for two access streets and to the
high school parking area. That would alleviate the high school kids from having to drive
in and out of residential areas or retail store areas. Instead of having it behind, have it
right up on the street.
Borup: And then have the people drive through the school to get to the retail.
Traston: Well there in behind that there is room for a park.
Borup: And your talking to the wrong people here. We are not the school board.
Traston: Yeah, but that seems it would take care of a few problems as far as access for
the school and then it would also take care of the next problem number 5 on how to get
rid of that nasty old farmer complex.
Borup: Anyone else before we sum up. Seeing none. Becky any final comments?
Bowcutt: Just briefly, Ada County Highway District stated to me today which is
consistent with what Mr. Barbeiro has stated, that they would not allow that high school
to go in without that signal being there. They had the same requirement for Eagle High
School at Park and Highway 44. Concerning the traffic, we pay for a lot of our
improvements with impact fees. The majority of the development out in this vicinity had
been single family dwellings where you are paying 600 700 dollars per home. That
money is coming in. When you start having your larger users, such as the ice hockey
facility or a retail or an office building, they are getting that money in a big chunk. It is
not hundreds of dollars, sometimes it is hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example,
the BLM Building that we did, the impact fee for that facility was all most $200,000.
That provides a lot of money for the highway district to go in and bring these roads up to
par. As I stated before, if we can get the highway district to look further down the road
and get this as a priority, then it will benefit everyone including the eventual school
district. They stated it is on their 5 year plan. It is not 20 years away. It is on their 5
year plan. The way they work it with their 5 year plan, if it is on there, there it is
programmed. It may move up on the schedule. It may move back on the schedule. A
good example is the Locust Grove improvements that are taking place in your vicinity.
They moved –those were supposed to be in 1999. They moved them out to 2002.
Then they moved them back to 2000. They have juggled around 4 or 5 different times
and finally they ended up making the improvement on the bridge. That is how they
work. They’ve got a lot of people that have many items on their wish list and they are
trying to prioritize. I feel that this high school is obviously going to have to be a priority.
The safety of the teenagers, the adjoining developments is a priority. The stub streets
here in Raven Hills and in Los Alamitos, when those Subdivision were designed, they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 21
were intended to be a residential street to connect to another residential street because
this property had come through as a single family development. They were never
intended to be a collector roadway for any use more intensive such as the high school.
The city has been putting that together (the park site) and has been donated as each of
these properties developed. When this property was annexed they got 4.2 acres.
When Los Alamitos was developed they got 2.9. When Thousand Springs was platted
they got another 4 and when this parcel here is ever developed or asked for
annexation, they will get the last piece of the puzzle. I think that the intent is to be
between 10 and 12 acres. It is a neighborhood park, not a community park. As far as a
park that people would drive to, they want a park that people will walk, bike, job and so
forth. It is not intended to be like a sports park or regional park that you find at Eagle
Road and McMillan. That one the City of Boise has been constructing and that sits on
40 acres and it serves the whole west side there. This is just intended to service these
Subdivisions. Right now we’ve been working in Thousand Springs Development.
We’ve been working on a crossing of the Ridenbaugh Canal to make a connection
between Los Alamitos and Thousand Springs. That will also facilitate people walking to
the park and back and forth. It will also take some vehicular traffic and take it eastward
out to Eagle Road, so that will also help. It will give you guys a secondary access
because at this point of time you have one access here with a connection to Raven Hills
there, but they both dump to Locust Grove. That gives you an alternative.
Borup: Any questions for Becky. One clarification. You said ACHD said their going to
be putting a signal in—part of that signal include the turn lane. Is that part of the signal
design normally or did they indicate either way. Is that something you anticipate the
developer would be taking care of.
Bowcutt: I anticipate we will end of putting the turn lanes—I think the traffic study stated
that a middle turn lane needed to be provided in Locust Grove.
Borup: I was thinking on Overland.
Bowcutt: Extra lanes in Overland, widening of Overland there and creating some turn
lanes. I won’t know the specifics until the highway district completes their analysis. We
are going to have to pay our proportionate share. I had some developments where they
figured our share of a signal was 50% or 30% and you pay you trust fund that money so
you write them out a check for X number of dollars. That money is then used to put that
signal in. That happens. We can’t—someone says well why can’t this wait till the
roadway goes in. I don’t think they are going to build the roadway until the development
goes in and the school goes in. If my development doesn’t go in, the school can’t go in.
We’ve got to pull the sewer, the water, 3 phase power, bill collector roadways, there is a
lot of work that’s got to be done. We spent $250,000 just getting the sewer across
Interstate 84 to Overland Road. That was 2700 feet of a big deep sewer line. We
assisted the City with the water line and doing a joint effort there which saved the City a
considerable amount of money. We used the same contractor and did a joint effort. We
have been trying to do our part to improve the infra structure out in this area. We are
not going to stop here with the roadway. We are going to do what we can. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 22
highway district can’t tell a developer go in and you build Overland Road 5 lanes all the
way over from Locust Grove to Eagle Road. The reason being is the need for that
roadway to be improved is not just due to our usage, but the existing usage in the area.
They can’t put that burden upon you. In fact if they do make you do certain things that
increase capacity that is not related to you, they have to reimburse you.
END OF SIDE TWO
Bowcutt: Friday of this week in draft form.
Borup: I just want it to be before our next meeting.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Barbeiro: I wanted to clarify, you had discussed about entering into some sort of
agreement where you (inaudible) would pay for the widening of Overland to the half
way point, then the County would cover the rest of it. It would be in one single project.
Bowcutt: That is what we are trying to do. A joint effort to try and cut down on the cost.
Barbeiro: Your going to pay a considerable amount in impact fees.
Bowcutt: They would give you impact fee credits. That’s what we discussed. Like they
said, they qualified that. That has to have approval of the Commission. The staff can
not make that commitment. For example for the public, say we spend $300,000
improving Overland Road and installing a signal. Then, the impact fees that would be
applied to the uses on the site, that money would be credited so you would not have to
pay those impact fees. They have a provision to go about it in that fashion but it has to
have commission approval because they are basically dispensing with public funds and
staff can’t do that.
Barbeiro: In other words, you would pay your impact fees up front as opposed to
paying them incrementally as the buildings come in and then as you buildings come in
the County would credit you back the fees that would have come from those individual
lots. One of your options is to pay up front impact fees that you may not be charged for
6 or 7 years until you get complete build out.
