2000 08-08MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING August 8, 2000
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 8, 2000, by Commissioner Thomas
Barbeiro.
Members Present: Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Tom Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher
Members Absent: Keith Borup
Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg, David Swartley
Barbeiro: Good evening everyone. I'm Commissioner Tom Barbeiro, and I will
be serving as Chairman tonight in the absence of Chairman Keith Borup. I'd first
like to introduce the members of the Commission and describe what our
responsibilities and obligations are. First, we are all your neighbors. We each
live here in Meridian and have a great sense of community pride as we work to
structure the development of the City that we all share. We are each appointed
to the Commission by the Mayor and serve a six-year term. We are volunteers
receiving no compensation for our time, studying the proposals and attending the
meetings. Each of the Commissioners are professionals in our community with
varied backgrounds which enhances the makeup of the Commission.
Commissioner Sally Norton is a Program Administrator for Boise State University
and she has a Master's Degree in Public Administration. Commissioner Bill Nary
is an attorney and holds a Juris Doctorate Degree. Commissioner Richard
Hatcher is an architect and has a degree in architecture. I'm a construction
manager and I have degrees in both Journalism and Construction Management.
Keith Borup, who is absent tonight, is a general contractor and builds custom
homes in the Treasure Valley. The decisions we make here tonight at our
meeting, are recommendations and only recommendations to the Meridian City
Council who will hear these proposals again in about two to three weeks. It is at
the City Council Meeting that the final decisions on these proposals will be made.
The P & Z make our recommendations to City Council in general, based upon
the individual proposals conformity with the existing codes and zoning
ordinances, the existing comprehensive plan, and how the proposal mixes with
the existing uses in and around the neighborhood. Customarily, after the
presentation by the staff of the Meridian Planning Department and the
presentation by the applicant, we welcome input from those in attendance of the
meeting. Please try to keep your comments focused. We usually allow three
minutes for each speaker. If after that time your continued testimony remains
relevant and focused, we would entertain continuing the discussion with you.
Thank you all for your interest in tonight's proceedings. Let me begin with the
roll-call of the Commissioners in attendance and the City Staff Members.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 2
Barbeiro: Here and Commissioner Borup is absent. We are also joined by City
Planner Steve Siddoway, Public Works Bruce Freckleton, City Clerk Will Berg,
and City Attorney David Swartley. Item No. 1 on our agenda tonight.
Berg: Just a point of interest, in the Statesman the last few days and this past
weekend, they advertised that City Council was meeting tonight at 7:30 p.m. to
discuss several public hearings. Those Items were incorrectly noticed by the
Statesman, and this was not a public notice, this was just a community update.
In case we have people coming in for those Items that were falsely advertised by
the Statesman, that meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday at 7:30 p.m.
Item 1. Tabled from July 19, 2000 – Recommendation: VAC-00-005
Request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation
easement along common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 of Block
10, Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6, by Ron Leslie.
Barbeiro: Item No. 1 tabled from the July 19th
meeting, recommendation for
request for vacation of public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along
common lot line between Lots 22 and 23 of Block 10, Lakes at Cherry Lane No.
6 by Ron Leslie. I will go ahead and open the public hearing. First I will get the
staff comments.
Siddoway: Item No. 1 is the vacation of public utilities easement. You will see a
vicinity map on the wall in front of you, in the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 6. The
proposed lots are circled and what is going on here is the applicant wishes to
vacate the utilities easement that is along the lot line that runs through these two
properties so they can build, making it one lot, and build one larger house on the
larger lot. Staff has no problem with this application. It is kind of a housekeeping
Item to take care of the easements on the plat. This shows a copy of that plat
and the lot line they are vacating the easements on is circled in red in the lower
left-hand corner.
Barbeiro: If the applicant would like to come forward now.
Leslie: My name is Ron Leslie, 1185 Osprey Ridge, Eagle. I don't think I can
add anything to that. It pretty much sums it up. We did take our application in
and they have come back, we do have the power and gas easement vacation
completed at this time. I have copies for you if you would like them.
Nary: Mr. Leslie, as far as I understand, I don't believe we have the authority to
vacate the lot line, we only have the authority to recommend vacating those
easements. The City Council is going to have a public hearing to vacate that lot
line. Did you understand that? That is the only portion we have the authority to
recommend to the Council and the Council will have to directly take up the issue
of the lot line.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 3
Barbeiro: Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to speak on favor of Mr.
Leslie's vacation? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to Mr. Leslie's
vacation? Commissioners?
Nary: I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council as noted by
the staff comments.
Nary: Second.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: That will be recommended to City Council.
Item 2 Recommendation: VAC-00-011 Request for vacation of public
utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along common line
between Lots 35 and 36, Block 17, Haven Cove No. 9
Subdivision by Glenn Blaser – east of Ten Mile Road, North of
Pine Avenue on Ebbtide Street.
Barbeiro: Item No. 2, recommendation for request for vacation of public utilities,
drainage and irrigation easement along common lot line between Lots 35 and 36,
Block 17, Haven Cove No. 9 Subdivision by Glenn Blaser. Mr. Siddoway?
Siddoway: This is quite similar to the one you just saw. I point out to the record
that this is not a public hearing. This is a recommendation to City Council. You
can see, this is a part of Haven Cove Subdivision No. 9. The subject parcels are
hatched on the diagram in front of you and it's the common lot line between the
two that they want to vacate the utility easements along, again lower right hand
corner you can see the plat of this phase. It would be the easements along that
particular lot line between Lots 35 and 36. It would be vacated to allow for one
home to be built on the two lots.
Barbeiro: Is the applicant in the audience? Steve, did you mention anything to
Mr. Blaser's need to be here or not?
Siddoway: I did not, but the issue is just vacating those easements for the
house, that they are proposing to be built, on those two lots. I don't see any
problem with making a recommendation tonight without the applicant here.
Norton: I would like to recommend to City Council to approve the vacation of
easement and as again as Commissioner Nary suggested, we have nothing to
do with the lot line, only the easement, to include staff comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 4
Nary: Second.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3 Public Hearing: Proposed change to the Notice of Mailing
Ordinance allowing first-class mail to replace certified mail for
notification of public hearings.
Barbeiro: Is there anyone here to speak on Item No. 3, the public hearing on the
notice of mailing ordinance. We will go ahead and open it. We will now open the
public hearing on Item No. 3, proposal to change the Notice of Mailing Ordinance
allowing first-class mail to replace certified mail for notification of public hearings.
Siddoway: You should have a proposed ordinance change from the legal staff,
dated July 5th
. Currently our ordinance required certified mailings to go out.
When they go out and someone is not home and unable to sign for that mailing,
they take it to the post office and leave a note on the door to go to the post office
and pick it up. Changing the first-class mail would allow them to deliver that and
also would allow them to, the fees would be less. We see it as a good change.
Barbeiro: What is the current state statute regarding this?
Swartley: I don't know either. Maybe Mr. Nary can.
Nary: I think it only requires first-class mail, not certified.
Barbeiro: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this, please
come forward now.
Almond: My name is Vern Almond, 2101 East Ustick, Meridian. Reference is
made to the proposed change to Notice of Mailing Ordinance. I am opposed to
the proposed change the way it is handled name, notification by certified mail is
successful and very necessary. These hearings are real important to we, the
public, who are being impacted by these developments and our important is and
should be, all important to the City. Without certified mail, there could be a lot of
problems with people saying they didn't receive notices. If this happens, how
does the City protect itself? As it is now, they have protection. If this proposal
passes, there will be suspicion the City is trying to do something underhanded.
The City must do everything it can to prevent this type of image. With the first-
class mailing provisions, what proof can you offer the public that the mailings
were actually made? I urge you to reject this proposal.
Barbeiro: Any questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 5
Nary: Mr. Almond, do you have any examples of people you know that didn't get
a mailing, is there were your concern comes from?
Almond: Not where it comes from, but what if they do? I would ask staff, how
many complaints have they got about having to go to the post office to pick up
their notices? I'd like to know.
Barbeiro: Mr. Almond was wondering if you are aware of complaints from
citizens on having to go to the post office to pick up their certified mailing.
Berg: We run into problems when they go to P.O. boxes and they are not
checked. There have been some, yes. Otherwise we wouldn't have enacted it.
They have complained that the notice was given and they were unable to get to
the post office to get, and they wish that it could have just been left off at their
doorstep when the postman was there in the first place.
Nary: Does Mr. Berg know if there are a lot of returns? Is that a problem also?
Berg: The reason we want to change this to conform with the state statute of
first-class, which is required by the state statutes, is to get better response of the
mail being delivered. We have many certified mails returned back to us and
there are several reasons. One, their fear of what a certified mail is, so they
don't go pick it up; two, people out of town, the post office tries three times and
can't deliver it, they don't sign it, they return it back to us. We feel first-class
would give a better opportunity for the people to get the mail. We have a lot of
snowbirds in this City that are gone during the wintertime. They don't forward
certified mailings, they will forward first-class. We feel that if the notice gets
delivered to the address, it has a better chance of getting opened up. We have
designed our envelopes to have Public Hearing Notice on the envelope so that
they know that it may be something important that they should open. We are
going to have an affidavit type thing signed for the list of first-class mailings that
we do send out so we have verification that we did mail these listings to the
property owners. We are not trying to hide anything by changing this, we are
trying to get a better response on our mailings. We get a stack of return certified
mailings depending on what type of project it is and the time of year. We feel
delivering it first-class will get the notice delivered and maybe get a better
response to the hearings. That's the reason behind changing it to conform to the
state statutes.
Almond: What are you going to do when people say they didn't get it?
Barbeiro: I would like to have Mr. Siddoway explain if this is passed by City
Council, what the process would be for public notification of a public hearing.
Siddoway: The notices go out of Mr. Berg's office.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 6
Berg: The procedure does not change, it's just the process of the certified mail
versus first-class. We still have to mail it within a certain time period before the
hearing. It's still mailed to, depending on the applicant, 200 or 300 feet within the
particular property that has the application. The procedures and process do not
change. It's just the order in which the mail is delivered. We feel we can get a
better response of the mail getting delivered than having it certified. There is
more handling by our staff for certified, because you have to stick a different
label on to it. We are not concerned so much the cost, it is reimbursed by the
application itself. The procedure doesn't change. We still have to be governed
by what the statute says that we have to give notice to. We still have to do the
notices in the newspapers. The property still has to be posted just like our
original ordinance states. This is only changing the type of mailing that we do.
Almond: You've got proof of mailing, but it doesn't prove he gets it. With certified
mail, it does prove he got it or didn't get it.