Bowcutt: If Ada County Highway District would agree to that. I have some projects
where they would not agree. A lot of it depended on they didn't want to see a portion of
a roadway improved because they believe that that causes more hazard then it helps.
For example, say building Overland Road from Locust Grove for a half mile 5 lanes and
then it nets down to two. They’d want to be able to do the whole thing and (inaudible)
sometimes they will say no, we don’t want to use impact fee credits in this instance.
Barbeiro: Somehow I think with the implementation of a high school in this place you
would find an exception.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 23
Bowcutt: I would hope that they will work with us and I have asked them to look at the
options and be open minded and take into account that school that that is going to
happen within a relatively short period of time.
Barbeiro: Also wanted to get your confirmation if you are aware of it, while the school
comes in here about 1/3 of a mile, I believe it was intended (inaudible) was planning to
have another light at that point and then go out to Eagle. This 1/3 of a mile was –the
light was much later on until of course it is all built in so they would go a light at Locust
Grove, the high school and 1/3 mile.
Bowcutt: That was one of the things that they discussed today was the timing of that. I
think they believe that the light at Locust Grove would come first. My question to them
when the overpass is constructed which that may become a reality from what I’m
hearing. Its being lobbied for. My question was, would that light then the money spent
be wasted and their indication was no. They would have to move the light, but the
money spent would not be wasted.
Barbeiro: Apart from that when you talk about moving the light—when they planned the
lights they still will likely be out far enough where they can build the road and not move
the lights. All they have to do is rewire.
Bowcutt: One of the engineers thought they would probably have to move it a little bit.
Why they do that I don’t know. Maybe they can’t get it out that far when the roadway is
up here. The arms are only at certain length. I don’t know. He thought it would have to
be moved.
Borup: Thank you.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to make a motion. I move that we continue this
public hearing to April 11, 2000 so we can hear and read the ACHD report. This is for
the request for the preliminary plat of 107.06 acres of LO and CN zoning for proposed
Resolution Business Park.
Barbeiro: I would second the motion Mr. Chairman.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPOSED PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF
MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND LDS SEMINARY, LO AND CG
ZONING BY G.L. VOIGT DEVELOPMENT/OVERLAND, LLC—OVERLAND
AND LOCUST GROVE ROADS:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 24
Borup: Brad. Would you like to explain the difference between Item number 4 and Item
number 5. I’d like to open the public hearing.
Hawkins Clark: Yes, the difference between Item number 4, conditional use permit for a
conceptual overall plan. This CUP basically is not approving any specific use that is
currently shown up on the screen. It is simply the applicant is coming to us and saying
as a concept, will the city approve this conditional use permit. Anything that would
come in, if you do approve it, would have to substantially comply with this plan. The
planned unit development commercial, which it is called, is designed to be the overall
under lane foundation approval for the whole entire 55 acre site or whatever the
acreage is. The conditional use permit does not include the high school property. This
is—you were talking about strictly these two parcels up here. Specific conditional use
permit with more specific details on parking, trash enclosures and this would be a
general compliance and I think something that we have used as a department has been
that if for instance if the City approves this overall concept plan, we are not talking
about specific footprints of a 20,000 square foot retail and a 10,000 here. We are
talking about general concept that if it differs by more than 20 percent in the future, then
we would say that that is not permitted. Again, that is not ordinance. That is more or
less the procedure internally. The purpose of this would be for the developers
compared to coming in for each one piece meal. They are saying we want to look at
this overall project. We want to get general conceptual approval.
Borup: I want to make sure everyone is understood the difference here as far as Items
5 and 6 will be for specific items that is listed on the application. Thank you.
Hawkins Clark: I think there are a couple of points on the staff report dated March 20th
to point out. I think the applicants response details most of those. I think there is
general agreement that the future uses will all require conditional uses. They are
proposing two of those tonight. On Item number 4 which the applicant has stated that
they disagree on a couple of points. One is the multi family project which is the site B
designated on the screen. 200 units including a club house area which here off of
Overland Road, the entrance would be coming into the club house is a general
receiving area here, the club house situated here with another amenity there. There
are each proposed unit as I understand would be approximately 10—each building
would be 10 dwellings. One of the requirements that the city has for most residential
planned developments is that any RV’s boats those kinds of things they provide storage
areas. They are stating that any resident would with RV’s would have to store those
offsite and staff has no problems as long as that is made clear and a condition. In
terms of the maintenance building proposed for (inaudible) landscaping and that kind of
thing, they are proposing that that be a landscape company which bring their equipment
from offsite. On the parking issues the staff report does provide a matrix that outlined
the proposed parking and the parking required. Item number 7 and we certainly don’t
want to see a lot more asphalt either. Our only purpose in pointing that out is as you
can see, most of the items the site A, which includes the retail pads and the offices and
day care on the west side of the project, that would be all taking access off of Locust.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 25
They exceed the number of parking. Parking required is 531. They were proposing
629 stalls there. In the apartment complex, there is a issue of the tandem parking and
we simply want to point out that with Valeri Heights that was something that was
discussed and some complexes and property management complexes pointed out the
difficulties with that. We really don’t have a strong position either way. Just wanted to
point out as far as consistency. I think they seem to be well parked and when you
include the garages there is 401 spaces there. On the ice arena again talking
conceptually, they are looking at about 1430 seats inside the arena. Technically they
meet the city ordinance which is based on one parking stall for every 5 seats. The
applicant also did submit a more detailed narrative about their anticipating mostly
smaller numbers, some evening events which they could use the parking that is north
on site C. It may not be directly serving the ice arena but it would be within walking
distance certainly and that would provide them, if they incorporated the other parking on
the office and retail sites around there. We said 595 stalls. Since the City of Meridian
doesn’t have much experience with ice arenas we feel it important to leave that up to
the applicant who has more experience with the type of use. There was some
comparison with ice world up in Boise at the near the airport out there. They have had
they based their parking ratio on one for every four seats. Understand that they are not
having too much difficulty with some events in terms of meeting parking demand. There
is some other issues in terms of the hours of operation and alternative transportation.
They have agreed in terms of the bike racks and a future bus stop. Potentially
designating an easement somewhere within the site for a future bus stop. We would
point out that would be important to include as a condition to facilitate future mass
transit options. We are recommending again as the other ones that it be continued
since there has not been a ACHD report.
Borup: Any questions from the commission? Does the applicant have anything to add.
Seeing none. Becky did you have anything to add.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering. I am representing the applicant in this
matter. As staff indicated, this is a planned unit development application asking for a
conceptual approval of the mixed uses on this particular site. Every user is required to
have a separate site specific conditional use permit. The two applications behind this
one –one deals with the apartments the other deals with the ice arena. As I indicated
before, we know three of our users. The rest of our users are anticipated. We
understand that we are committing to circulation patterns, parking requirements, etc.
There is always a little bit of minor deviation when you go from a conceptual design to a
final development plan. We do expect a little bit of deviation. It is just a given in the
industry. We feel that this provides the city with an over look at what is going to
happen. One of the big complains like along Fairview, along Overland and some of
those areas is what they call a strip commercial development where you have small
parcels adjoining a particular arterial. You have independent users coming in asking for
rezones and conditional use permits for a multiple type of uses and there’s not any over
all through in the layout, interconnection, pathways etc. Everything is done on a piece
meal basis. The advantage of the PUD is that we can come in and master plan these
two parcels. It is approximately 54 acres in size. The properties are under two
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 26
separate ownerships who are cooperating on this application. I’ll go into staffs
comments, you should have a copy of my responses. We concurred with many of staffs
requirements or statements and we did state in writing that we understand or that we
are in agreement. Item 4, we are in agreement with all sections listed with exception of
section 12-6-8-A1-2-3. These particular requirements, Item 1 is storage areas. It says
storage areas shall be provided for anticipated needs of boats, campers, trailers, etc.
Within the multi family project any type of recreational vehicles will be prohibited. So,
we do not want to provide a mini storage facility for those types of vehicles. Those will
be stored at a public mini storage off site somewhere else. Item 2 under that is parking
space. It reads one additional parking beyond that which is required by the zoning title
may be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor parking. In all my
previous multi family applications with the City of Meridian and the City of Boise and
many other jurisdictions, two parking spaces per unit for multi family is a standard. The
staff has asked for 2.3. I think that that is excessive. All we are doing is creating more
asphalt, more hard surface and we are taking away from what can be done with
common areas and landscaping. It has never been applied in this fashion before to my
knowledge on any application that I’ve had. I have not see one recently that it’s been
applied and I’d like to reference that it states maybe. One item unique about this
project is the fact that each unit has a minimum of one and up to two enclosed,
attached garages that are built into the building itself. We also have additional surface
parking like you would find in a standard apartment complex. In front of some of these
garages you would have a driveway, very similar to what you’d find at a single family
dwelling. If you visited a friend there very often, you probably most likely will know what
building they live in and were their garage is. You could park behind it. I don’t feel that
the .3 percent is required or needed here. I understand the City in the past has not
counted tandem parking and we did not count tandem parking in our parking
calculations. We have 401 spaces. We have 200 units.
Borup: Is you 401 include the garage.
Bowcutt: Yes sir. The tandem we felt was just gravy. We had a substantial number of
tandem parking spaces.
Borup: Could you show that drawing to the audience.
Bowcutt: That particular design I’ve heard it referred to as a manor house. As far as
apartment buildings are concerned, it is probably one of the most pleasing designs that
I have ever encountered. The closest thing to that would probably be the Renaissance
Apartments at Hobble Creek. We did the civil engineering on that project and I
processed their conditional use permit. Those were very attractive. They used a lot of
brick, a lot of decking, off sets in the exterior. That is what this building provides. Going
back to the tandem spaces, we have 240 attached garages, 161 surface parking and
then 152 so called tandem spaces. Technically you could fit 553 vehicles on the site, if
necessary. We feel that we have met if not exceeded, the parking requirements of this
facility. Therefore, that is why we do not believe that .3 or that section 2 of 12-6-8A
should be applied. Thirdly, the requirement for Item 3 is a maintenance building that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 27
you will provide a maintenance building. I think that was put in the ordinance before the
days of lawn care company’s. All of the projects in this development will be retaining a
lawn care company. They house and store their own equipment and bring it onsite, do
the work and exit. We have no need for a maintenance facility. I’d like Mr. McKeegan,
the architect for the ice arena, to address the statements from staff concerning their
project because they know their project better than anyone and then I will have a
representative from apartment complex may want to make some statements concerning
their parking also.
Borup: Excuse me Becky, are you saying you’d like to do testimony of both of those at
this point rather then at the specific conditional use permit for the –
Bowcutt: The only reason was there was some of staffs comments directed at those
users as part of this concept. Is that acceptable to the commission.
Borup: I think it is if you want to—then they be coming back up again for the same
thing.
Bowcutt: I think they are just going to address staffs comments, not do their
presentation.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, before the architect comes up if I could ask staff a question. In
figuring out the 2.3, were you aware that Briggs Engineering did not include the tandem
parking spaces in their configuration for the two spaces per unit?
Hawkins Clark: Yes.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment or a question for staff. For myself and for the
audience could you please explain what tandem parking is please.
Hawkins Clark: That would be if on the garage units directly behind the garage as
compared to a separated out delineated parking stall that is designated just for a stall
you’d actually have parking behind the garage which typically would obviously prohibit
movement in and out of the garage. It is technically a space that vehicles could park.
Borup: On this definition its tandem would be two parking spots. One is in the garage
and the driveway leading to the garage. Essentially like any single family home.
McKeegan: My name is Patrick McKeegan. I am representing the applicant for the ice
rink. My address is 419 S. 8th
Street, Ste. B in Boise Idaho. At this point in time I just
want to address the specific items that were requested under item number 7 by staff for
this application. What I specifically wanted to address was the parking issue. In order
to do that I have to talk a little bit about how we are going to operate the facility.