Nary: What you are talking about is actual notice, that they actually got it in their
hand. The problem has been, people don't choose to receive that, so we can't
prove they actually got it anyway. The state law doesn't require that they have
actual notice, it requires that we mail it to the address and that's all that this
ordinance is attempting to do is to conform to what the state law requires. If a
person comes and says they did not actually receive that notice, it never came to
my house, the mail didn't reach me, there are other ways that they should be
aware of the issue that we sent a notice for. The property would be posted or
there is notice in the newspaper. It is not the same as having actual proof in our
hand of a card they had signed, but I think the problem is a lot of people won't do
it. We spent a lot of money and time sending out a process that they never
received; sometimes intentionally and sometimes totally unintentionally on their
part. So I think the attempt is to comply with the state law and more likely to get
it.
Almond: As far as the expense of mailing, the developer pays for that. Does it
not?
Nary: They pay for the postage but not the time of the staff to process it. They
pay a portion of the cost, not all of it. The taxpayers are paying the rest.
Barbeiro: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue?
Nary: I move that we close the public hearing.
Norton: Second.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 7
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Commissioners, do we have a motion?
Nary: I understand completely where Mr. Almond is coming from and on those
occasions that that would be helpful, it would certainly be helpful to have a
signed notice. Expeditiously, it makes more sense to comply with state law. I
think there is a lot of sense to me to change the ordinance and make it compliant
with the state law and actually provide a better opportunity to people to receive
the notices that they are being sent. I move that we recommend to the City
Council that we amend the Notice of Mailing Ordinance, allowing first-class mail
to replace certified mail for notification of public hearings as proposed by the staff
and the staff comments.
Norton: Second. I do believe it will help to get notice out to more people that
actually receive it at home.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Recommendation to move to City Council.
Berg: I just want to restate the community section of the Statesman advertised
that the City Council was meeting tonight at 7:30 p.m. to hear some public
hearings on Valeri Heights and Autumn Faire and to make note to anyone that
came in tonight, that was missed by the Statesman that it will be next Tuesday,
August 15, 2000. It has been advertised in the paper under legal notices,
properly.
Item 4 Public Hearing: CUP-00-041 Request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct a Fred Meyer Gas Station facility with a
canopy, five multi-product dispensers, cashiers kiosk and parking
lot improvements in a C-G zone by Barghausen Consulting
Engineers – Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove.
Barbeiro: Item No. 4, public hearing for conditional use permit to construct a
Fred Meyer Gas Station facility with a canopy, five multi-product dispensers,
cashiers kiosk and parking lot improvements in a C-G zone by Barghausen
Consulting Engineers. I would like to open the public hearing.
Siddoway: This is a conditional use permit for a gas station to be located on the
existing Fred Meyer site. The Fred Meyer site is the large red area. The
proposed gas station would be out near Fairview Avenue near the hatched area.
Some photos of the site, standing on Fairview, looking west, the gas station
would be approximately in this location behind the berm. Standing at
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 8
McDonald's and looking due east, looking north, the site along the berm on
Fairview. Some other shots, looking northwest from Fairview, looking southeast
towards Fairview. This is the proposed site plan, the existing curb cut off of
Fairview is right here. There is where you enter into McDonald's, this is the pad
site for the proposed gas station. These are the elevations, there is not a
convenience store type thing associated with this, I believe it is just the pumps
and the associated canopy. You have staff comments dated August 1st
, I would
just like to point out two of the major issues. The first and biggest one is parking.
We've been trying to verify that this would not take the Fred Meyer complex out
of compliance with their required parking and the applicant, I believe, is prepared
to speak on that tonight. We have had some conversation in trying to pin this
number down. They have responded with a faxed written response stating that
they have 172,163 SQUARE FOOT, there is still some question as to whether
that includes Fred Meyer or if it includes the attached other businesses that it
should be based on as well, such as Baskin-Robbins, Scrapper's Bookstore,
Frame Shop, et cetera. We need to verify that and the number of parking
spaces that would be required based on that existing square footage, look at the
parking counts that exist on the site, and make sure they are not using parking
toward that total calculation that was intended for the other pads, such as Key
Bank, McDonald's, Bruegger's Bagel and the other tenants in the pads there that
have their own parking requirements as well. The applicant has stated in the fax
we received today, if I go back to the site plan, the site plan showed that they
were changing six aisles of existing parking that is at 45 degrees to five rows of
90 degree parking. They stated that this is no longer necessary. They simply
will be able to put it in and maintain enough parking spaces. I state that we need
a revised site plan, so we are sending on to Council a final plan for the proposal
with all of the design issues worked out. I would recommend that it be continued
so we can receive the site based on the parking calculations that will hopefully go
over tonight and so we are forwarding on to City Council a finalized plan with
design issues resolved. The second issue is the signage. The applicant is
proposing to use reader boards that are flip-a-matic style. Staff does not support
those and I would just state that any signage is approved tonight, we need to be
specific to what is and what is not approved.
Barbeiro: Is the applicant available please?
Creager: My name is Bruce Creager, 18215 72nd
South, Kent, Washington. I'm
with Barghausen Consulting Engineers. We are the planners, engineers and
permit expeditors for the Fred Meyer gasoline station program. I'd like to speak
tonight on the issues raised by staff with respect to our proposed Fred Meyer
gasoline station addition to the Fred Meyer store. As explained by Mr. Siddoway,
we are proposing to construct a five multi-product dispenser canopy which would
result in the removal of 48 parking stalls from the existing Fred Meyer parking lot.
With our original application, our first count of parking led us to believe that we
would end of a net of 860 parking stalls, that would result from the 48 stalls and
the net addition of 24 stalls from the re-striping at 90 degrees as depicted on the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 9
site plan that is before you. Upon discussion with the staff, we performed several
recounts of the parking and found that, in fact, our starting point was higher than
our previous starting point. Existing parking on the side is 913 parking stalls. I
have an exhibit I would like to enter into the record that shows the stalls
associated with the Fred Meyer store and the ancillary lessee's, such as Baskin
Robbins. Also an exhibit that shows our parking analysis, the total square
footage and how we analyzed. The exhibit I'm going to pass out shows no re-
striping of the parking in the main parking field as depicted on this site plan.
Essentially, this is the site plan that shows what we now propose to do, this is the
revised site plan that staff is asking for. I want to emphasize the parking count
on this plan includes the parking that is associated with Fred Meyer, the lessee,
but does not include the parking for the out parcels. On this map, there is a faint
line. The parking counts are supplied in this exhibit at the ends of each of the
rows of parking. There is a number that has a circle around it. The calculations
that we made show that 172,163 SQUARE FOOT, the store would require a
minimum of 861 parking spaces. We have also broken down the individual uses
inside the Fred Meyer store and the tenant spaces into its composite warehouse
space, office space and retail space. With that methodology, we've shown that
the required parking would 685 stalls. In any case, assuming the greater amount
of 861 stalls is the minimum parking required, we have demonstrated in the
revised site plan that we have submitted, that the numbers are on the lower right
hand corner of this 11X17 plan, that starting with 913 stalls, removing 48 parking
stalls, we end up with a net total of 865 exceeding the minimum by 4 parking
stalls. The second issue raised by staff relates to the signs proposed to be used
for the prices. As shown on our application, the signs are a flip-a-matic type
sign, there will be one price sign posted on the north wall, north façade of the
canopy, that will be facing the store. We will also be posting on the existing Fred
Meyer pole sign, a price sign on each of the east and west faces of that sign. I
wasn't aware until just a few minutes ago that staff was not in support of a flip-a-
matic type sign. I knew that in the staff report that staff was not in support of an
electronic reader board type sign. I want to emphasize that the signs that we’re
proposing are not an LED-type display, they are not the bulbs that form letters,
they are numerals that flip displaying the price of the gasoline and only the price
of gasoline. I'm not certain the reasons of the staff opposition to this type of sign.
Siddoway: Are these flip-a-matic type signs that you are saying, they actually
show numerals opposed to those neon dots that form the numbers? That's the
type of flip-a-matic signs that I'm familiar with.
Creager: My understand is that the numbers actually flip down and are, they are
not pin type lights, I don't think it would be a flip type sign. The numbers are
actually displayed on a solid surface.
Siddoway: Would they remain static with just the numbers displayed or would
they be advertising specials and come in, like a reader board?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 10
Creager: They will be used to display the prices only.
Nary: We are talking about the older alarms clocks, an electronic Rolodex. The
only thing that is electronic about it is the ability to turn. The numbers are on a
Rolodex and it just turns appropriately to display the appropriate numbers.
There is no backlighting, no task lighting?
Creager: I believe that there is illumination of that sign and I believe it is a task
type lighting. The price on the canopy would be similarly illuminated.
Siddoway: I have less objection to something that just numerals that could be
changed as opposed to something we were envisioning as a reader board with
the neon disks flipping in and out, to be able to put messages on.
Creager: I wanted to add one more point and that is that the Fred Meyer
Gasoline Program is designed to attract customers who are already at Fred
Meyer buying groceries, non-perishables. That's the purpose of advertising the
sign toward the entrance to the store. It captures customer's attentions as the
price gasoline when they leave. We do believe that the majority of the customers
will be accommodation of those both internally captured trips and the pass by
trips. Therefore, that is why we need the prices posted out on the street as well,
so we can remain at a competitive position with the other retailers in the area.
With that, that concludes my testimony.
Barbeiro: Any questions?
Hatcher: My first question is, in your parking analysis, I noticed that you had
excluded the pads in your count and granted they are pads, but more often than
not, the parking requirements for pads overlap the lot lines. Does the City staff
have confirmation that lot two, the parking stalls on lot two for that particular pad
has it's adequate number of stalls and so on and so forth. More often than that,
the pad does not allow for that, thus they borrow stalls from the main retailer. As
of right now, we have four existing pads, you are talking about a fifth pad
borrowing from the main retailer, I would question whether or not you have the
required stalls.
Creager: From a property use standpoint, the parcels at Fred Meyer spins off
the outside parcels are required to be self parked, required to have the requisite
number of parking stalls on their own individual lots and so there wouldn't be any
joint parking agreements where the individual pads can use parking on Fred
Meyer's ownership parcel for co-compliance purposes. Certainly as a functional
practice, there may be customers that don't park within the boundaries.
Hatcher: I'm talking the legalities.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 11
Creager: I can give you the real estate perspectives on that and maybe staff has
a comment they would like to make.
Siddoway: I don't know. I would have to go through these square footages and
verify lot by lot individually. Mr. Barbeiro did some calculations that make it
appear that the individual out parcels are relying on some parking from the Fred
Meyer lot to make their parking counts.
Hatcher: The one other comment that I wanted to ask about is on the proposed
site plan that is on the screen right now. When you were looking at reconfiguring
the 45-degree parking, actually it's 60 degree parking, to the perpendicular
parking, you were also proposing to do landscape islands and trees and
everything. Was that governed by staff, or was that part of the original proposal?
Creager: That was part of the original proposal submitted to staff.
Hatcher: I am a proponent of landscaping. Now that I see it, I want it.