Basically the ice rink is going to have 2 sheets of ice. One is going to be a standard
NHL sheet and the other one is going be built to Olympic standards. It will be the only
Olympic ice rink west of Salt Lake City. That has a little bit of significance because
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 28
currently the U.S. and Canada are the only countries where hockey is played on in ice
skating event and exhibitions and competitions take place on anything less than an
Olympic size rink. The number of seats that we are providing in the facility is around
1400 which sounds like an awful lot but the true operation of the facility, if you have 2
sheets of ice with two teams playing on each sheet of ice, an average hockey team has
12 to 16 players, so that would mean you would have between 24 and 32 players on
each sheet of ice, 64 participants then the referees and coaches, so you may have at
any given time during a practice or standard play, you have both sheets of ice are
booked approximately 100 persons who, some of who would be sharing the driving in
coming to the facility. Approximately once a month we would anticipate having an event
that would be a tournament for league play or perhaps a ice exhibition. Bring in ice
skaters or perhaps an exhibition of profession teams from Europe for instance playing a
local or American professional teams and giving them a Olympic size venue to show
with the different skills actually. Skating on Olympic ice is much different than to play on
Olympic ice. It is much different on American ice because you have more of a
defensive and strategy game because you have 15 feet wider area to play. We are
providing with our area 278 packing spaces. If we are only having during peak periods
non event periods 100 per hour there we feel that we have provided more than enough
parking at that time and that the additional 7 spaces over what is required or what staff
is requesting the additional 7 spaces could come from the retail and office spaces. The
reason we believe that is because most of the events will take place on weekends when
the office building will not be occupied or in the evening again when the office buildings
will not be occupied. Except for architects and planners it seems like most people get
to go home around 5 or 5:30 so that space frees up. The reason we’d like to have that
kind of shared agreement is so that we are not providing an additional 100 or 150
spaces of asphalt anymore than is needed. We just basically ask that we be allowed to
provide the number of spaces that is shown. That concludes my comments right now
on this specific item. I will get more on the design of the building and that during the
specific conditional use hearings. Also, I would like to mention that I do have a
representative from the development group on the operational side of it that will be here
to answer questions to. I just thought of one more thing. There was a lot of discussion
about pedestrian access to the school and stuff and kids driving off the school to go eat.
We are going to do everything we can to capture those kids before they get offsite. In
our facility we are going to have some eating facilities and we are going to –one of the
things that is being pushed right now is that trying to make hockey a letter sport in the
high schools. We anticipate that happening in the next two to three year. One of the
reasons that we selected this site was because we knew the high school was going in
there. We knew the City of Meridian was lacking in recreational opportunities and we
wanted to do some with the existing recreational facilities down the road with Roaring
Springs and those facilities. Also we want to be able to work with the high school so
that to give them the kids there some opportunities for recreational opportunities without
having to drive somewhere else.
Borup: Becky, did you say someone else wanted to testify at this point. Okay, thank
you. I’d like to continue the public hearing with any public testimony at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 29
Bartell: Marianne Bartell. 2434 S. Velvet Falls Meridian. I just have one comment and
that is if you look at the plan over there, they have the orange as the commercial. I
went to a meeting last week regarding the Master Plan for Meridian and hypothetically it
sounded very lovely. The neighbors with a convenience store and this type of
development, not heavy, solid commercial in one area. The people from north Meridian
were crying for stores, gas stations. We are being inundated with commercial,
commercial, commercial. We moved there thinking that was going to be residential. An
apartment complex was all ready voted down once by the City Council because the
people turned out so highly against it. We are only talking about approximately 1/8 of
the acreage there between that mile, that 50 some acres, isn’t there close to 400 all
together. Beyond what you are showing on Resolution Park.
Borup: Your just saying clear to Eagle Road.
Bartell: We moved there with all the intention of being in a residential area. It is
becoming a heavily impacted commercial area. Not just servicing our area, but bring
people in from other areas to come there. That is not what the conception of the Master
Plan was from what I understood last week. It was servicing the area, not bringing
people into the area and traffic into the area. It is away from the Master Plan. There is
nothing in north Meridian, it is all right in that area. I just—it doesn’t seem to go with the
Master Plan and I don’t think it goes with the neighborhood and what they desire.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask Miss Bartell a question please. In the 20 year
plan and in the original plan, all of the freeway frontage was intended to be commercial.
That is what I was trying to understand.
Bartell: I am talking about south of Overland and all of that area. Everyone that moved
into that area was under the impression that was all going to be residential. We put our
roots down. We planned to stay there until we moved out in a pine box. We don’t want
to see it a heavy commercial area where people are coming to it. In the Master Plan,
my understanding was that each area is to be developed with their own little
commercial center and surrounding neighborhoods and to make it a nice place to live.
Instead it is becoming heavy commercial all condensed into a solid area and that is very
undesirable to the people who live there.
Borup: Is that it?
Avera: My name is Herman Avera. 947 E. St. Martin Drive. I am the president of the
Meridian Greens HOA, a community of all most 300 homes that took 9 years to build
up. During that time we have seen the City of Meridian more than triple in population
and witness the impact that this population growth has had on the cities supporting
infrastructure, including schools, roads and police protection. As a neighborhood that
is likely to be directly effected, we are concerned that the approval of this development
will have severe negative consequences on our local infrastructure and would urge that
you recommend against approval of this development until the following problems are
resolved. First, schools. According to Mr. Jim Carberry’s report to the City Council last
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 30
July, the elementary and high school effected by this development are all ready
currently over capacity. Middle school is at capacity. Many of us have children in these
effected schools and are all ready troubled by the problems of the over crowded
classrooms cause. Knowing the difficulty of passing school bonds here, doesn’t it make
sense to delay construction of high density housing which would quickly add students to
these all ready over crowded schools until at least some new schools are built to handle
the in-flow. You have all ready covered the traffic problems. Police and fire protection.
Even if the crime and emergency rates per person remain constant, this development
with high density development, a high school, new businesses and the rink, will
increase the reported incidents in our part of Meridian. This increase will require
additional police and fire resources to handle the problems in this area. According to a
recent article in the Idaho Statesman, the police captain Dave Bowman is quoted as
saying, we are not keeping up with the growth, in fact I think we are falling behind. This
is the current situation independent of the additional growth due to this proposed
development. If we can’t handle the current situation, how will be deal with this
increase. Meridian Greens is a Subdivision that was built up over nine years and we
have seen how difficult it is to increase Meridian’s infrastructure to keep pace with the
population growth rate. While we can understand the City’s desire for higher density
housing, and additional commercial tax revenue, we urge the commission to delay this
project until the infrastructure in this area has been developed to handle our current
needs, as well as the new needs for this development. Thank you for listening.
Borup: Any questions from the commission.
Barbeiro: A part from this individual development for residents, the Meridian School
District will be adding 1100 new students per year which, according to Mr. Carberry will
require at least 2 new elementary schools per year for the next 6 to 10 years. The
intent for the high school, they hope that is, was a bond for the high school, an
additional Jr. High School and 2 new elementary schools with the hope that they would
all come in in the Fall of 2002. The frustrating part is that we can’t continue to build
schools, yet this individual development will have as much impact as any development
anywhere. What is it about this development that is of a greater priority or lessor
priority of other developments in increase of student flow.
Avera: I can’t speak to the other developments personally, but Meridian Greens has
taken 9 years to add 300 homes. We are talking about adding 200 residents here in
probably less than 5. I am just afraid that adding that many new residents with children
to the school system will over load it faster then we can build new school for it.