Creager: The modified site plan shows a no-net loss of landscaping with the
landscape islands being added on at the ends of the rows of parking. There is a
no-net loss in that respect. I believe that the number of, we still have landscape
islands at the end of all rows of parking and in this exhibit. We have a total of
eight smaller square-shaped landscaped islands. I believe we have the same
quantity roughly of landscaping.
Siddoway: The only planters currently are the short-boxed ones that create the
compact stalls every so often. The ends are currently striped, not planters. I
don't know if Brad reviewed the site to see if it's fully in compliance with the one
three-inch Caliper tree per 1500 SF of asphalt. This would be an opportunity for
us to bring it into compliance if it's not. I would just like a chance to take this new
proposal to Brad and give him a chance to work out those issues.
Norton: Mr. Creager, since you are here form Kent, Washington, before we
continue this or make a proposal, I have a couple of questions. A comment on
the site plan, the gas prices are 1.23 and 1.33 and 1.43, I sure like those gas
prices. My other comment is you have located this in the busiest intersection, in
and out of Fred Meyer. That's really a busy intersection off of Fairview, right
where McDonald's is. To me, I would like to see that over where the garden
center is in the Meridian Fred Meyer, where you could turn one way into Chevron
and the other way into Fred Meyer gas. It would alleviate the congestion in and
out of that entrance to McDonald's and into Fred Meyer. Did you consider that
choice of location?
Creager: We looked at a number of possible locations for the gas facility on this
site. There were two issues, one is to maintain visibility to the street and the
other is being able to have a set up that takes up stalls that will minimize the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 12
lesser used stalls in the facility and capture cars as they enter the site. There is
roughly 55 or 60 feet of throat in that driveway until you can turn and position
yourself, to drive toward the fueling facility. We have a fueling facility that
theoretically can process about 168 cars per hour. We don't anticipate that
volume of cars, so the amount of cueing that we anticipate is nominal. We have
considered alternate locations. This is the preferred location for those reasons.
Nary: Has there been any traffic study or anything done by your firm of how
much increase trip traffic this would make to have this gas station there?
Creager: We have trip generation numbers that were generated by our
professional traffic consultant engineer, those numbers have been included in the
application for this conditional use permit. The numbers forecasted are in the
daily range of about 1,600 trips during the p.m. peak when you will see the
heaviest volume of track. On Fairview, we are looking at range of maximum of
54.
Norton: In staff comments, it looks like there are several comments, 14 site-
specific comments, and you have only commented on the parking. You verbally
commented on the sign. Staff has asked the Commission to particularly address
the proposed 24-hour operation and the safety of it. I noticed that in your safety
report that there is an alarm system in the main store, however, it will be by card
only between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when no one is in the store for safety. Do
you consider any safety problems on your 24-hour when there is not a person in
the kiosk?
Creager: I would like to clarify that during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m..
There will be personnel in the Fred Meyer store. There will not be a cashier at
the kiosk. Personnel at the Fred Meyer store will range from security personnel
who are located in the security office where the closed circuit television monitors
that are operable 24 hours a day will display on those security monitors, the
activity out at the kiosk. There will be the alarm system that will be sounded
inside the security office as well. We are fully in compliance with the other
requirements of the Uniform Fire Code, Article 52 that stipulates specific
conditions that have to be met when we have an unattended gasoline facility.
I've enumerated some of those Items in my conditional use permit application,
the project narrative and justification.
Norton: So there are security people inside in the wee hours of the night?
Creager: Yes.
Hatcher: Because of the Playland at that McDonald's, that McDonald's is an
extremely popular spot between four and six p.m. in the afternoons. Many times
this intersection is blocked with people trying to get in and out and I, myself, has
had problems getting out of the McDonald's parking lot because to the west, is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 13
the drive-thru that is lined up and often stacked back as many as 19 cars at one
time. Getting in and out of here, some cars will get stuck trying to get into the
drive-thru. My concern is stacking and people being able to get in and out of
McDonald's. This exit here is the exit for the drive-thru and I see an opportunity
for problems with traffic in this area. Could you address those for us please?
Creager: Although we are marketing our gasoline to the customers who are
exiting the Fred Meyer's store, we believe that a majority of the customers that
are buying gas and shopping at Fred Meyer will indeed buy gasoline first.
Customers buying groceries first wouldn't want to get gas after. We do expect
customers will be turning into this driveway and conveniently making an
immediate right into the gasoline station, that would avoid any cross traffic
conflicts. Looking at the preliminary plat, you see the cars that will be entering
into the site, a distance of roughly 55 to 60 feet before they turn and then will
enter the fueling facility. In our opinion, that may help disburse the traffic a little
bit and pull away some of the traffic that otherwise might congest. It's not going
to solve the problem that McDonald's is presenting, but it will help to alleviate to
some degree.
Hatcher: To address your concern and Commissioner Norton's concern, I would
pose suggestion to and staff can take it from here, is instead of having the facility
here on this busy intersection which is already a traffic nightmare and this would
only make it worse, I suggest the potential to relocate the facility to here. It
would still give Fred Meyer adequate street venue, basically it would still meet
their demographic requirements, but it will help avoid internal traffic on the site
and that problem overflowing onto Fairview.
Creager: My concern in respect to that location is that is forces motorists who
are entering into the Fred Meyer site and desiring to buy gas first, requires them
to turn left across outgoing traffic and so we may potential stacking problems.
Whereas the proposal you have before you, the motorists can turn into the
facility and make an immediate right and then enter into the fueling facility and
then exit out through the north end into one or more of the rows.
Nary: Basically, we can only decide on what your proposal is. Fred Meyer has
decided the only place they would prefer to build this station at this time is in that
location there, right across from McDonald's. I guess I'm a little curious on your
comment earlier that part of your reason for lighted reader boards sign facing
Fred Meyer is to attract the customers exiting the store and then you said you
are actually thinking most people will enter that intersection and go immediately
to the gas station before they go to the store. That seems a little inconsistent to
me. Isn't that what you said?
Creager: What I said is that we are trying to provide our marketing of our
gasoline to both the customers on the street who may be potential pass by
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 14
customers or customers who are going to enter the store, we also want to have
the prices displayed for those customers who are exiting the store.
Hatcher: In the traffic study, you said that the traffic will only increase only about
nine cars.
Creager: During the p.m. peak.
Hatcher: What you would like, you want us to believe that Fred Meyer wishes to
build this gas station at this location to attract essentially 9 customers per day
during the peak period, more than what they get now.
Creager: Nine net new trips would be net new to the roadway.
Hatcher: Was there any discussion with Fred Meyer? I think you can
understand where we are coming from, all the questions we have concern this
particular intersection as difficult as it is now, and what you are waiting, appears
to be traffic stacking up here to get into this facility. We have a potential for
stacking up people here, we have a potential for stacking up people here trying
to cross this roadway, and Fred Meyer's solution to that is nothing. Correct?
There is no alternative that Fred Meyer wishes to consider to address those
traffic concerns.
Creager: We believe that the proposal is sound and that it provides the potential
for two cars stacking in front of each fueling position and it also provides enough
room for a pass by trips and even if a customer decides that they, after pulling in
here that they don't want to wait, they can drive through and go on and park and
shop. There is upwards from 55 to 60 feet of space, up to three car lengths,
before you turn into and position yourself at the fueling facility. As far as the
number of cars during the p.m. peak, I want to make it absolutely clear both in
my written information and the information I've testified to tonight, that the p.m.
peak traffic that we are expecting, would be on the order of a maximum of 140 or
so trips during the p.m. peak and of those total, we would have a range of 9 to 54
that would be new to the roadway.
Hatcher: Mr. Creager, have you made note of the ACHD report on the gas
station?
Creager: Can you tell me the date and the author of that report? I think I've
seen that, I think I have it here.
Hatcher: July 31st
.
Creager: July 31st
letter signed by Penelope Constant. I do have that report
here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 15
Hatcher: On line Item 7, page 3, staff recommends that Fred Meyer driveway to
relocated to the north either to align with Carol Street or to maintain an access of
125 feet south of Carol Street. Could you comment on that for us?
Creager: I'm afraid that I can't. I know that the staff, this report was a January
25, 1995, staff report that was in reference to the Fred Meyer retail store
development. I read through that and tried to pick out what was relevant.
Hatcher: I apologize, I did not make note of that that it was from 1995. I only
saw the July 31st
.
Barbeiro: Anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the gas station at Fred
Meyer? Anyone here in opposition?
Corval: My name is Robert Corval, 3653 Presidential Drive, Meridian. I really
wasn't here to talk about this, but as long as it's on the table, in addition to what
most of you have commented on trying to turn in or mostly turn out onto Fairview
from that driveway, at peak traffic times is hazardous and backs up traffic quite a
bit already. I would wonder if the comments made by traffic engineers and by the
developer, if any of them have actually come here to observe the traffic or if it
has all been studies done at already existing Fred Meyer's in other places.
Barbeiro: Anyone else?
Haggett: My name is Rob Haggett, 590 North Maple Grove Road, Boise. I'm
here as a representative of Avest Limited Partnership, owners of the pad sites at
the Fred Meyer development. I'm not here to deny or support the application,
just to say that at this point we have not supported it or denied it. We are neutral
at this point to the application.
Barbeiro: Anyone else?
Hatcher: I make a motion to close the public hearing for discussion.
Creager: The two previous speakers, we would be willing in light of the issue of
the landscaping, we would be willing to landscape the ends of the rows of the
parking stalls as shown in our proposal presented to you tonight. I apologize for
that error and that is something we would be willing to do in order to be able to
retain the existing 60-degree parking configuration. I believe that would result in
matching the quality of the landscaping that was depicted on this plan and
maybe even a little more landscaping.
Hatcher: I was just concerned about if we don't come to resolution on this
tonight. I think there are some outstanding issues, a revised site showing the
proper configuration, something to tie up these loose ends. That would require a
continuation. I think we need to keep the public hearing open.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 16
Norton: I still feel that is the wrong site for us people who go in and out of Fred
Meyer and that is a very congested, very dangerous site no matter how you look
at it with people trying to zip into that turn lane from way back, even moving the
gas station over to the far left end of that landscaping, closer to the Subway and
Bruegger Bagelry would be a better thing. At this point, I'm opposed to it if they
insist on keeping it where it is.
Nary: I guess I mildly disagree with Commissioner Hatcher only because I don't
think the issue, in my mind, is the parking. I think the parking is probably
adequate on that side. I agree that it's not very clear because some of this
information is new and our staff hasn't had time to really digest it. I really more
concerned with the traffic location where that station's going to be. The traffic in
that location is terrible, it's very difficult now. I don't see this as any improvement,
in fact I think it's worse. The traffic study, I don't have it, it isn't an ACHD study
telling us how difficult that intersection is going to be to deal with. I don't know if
it's in compliance with what was required in 1995, whether this change and this
addition which is new since 1995, would change what ACHD would want for that
roadway. If you look at some of the comments in the 1995 staff report from
ACHD, they use a lot of terms like this is the minimum amount of space, this is
the minimum amount for what is already being proposed then. I don't know that
it wouldn't be different now, congesting that particular driveway to this degree
that's being proposed. I look at our 1117-3 of our City Ordinance and I see two
areas that I have not seen addressed in your testimony tonight. 1117-3e says
that for a conditional use to be granted, that the use would be served adequately
by a central public facility and services such as highways, streets, and some
other things. I don't think that's been provided to us. I look at sub (h) which says
we will have vehicular approach to the property so designed so as not to create
interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. I think most of the people
here have seen how difficult that particular location is to maneuver right now. I
don't think it's going to improve by having a gas station at that site and on that
location. I think it serves Fred Meyer's interests, I don't think it serves anyone
else's. I think there are other sites on that location if you wanted that. What I'm
concerned with is if you ever had a sale at that gas station like some of our local
retailers have done, that traffic will be backed up to ShopKo at Eagle Road
coming out of that driveway. There is no way there will be adequate space to
have any cars trying to get in and out of that location. It doesn't serve the needs
of what the conditional use standard is here and that it's going to provide some
enhancement, the trees would be nice. I don't think the building, et cetera
enhances this site at all and I think it makes that location even worse than what it
is now. I think a lot of people would be going to the Council in a month saying
we don't want traffic stacked out of that driveway more than it is already. I don't
think it really has met the needs, I guess I'm really not in favor of a continuance.
Unless you tell us you are going to change it, there's nothing that's going to
change it by having parking change.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 17
Hatcher: I'm not opposed to the project. I'm not opposed to Fred Meyer putting
in a 24/7 gas station in, but I have to concur with comments of this board to date.
I'm in support of continuing this so that the issues can be resolved and presented
at a later date. If we deny it, we have to start everything all over again. What I
would recommend, however, is that in Fred Meyer's best interest, that they look
at the comments and issues that have been brought forth tonight because I think
in Fred Meyer's best interest for this community, move it away from that location.
This is a much better location than this. You are talking a 100-150 feet, but it will
make a world of difference because the entry to the site carries about four times
the traffic that this entry does. Landscaping, I would want to make sure that
because of this project, the requirements of our current ordinances are met and
not that we have digressed in 1995 standards. I recommend a continuance to
our next meeting.
Siddoway: From my perspective, I think you nailed it on the head as far as
location. Several stacking issues that could impact Fairview and cars are
continually having problems in that area. I have nothing further to add.
Barbeiro: Mr. Creager, the public hearing is still open and I would like to see if I
can give a synopsis of this. Essentially everyone is for you going ahead and
putting in the gas station. They would all prefer that it was set back. At this
point, if you have been in the City during p.m. peak, assume 5:20 p.m., you will
find that it stacks all the way back to the Subway station. We would find it better
if people come into the gas station tend to exit out of this, not out of this here.
We have some options and get some legal advice. We can recommend
approval to the City Council with the condition that you move it over here.
Nary: When we forward something to City Council, we need to have the site plan
basically completed so they are looking at the recommended site plan, not a site
plan with a list of recommended changes.
Barbeiro: The consensus appears to be that everyone here would prefer to
continue it and that you come back with it.
Creager: We would like the opportunity to go back to Fred Meyer Corporate and
discuss the issues that you've raised tonight, take an in-depth analysis of the
issues as far as circulation and location of the gas station and then return to you
with a response at your meeting.
Norton: You will be discussing with your corporate offices, changing the
location?
Creager: Yes. We will discuss that with them and explain that it was unanimous.
Norton: How long have you been in Boise?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 18
Creager: I was down here during the p.m. peak last time I was here.
Barbeiro: Do we have a motion?
Nary: I motion that we continue Item No. 4, CUP-00-041, for the Fred Meyer
Gas Station to our next scheduled P & Z meeting, September 12th
, give the
applicant time to work out details with staff.
Hatcher: Second:
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 5 Public Hearing: CUP-00-044 Request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct a 4,125 SQUARE FOOT tilt-up concrete
building for Eagle Concrete Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay
District by Rod and Sheri Eisele – N. Baltic Place in Meridian
Business Park.
Barbeiro: Item No. 5, public hearing, request for conditional use permit to
construct a 4,125 square foot tilt-up concrete building for Eagle Concrete
Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay District by Rod and Sheri Eisele. We will
open the public hearing.
Siddoway: This is a conditional use permit submitted by Eagle Concrete
Pumping. It is in the Meridian Business Park generally located off Franklin. This
blue area here, this is the new fire station and the existing cemetery, Baltic Place
goes north and ends in a cul-de-sac on the west side of that cul-de-sac, is the
subject site. The proposed use by Eagle Concrete Pumping is an allowed use in
the zone that it is, I-L. The reason it is before you as a conditional use permit is
because it is in the flood plain. The site is fully in the 100-year flood plain and
our ordinance requires all structures within the flood plain to be approved
through the conditional use permit process. I'm not aware of any hot button topic
on this one, you have our staff comments dated August 1st
. I recommend
approval based on those comments and would give the applicant a chance to
speak on any problems he has on those comments. This is the site here, Lot 10,
Block 2. This is the subject property. Here are some site photographs. This is
the proposed site plan and any issues that we have regarding the site plan are
included in the staff comments.
Barbeiro: Would the applicant wish to come forward, please?
Larson: My name is Cornell Larson, 210 Murray Street, Boise. I'm here this
evening representing the applicant on this project. We really don't have any
concerns on the staff conditions, we were somewhat aware of them before we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 19
started. We would be happy to answer any questions you have or concerns you
might have on the project.
Barbeiro: Any questions or concerns, Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Larson, I just have a note, are you aware of the sanitation comment
regarding the solid waste gates that are too small.
Larson: Yes, we will make them bigger.
Barbeiro: Anything else? This is a public hearing, anyone here wishing to speak
in favor of Mr. Larson's proposal? Seeing none, anyone here wishing to speak in
opposition? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Nary: I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second.
Barbeiro: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Public hearing is closed. Discussion?
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve CUP-00-044, request for a
conditional use permit to construct a 4,125 square foot tilt-up concrete building
for Eagle Concrete Pumping in the Flood Plain Overlay District by Rod and Sheri
Eisele in the North Baltic Place in Meridian Business Park with staff comments.
Norton: Second.
Barbeiro: A motion and a second; all those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6 Public Hearing: AZ-00-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning
of 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland Development Co.,
LLP for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision – North of Ustick and
East of Ten Mile.
Barbeiro: Item No. 6, request for annexation and zoning of 52.90 acres from RT
to R-4 by Primeland Development Co., LLP for proposed Bridgetower
Subdivision. I would like to open the public hearing. Is the applicant with us?
Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 20
Siddoway: I will combine my comments for Items No. 6, 7, and 8, all of which are
Bridgetower Subdivision. The first one being annexation and zoning, the second
being the conditional use permit on the planning and development, and the third
being the preliminary plat. Item No. 6 is the annexation and zoning of 52.90
acres, you can see the site in the diagram. This is Ustick Road, it's north of
Ustick, this is Ten Mile and this is Linder, and it's between these two major cross
streets in this location. The proposal is to change the zoning to R-4, the
residential subdivision. These are some site photos. There are two existing
houses, which you will see in a minute, and existing driveway that connects
down to Ustick Road. The proposal would be to abandon that driveway and
having it located in this location over here. Standing from this location where
that new bridge over Five Mile Creek, and looking east, Ustick Road in the
background, gives you some sense of the character of the Creek in that location.
Also looking west from the existing bridge, across the parcel, directly south, there
is a parcel that is still in the County, has existing combines and farm machinery
on it. This is looking west along Ustick, looking northwest, the corner of the site
being in this location here. This is the existing driveway that goes back to the
two existing houses. There is an existing residence close to Ustick. I believe
that is proposed to be removed as part of this process. Here we have details of
some of the planting plan and the proposed layout of this subdivision. There is a
5 acre park in this location here and I'll speak to that to that in a minute. Item No.
8, this is the proposed lot layout. We have a response from the applicant, it
seems that the main two issues, one is relating to the park in this location here
along Ustick. They would like to dedicate it to the City as a City Park. They have
been talking to Tom Kuntz today and there is an outstanding issue as whether
they would be able to dedicate that in lieu of park impact fees or not. From a
staff position, it really needs to be worked out, not from our office, but between
the applicant and the Parks Department. I would state that as a planning and
development, 10percent common open space is required, a 50-acre annexation,
50 acre subdivision would require 5 acres of open space. Certainly they should
not be given credit for impact fees for something that would have been required
already, but if there are additional improvements that increase the value of that,
then they can work that out with the Parks Department. The second main issue
dealt with sewage issues on preliminary plat comment number 12. I will turn that
over to Bruce Freckleton. I know that they have been talking about that issue
and just as a final comment, note that the ACHD report is not one that has been
acted on by the Commission until tomorrow. I don't know if there are any major
outstanding issues there that would prevent this body from acting on the
application tonight, but I just want you to be aware of that.
Freckleton: The response from the applicant regarding the relief line and the
easements for that relief line. The City currently has an easement for the
construction of relief sewer along the north boundary of Five Mile Creek. We
have a permanent easement and an adjacent construction easement that gives
us adequate room to be able to get in there and build it. Unfortunately tonight, I
don't have timing on that project. Brad Watson in our office has been
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 21
coordinating that and he is out of town. Certainly our biggest concern is that we
have the corridor free to be able to go in there and construct that line and that we
don't have houses and other things encroaching into the area that we will need
for construction.
Barbeiro: Would the applicant wish to come forward?
Bowcutt: My name is Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickorydale, Boise. I am
representing the applicant in this matter. For the record, could you combine my
testimony on all three applications. If I could, could I use the easel?
Hatcher: Becky, could I make a quick request? In tonight's presentation, could
you give us a summary of the overall project and address issues and conflict.
Bowcutt: This is the Bridgetower Subdivision and this is the first preliminary plat
that will come before you later on. This is to be sewered on the Five Mile Creek
trunk line, on that sewer line, runs on the northside of Five Mile Creek. There is
existing water in Ustick Road and we do adjoin city limits. ACHD staff has
reviewed this application, they have formulated a staff report, we were in
agreement with all of their conditions of approval. They evaluated Ustick Road, it
was determined the level of service at this point in time is above C, between B
and C. They did a traffic count in May of this year. Based on full build out, we
would not have any negative impact on that rating on that arterial. It would
remain between a B and a C according to ACHD. The crease and lateral cuts
this property off and that is the border for this sewer service area. Everything
north of this would go into the White Drain Trunk. We submitted application for a
PUD for this subdivision asking for an R-4 and annexation. The PUD was to
deviate from the standard 80-foot frontage that is specified under the ordinance
in the R-4 zone. All the lots you see here, meet or exceed 8,000 SQUARE
FOOT The average lot size in here excluding these three lots here and these
two oversized lots here, is 10,400 + square foot We had a collector concept that
comes into this project where we have no front on housing, substantial amount of
landscaping adjoining that and then we have twice the amount of landscaping on
our perimeter as required by your ordinance. These three lots that you see here,
they would be zoned to R-4. However, in the future, when your new comp plan
comes through, we will come in and ask for an LO zone here to have some type
of office that would be able to co-exist, such as medical office with the residential
character of this area. Obviously since this is separated from the project, it does
adjoin a minor arterial. We would not want to put the single family up against
this. We are coming in with what we call the loop concept. It creates a
neighborhood within an overall neighborhood. This is one here and one located
here. Our park area, meets or exceeds your ten percent requirement for open
space. We do have some existing mature trees that are on the site right here.