Barbeiro: Again, my point is that the school district is aware and is planning…
Avera: Well, planning it and getting the money to do it by convincing 2/3’s of the voters
to pass a bond is not the same thing. Until is happens, you won’t have the rooms to put
the body’s and they will have to go in the existing buildings. I probably don’t speak for
the majority of the people here, but the taxes that I pay on my home to send my kids to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 31
school I would gladly pay double for if it kept the rest of the community at a lower
density.
Keeling: Delores Keeling. I live at 2575 Bayou Bar. Some time ago where there was a
petition on the north side of Overland for 275 apartment units, we came out in mass and
against that because of the impact on the area. Overland would be much over
crowded. The children would not have any way to go to the Boon Docks. There aren’t
any sidewalks, Now we going to put in 200 apartments on top of a new high school,
business. It seems unreasonable that we would put more apartments in when we have
all ready fought. Meridian Greens along has 800 petitions against that on the north
side. I just don’t under stand it and if we are going to put commercial in all the way on
Overland, let’s go commercial or else raise the –can the high school be put up on
Overland so that we don’t have to have businesses on Overland.
Borup: The school district doesn’t own the property there. That was their choice I am
assuming.
Keeling: I am objecting and I am sure there is many here that do object to the
apartments. Everything else, if they can get the money for it. You get the impact fees
from businesses not from residential. Why don’t they make Overland –zone it for
businesses so that we can get the impact fees for the schools that we need.
Borup: A single family home is 1294 dollars. Business are more. Your saying you’d
like to see all commercial.
END OF SIDE THREE
Borup: You’d like to see a light there.
Keeling: Absolutely.
Brimhall: My name is Reed Brimhall. I live at 840 E. Martinque in Meridian Greens. I
just want to give you a couple things to think about. We have not talked much about
Overland Road west of Locust Grove. Every morning I try to turn left out of southeast
5th
and I don’t know that my wife thinks I am patient or not. I think I am. It is a
frustrating experience any time between 7 and 8 in the morning and coming back in the
evening. I came down tonight. I got off on Eagle tonight. I usually get off at Meridian
because I knew we were going to come a participate tonight. As I drove down Overland
and stacked up against Locust Grove, I actually started laughing about this discussion
we were going to have tonight because the amount of traffic there was on that road at
5:15. It took me close to 10 minutes to get from Eagle to S.E. 5th
. The problem doesn’t
just end at Locust Grove. The problem goes all the way to Meridian Road, particularly
with the developments on the other side. We talked about widening to 5 lanes the one
mile between Eagle and Locust Grove and no discussion about widening the rest. We
can’t ignore that. The second, I grew up in Pocatello across the street from the football
stadium there in a residential area called University Park. It was built when I was in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 32
high school, so it is really old. It is called the mini dome for those of you who may have
watched football one time or another. My parents recently moved out of their home
there. I can tell you with things like high school activities and that ice arena and those
once a month activities that he is talking about. There were times when my parents
would go for 2 hours without being able to get out of their drive way because of the
traffic going in and out of those activities. You’ll have people trying to get out of SE 5th
and SE 3rd
and out of Locust Grove and out of the arterial that come out of their homes
at the same times these events are happening. Even with widened roads with those
residential areas so close, your talking about a lot of frustrated people because of the
volume of traffic.
Babbit: My name is Carl Babbit. I live at 1671 E. Time Zone. I have probably been in
this area longer than anyone here because I grew up here. One of our Subdivision Los
Alamitos was our farm. I guess what I’d like to say is I have no problem with any of
that. I know it is coming. It is growth and I know everybody says they moved out there
to be in the Country but everybody moves out to be in the Country and then it is not the
country anymore. I guess my concern is, I read in the paper that they are talking about
the Meridian Comprehensive area and they have had a citizens committee working on
it. Well even them have said we need a 5 lane on Overland Road before we do
anything. That is the some statement of it. Let’s build this but let’s get the 5 lane road
first. If there is any power here, that is where it needs to go. We all know it is going to
grow but let’s put in the road. That is what I am asking.
Borup: Do you have a solution where the money should come from.
Babbit: I think, they are talking about the 5 lane from Kuna Meridian Road up to Locust
Grove. Impact fees have been paid on that for how many years now. We’ve go
Subdivision’s all on one side. We have Coke and all those places on the other side.
The impact fees have been paid. I know they just don’t set that aside for that road. The
impact fees have all been put in for that. There is one mile that is all ready paid for.
Borup: The residential don’t have enough fees to pay for a mile.
Babbit: Well they don’t but with the equipment on the other side and we have all the
people working there. I think we are sticking our heads in the said if we are saying that
that doesn’t need to be five lane. The money has been there. It should have been
planned. You can take the impact fees on South Locust Grove there is a Subdivision a
whole mile there with impact fees on them. That’s not planned for 20 more years. It’s
there. We just need to use it. I would say they have a good idea paying half of the mile
between south Locust Grove and Eagle Road. They pay half. The county pay the
other half. I do happen to know the people who bought that land have a lot of money.
They are going to make money. So they are going to be willing to do it. This is where
the Commissioner's need to come in and say this is what we want. We are talking
about the overpass over the freeway. That is where you guys come in. We have to do
this. That is what I am asking is that you guys step up and not just wait and hear what
the county says and do what they want. That is what I am asking for all of you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 33
Barbeiro: I want to applaud the organization that your neighbors have had in the past
and having objected to a residential development kitty corner from where this is going
now. If your neighbor organization were to walk in with 150 people to Ada County
Highway District meeting and one by one walk up to that podium and tell them what you
want, they will do it. Then they come back to us on how they are going to do it. It is
unfortunate that their meetings are at noon, but the impact that your organization had at
the City Council meeting would be equal if not greater at a Ada County Highway District
meeting.
Babbit. I don’t usually know when they are. If that was given out and published and
maybe to our Subdivision—
Barbeiro: They are advertised in the Local section of the Idaho Statesman. They
usually have 2 or 3 days advance notice for each of the meeting.
Bowcutt: One of the residents asked why does this corridor have to be commercial. If
they look across to the north side of Overland Road, we have adjoining uses such as
Cesco Equipment, Freightliner, a contractors yard, an RV Park, that is a commercial
zone but those users in my opinion are far greater an intensity than your average
commercial use. They are more of an industrial use. We have a major arterial that
some day is going to be a 5 lane road. You don’t put single family resident up against
that. We try to provide some type of buffer. Those buffers are multi family, commercial
office then you transition into the interior of the section of your single family. That is
what we call good planning and I think with the new Comprehensive Plan map, that is
what they are trying to accomplish so that we don’t end up with home backing up to 5
lane arterials in the future. All of us impact each other in this valley. It was said, this is
going to draw people there. Yes, some people may be drawn there to go to the ice
arena, but it may capture some traffic that may not go through some one else’s area
which would reduce the number of trips on our arterials. You’ve got to think of it from
both perspectives. It is a give and take.
Barbeiro: Becky I have a question I want to ask you if I may. In your draft plan we have
a zig zag road here. I am reminded of Park Lane from the highway to Eagle High
School. It is a giant drag strip. Is there any other types of road or something that we
could do in there that would discourage teenage hot rodding down that 600 foot strip.
Bowcutt: Typically with those types of collectors, we’re not trying to make them do 90
degree turns. A collector is to move high volume of traffic in relatively short period of
time. Local streets we try to make 90 degree turns to cut down on the speeds. I don’t
see them putting traffic calming devices on collectors either. I don’t necessarily think
that that is one thing that the highway district would endorse. There is no way you
could logically go about that. We are trying to make it convenient. We don’t want
people cutting through elsewhere. It is a short stretch. I don’t think they can get up real
high speeds through there, but you never know.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 34
Norton: I’d like to continue this pubic hearing to April 11, 2000 for the conditional use
permit for the proposed planned commercial development consisting of multi family,
commercial, office, an LDS Seminary, LO and CN zoning.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second to continue the public hearing to April 11. All
in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: It might be time for a short break. Then we will reconvene with items number 5
and 6. Thank you.
Borup: We’d like to reconvene the public hearing for this evening.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PROPOSED 200 UNIT LUXURY APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE ZONED LO
FOR PROPOSED RESOLUTION BUSINESS PARK BY DESERT WEST
PROPERTIES, LLC—OVERLAND AND LOCUST GROVE ROADS:
Borup: Do we have a staff report.
Hawkins Clark: Yes. Most of the conditions that we sited in our over all concept do
apply, or I should say many of them and they should have been pointed out to you.
This on the screen is the designated portion there the site that applies just to this
conditional use permit. The density that they are proposing are 200 units on about 14
acres. It is a little under 13 in terms of dwelling units per acre. They are proposing to
construct a complex in two phases with the first phase consisting of approximately 140
units and the clubhouse. Again, here is the detail of it. It was not designated which of
those buildings would be in the 140, but in terms of this whole traffic question, there is
two things that I wanted to point out. In the traffic study that was done by Dolby
Engineering, they did submit that with the preliminary plat. They are estimating that the
new trips per day for the apartments is 1170. The new trips for the office is 1575. The
new trips for the retail estimated at 8655. In terms of new trips per day, the retail is over
6 times the amount the apartment complex. Needless to say we still feel that we’d like
to recommend cutting down in the staff report. We’d like to see the first phase limited to
30 dwelling units which would be three buildings and the clubhouse. Until such time as
Overland improvements are made, the signals and widening, that would still include the
ice arena which they are proposing for 2000. The apartments for 2001. If they stay on
schedule 2 or 3 years before continuing on to the next phase for the apartment complex
or for the additional beyond the 30. I will say that number was not a lot of calculations
went into that. Basically the consideration there was based on the numbers that ACHD
uses for new trips generated per dwelling unit which I believe is about 10 to 12. So, if
you figure 30 dwelling units, you looking at about 300 a day. The third item on the
report is all applicable fair housing and ADA requirements for multi family housing must
be met. The applicant did state that that would occur. I do have an elevation which I
think we have seen in color here and the clubhouse elevation. That’s all I have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 35
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? While Becky is coming up here, one
of the things I circled is where do you get a copy of the Fair Housing requirements?
Hawkins Clark: You go to the HUD office in Boise.
Borup: Do they have written?
Hawkins Clark: They do. I believe so. If not, we can certainly get some.
Borup: Last I knew they did not have any written requirements. Are you speaking for
the applicant. Go ahead sir.
Day: Good evening. I am against nasty old apartments and I think we ought to widen
Overland Road. Having said that, I’ll tell you I am with Desert West Properties. We are
the applicant who is proposing the apartment complex on approximately 14.7 acres.
My name is Damon Day and I am with Desert West Properties at 100 West Overland
Road. The subject property I think your all pretty much aware of it by this point, would
be the 14.7 acres that would include it’s just east of the Hunter Lateral. I think it is
indicated on the hand out that was given to everyone, it is Lot number 9, I believe.
What I’d like to address is some of the things that were addressed by the City Council in
the memorandum that was given to you. We have responded in writing to all of those
matters and I believe that has been forwarded to the Commission. Brad just included
some of the comments that were made and suggestions.
Borup: Staff only had 3 comments. You talking those three?
Day: I believe we were responding to 7 or 8 matters in the memo. I guess some of
them were in the PUD. One of the matters that Brad just mentioned is and City Council
suggested that perhaps we should develop the project in phases and do 30 units in the
beginning phase and then do it at sometime later. In considering development of this
magnitude, it really makes it economically infeasible for us to develop 30 units and a
clubhouse and then wait until some future date in covering the cost of the property. I
did want to address perhaps explain a little bit about the proposed development and
address some of the concerns that I have heard earlier this evening about the impact it
may have or certainly have upon traffic and the impact in the community. We are
sensitive to those issues and very concerned about maintaining the integrity of the area.
I believe we have gone to great lengths to see that concerns of those who have voiced
a concerned for nasty old apartments and that type of development and voiced
frustration with the traffic that is currently occurring on Overland Road. I would like to
address some of those issues as well. You can see a rendering of the apartment
complex here. It is referred to as a big house concept. We are working with an
architectural firm from Dallas that has patented this plan and frankly this is the best
plan. We have looked high and low because we have some other renderings and
information that would be available to anyone here this evening as well as the
commission. Basically what it is, a multi family dwelling specifically designed to blend
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 36
well with high end single family residential areas. You will find that probably 55 or 60 of
these complexes that have been constructed and you will find them in more exclusive
neighborhoods just based on the amenities and the things that they provide. The
concept is that they appear to be homes. They each unit provides an enclosed garage,
at least one with each unit. Our particular development we are proposing 200 units,
there are 10 units per building, as was voiced the density would approximate a little bit
in excess of 13 units per acre. The buildings look like large homes. Each has a private
entrance. There are no common entrances. Very, very different than what most people
think about when they hear the word apartments. I wanted to address those issues
because they are not all the same as some previous proposals that have been made.
The density is lower. The number of units is lower and specifically it is designed to
create a nicer feel and appeal for an area in my opinion that would much better for
residential area than standard commercial development. They are designed to blend
and be in with higher level single family homes. These would be, our apartments as I
said would be 10 units per building. We are proposing to do 20 buildings in total that
would be developed in phases. We had an approximate phase of 14 buildings to begin
with as well as the clubhouse. We did use a little bit of a scientific approach to come up
with those 14 buildings because when you basically need something in that area to
support the initial amenity of the clubhouse to make that economically feasible. That is
why we proposed doing the 14 buildings to begin with or something close to that so that
we could justify putting in the clubhouse and have that economically carry itself. There
was a question as to what units that would be. You could just roughly cut off 6 units
from the back side that would consist of the second phase. The first phase would be
the 14 buildings toward the front of the complex. I am referring to the front of the
complex being these buildings here. With these buildings on the back side would
consist of phase 2. So it is a total of 20 you could just roughly take 6 of the buildings.
There again we were approximating a number that we felt were necessary to justify the
clubhouse. I do have a rendering of that clubhouse. It would be complete with a
swimming pool behind the clubhouse, common areas, exercise rooms and a very nice
amenity for those residents. As I said, our target demographic market here are the
renters by choice. People who choose to rent. The square footages would be
somewhere in the area from about 800 square feet up to 1350 square feet. Rents
would be roughly from $750 a month to about $1200 a month for those apartments.
That would be the market that these apartments are specifically designed to meet. I
would be happy to entertain any questions specifically relating to the apartment
complex development.
Norton: I have a question regarding the CUP. Is the CUP for this first phase only which
would be the 14 buildings and the clubhouse or you doing a CUP for the entire first
phase and second phase.
Day: The CUP would be for both phases.
Barbeiro: Mr. Day. I want to reference back to our discussion about 16 year olds
driving coming from the high school. We thought putting a gate in there and allow
pedestrian bicycle traffic to pass. I still believe the average 16 year old will see all this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 37
traffic, zip through your complex and try to get out here. I would like to offer for your
consideration a couple of round abouts in here where traffic would have to come
through and have to make a quick round about which would be enough to discourage a
number of the young drivers.
Day: Given the type of complex that this is, (inaudible) to maintain the access to
residents only. My understand when the City Council suggested that we provide
access—the staff, I’m sorry—from our property here over to the commercial area was
that they estimated about 20% of the business that was going to be transacted here
would originate within the complex. Rather than having the only access to that
business be out on Overland and adding that additional 20% to the traffic load on
Overland, they wished to have some access that would provide the residents within the
complex some form of crossing and accessing that commercial development. So, in
order to do that, we would certainly be (inaudible) to do that but it would be our desire to
maintain the access to residents only. A gated access for the complex would be a part
of what we proposed there to prevent vehicular traffic that does not intend on ending up
in the complex or originating in the complex.
Borup: Which location do you anticipate the gate to be.
Day: Every access and exit point from the apartment complex. Even off Overland.
Barbeiro: Our most recent discussion with Touchmark, how the fire department
objected to that type of access.
Norton: Mr. Day could you point out real quickly where the clubhouse is. Thank you.
My next question is there is –as long as we are on the fire department, they did make a
comment and I am not sure where these are in your plat. They said if the T’s by the
apartment buildings are turned around there can be no parking of vehicles on that.
Is that a place where cars would want to park.
Day: We did not include those parking stalls in those areas so is not included in the
count for parking. Those are not designated parking stalls.
Norton: You could mark that as no parking.
Day: I am sure we could.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering. Concerning gates, I had a conversation
with Mr. Bowers here a few weeks ago and it was regarding the Touchmark. I asked
Mr. Bowers about gates. He says we don’t like them. Fire departments typically don’t
like them. I said if you were to allow a gate, what type would you prefer. He said I think
we could live with an opticom gate. An opticom gate is a system that when a fire truck
or ambulance approaches it automatically opens up. Just like the signal lights. Mr.
Bowers indicated if Touchmark were to be gated, they would have to be opticom. We
have gone through the same thing with Boise fire department. They mandate opticom.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 38
They don’t encourage gates, but in the event that the City Council approves a project
with gates, its opticom. As far as like on the T’s what we typically find in an apartment
complex is where the fire truck would have to turn in. They don’t –they want to access
all the way around or close to the building and these different sides. Usually the curb is
painted red in most instances and there is a sign. Just multi family would do that. One
thing I’d like to add concerning staff’s condition to limit to 30 units, I did bring that up
with Ada County Highway District staff this morning. Their reaction was, they did not
agree. The point that they stated was the fact that the apartments was not one of the
big traffic generators. 70 to 80 percent of the traffic is going to come from retail, when
that happens, which is the users that are furthest down the road. They did not believe
that made a lot of sense. You economically—it would be like going in and building a
Subdivision and telling us we could only build out of 60 lots you could only build 10. It
would not be worth doing the engineering and getting the contractors out there. There
is a certain amount of infrastructure that has to be installed and you’ve got to have the
minimum. I am glad that they have this scheduled for two phases. I think that will
create some type of a transition on the impact for traffic. Out of my traffic report, just to
kind of give you an idea, each apartment generates 5.86 vehicle trips per day. For a
single family dwelling they generate 10. The apartments generate 6 single family
generate 10 trips per day. Reason being single family dwellings typically have more
residents in them. Larger families. An office generates 12.6 trips for every 1000 square
feet and a retail center generates 59.7 trips per 1000 square feet. So the real
User is the retail. I don’t see that putting that type of a low cap on the multi family is
reasonable. If one were to do so, it should apply to the retail.
Barbeiro: On the placement of the gate, right here and over here correct?
Bowcutt: Yes, that is what he stated.
Barbeiro: In placing a gate here I find it (Inaudible)
Bowcutt: You’d have to put it inset it to provide adequate stacking, your correct.
Barbeiro: What is the customary distance that you would put one in to prevent stacking.
Bowcutt: On that mini storage facility you guys approved and I believe I had to inset it I
thought it was 50 feet from edge of new right of way.
Barbeiro: That would require something of a redesign of your layout here. That would
put it about right here.
Bowcutt: Is that about 50 feet? Right there, right at the corner. It would be located
right there.
Borup: Any other questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 39
Norton: I have a question about the gates. I have not seen any thing about having
gated entries. Are you going to amend your application or is this something that is just
going to come up.
Bowcutt: I was not aware about the gates. I guess in the narrative I provided I did not
mention any gates. I was not aware that they wanted gates. Maybe is was an
oversight on my part or some else’s who instructed me on that. Like signage, I think my
conversations I’ve had with staff, we’ve been trying to keep our signage down to
monument type signs. We did not provide any elevations of signage.
Borup: Are we looking at any other additional presentations?
Bowcutt: On this. No sir. We will work with staff on the signage. I’d like to work with
staff and the fire department on the gates as far as type and placement. Also ACHD, I
need to bring that to their attention also.
Borup: Do we have anyone here who would like to testify?
Avera: Harmon Avera, 945 E. St. Martin Drive. I don’t have comments. Just a couple
questions. Is it possible in one of the elevations you could actually show, where the
entrances are. Is that one building have ten apartments in it.
Day: We have floor plans here that we can provide. I’ll put them up here in front. This
would be the end of a building and I’ll make that correlation with the floor plan so you
can see where the entrance is what the building layout. If your looking at this elevation
of the building, this is the end of the building. The building would lay out this way. We
have an over all site plan that would show the way that the buildings are set on the site.
They are designed (inaudible) from the traffic areas you see the ends mainly of the
buildings. The additional elevations would be here.
Avera: The other question I had I thought I heard a comment earlier from the staff
about having to comply with ADA regulations. Do these buildings as shown comply or
is that something your going to have to modify.
Day: My understanding is that they do comply but I would need to check on that.
Burtell: Marion Burtell, 2534 South Velvet Falls. I just have a question and that is with
the high school behind them and speeding teenagers coming by, who wants to rent
there. I wouldn’t. I am wondering what kind of people are you going to get into this
complex when you have this element, because I certainly would not want to rent there.
Christianson: James Christianson. 241 S. Brandy Jewel. He said 800 to 1300 square
feet. How many bedrooms are we talking (inaudible0
Day: Of the 200 units, 40 percent would be one bedroom. 40 percent would be two
bedroom and the remaining would be three bedroom units.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 40
Christianson: When you had the plan for the development here, I asked before is there
going to be roads to the school road into the Subdivision and it shows it here. That is
where your talking about your other gated –
Day: Yes. At that point there and I don’t believe has been changed. I believe that is
still part of the plan. What the staff suggested that we add to this plan (inaudible) on
this side that would allow access to the commercial property but (inaudible) access off
Overland and off of Millennial Way.
Borup: Any one else like to come forward.
Babbit: Carl Babbit, 1671 E. Time Zone. I have a question. They are talking about the
ice rink going in 2001 and then this apartment, is it going in 2001 too. So they are
going at the same time? So, the road that would go back to the high school would be
put in because of the ice rink all ready, correct? Where they are doing it in two phases,
I understand what they are saying, that they have to do pretty phase to make it work. I
am wondering is if they would be required to go ahead and put the road through to the
high school road—the collector. Don’t have to do that second phase now but in regard
of doing the (inaudible) if they would be required to put the road through to there, that
would give two exits out of that.
Borup: We’ll find out an answer on that. Good question.
END OF SIDE FOUR
MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE ACHD REPORT WAS
APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FOR ITEM NUMBER 6—BRAD
HAWKINS CLARK STAFF REPORT WAS MADE. APPLICANT PATRICK
MCKEEGAN GIVING TESTIMONY. MARION BARTELL GAVE TESTIMONY.
MICHAEL CLARK GAVE TESTIMONY. HARMON AVERA GAVE TESTIMONY.
QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY PATRICK MCKEEGAN. Malfunction of tape
machine prevented this from being recorded.
McKeegan: For the restaurant portion of the facility we are going to have—if it is
allowed by law or wherever the law allows, we’ve—one time we talked about putting in
a bar. We decided not to do that. It is going to be a food related with probably with
beer and wine as a is a available just like you’d have at any other restaurant. We’d
have the same restrictions that the liquor commission puts on.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman may we refer to legal counsel with regards to alcohol within a
range of a school.
Borup: We could but they all ready said they would abide with the law.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 41
McKeegan: Yeah and I guess if we are within 1300 feet of a school (inaudible). We are
right next to them – I’m guessing we may not be able to do it.
Borup: The traffic count, about the only thing that would be less traffic then what your
doing is maybe a bare weed patch or something.
Norton: If you were to compare a high school football game and the number of seats in
a stadium to your 1400 seat, are they comparable?
McKeegan: It is my understanding, my kids play soccer instead of football because I
have girls. All the large games are played at Boise State. I can’t tell you.
Norton: The point is being this doesn’t seem like a lot of seats for a whole lot of traffic.
McKeegan: It really isn’t. We looked at that and adding additional seats, but the
problem is when your digging a hole 16 feet deep, that is a very expensive hole and you
don’t want-- Again, this is an indoor venue. Everybody is going to be inside the
building. I would guess that if you had practice football games or soccer games on the
high school field, those would have more of a noise impact than our use on the inside.
Borup: The seats for both arenas—is there any time when both arenas being operated.
McKeegan: During a tournament you would. You’d have both sheets of ice. We have I
think 350 for the small rink and 1000 for the larger. During the normal course of
business we just don’t see that many that large of an impact. Again, it is an interior
indoor venue. It is not an external venue like you would have for a football or soccer
game. I compare it more to a state championship basketball game. That is probably
about the size you’d have with many a couple thousand spectators.
Borup: Commissioner's.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue the public hearing to April the 11th
so that
we are able to consider the Ada County Highway District report on the request for a
conditional use permit for an ice arena consisting of office, pro shop, fitness center,
restaurant, locker rooms, equipment storage and arena zoned LO by Pat McKeegan.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I’d like to thank everyone for being here this evening. One of the main
purposes of this commission is gathering information and that’s what we have tried to
do this evening. I think you may appreciate sometimes the responsibility or maybe the
dilemma we have. We’ve had people testifying all the way from wanting this area to be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
March 22, 2000
Page 42
all residential to all commercial. I guess that mean that maybe the majority wants
somewhere in-between. I don’t know. Obviously you can see, everybody’s desire can’t
be met because even in this audience there was no agreement. We do the best we can
by gathering this information and try to do what we feel is best for the City of Meridian.
As is stated earlier, we are not wanting to continue ahead with out all the information
and the information from ACHD is very important. That is why this hearing is being
continued to get that information. We anticipate to do this next time is gather this
information and then proceed to make our recommendation which again will go to City
Council. Again, thank you for being here this evening.
Norton: I move that we adjourn the meeting.
Barbeiro: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
____________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. BERG, CITY CLERK