This collector roadway was designed at this location because there is additional
property to the east and that would provide service. We were understand
discussions at this time for the possibility for maybe an elementary school
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 22
located there if the school district is agreeable to that. If so, that use would
generate approximately 2,000 trips a day and therefore the need for this collector
roadway. Also, with a nice open park, we have a good view corridor into the
project and we have also proposed a homeowner's rec center in our project.
This gives you a little better view of what it would look like. The rec center would
be located right here, adjoining this entrance. The character would be kind of
Mediterranean. We would have a swimming pool, restrooms, and this would
function as a sales office in the beginning and then after the project moves
northward and another center is constructed, we would then utilize that just for
the homeowner's association. There would also be a tower that's attached to the
recreation building. This kind of gives you a conceptual view of what it will look
like. The height is 35 feet and it would be within the height limitation for that R-4
zone. We feel that we have a unique project and we are going to continue to
carry this type of loop and collector theme throughout the project with amenities
and recreation centers that would be available to these residents. Moving on to
the conditions, I'll highlight those issues that we differed on. For clarification on
annexation and site specific requirement number 3, staff has indicated that they
would like a 20 foot buffer located on this west side because this is zoned R-4.
My comment to them, was we would do a 20 foot setback of the buildings or any
parking, therefore have that 20 foot buffer and provide that. We understand that
you are not approving this office, we just want it to be on the record that that is
our intent so in the future when we come back to rezone that, there is no
discrepancies. Staff had a question on the single point of ingress and egress,
ACHD policy manual allows us to have one point of ingress and egress for up to
100 homes. They work with us; like we have approximately 106 buildable lots,
they work with us well. My understanding is your Fire Department on another
development with similar type design allowed them to have up to 130 homes on
one single access. This collector roadway that we are working on our design to
the north will continue on to Ten Mile and then swing out to Linder Road. We will
have a very complex network of collector roadways. Staff indicated that they
thought it might be a good idea to stripe these collectors for bike paths. In our
discussion concerning that, we thought that if we were going to have high
volumes on our collectors, we wouldn't want to mix our bicycles with the vehicles.
The way this was structured, we have an existing bridge here that could take
bicycle traffic and walking traffic. Then we've got networks that come through
with pedestrian pathways that link all the way through the project, so you can go
from one pod to the next ,et cetera I don't necessarily know if that's such a good
idea. It was not recommended by ACHD. That is Item 10 under preliminary plat
requirements. Item 12 was the issue of the relief line. That existing sewer truck
that is right here, the City intends to construct a relief line parallel to that, offset
15 feet. Based on the information that Bruce and I were reviewing this
afternoon, it appears that that permanent easement would be right here at the
back of these lots. That line starts veering away from us in this area. There is
about 5 lots where that 25-foot permanent easement would be right on that lot
line. There is a temporary construction easement that does overlap. I guess
what I'd like to do is try to work with the staff since I'd hate to not be able to install
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 23
of some of these improvements when we go through and say put our pressurized
irrigation in, I'd hate to stop it and leave out this whole length here. Obviously by
the time you come on line, we are looking at next year. Hopefully that relief line
will be in. We feel that there is plenty of room to work with. Obviously we will
cooperate with your staff and I'd like to find some middle ground there instead of
stating that these lots can not be built on a no improvements. Conditional Use
requirement number 3 on pathways, I think staff asked me to address that in the
public hearing. I did meet with Mr. Kuntz today at the Parks Department. I
asked the question about Five Mile Creek, since on your comprehensive plan
that is designated as a pathway. This is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. It
is a 140 foot swath, that is owned in fee simple. So it's not an easement, so any
pathway would have to go on Bureau of Rec's property. The maintenance is
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, so a license agreement would have to be
signed by some type of entity for that pathway. I asked Mr. Kuntz about the
pathway as far as what the plan is. He indicated that the City would be installing
the pathway. Obviously he didn't have any requests of us. We have a linkage
here that would link into that and that was one reason why we chose this location
for our park was because it is along that pathway and when the pathway is
improved in the future, you have bicyclists, you have people walking and jogging.
This is a nice destination area off the pathway and it would be a great linkage.
The School District, one of their hopes is that they can do a joint site as a park/
school site. They are usually bigger than the standard 12-acre elementary site,
they will use around 14 to15 acres, but they work very well. Hopefully we can
make some progress. I don't think that is a critical use this evening, because
obviously this is going to be improved open space since we are coming in under
a PUD. Whether it is private or public, whether impact fees are issued or not,
that's an issue that would be worked out with the Parks Department. This is a
two-phase project. Under your Section 1267(e4), it does allow for the common
area to be dedicated to a public body under your PUD chapter. The ordinance
does address it, but it doesn't give a lot of guidance, but allows for that.
Barbeiro: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would
like to speak in favor of this proposal?
Watson: My name is Warren Watson, 1680 W. Ustick Road, Meridian. She
made a couple of comments that I disagree with. She said that the Bureau of
Reclamation owns Five Mile Creek. They have an easement only to run water
across my land, I own the land and I pay taxes on the land. You better check
again before you start putting a jogging path through there. When you do, if you
will let me know, then maybe I will get this corrected. The next concern that I had
was right behind the house, there is a cemetery, 5 acres. I don't know what
means you are taking to address it, but I do have a solution for you if you would
like to talk with me later. As far as the irrigation company, I've been fighting with
them for 30 years. They call that an old drain ditch. That is not Five Mile Creek.
We can pollute an old drain ditch, but we can't pollute Five Mile Creek. If you
check your records again, you also own all the underneath. The homeowners do
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 24
own to the middle of Ustick Road, they have an easement. The Bureau of
Reclamation has an easement across my land for two reasons. One is to dig
and two is to run water and three, to maintain, they have a right to come down
and maintain.
Barbeiro: Anyone else like to speak in favor of the proposal? Seeing none,
anyone like to speak in opposition to this proposal? Seeing none. I did have a
question for Becky. Becky, what is the anticipated total build out on this
development?
Bowcutt: As far as the development in it's entirety, 10 to 15 years. The number
of lots, the first phase would consist of approximately 50 lots and the second
phase would be the remainder.
Barbeiro: You said there would be additions to this particular development to go
up Ten Mile and to continue over to Linder.
Bowcutt: The loop on the west side will start here.
Nary: What is the big picture? How many phases; how many total lots? You
talked about a collector road going up Ten Mile and heading back to Linder. I'm
looking at the parcels with major large sized parcels and I'm looking at which
ones they will be potentially be. What are we talking about, 500 lots, a
thousand?
Bowcutt: For the record, I can't tell you the exact number of lots because we are
still formulating our concept. We are on the fourth version of the concept and the
number of lots vary. The size of the lots, the smallest lots I believe we have are
typically in excess of 8,000 SQUARE FOOT, they go all the way up to 15-20,000
square foot We are bringing this particular plat through at this time because it is
isolated by the crease and lateral. It is also serviced by another trunk line
unrelated to the White Trunk. One of the things that we had discussed is, once
we open the Ustick entrance then also thereafter, we would be opening the Ten
Mile entrance. The next preliminary plat that you will see, will consist of the
remainder of the parcels. There are multiple parcels, multiple owners that have
been combined to make up this particular project. It's not a piece meal project in
any shape or form. We have done excessive planning to make sure that we are
planning the collector's, the pathways, the amenities. That will be needed to
support the project.
Nary: I guess I want to address Mr. Watson's concerns regarding the ownership
of the other parcel. That really doesn't have an impact on your application or
does it?
Bowcutt: We are not infringing within that 140 feet that's designated. For the
record, the Ada County Assessor's map, it states that is it the United States
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 25
Government. My conversations with John Kaywood at Bureau of Rec, he
indicated to me that they do own it in fee simple. Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District confirmed that. I guess I would have to review Mr. Watson's information.
The information that I received from the governing agencies claimed that it was
theirs. Obviously, like I said, we don't impact it, so in fact, it is moot. To answer
your questions, obviously the magnitude of the next plat will be different from
what the Planning & Zoning Commission has seen in the past as far as the size
and the complexity. However, you need to remember that everything won't come
on line simultaneously, a project of that size happens over 15 year time period. If
the proper improvements and public facilities, such as sewer, water, collectors,
are made, then obviously the system can handle it. Ten Mile, once that
interchange goes through in the future, which according to some members of
your communities, is going to be soon, we will see Ten Mile Road become
another Eagle Road.
Norton: Are you envisioning another Banbury where they started small and just
kept growing? Is that similar to what your project is going to encompass
approximately?
Bowcutt: Are you comparing to the size of the lots or how it just eventually
spread westward?
Norton: How it spread.
Bowcutt: Yes. This project, you'd obviously open up multiple access points into
it. We would be providing three different levels of homes. This particular level
here would be your $150,000 to 190,000 range and it will go up from there. We
are deviating on our frontages, the lots are a little narrower, but we compensated
with our depth. Most of our lots are in that 120 range, I've got some that are
even 148 feet deep.
Norton: I have another question regarding the cemetery that Mr. Watson referred
to. Are you aware of where that cemetery is?
Bowcutt: Yes. We have located it.
Norton: What are your plans regarding this?
Bowcutt: If you see these two houses here, these are two existing homes.
These are the Young's homes. Their driveway currently comes out here. If you
follow that due north, that cemetery is right up here, approximately 600 to 800
feet north of those homes. We have located it, we have been gathering
information on the historical value of it, we have spent many hours trying to
figure out what is the best way to handle it and to incorporate it into the
development, but not make it a focal point. I'd be glad to talk to Mr. Watson and
get any information he has.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 26
Hatcher: You addressed staff comments on bike paths and ACHD's review of
that as well. Clarify for me what you had stated. The recommendation was that
the bike paths be painted on the asphalt of the collector roads, are you providing
adjacent bike/pedestrian paths to those collectors and also is that what's being
snaked around as part of the Greenbelt.
Bowcutt: We will have offset sidewalks here and a meandering offset sidewalk
here. This will be a bridge over Five Mile Creek, it will be decorative with
probably some rock fascia. Then the sidewalks are detached and meandering
along both sides of the collector.
Hatcher: So there is a detached meandering sidewalk adjacent to the collector.
Bowcutt: Yes, we are planning in our concept for the future preliminary plat, we
are working on creating pathways along the White Drain, running in the
east- west direction, we are also working on trying to create a pathway along this
crease and lateral so when it's piped in the future, it wouldn't just be a gravel
corridor. We know we will have to honor that Nampa Meridian easement and
we'd like to do something that will have some usefulness, still attractive and
meets the needs of Nampa Meridian. That would be another bicycle-pedestrian
linkage here. We have this ped path here, it drops you right down to here, there
is an existing bridge here that is concrete, about 20 feet wide used for vehicular
purposes at this time. My recommendation was it would be left there and be an
excellent use for pedestrians and bicycles to come across and then get on that
sidewalk there.
Hatcher: Do you feel it is adequate to carry the loads of children from an
elementary school throughout the subdivision while also accommodating the
1,000 trip traffic on the adjacent road?
Bowcutt: Yes sir I do. I wouldn't want the kids riding in the roadway of the
collectors. The collectors can have up to 8,000 trips a day. I'd like to keep the
bikes detached away from those roadways.
Nary: When I look at this Preliminary Plat Requirement 10, if ACHD does not
require the bike lane, this condition is not requiring bike lanes. It says work with
ACHD to coordinate bike lanes.
Hatcher: The City Ordinance 12-4-12, states that the bicycle and pedestrian
pathway should be encouraged. The staff recommends that the applicant
coordinate with ACHD to provide the bike lanes within the right-of-way.
Nary: It doesn't sound to me that that's a requirement that they have to have
bike lanes on the pathway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 27
Hatcher: This would not require them to put them in if ACHD didn't want them.
Nary: Bicycle and pedestrian pathways are encouraged within the new
development. So it appears from Ms. Bowcutt stated, they are having something
like that, it's just not going to be on the roadway. On the conditional use
requirements number 1, I thought was simple a normal boiler plate about other
conditions being imposed. It appears from Ms. Bowcutt's response, she simply
asked they all be included in the document.
Hatcher: You have the opportunity to provide additional conditions above and
beyond what staff requirements are in the ordinances.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Siddoway: Just to speak from staff perspective on Conditional Use Permit
Requirement No. 3, regarding the pathway along this Bureau of Reclamation site
on Five Mile Creek. In my conversations with Brad Hawkins-Clark this afternoon,
I was under the impression that the applicant had agreed to construct those
pathways. I was just point out that this information that was presented about
Tom Kuntz at the Park Department that the City was going to build those, is new
to me and strikes me as odd. The condition simply states the applicant is to
coordinate pathway improvements with the Meridian Park's Director, so I think
that statement can continue as is.
Bowcutt: Mr. Hawkins-Clark and I did have a discussion, I think he kind of got off
track. The discussion we had was pitting two agencies against each other, that if
the City wanted the pathway constructed, we would obviously have to get
approval from Nampa Meridian. The continue to harp on this issue of liability and
that they will agree to it if the City will indemnify them and so my discussion was I
could not commit to anything that I have no power to make happen. We never
indicated that we would construct that pathway because we weren't quite sure
what the City's position would be. Obviously Mr. Kuntz was quite clear that the
City would do it. He didn't want any participation or input from us.
Barbeiro: Any further questions?
Nary: I move to close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second.
Barbeiro: A motion and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Hatcher: I would like to ask for a staff summary over the discussion we have had
over the last hour. I would like the staff to address specifically is Becky's
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 28
answers. You had concerns; she gave us responses to those concerns. Are you
satisfied with her responses as in writing or do you need further information to
her responses?
Siddoway: In my mind, the biggest ongoing issues deal with the parks and the
impact fees been waived or not. That is something that won't necessarily hold it
up at this stage of the game. It is something that needs to be worked out. The
issue of the sewer easement is that we don't have the information from Brad
Watson yet on the timing. We don't have that information for the applicant yet.
Hatcher: Is that something that can be worked out?
Siddoway: That will have to be referred to Public Works on that. I guess as far
as the temporary construction easement situation goes, obviously we have a
construction easement there to give us adequate room that we need to construct
the line. We felt that that area was needed or we wouldn't have asked for the
easement. As far as timing on that line goes, we can nail that down prior to the
Council. Brad Watson is the engineer coordinating that job. I would like for that
comment to stand as written from our perspective. Becky's comments about the
north boundary of the permanent easement not encroaching on the lots, from
what her and I looked at today, I concur with that. I don't think the permanent
easement would get into those lots. I think it's the construction easement that is
the stickler here and unfortunately I can't give you the information that is really
needed tonight.
Hatcher: Clarification of parliamentary procedure, we've opened up public
hearing for Items No. 6, 7, and 8. This motion is for the annexation and zoning.
I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for Item No. 6, AZ-00-
017 annexation and zoning of 52.90 acres from RT to R-4 by Primeland
Development Co., LLP for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision, north of Ustick and
east of Ten Mile as proposed to include staff comments and applicant's rebuttal
comments.
Nary: Second.
Barbeiro: The motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7 Public Hearing: CUP-00-043 Request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of 106
buildable lots by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed
Bridgetower Subdivision – North of Ustick and East of Ten Mile.
Barbeiro: We will open public hearing Item No. 7, request for conditional use
permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of 106 buildable lots
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 29
by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision. Mr.
Siddoway, do you wish to incorporate any comments?
Siddoway: Yes. My comments as previously ceded. Please incorporate them.
Barbeiro: Ms. Bowcutt, you wanted to continue to incorporate your comments?
Thank you.
Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing.
Norton: Second.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval for Item No. 7, CUP-00-043
request for conditional use permit to construct a Planned Unit Development
consisting of 106 buildable lots by Primeland Development Co., LLP, for
proposed Bridgetower Subdivision, north of Ustick and east of Ten Mile to include
staff comments and applicant's rebuttal comments.
Nary: Second.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 8 Public Hearing: PP-00-017 Request for Preliminary Plat for
proposed Bridgetower Subdivision – 106 building lots, 1 H.O.A.
recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone by Primeland Development Co., LLP – North
of Ustick and East of Ten Mile.
Barbeiro: We will open the public hearing for request for preliminary plat for
proposed Bridgetower Subdivision, 106 building lots, 1 H.O.A. recreation center,
1 park lot and 19 common lots on 46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by
Primeland Development Co., LLP. Mr. Siddoway, do you wish to incorporate
your comments?
Siddoway: Yes, please.
Barbeiro: Ms. Bowcutt, did you wish to incorporate your comments? Yes. Mr.
Watson, did you wish to incorporate your comments? Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 30
Teebar: My name is Ted Teebar, 2554 West Pebblestone Court. My question for
you is proposed office site area is in the interest of Fieldstone Meadows
subdivision, where I live. I'm just curious and concerned who decides what kinds
of businesses are there.
Nary: This Board primarily does but it is governed by zoning ordinance, limited
office (LO zone). Which pretty much dictates these are the types of businesses
that can be put in an LO zone which is your dentist office, optometrist, card shop,
flower shop. They are low; there are different requirements. They will be a
relatively low traffic volume, more office than retail. ACHD requirement is that
main entrances line up with one another.
Hatcher: Over on McMillan by Lowell Scott School and Pioneer Elementary, they
had the same kinds of concerns in buildings there. There are some light offices
there. Depending on where you live, you will likely get a first-class mailing notice
or you are going to see something in the newspaper of somebody proposing to
build something there. Ms. Bowcutt said that this is one of their long-term plan
and it may be one year to five years from now.
Teebar: We will receive notice?
Nary: Anyone within 300 feet.
Barbeiro: Anyone else from the audience wish to comment on this? Seeing
none.
Siddoway: Staff comments regarding the easement for sewer along the north
side of Five Mile Creek. As written, staff comments are pretty absolute the way
we have written those, no encroachments until such time as the relief line is
constructed. In your discussion you talked about accepting Becky's comments
as written. The concern I have is the way her comments are written. The third
line says that if the lots do not encroach within the permanent easement and
adequate area is available for installation of the relief line, then this condition
should be removed. It's a suggestion and kind of subjective.
Hatcher: You and I are on the same line. This one has modifications on 10 and
12. We are okay. I make a motion to close the public hearing.
Nary: Second.
Barbeiro: Motion is second to close the public hearing? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to City Council for Item No. 8,
PP-00-017, request for preliminary plat for proposed Bridgetower Subdivision for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 31
106 building lots, 1 H.O.A. recreation center, 1 park lot and 19 common lots on
46.2 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Primeland Development Co., LLP, north of
Ustick and east of Ten Mile, to include staff comments and applicant's response
comments with the following modifications. For preliminary plat requirement No.
10, I would like to modify that requirement that the painted bike paths on the
roadway not be required that the applicant's path system is adequate and Item
10 not to be required. The other modification is that Item No. 12 stand as
written by staff.
Nary: Second.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second. Any discussion?
Norton: I just have discussion, is the acreage correct, 46.2, compared to the
52.9 figure that we previously annexed?
Siddoway: The annexation includes the two houses from the old farm which I
don't think is part of the plat at this time.
Hatcher: It is part of the plat, the difference is that the annexation goes to the
center lines of the road and the right-of-ways and the plat does not include those.
The acreage on the annexation is greater than the acreage on the plat.
Barbeiro: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Commissioners, would you wish to take a short break here. We will
take a five-minute break here.
(Meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.)
Barbeiro: We are ready to reconvene our Planning & Zoning meeting.
Item 9 Public Hearing: CUP-00-042 Request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct a Carl's Jr. restaurant with a drive-thru window
by Greenstar Foods and TFCM – Pad P-3 at the Meridian
Crossroads Center.
Barbeiro: Item No. 9, request for conditional use permit to construct a Carl's Jr.
restaurant with a drive-thru window by Greenstar Foods and TFCM, pad P-3 at
the Meridian Crossroads Center. Mr. Siddoway, do you have a presentation for
us?
Siddoway: The Item before you is Carl's Jr. at the existing Family Center
Development near the intersection of Fairview and Eagle. This application is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 32
very similar to the application as before you last month with the Arby's. It is
required to come through as a separate conditional use permit due to the drive-
thru that is proposed with the Carl's Jr. I have some site photos. The first photo
is standing inside the Family Center looking towards Eagle Road, due west, the
area is in grass is the proposed pad site. A little to the north and looking
southwest, you can see the buildings for Blue Cross on the other side of Eagle in
the background there. This is the pad site here in the foreground. You can see
the Family Center Development in the rear, Sheppler's in this location, the
entrance off Eagle Road right where I'm standing in this picture, looking across
the proposed site. This is the proposed site plan, the entrance called Florence
Street that comes off Eagle Road on the side. The application that you looked at
last month was in this location right here with a drive-thru. This is directly north
of it on the other side of Florence Street. Again, the stacking coming around
through here and wrapping around this way. No particular points of contention or
hot buttons that I know of on this one. It appears to have similar stacking depth
as the application as before you last month and we feel it is adequate. There
was an issue of provision of five-foot sidewalks in the area behind the dumpster
location at this point because it did narrow down. Make sure that all the
proposed parking dimensions are as per City ordinance. You will notice the first
staff comment deals with the ACHD letter and that it states that it reiterates that
same issue again that was presented last time that the building permits will not
be issues until ACHD's requirements have been met and they state it is okay to
release those building permits. As per the requirements of the conditional use
permit and they have now reach critical square footage for the development that
will require them to put in improvements on Fairview and Eagle Roads. That
requirement needs to be fulfilled before issuance of the building permits. These
are the elevations of the proposed Carl's Jr. with the on building signage that you
can see. They also have a single monument sign that has been approved for the
pad as per the conditional use permit. That is all I have and will defer to the
applicant to see if there is any problem with staff comments.
Barbeiro: The applicant, please.
Bauwens: My name is Tom Bauwens, Dakota Company, 380 East Park Center
Boulevard, Boise. I'm here on behalf of Developers Diversified and Greenstar
Foods presenting this application. I'd like to put up a master site plan to kind of
give you a reference of where we are at on this project and where everything is.
Just a little point of reference, ShopKo is completed, Sheppler's, Bed Bath and
Beyond, and Old Navy is here and Office Depot is under construction here,
WalMart is over in this corner and Arby's was here on pad P-2 and Carl's Jr. is
here on pad P-3. Applebee's is currently under construction on pad P-5 and
International House of Pancakes, IHOP on P-8. The development continues
quite rapidly. As far as the conditional use application and the staff comments, I
would like to expand a little bit about the ACHD comment and the building permit
status. That is correct that there is a 450,000 square foot threshold in our ACHD
comments. With the WalMart under construction, we are over the 450,000
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 33
square foot ACHD has allowed us to proceed since WalMart is going to take
several months to complete. We are in and have been in quite sometime now, in
design efforts with ACHD on the required street improvements for Pine Street,
the signal at Pine Street and Eagle Road and also for the Fairview Eagle
intersection upgrade. That design work has been ongoing for several months,
we submitted our first set of plans to ACHD in December. We are in August and
still working with them on plans. It has taken a considerable amount of time. We
are also in agreement with ACHD on the sharing ration on those two projects.
So I hope the signed development agreements with ACHD on both Eagle Road
and Fairview intersection upgrade and also the Pine Street traffic signal
installation and the extension of Pine Street on our frontage. They are
continuing to process our plans. We will be submitting our 75 percent plans this
week to ACHD, if we can keep this thing moving and they can keep from beating
us up with their comments and changes and add-ons, et cetera. I hope to be out
for bids on that project within October time frame and start on it yet this year. We
are moving and have been working on it diligently with the cooperation of ACHD
as the best we can get it. There will be a letter forthcoming because of the time
frame it has taken to complete this work. They will cooperate with us on this
450,000 square-foot threshold because it has been an ongoing back and forth
between us and them, and they are part of the reason it has taken so long to get
where we are trying to get. That is a little update on that, as far as the other
comments by staff, we can meet and will meet all the other ones. We have no
problems with any of the other conditions of approval.
Nary: I noted that there is a public comment by a Robert L. Stucker, 3898 East
Florence. What he is asking is that a traffic light be installed at East Presidential
Drive and Eagle Road. At looking at the site plan, that appears to be south of
where this entrance is.
Bauwens: Yes. The signal will be installed at Pine Street. This is per ITD this
makes the spacing between Fairview intersection, Pine Street and Franklin
Road. All three of these signals will be interconnected to create gaps in there.
We have already installed the conduit as part of this widening.
Nary: It appears to me that the traffic light is not in our purview to do and it is at
East Presidential Drive. It really isn't relevant to this particular application.
Bauwens: In all of the discussions over the last two years that we have been
working on this project, the signal has always been at Pine Street. That is part of
the school, extension of Pine Street to the new school, all the way to Cloverdale,
that is a 90-foot right-of-way for a collector street continuation.
Hatcher: When they refer to the 450,000 square foot threshold that ACHD has
put on the project, you referred to the fact that WalMart project put you over that
threshold. Is that not separate development? You are involved with both of
them, but is it not a separate development?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 34
Bauwens: Yes and no. It was a separate project, it's on it's own subdivision plat,
it's separated by Records Drive. If you went all the way back to our original
project, half of the WalMart site was under the Crossroads Shopping Center
project, only half of the WalMart was added and so it was incorporated into the
project as part of the whole complex. ACHD's conditions of approval applied
also to the WalMart when we went through that process. With WalMart, we are
at approximately 485,000 square foot in that vicinity.
Nary: You have no particular objections to Site-Specific Requirement No. 1.
Bauwens: We are working on that with ACHD. As I mentioned, there is a letter
forthcoming from Mr. Sale. I would point to the sentence in here, unless
otherwise approved by ACHD. We are in constant communication with ACHD.
Barbeiro: This is the direction of the drive-thru and the window sits about here?
Bauwens: Yes. There is quite a bit of stacking line.
Barbeiro: This is an open public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who
wishes to testify in favor of this project? Seeing none, is there anyone who
wishes to testify in opposition of this project? Seeing none.
Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing.
Norton: Second.
Barbeiro: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Discussion?
Norton: I'll move under No. 9, public hearing CUP-00-042, request for
conditional use permit to construct a Carl's Jr. restaurant with a drive-thru
window by Greenstar Foods and TFCM, pad P-3 at the Meridian Crossroads
Center, that we recommend approval to the City Council with all staff comments.
Nary: Second.
Barbeiro: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 10 Public Hearing: PFP-00-002 Request for Preliminary/ Final Plat
for proposed Presidential Subdivision – three building lots on
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 35
10.99 acres in I-L zone by Developers Diversified/ Dakota
Company – southeast corner of Presidential Dr. and Eagle Road at
the Meridian Crossroads Center.
Barbeiro: Item No. 10, public hearing request for preliminary and final plat for
proposed Presidential Subdivision, three building lots on 10.99 acres in I-L zone
by Developers Diversified and Dakota Company, southeast corner of Presidential
Drive and Eagle Road at the Meridian Crossroads Center. Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: This is extending the project that we were just talking about to the
south of Presidential Drive. Currently in developing this area, wrapping around
the Crossroads Subdivision here, this subdivision before you right now is this
hatched area between Presidential Drive and what will be the extension of Pine
Street. Some site photos taken standing where Pine Street will extend looking
towards the Family Center, in the background; Eagle Road being on my left here,
and panning and looking over towards the existing Crossroads Subdivision in this
site photo here. This is the dirt road on the south side of the project that will be
Pine Street when the improvements are completed. This is the proposed plat. It
is a 3 lot plat, one main lot following this configuration here and then two lots in
either corner along Eagle Road. We've issued staff comments and the applicant
has responded to those. I would point out the points of contention. The first one
is Comment No. 2 regarding the common lots. We had asked for landscaped
buffers be required along Eagle Road, Pine Avenue and up against Crossroads
Subdivision at a minimum of 20 feet in each location and that they be provided
on a separate common lot. This is a standard request that we make so that if,
for example, one of these lots is sold to someone else, that the upkeep of those
common lots will be maintained by business owners association and any
enforcement issues, we could deal with one entity and not three. They have not
been required to do a common lot in the Records East Subdivision, which is the
one WalMart is part of. I do not see this as a do or die issue, but one that we
request just for enforcement simplicity. The second issue, number 6, they would
like to change, staff comments say a 6 to 8 foot wall, they say it should be a state
of 6 foot wall. The existing walls that were put in 6, they have been increased to
8, so I think the 6 to 8 feet is fine. I would add that it should be measured from
the parking lot elevation. The 6- to 8-foot wall requirement from the parking lot
elevation and on that same issue, we have said that that wall should be
completed prior to the issuance of building permits. They have requested that
that be changed to certificate of occupancy, the first certificate of occupancy. We
ask that that not be changed, that it is primarily there for the noise during the
construction, the transfer of debris, and things and we would like to see that wall
in place prior to construction taking place on the site. The final one is No. 8, we
have requested that the sidewalks along Eagle Road, detach from Eagle Road
and move into that landscape buffer to provide some separation for the
pedestrians on the sidewalk along Eagle Road. It is true that the area to the
north has attached sidewalks. We requested that they be detached and the
applicant has responded saying that it shouldn't have to be detached. We would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 36
still like to see them detached and we would like to see that detached scenario
continue south for when the developments come in. Those are the outstanding
issues and I will stand for any questions. There was a requirement with the
original CUP, there was some landscaping along Presidential Drive on the south
side that was tore out when the improvements where put in and it was supposed
to be put in "equivalent or better." That has not been done yet and that
landscaping also needs to be provided for in addition to the landscape buffer that
we already talked about along Eagle Pine and up against Crossroads
Subdivision. I would add the landscaping along Presidential Drive to that.
Norton: Steve, I have a question. Did staff specifically make no
recommendation on this? I see no place where staff recommends approval or
not approval. Was that just left off or intentional?
Siddoway: The intention was to recommend approval with staff comments.
Norton: I don't see that sentence in here.
Barbeiro: Would the applicant like to come forward please?
Bauwens: I'd like to refresh everyone's knowledge of the project. What we had
original envisioned down in that area, which has been basically Phase III of the
project. This is a site plan that was submitted with the original conditional use
permit application quite some time ago. The area between Pine and the existing
Presidential Drive along the Eagle Road frontage of approximately 11 acres; this
is a site plan that was submitted along time ago to show the concept of what was
envisioned in that area. We showed several major tenants along the back and
three pads along Eagle Road frontage. What we are proposing tonight is to
subdivide that to create two pad lots, one in each corner and then a major lot for
some type of use. We are not here to get into the uses and everything. We
have no plans for what is going to be here at this time. We are just creating lots
to help market the pad locations in this immediate area. The square footage in
that particular area totaled approximately 126,000 square-foot of retail space.
With this application, we are creating three lots, obviously Pine Street and
Presidential Drive stay as they were envisioned and no entrances on Eagle Road
are anticipated. I'd just like to go briefly through the conditions of approval as
Steve mentioned. Preliminary plat condition number 2, the staff has asked for a
common lot to dedicate the landscape setback areas along Pine Street, Eagle
Road, Presidential Drive and adjacent to Crossroads Subdivision. There again,
to refresh everybody's memory, this acreage was part of the original conditional
use permit application, those landscape setback areas are defined in that
conditional use permit application as 20 feet along the residential areas, 20 feet
along Eagle Road, 20 feet along Pine Street, and there was no width along
Presidential outlined in the conditional use permit. We don't see a need for a
common lot. We would prefer that the setback areas be designated as a note on
the final plat that these are 20-foot setback areas per the conditional use permit.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 37
This is the methodology used on the Records East Subdivision plat for the
WalMart project as a note on the final plat. There is no common lot on that
subdivision. This requirement did not come up over there. The entire project is
under a common area maintenance agreement and a cross easement use
agreement from all the tenants, it's recorded against the property. A project of
this size, will have a full-time maintenance manager on site all the time. That's a
policy of Developers Diversified when it reaches a certain threshold, there is a
full-time property manager that is assigned to the project. We see no need for a
common lot, it wasn't a requirement for the last plat that we went through and I
think the need can be accomplished with a note on the final plat and with the
requirements of the conditional use permit which is also noted on the final plat. I
believe the protection is there for the setback areas. As far as the comment
number 5, detailed landscape plan for all common lots. If we strike the common
lot requirement, that phraseology can be revised to we will submit landscape
plans for all setback areas as part of the plat review process. As far as that,
Steve's comment on the landscape area for the south side of Presidential, work
began on that project yesterday. They started hauling top soil in and we will
continue to complete that project in the next two to three weeks. I've have
submitted landscape plans to the City staff several weeks ago and I have also
given a copy of the plans to the Crossroads Homeowner's Association so they
are aware of what we are doing. I have had an awful time getting Sterling
Landscaping out there this time of year to do anything, they are just booked up.
They did start hauling top soil and will continue to get that project completed in
the next few weeks per the drawings we have submitted to the City. As far as
Item No. 6, condition for the 6- to 8-foot wall. I don't like conditions that give a
range. We need to be specific. I would prefer that it be written to 6 feet above
the parking lot as we have mandated now on the Phase I portion of this. When
you leave ranges, I guess I can build 7, it is uncertain. I would prefer that it be
rewritten to 6 foot above the finished parking lot grade on the Shopping Center
side. There again, I would request that it will be installed as part of the normal
construction sequencing, whoever goes first in that subdivision, the wall would
have to be completed before they open for business. If the pad, for example, in
the southwest corner would be down on Pine Street and Eagle Road, if he was
to go first, that is quite a ways from the residential area. I think the mid
construction impact would be minimal at that time. I think it could be tied to the
first certificate of occupancy, whichever of the three that may be. As far as
condition number 8, sidewalks on Eagle Road. I would just reemphasize that the
sidewalks have been completed on the Phase I all the way from Presidential to
Records Drive at this time. It is a five foot attached sidewalk with curb, gutter
and drainage. The sidewalks are being installed as part of the WalMart project,
ACHD has asked that we increase the width of those sidewalks to seven feet but
they will be attached to the curb, gutter system. So they will be seven foot
attached sidewalks. ACHD's policy now is if it's attached, it's seven feet wide, if
it's detached it's 2-foot landscaped area and five-foot sidewalk. I would prefer to
stay with the ACHD requirement seven foot attached. We anticipate doing curb,
gutter and drainage along Eagle Road as part of the Eagle Road improvements.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 38
I would propose a seven foot attached sidewalk along Eagle Road. We would
file the sidewalks around onto Pine Street and the sidewalks already exist on
Presidential. I gave you a brief synopsis of where we are at on Pine Street,
Presidential Road has already been upgraded last summer to the conditions of
ACHD in the Shopping Centers conditions of approval.
Barbeiro: Any questions? Steve, your request was to put a meandering
sidewalk as opposed to the sidewalk along the road. We have swilled along the
sidewalk, how would we incorporate the sidewalks and the swills to allow for
drainage?
Siddoway: They haven't proposed the size of those swills until the development
plans come through. I don't know that we would have to have swills in this
section.
Bauwens: The swills that you are speaking of are up along Eagle Road towards
Fairview. Those drainage swills are in the proposed right-of-way for the Urban
Interchange at Eagle and Fairview Avenue. Those swills are in what would be
right-of-way sold to ACHD. They have elected not to purchase that right-of-way
from us at this time until it is needed. They asked us to set that aside, which we
did. That's why you see that large area. During that design process, we put the
drainage in that to utilize that area. In the time the elected to build the Urban
Interchange, but those will all have to be reworked and it will all be different. As
far as the meandering sidewalks, in the original conditional use permit, it just
required five-foot sidewalks, there was no mention of meandering in the
conditional use permit that is on the project at this time. I don't have any problem
going to the seven foot attached sidewalk as we are doing on the WalMart
project.
Nary: You don't foresee any concerns if a meandering sidewalk was replaced
there and interfering with a drainage swill.
Bauwens: We haven't designed the drainage for that frontage of Eagle Road
yet. I would imagine that we would do curb and gutter and put it into some type
of seepage bed as we did on the other part. Although there is a large ditch along
Pine Street now that may be able to take some drainage. We haven't got into
that. I'm not sure what the plans is for that large drainage structure where Pine
Street is. The meandering sidewalks can present problems if we try to keep
them in the right-of-way if there is enough right-of-way to get meandering
sidewalks in there. We have always envisioned just the normal curb, gutter and
sidewalk. ITD has no interest in buying our right-of-way. The Urban Interchange
is a hot topic between ITD and ACHD on who is going to buy the right-of-way.
Nary: Another comment had to do with the common lot and what were your
reassurances that there wouldn't be any concerns. What I understand staff
comments to be, is that if those other lots are sold to secondary buyers and it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 39
becomes a separate ownership apart from your own, can we be assured that
your own property management will maintain all setbacks properly.
Bauwens: Your assurance would come under the fact that there is a common
area maintenance agreement recorded against the property, that all tenants
participate in monetarily.
Nary: We want to be certain that we would have to go to three or five different
land owners to enforce the landscaping.
Bauwens: I'm not sure what protection you would have under common lots.
Somebody has to maintain a common lot and be responsible for that to, so you
would come back to the same common lot manager.
Hatcher: I don't see a requirement or a need for a common lot. We don't have it
on the Crossroads, or on the WalMart. I don't see a need for this one. It is a
continuous development of the same developer, under the same design
perimeters. I use that same logic for the meandering sidewalks. I support
meandering sidewalks, but in this condition, I don't see that as valid. I think for
the City's best interest that we maintain design consistency so that the entire
project stays as a whole. I think it would be wise to require the seven-foot
sidewalks, but maintain them as attached and if staff so desires south of Pine to
start the meandering sidewalks, then do so at that time. Let's not break up the
consistency of the design perimeters that have already been established. It
would make our City look better if we keep it consistent.
Barbeiro: Any other questions?
Norton: Just for my information, does this Crossroad Shopping Center cross
Pine?
Bauwens: Most of that is being developed as industrial at this time. We have no
plans to go south of Pine.
Barbeiro: If there are no further questions? Do we have anyone here that would
like to speak in favor of the project?
Corvall: My name is Robert Corvall, 3653 East Presidential Drive in the
Crossroads Subdivision. This is really not totally for or totally against, just some
comments that I have. I was the Vice President of the Homeowner's Association,
we had a change of office last month. Currently I am the advisor to the new
Board of Directors. Regarding the wall, the wall, as was noted, had to be raised
because it turned out to be only three feet above the parking lot level, and the
residents along the periphery of our subdivision who wanted the wall, wanted it
there to mitigate the noise attended to construction. That was part of the
reasoning for building the wall before construction began in earnest. Typically if
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 40
they follow the same pattern that most developments follow, they would put in
the paving and put in the parking lot, roadways, ahead of time so you will have
some noise from construction in that area. I would think they would come in and
do the paving and what not ahead of time. That is why the wall is there and I
noticed that the wall has not been built by WalMart and I'm not sure why.
Concerning the sidewalk, I do walk along Eagle in the morning. It is a little
unnerving when someone decides to take that right hand turn lane and they are
going 50 if they happen to be going the speed limit. I would like to see a
meandering sidewalk, but I don't believe that was a condition early on. On the
landscaping, as Tom noted, he has been forthcoming and gave us a copy of the
blue print which we shared at our homeowners meeting. We were told it would
be done, but as Tom pointed out, we do have some piles of dirt out there now.
Bauwens: The status on the WalMart wall, the wall will be built as part of the
WalMart project. It will be a concrete wall and run the entire length all the way
down the Crossroads neighborhood and all the way over to Venture Street and
up Venture Street to Fairview. The reason the wall has not started, primarily
because the irrigation ditch that runs along the Crossroads Subdivision. By the
time WalMart started, it was after the irrigation season had begun and there was
water in the ditch and we had no way of turning the water off to get back there to
build the wall. We have to now wait until the water is off in October so they can
get there and clean it up, tile the ditch and complete the wall in that frontage.
Barbeiro: Any discussion?
Nary: I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for PFP-00-
002, request for preliminary and final plat for proposed Presidential Subdivision,
three building lots on 10.99 acres in an I-L zone by Developers Diversified and
Dakota Company, southeast corner of Presidential Drive and Eagle Road at the
Meridian Crossroads Center; to include all staff comments with the following
modifications: the first one is in regards to comment PP No. 2, common lot not
be required; second one PP No. 6, that it be rewritten that it states that a 6-foot
wall from the asphalt surface of the shopping side be installed; and PP No. 8,
that we maintain ACHD requirements and not require a meandering sidewalk.
Nary: Second.
Barbeiro: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 41
Norton: Regarding the sidewalks, the ACHD would be the seven-foot sidewalks?
Hatcher: Correct.
Norton: Staff comment No. 5 regarding the detailed landscape plan, would you
agree to delete the words "common lots" from No. 5?
Hatcher: Yes. Modify PP No. 5 to read that detailed landscape plans should be
submitted for review.
Norton: Add setback areas to be noted on the final plat instead of the common
lot.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and second to the amendment to Commissioner
Hatcher's.
Nary: I just wanted to put on the record for the Council is that the reason I
seconded the motion is because I do agree with Commissioner Hatcher that a
common lot is probably necessary. I agree with the applicant that the plat note is
probably adequate to serve without being inconsistent with the other
development. I think the 6-foot high wall is adequate and the applicant
requested that it be specific is reasonable. The last thing is the detached
sidewalk, I seconded the motion because I do believe that the consistency is
probably the most appropriate, although I wouldn't if this was in a different spot. I
don't believe where this particular subdivision is, that that particular sidewalk
would have a tremendous amount of foot traffic on it. The look and appearance
will be more prevalent and it probably, this particular areas does not appear to
me to be one where there will be a lot of traffic. The risk and concerns of safety
are probably less so than what has already been approved.
Barbeiro: We have a motion and a second to the amendment to Commission
Hatcher's motion? All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Hatcher: I motion that we adjourn this meeting.
Norton: Second.
Barbeiro: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Barbeiro: Adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 8, 2000
Page 42
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:28 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVE:
_______________________________
CHAIRMAN KEITH BORUP
ATTEST:
_______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK