2001 04-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 5, 2001
The City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 5, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members present: Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, Keven Shreeve, Keith
Borup.
Others present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Dave Swartley, Shelby
Ugarriza.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
______Sally Norton ______ Jerry Centers
______Bill Nary ______ Keven Shreeve
______Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: I’d like to open this evening’s meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission. We will begin with roll call. The Planning and Zoning
Commission is a volunteer appointed group. We’re here to gather information
and make recommendations to the City Council. The final decision, on anything
we do, is determined as that decision made by the City Council. Hopefully, we’ve
taken some consideration with our recommendation. We’d like to go ahead and
start.
Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP 01-004 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for Eagle Concrete Pumping in a flood plain
overlay district by Eagle Concrete Pumping – north of King,
east of 5th
Avenue, and west of Baltic Place:
Borup: The first item on the agenda is Item No. 4, Public Hearing. A request for
Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Concrete Pumping and a flood plane overlay
district by Eagle Concrete Pumping, north of King Street, east of 5th
Avenue. I’d
like to begin with the staff report. This is the same that went before us a couple
of months ago. At that time, didn’t we decide it needed to come back for a
Conditional Use Permit, is that why it is here tonight?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, that’s correct, except it is a different lot.
Borup: Oh, it’s a different lot?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah, it is within the same subdivision. This is Meridian Business
and Industrial Park. The fire station here. I believe the other lot -- Bruce, is it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 2
this one? One of these lots, I think, is where the previous application came in.
The crosshatched lot here they have moved it down to the west. The reason you
are seeing this application, the only reason, is since the lot does lie within the
100-year flood plane -- which ordinance requires conditional uses for all buildings
that lie within the flood plane. It is this lot, just east of the Andy Concrete Mix
Facility there. It’s a vacant lot, currently. The Site Plan, which I believe you
should have seen, is pretty much the same, I believe, just making modifications
based on the lot configuration to what you saw previously. King Street is here
along the south. There is one single entrance here off of King Street, the parking
lot, the building. They are showing a future building expansion here to the north.
This would be a fenced off area here for storage. I think there is only two items
on our staff report, dated March 19th
, by Dave McKinnon, that I would point out to
you. No. 8 on Page 3. Just a note, the applicant will need to submit a modified
landscape plan that conforms to our newly adopted Landscape Ordinance. We
feel that that would be fine to submit with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
Then, Item No. 13, on page 3, regarding the future building expansion. Mainly,
as an air quality dust mitigation measure, we are asking for this area back here,
that they are showing for future building expansion, that if it is going to be used
for vehicular use, to either be paved or fenced for regular vehicle use. I think all
the rest are our standard conditions, so I will leave it at that for now.
Borup: Any questions, Commissioners?
Center: I have one question, sir. Item 8 that you referred to, I had noted that
Do they plan to do that prior to the CO, the Certificate of Occupancy?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Centers: So, they would have to have that done before you would issue the
Certificate?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct, Right. Yes, the Certificate of Zoning Compliance,
Commissioner Centers, is required prior to even submitting for a building permit.
So, that would be reviewed by us at that time.
Borup: Is the applicant here? Please come forward.
Larson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my
name is Cornel Larson, address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. This is
pretty much the same application you saw before. We could not make the
grading work for the –
Borup: Excuse me I think we don’t have the mic plugged in here. Is it working?
Okay, sorry. Go ahead Mr. Larson.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 3
Larson: This is pretty much the same application you saw five or six months
ago, but we could not make the grading work on that to get the finished floor, the
one foot above the flood plane that we’re required, without building retaining
walls around the site. The developer of the property agreed to allow this project
to go on another lot and take the previous lot back that we had. So, we don’t
really have any problems with staff conditions and the building hadn’t changed.
We merely, oriented a little differently and moved it on the site to another
location.
Borup: So, you are fine with both conditions, eight and thirteen, as the staff has
stated?
Larson: Yes we are.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you sir. Do we
have anyone here that would like to testify or have any questions on this
application? I see none.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I move to close Public Hearing.
Centers: Second
Borup: We have a motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Motion passed. Do we have a recommendation?
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval for CUP 01-004: Request
for Conditional Use Permit for Eagle Concrete Pumping in a flood plane overlay
district by Eagle Concrete Pumping, north of King, east of 5th
Avenue, and west
of Baltic Place.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion and a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Public Hearing: RZ 01-002 Request for Rezone of 0.51
acres from R-4 to L-O for Idaho Banking Company by
Idaho Banking Company – 403 West Cherry Lane:
Borup: Item No. 5 is a Public Hearing: RZ 01-002. It is a request for Rezone of
0.51 acres from R-4 to L-0 for Idaho Banking Company by the Idaho Banking
Company at 403 West Cherry Lane. I would like to start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 4
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioners, this is again, on Cherry Lane. It’s the
crosshatched parcel here on the south side of Cherry Lane. We ask that our
staff comments dated April 2, 2001 be included in your motion. This has been
used as a chiropractor's office for several years. Currently, in R-4, the ordinance
does require that whenever a property ownership changes, non-conforming
uses, the grandfather use goes away. So, this is an attempt to correct that.
They are proposing a rezone to L-0. This is a photo of the existing building and
lot. I think the only item in their staff report that I would point out to you on page
two is number five, that the existing site does not currently conform to the new
Landscape Ordinance. We are simply asking, that should the building increase
in square footage, at any time, that they be required to comply with the current
ordinances. We are recommending approval of the rezone to Limited Office.
Borup: Any questions for the Commissioners? Do you have any – It looks like
it’s probably not very far off of the Landscape Ordinance, is it? It is hard to tell
from a picture.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think, probably that the main issue is that Cherry Lane
requires a 35-foot buffer.
Borup: That’s what I was going to ask. Which is a little hard to comply with if the
house for the building is already built.
Hawkins-Clark: They would certainly fit the alternative compliance outlet in that,
but it would technically still need to go through that process of making sure that it
complied to –
Borup: Was this originally built as an office building or was it a conversion from
a residence? Do we know?
Hawkins-Clark: Bruce is saying that it was an office to start with.
Borup: So, somehow the zoning wasn’t handled back at that time.
Freckleton: Well, Mr. Chairman, there used to be house right there but, I don’t
know if that was where the original house was. There was a house on that lot
until 1972 or so. So, it may have been (inaudible).
Borup: It might have been a remodel then or an addition or something at that
time. Okay, thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. How about the Sign Ordinance?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers, it would, I believe, comply with the
existing Sign Ordinance. I do not know the setback of that sign off of Cherry
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 5
Lane, which we do have a five-foot, but I don’t believe that we received any
details in their application about the signage, whether they would stay with the
existing or not. The L-0 does have a 75 square-foot maximum. I believe it’s
eight-foot high maximum. Which the current one would comply with that.
Borup: Is the applicant or their representative here? Please come forward.
Downin: I’m Anne Marie Downin, my address is 320 West South Slip Road and I
work with Idaho Banking Company.
Borup: Anything you would like to add to what the staff report has –
Downin: We are not rezoning the property for bank use. We obtained the
property through a foreclosure sale and so we are trying to obtain a rezone to
sell it as a low office density chiropractic or medical clinic. So, as far as the sign,
I don’t know it would be up to whoever would buy the property.
Borup: I think that probably what they are saying is that if the sign is removed,
then the new sign would – they need to check and comply with the Sign
Ordinance. But, it appears that it probably does already.
Downin: Yes, we would not remove the sign. It would be up to the new buyer.
Borup: So, no problem with any of the staff recommendations?
Downin: No.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Do we
have anyone here to testify on this application? I am seeing none.
Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing.
Shreeve- Second
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of discussion, do we normally and routinely
rezone for the purpose of resale or should we hear from the –
Borup: Maybe we need to hear from the staff. It looked to me like that is more of
a housekeeping thing, that it has been in office use and it should have been
zoned at that time that it became an office. It is more of a grandfather thing,
where it is not strictly in compliance.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 6
Centers: It is surrounded by L-0.
Borup: I don’t think it is.
Hawkins-Clark: It does have L-0 immediately to the east and just one to the west.
This is all L-0. This business park here and then this was fairly recently rezoned,
I believe. Well, no, that was further down. But, there is, as you can see, all of
the purple is limited office.
Borup: And it has been that way for apparently a number of years. It sounds
like something got overlooked back when –
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I used to live in that block right next to that stripe where this
is. So, that’s why I know that there was a house there. That was a family
residence in the past that was related to those two houses that were behind it.
So, it has probably been an office for 25 years. Since, the family residence went
away.
Borup: But, we have already closed the Public Hearing already.
Downin: Well, it was remodeled in 1983 to a building (inaudible).
Hawkins-Clark: So, I think it is as she said, I think it is just the housekeeping
that can match it up with the zone, isn’t that right?
Borup: I would agree with it.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend approval of RZ 01-002,
the request for rezone of 0.51 acres from the R-4 to the L-0 for the Idaho
Banking Company by the Idaho Banking Company at 403 West Cherry Lane with
all of the associated staff comments attached as well.
Centers: I second that.
Borup: Motion seconded, any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 01-005 Request for annexation and
zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for proposed
Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land
Development, LLC – south of Fairview and west of
Cloverdale Roads:
Item 7. Public Hearing: PP 01-006 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 115 building lots and 15 other lots on 28.59
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 7
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Macaile
Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development, LLC
– south of Fairview and west of Cloverdale Roads:
Borup: The next item is a – Actually, Items 6 and 7 are pertaining to the same
project and we would like to open both Public Hearings simultaneously. First, is
a request for annexation and zoning of 28.59 acres from RUT to R-8 for
proposed Macaile Meadows Subdivision by Hillview Land Development. And
the second item of request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 building lots and
15 other lots on the same 28.59 acres on proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Macaile Meadows Subdivision. We have not received the traffic report, I believe.
Staff is recommending -- wait a minute because of the complexity staff has
recommended this be continued until we get the ACHD report, but we have
normally proceeded ahead and will take testimony on those that are here. Some
of you are going to have time right -- before we do start. Maybe a show of
hands. How many people are here, interested in this application? Could we
see? Okay, that’s what we wanted to find out. Let’s go ahead and begin with
Staff Report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. We ask that our staff report dated
April 2nd
by Steven and Bruce be included in your consideration of
recommendation. Just to familiarize you. The subject parcel is cross- hatched
here on the screen. We have Cloverdale Road here to the east. The single
entrance into Westpark Subdivision, East Riftwood Drive, is here. I’m sorry, the
Westdale Park subdivision, which currently does have a stubstreet here to the
north. This is the Crossroads Subdivision immediately to the west. The Wal-
Mart and Family Center projects here. There is a parcel here that, I believe, we
had a complant amendment approved in 1999 that was changed from a single
family residential to a mixed-plan use submitted by Bill Clark. The Seventh Day
Adventist Church is here with frontage on Cloverdale Road. The site photos are
here. The left one looking east towards the Seventh Day Adventist Church from
the property. Then the one on the right, looking north through that stubstreet,
Westpark Subdivision. This is just looking the opposite direction towards the
Lewis and Clark Middle School, which is at the access off of Executive, which will
be future Pine. Pine is in the Ada County Highway District Plan to be brought all
the way through from Eagle Road to Cloverdale in, I think 2003 is currently their
work program. Then the Crossroads Subdivision looking from the subject parcel,
there on the right hand side. There is a blow-up of the proposed Preliminary
Plat. At this point, the couple of comments that we have received, that I would
point out, both the Police Chief and the Fire Chief have submitted comments,
that I believe you have in your packets, that they have simply said that there is
only one way in and one way out. They have some concern about that at the
current configuration. ACHD Commission -- I did receive a staff report fax just
about 4:45 this afternoon, I figured that it probably wasn’t worth it at this point. It
is just a draft to force it over your way. We do have it, and you should have it in
your boxes tomorrow, but I can hit a couple of the highlights from it for you. They
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 8
are acting on this at their April 11th
Commission Meeting. The Ada County
Highway District is. They are asking for chokers -- I will just go back up here.
The intersection, right here, of Driftwood and Parkdale, they are talking about
choking that down there to a 25-foot wide street section instead of a standard 36
intersection. They are also talking about installing three traffic-calming devices
on East Driftwood Drive, which would be up to the applicant. It would be either
be speed humps or also chokers. They have not stated which one. They have
left that up to the Commission to decide, but they are asking for three along here
and then to choke this down. Then they did mention that the Pine Executive
Extension here is slated for 2003 construction. Right now, it is simply more-or-
less a maintenance access road. It is not paved or improved at all. Going back
to the plat, a couple of highlights, 115 lots are proposed. Dwelling units per acre
is four. They do have a one-acre neighborhood park that is centralized here in
the subdivision. They are proposing two phases. First phase would be the
southern. More or less 75 percent of the subdivision. I believe the phase line
comes along through here more or less. I believe the traffic study stated that
they are looking at about a 2005 ultimate build-out of all 115 lots. There is a
letter that I think you have in your packets that references a 20-foot access
easement that the Seventh Day Adventist Church has given to this property
owner that is along this northern boundary that would give access to Cloverdale
Road. I think there are just two of the staff comments that I would point out to
you in our staff report dated April 2nd
on Page 3. Regarding that access road, we
do have a comment that the lot 29 be unbuildable on the plat until the second
public access is provided. That is this lot up here in the northeast corner. Make
it unbuildable until a full-fledged second access is provided, rather than just
simply the southern one. That access road must be constructed prior to any
building permits being issued for houses in the subdivision and our position is
that as long as the emergency access easement is provided and constructed
and available, that they could build the full 115 lots. There was some reference
to restricting the number of buildable houses to 80 before they – prior to the
second access made available. The original application did state the 80, it was
modified. As you said, Chairman Borup, we are recommending that until the
ACHD Commission formally acts on this at their April 11th
meeting and work out
some of the issues on the traffic, then that can come back to you and a final
decision can be made at that point. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Freckleton, I noticed there were several sewer
comments in Staff Report, anything you would like to mention on that?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is a unique
situation in this subdivision. It is one of those rare pockets of the City where
gravity sewer is hard to reach into. As you can see in our staff comments, we
laid out three different options of sewer in this property. From our perspective,
our department is not objecting to a permanent lift station in this situation.
Borup: Thank you. Anything else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 9
Hawkins-Clark: Just one more thing. I did receive a call from Christi Richardson
at Ada County Highway District today. She had one modification to the staff
report that you will see noted when you get that tomorrow but, they have one
substreet shown to the north. Her staff report currently says that she is in
agreement with that. She says that she would actually prefer that that be moved
either to the east or to the west, to avoid a direct alignment with Venture Street,
primarily for reasons of cut-through. As you can see from the area here, Venture
Street is the one that comes in, I’m sorry, over here, on the east side of Wal-
Mart. Here is the cemetery here. It comes down and this would be more or less
in direct alignment, which would be inviting cut-through traffic, in her opinion. So,
she was saying that to avoid that, jog it this way or jog it this way. That is just a
change that they made.
Borup: That would be assuming the other property would develop that way.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. It would totally depend on a different property
owner immediately to the north.
Borup: Yes, all right. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay, is
the applicant here and would like to come forward? She’s bringing another easel
in on this one.
Butler: Mark Butler, 222 East State Street, Eagle. Mr. Chairman, members of
the Commission, I would like to give you a little bit of history about how we have
moved forward in this process and then discuss our plan a little bit, the amenities
that we have within the plan, and how the plan relates to the adjacent properties.
We initially met with staff to talk to them about what could be the possibility for
this property, considering at that time, to annex into the City of Meridian. As you
may or may not know, it is right adjacent to the impact area boundary. It is in
your impact area, but it is adjacent to the City of Boise City. When I first spoke
with Shari, she sounded quite relieved that we were proposing a four-unit
breaker density as opposed to something higher and I hope that holds a little bit
to our credit. In working on the plan we took as many of the codes into
consideration for the design. It looks like we missed out a little on one point as
far as block length goes and that is noted in your staff report and we will work
with your staff. Hopefully, the one is just an oversight. In talking to Steve Sidway
today, as far as one of the block lengths, our scale measures it as a little less
than 1000, his scale measures it at 1200. So, I don’t know if we buy our scales
from the wrong places or if I’m measuring wrong, or what. So, that is a code
situation that we need to work with and we may have to submit a variance, as
Staff Report points out. After getting the design of the project done and working
with the staff, then, even though you don’t have a requirement to meet with the
neighbors ahead of time, I’m a strong component of that. I think it is best that we
meet with the neighbors. We had an initial meeting with the neighbors and traffic
was a major issue. We went back to the table and tried to figure out some
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 10
things, came back, met with the neighbors. We had about 60 people there at the
first meeting, about 30 the second, and we have about 30 or 40 or 50 here again
tonight. As you will hear, we were unable to work out some of the traffic issues
with the neighbors. We did contact the Highway District, worked closely with the
Highway District, e-mailing back and forth with Christi Richardson who is doing
staff report, making proposals to her with regard to the roadway. As far as the
chokers go, we propose to put chokers at the intersection on the east side of the
Parkdale-Driftwood Intersection. Not on the entire intersection because what we
heard from the neighbors is that – could you go back to that area map, Brad?
Do you have a laser by any chance? I was here at your last meeting, so, I found
out you had a laser, I should get one for myself. – Currently there appears to be
a major concern with regard to traffic. This extends and if you look at this map
you can see it, it is a little dark over there but this roadway extends from
Parkdale all the way to Cloverdale and there is a significant amount of traffic
going through there, according to the neighbors. They felt that this subdivision is
going to add to that. Even the ACHD staff report points out that they feel that if
stacking starts to occur at this intersection over here that people may tend to cut
through there. So, in working with Christy, we propose the chokers on the east
side so that it is easier to go this direction to Pine than it is to go this direction.
We’ve also said that we will work with you and put in as many speed humps as
you want along that roadway to try to also discourage people from cutting
through that area. Then you can – I have a copy of the staff report, but you will
be getting it tomorrow.
Borup: Mark, Pine is fully developed back to that point?
Butler: Pine is fully developed, not fully. It is a 30-foot wide street section
according to staff report from here to here and will be completed to a 3-lane
roadway –
Borup: So, it’s a half –
Butler: A little more than a half, a half plus twelve or more. We’ve worked with
the church. The church, as you know, owns this property that they are on, the
property that is currently developed as the church and this piece that we are
buying from the church. We’ve worked with the church to provide – we have
actually got a letter from them, they are going to allow us to have that secondary
access so that we can have the ability for the Fire Department and police, if
necessary, to get in and out of there. I talked to Kenny Bowers hopefully I got his
name right, Bowens? Is it Bowers? Bowers, with the Fire Department and he
suggested to me where he would like the gate. We are fully in support of staff’s
condition to not allow a home to be built on the lot that would block that access
until such time as secondary access was provided. One of the things that we
tried to do was to have a subdivision that as far as design and lot size goes, was
compatible with the adjacent properties. As opposed to coming in here with an
eight unit breaker development. It is hard to see, and I have some 8 ½ by 11’s, I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 11
don’t know if I can hand those to the clerk and she can pass them out to you, but
they are 8 ½ by 11’s of the section where we have taken the entire section and
plotted out subdivision in there. So, you can see how the lots compare to
adjacent lots. Traffic wasn’t the only concern of the neighbors; one of the other
concerns was lot compatibility. You know, we have a single story house, are you
going to put a two story house there? Can you limit your homes to single story,
at least along our property line? There were some concerns with regard to home
sizes being compatible. What we did is that we took a step back, we went out
and looked at the property and noted everywhere where there was a single story
house, everywhere where there was a two story house, got copies of the
CCNR’s for Crossroads and Westdale. As far as home sizes, we are proposing
the same minimum size on the west boundary as the minimum size in
Crossroads, that’s 1350 square feet. On the south side we are proposing the
same minimum size of home on our south side as proposed in, I believe it is
called Westdale, that’s 1500 square feet. Throughout the remainder of the
subdivision, we will be meeting the requirements that the, I almost said the City
of Eagle – I’ve worked there for quite a while, I have to get it out of my mind. --
We’ll meet the requirements that the City of Meridian has for minimum house
sizes and those are noted in the staff report. In looking at the map, then, with
regard to lot sizes and lot compatibility. Along the east side, after the meetings,
we did come up with some concessions with the neighbors. Along the west side
of our subdivision, east side of Crossroads, we have agreed to limit all of those
homes to single story. We have, on that side, a one lot to one lot ratio. In other
words, everywhere where you have a lot in Crossroads, we have a lot going right
down the line. There is only one two-story house on their side. So, we are
limiting that whole side to single story. I had to check with the developer and that
is true. Along the south side, our lot sizes are generally the same size as on the
south side. In other words, adjacent to the Westdale subdivision. Ours are
configured a little different. Theirs are narrow and deep because of the unusual
shape of property that developer had to deal with. Ours are lots at the end of
cul-de-sac as you can see. What we have done along the south side is that we
have got nine lots adjacent to 19 lots. Because of that, we would rather not limit
the homes to single story. We would like to leave those homes to whatever the
market demands in mix of single story and two-story. In looking at the lots over
there, there is a mix of single and two-story. It’s not like, where we were about
Crossroads, where there is only one one-story house. The other thing we have
done – well, you can look at your 8 ½ by 11 – is that we have placed larger lots
along the west side and south side, transitioning to the smaller lots up into the
northeast portion of the subdivision to have smaller lots that were further away
from the existing lots and closer to – what we understand this plan for
approximately 15 units per acre, possibly, on 15 acres in Meridian and possibly
18 units per acre on 18 acres in Boise. With that, I think, I will either stand for
questions or have some time possibly after the likely lengthy –
Borup: You’ll have some time at the end. Any questions from the
Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 12
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I noted Mr., Butler, that you said that you had spoken with
the Fire Department about the fire access using that easement through the
Seventh Day Adventist Church lot. Did you speak with the Police Department as
well?
Butler: No, you know, and I just read that copy today, from the Police
Department.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Nary: Yes, I probably need to ask Brad a question. Has that been done before,
a 20-foot easement for emergency access like this, in the past?
Hawkins-Clark: 20- feet is the minimum width that the Fire Department requires
for their trucks. Certainly, secondary emergency accesses are provided in
numerous places until a full access can be build. I can’t think of one off the top
of my head where it was an instance where it was on another piece of property
where it was that distanced.
Nary: Right, but this is something not unique to this situation?
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Nary: Okay.
Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Butler, do you have any comments seeing the staff
recommendations? Are you in full agreement on all of them?
Butler: I think it was very well done. We appreciate staff’s help on this. We did
have the clarification we need to work with staff on the block length. There was
another condition regarding fencing. We hope the Commission can wave the
fencing requirement, in writing, I guess, the way it says, along the south side
since there is an existing fence there and along the west side since there is an
existing fence there. Other than that, I don’t think we have any concerns with the
Staff report.
Borup: Have you decided on which sewer option? I assume the lift station.
Butler: Yes. We really don’t think it is wise planning to bring in six feet of fill.
We think that the neighbors would be that much more upset with us. The lift
station, I think we have worked the details through with Brad and the lift station
would be the way to go. We appreciate your recommendation for that.
Borup: Was there any progress on the water loop?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 13
Butler: We will meet with Mr. Clark, who is handling property to the north and we
will try to work on an easement through there for the loop. We have agreed to
upgrade the main extension from our subdivision down to Pine to put in a larger
main than what is there now, to increase the capacity of the system. I
understand that’s Mr. Freckleton’s second choice, but I’ve worked with Mr. Clark
in the past and if he’s listening to this tape, that’s just kind of the way he is. He’s
real tough to work with, he’s a good businessman and we’ll take a shot at it, but I
guess we are going into it with not a whole lot of encouragement. We will try to
see if we can do a second connection with an easement.
Borup: Bruce, do you have any idea how they are planning on getting water to
that property then. Clark’s property.
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, there is water stubbed into that property from the
Wal-Mart Venture Street stub.
Borup: A single stub, though.
Hawkins-Clark: And there is also water stubbed in from the Crossroads
Development in the northeast corner of Crossroads.
Borup: So, that’s a 360 degree loop then to come – for him to loop it would be
coming clear around his whole subdivision and almost back to where he would
start then. Okay, Wal-Mart would be kind of the middle of their property, it looks
like.
Freckleton: Right, right. Just one point of clarification on the water main, the
upsizing. There is a 10-inch main that goes from Pine Street up to the East West
Street in Westdale Subdivision. From that intersection north, that stub, it was put
in as an eight inch. Regardless, of whether we can get the easement up through
Clark’s property that stretch of eight inch needs to be upgraded to at least a 10.
It is our design to bring the tie all the way up to Venture, eventually, and tie that in
for a loop. The reason that I put the comment in there about wanting to get the
loop is just the fact that we’ve got Westdale sub two out on the end of a dead
end main now and with the proposed subdivision here that is just getting a lot of
lots out on the end of a dead end line without the security of having that loop. It
would just be a better situation to have a loop.
Borup: I believe that Mr. Clark still needs to come back with the (inaudible).
They have not made an application for development yet, at this point.
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Borup: You haven’t had that yet.
Hawkins-Clark: We will meet with them, though, Mr., Borup.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 14
Borup: Okay. Mr. Butler then, on – there was a staff comment about some
discussion on detached sidewalks. Is there a determination about which way
you are going on that?
Butler: It was our mistake that we didn’t show those. It was our plan that in the
areas where we do have landscaping along the roadway, we would detach the
sidewalk. So, Staff has pointed out those locations and I will point those out here
on a color graphic I have here for you. The sidewalk will be detached in this
location, there will be a sidewalk going through the pathway connection we have
provided to give access to our park. There will be a detached sidewalk on the
entry here in this green space and there will be a detached sidewalk on both
these green space locations.
Borup: I think that other emergency access, has that agreement been executed
with –
Butler: Yes, we have the signed letter. I faxed it over to Mr. Bowers and Brad’s
got –
Borup: And staff got one? Okay, that came after the staff comments then, I
assume.
Butler: Yes, I faxed it to Mr. Bowers yesterday or the day before, I believe.
Borup: Yes, they were saying prior to the Development Plan approval.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have a question regarding the emergency access. It
looks like you have two people that you are working with, from what I see.
Seventh Day Adventist is giving you access through to perhaps lot 29 for an
emergency exit and then there is another letter from Clark Development that was
received by the City of Meridian on April 2nd
regarding another access. Is this
the same access that we are talking about or are there two different ones?
Butler: No, they are two different situations. The one is, with regard to the
temporary access, that we would use the entire church property for temporary
access paved 20-foot wide or whatever the fire district requires to get their fire
trucks through, from Cloverdale through lot 29 into the subdivision. What Bill
Clark is referring to is his offer to dedicate some right-of-way on his property, so
that a public roadway can be constructed from this location here to this location
here. We are not planning to construct a public roadway there.
Norton: So, you’re not planning on using his suggestion to do that.
Butler: We are not planning on building a public roadway, and that was his
suggestion. That is correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 15
Norton: It is the same place where you are going to have the emergency
access, through the Seventh Day Adventist Church. How long will that be
available?
Butler: That will be available until the second public road access is provided into
our subdivision. So, that depends on how quickly Bill Clark gets going.
Norton: Okay and that’s in your agreement that you will have two accesses in
and out of there until there is another public road.
Butler: That’s correct. One public and one emergency access with a gate. Mr.
Bower has talked about having a gate there he doesn’t like the ballards. So, we
will do what it takes to meet his requirements.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Does anyone else have any other questions for Mr. Butler?
Centers: Yes. You mentioned home square footages. Do you have a
percentage breakdown of the various square footages?
Butler: No. What we do have is that we have proposed to meet the minimum
requirements of Meridian and that is in our application. I could look that up. It is
a certain percentage of each.
Centers: I have it in front of me.
Butler: Yes. No, we don’t have a breakdown of what the market is going to ask
for. We are asking you to let us do what we proposed, which is the minimum lot
sizes we proposed on the west and the south and then the rest of the homes to
meet that minimum standard in the code.
Centers: But, you realize that according to what I’m reading here, all single
family detached houses in a R-8 zone below 1301 square feet shall be
interspersed uniformly through the entire development. Which means to me that
anything less than that you can’t group them. That’s what caught my eye is that
you tend to group them on one side, don’t you?
Butler: Did you say anything less then 1008 square feet?
Centers: 1,301
Butler: I think that we can guarantee that we won’t have any homes less than
1,301 square feet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 16
Centers: Grouped. They have got to be mixed is the way that I read it.
Butler: We will agree that we will mix that and if staff needs some sort of –
whatever it takes to do that. Hopefully, the developer understands that he can’t
group those houses together. They have to be interspersed. Yes, we would
agree to a condition to meet that code requirement.
Borup: Anyone else?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, the concern I have Mr. Butler still is the emergency access.
How long is the road going to be to the Seventh Day Adventist Church? Do you
know the distance?
Butler: A quarter mile.
Nary: It’s a quarter mile? It appeared to me in reading both Chief Bower’s
comment and the Police Department’s comment, that their concern is how far out
– the fact they have to essentially leave Meridian, go through Boise, cut back,
and come back the other way. I guess, I don’t want to own the house at 27 or 28
because if that house is on fire it seems like it is going to take a long time to get
a fire truck there if you have to go all the way across the Seventh Day Adventist
lot, drive past the subdivision, and back track back to it. Have you done anything
other than just get the Seventh Day Adventists to do that? It doesn’t seem very
safe to me.
Butler: I have spoken quite a bit with Kenny about this. I asked him, what is
your standard response time, a couple of times. He didn’t really give me an
answer. Then he finally gave me a standard response time but I can’t remember
what it was. I guess it is a nation-wide response time. Maybe the planners know
what that is. I don’t mean to quote him, but I think he said something like we
can’t meet that throughout Meridian anyway.
Nary: I think the standard response time is somewhere near four minutes.
Butler: I think that is what he said.
Nary: I think that it is about four minutes. It doesn’t appear to me that there is
any way with the way that you have configured it at this point that police or fire
could respond –
Butler: Within the four minutes.
Nary: Certainly, fire. I think that’s where the standard comes from. I don’t think
the police have a standard response time, but the Fire Department –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 17
Butler: I don’t know how we could research that for you. It seems like their
concern is that they have to go the extra distance over into Boise. Unless, there
was a stubstreet into Crossroads in this location, which there isn’t, we don’t have
land that connects to Fairview. So, we are somewhat at a loss on how to deal
with that. I guess, if we can work with the police chief, if that’s the one we deal
with, and the Fire Department to find someway to handle that, we will.
Otherwise, I don’t see anyway to get a better response time until the piece is
connected through Clark’s. I –
Nary: Is that also assuming – this is making assumption that Pine Street is not
connected to Eagle, isn’t it?
Butler: Oh, that’s correct. That’s right. Once that’s connected then you have
better access through there.
Nary: Which would be the most direct access to the Police Station. Franklin to
Eagle to Pine.
Butler: Right and they said 2003.
Nary: Right, so we’ve got two more years. I do like the direct connection with
the stub up to Fairview so that they connect directly with Venture. I need to talk
with Christi a little bit about that. I think that is one of the reasons why we put it
there, but –
Borup: Okay. Anyone else?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, --
Borup: Are you done? We assumed you were done, did you have anything
else? I just wanted to be sure that I’m done with you. Okay, Mr. Freckleton.
Excuse me.
Freckleton: One thing that I would suggest, assuming that you continue this
tonight and they are coming back, would be to address Commissioner Center’s
concern, that they would indicate on the Preliminary Plat which lots are going to
have what square footages.
Centers: It’s a requirement.
Freckleton: Yes, it is and it was an oversight on our part that we didn’t pick that
up in our staff comments, but they should go through and label which lots are
going to have which size homes designated on them. So, you might want to
keep that in the back of your minds for your –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 18
Borup: This is a Public Hearing. This is the opportunity that we want to provide
to get any comments from the public. In the past, out of necessity, when we
have a group like this, we do need to stick to our three-minute limit. The
exception to that is if we have anyone, any neighborhood associations, where
you have one individual who will be speaking for that neighborhood. We are able
to allow extra time for that. That’s assuming that they are speaking for that
neighborhood and that everyone else is not going to stand up again. I think you
understand that. First of all, do we have any neighborhood spokesmen this
evening? Two it looks like. So, I assume one is for Crossroads and one is for
Westdale?
Turney: Except that I have homeowners here that wish to make their comments
themselves as well.
Borup: Okay, I think we can handle that. Whichever one of you that would like
to come up first.
Boesiger: Mr. Chairman, Board Members, My name is Donald Boesiger. I am
the President of Crossroads Neighborhood Association.
Borup: Okay, maybe before you start. Could we see everyone here that is in
Crossroads that you will be speaking for? Will you raise your hands? Alright.
Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Boesiger.
Boesiger: The first thing I would like to address is the zoning. What I am
concerned with is two-fold. One is, of course, the immediate property that’s
adjoining the Crossroads Subdivision and also that corridor throughout Meridian.
As you know, we are developing quite heavily on one corner of Fairview and
Eagle Roads with the other three corners being undeveloped yet. Which, most
likely, long range, I’m sure that we could all sit here and guess what many
different things that could come up. I believe it will probably develop exactly as
this corner. So, my concern is our traffic increase that we are going to have and
what we really want to develop as a City of Meridian in that corridor. As I
understand it, in talking to ACHD, that we are going to start this summer making
a double turn lane at Fairview and Eagle on all four of the roads. Just to give
you an update also, Pine Street is in the works at ACHD where the light will be
going in on Eagle, but just extending through Mr. Dirkens property there, and
that’s the south of Presidential. So, if we extended Pine on from Mr. Dirkens
property on to connect up to the school, if we could address that, I think that is
something that may help with the traffic problem, since that is going to be started
this summer. So, that might help a little bit.
Borup: But, that is what they were talking about when they said that ACHD was
talking about 2003.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 19
Boesiger: Well, 2003, ACHD is talking about the rest of the extension of Pine,
but we could address that actually as being sooner as part of the summer project
or where Dakota Development will be putting in the light on Eagle as well as the
road and then be stubbed at the end of this property. So, it is something that we
might be able to address. My concerns, because of this entire area, is going to
see, I believe, a development in the other three corners just as this one, that we
need to move forward into a R-4 zoning. What I am very concerned with is
having the R-8 zoning with this subdivision coming in next to Crossroads
Subdivision, which is R-4 zoning. That’s 260 homes, which is R-4 zoning, and
just to correct a little bit, we did rewrite our CCNR’s for all seven phases, so, we
only have one CCNR now. That is on file. That was done last summer, we got
together and did that. And it says in our CCNR that 1400 square foot is the
minimum on our homes that are in Crossroads Subdivision. So, consequently
having a subdivision that comes in with less square footage will significantly
impact our property values within Crossroads Subdivision. We are very
concerned about that and also the traffic. Traffic is something that we have had
to live with and tried to work with ACHD with the Crossroads Subdivision with
Wal-Mart coming in and the widening. Actually, the tear-up, widening and
redoing of Records and also Presidential. Presidential sill has left a traffic-
calming device that is required by ACHD and we are working with Dakota
Development on that as we speak.
Borup: You are trying to get it removed, you mean?
Boesiger: Pine Street?
Borup: No, the traffic-calming device there you just mentioned.
Boesiger: No, we don’t have a traffic-calming device right now. –
Borup: It is not in?
Boesiger: As a residential entrance to Crossroads Subdivision it is something
that is still required and it is tabled until second phase which is south of
Presidential. Anyway, we are working on that right now. That would also help
our subdivision. As you can see the very small stub is called Harding Street on
Crossroads Subdivision which enters Pine if it would ever come in. Then that
would significantly help us get out on Eagle because it is just absolutely
impossible. Presidential Street is absolutely useless unless you want to take
your life in your hands to try to enter Eagle, as you know. Also, the other
concern with this development is keeping in line with the City of Meridian, also, of
what we want our community to become. We have 495,000 square foot of green
belt area within our subdivision. This runs behind all of the houses and includes
an entrance, it kind of shows it up there, exactly what that is. But, that is about
two square foot per house and I would be very concerned that any subdivisions
that build near us, would want to compliment that and also have that kind of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 20
green area built into their subdivision so that it would match that. His park that
he proposes I believe falls a little short of that. I appreciate Mr. Butler’s
accommodations and concerns that he had with a lot of this proposal and trying
to move forward with this project, but as you can see, it ran across quite a few
different problems. Therefore, my recommendation as President of Crossroads
Subdivision is that we do not approve.
Borup: And that is based on your comments on traffic.
Boesiger: That is based on my entire comments, mostly on square footage of
the zoning, which I would like to see R-4. Based upon the green space, the size
of the houses which will be built on the lot and based upon what we want the
future of the City of Meridian to be and also this subdivision being build next to
ours to be like ours so it is developed and keeping it in the same neighborly
fashion, I guess is what we call it. So that it is like property.
Borup: So, you said that you have 495,000 feet of green space, that’s like 6
acres.
Boesiger: That’s what I pay to have mowed. That’s correct.
Borup: And that’s based on how many acres are in Crossroads?
Boesiger: Pardon me?
Borup: Do you know what the size of Crossroads Subdivision is?
Boesiger: No, not off the top of my head, no I don’t have that, I don’t have those
notes.
Borup: So, you are not sure what the proportion would be?
Boesiger: No, I do not.
Borup: Okay. Their application is showing 1.54 acres of their open space.
(inaudible) five percent. Any question from any of the Commissioners?
Centers: I have one question. Do you have any homes in Crossroads under
1400 square feet.
Boesiger: No, I do not.
Centers: I wouldn’t think so. Why did you have to redo your CCNR’s when the
minimum in an R-4 is 1400?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 21
Boesiger: That is a great question. It is something that we brought up. Actually,
Crossroads Subdivision was seven different phases, like Capital Development.
They did seven different phases and then fortunately when they did each phase
they wrote a new CCNR and they did not match. So, together with, luckily, us
that were on the board, six of us, got together and wrote a comprehensive CCNR
for the entire subdivision.
Centers: Very good.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you Mr. Boesiger.
Turney: Mr. Chairman, Board Members, my name is Holly Turney and I
represent Westdale Homeowners Association. We too –
Borup: Can we do the same thing, have those that you are speaking for raise
their hands? Okay, thank you.
Turney: We too would oppose the R-8 zoning. We feel that it would be more
appropriate to the area to see this new subdivision zoned at R-4. Westdale
Phase 2, which borders Macaile Meadows to the south, has (inaudible) homes
per acre at 3.125. The average lot size for all Westdale is 10,965 square feet
and the average lot size is only 7500 square feet.
Borup: Do you know what your lot frontages are?
Turney: Excuse me.
Borup: Lot frontages?
Turney: Well, a lot of them are about 65. The ones one the corners are 70.
Some of them, I think are as high as 78.
Borup: Do you know what your current zoning is?
Turney: Our current zoning, I believe is R-8. Our average home size for
Westdale is 1659 square feet and we are concerned with what the impact of
having smaller, much smaller square footage homes and considerably smaller
lots is going to do to our property values. We are concerned that it is going to
impact our property values in a negative way. Our other concerns, of course, are
the traffic and with the recommendation that the staff has made to the board of
allowing all 115 lots to be built at the same time, because of the emergency
access easement that was granted by the church. Our traffic problem becomes
even more severe in our opinion because that leaves basically one way in and
out of this subdivision and that is through Parkdale. Accessing Parkdale, you
either have to go down Pine Street or you have to go down Driftwood Drive from
Cloverdale. So, anytime you are leaving that subdivision you have to get to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 22
Cloverdale before you can go anywhere else. If you are leaving from Macaile
Meadows and you get to Parkdale, your choices are to go up Driftwood Drive to
Cloverdale or to go to Pine Street to go to Cloverdale. Now, people being
people, I believe that in order to save time, if these residents are going to go up
to Cloverdale and head in a north direction to points east, west or north, they are
going to head up Driftwood Drive because it is the quickest route to get to
Cloverdale. If they are headed south, they are likely to go over to Pine Street
and go up to Cloverdale and then head south from there. That is a significant
amount of traffic that is going up and down our street. With 115 homes and as
ACHD figures out trips per day, they multiply the homes by 10. That’s 1150 car
trips per day coming out of Macaile Meadows and either going up our street of
Driftwood or over to Pine Street. We have 760 car trips per day of our own within
the subdivision and ACHD has told us that Driftwood can handle 1000 car trips
per day. We also feel that having all of this traffic coming out of Macaile
Meadows impacts our residential area in such a way that it makes it more unsafe
for our children. Either the traffic is going to be funneled up Driftwood Drive or
it’s going to be funneled down Pine Street, right into a school zone of Lewis and
Clark. We are very concerned about that safety issue that we have. We have
additional traffic coming through our subdivision already because of the school
Lewis and Clark. One thing in a letter that I found that’s in this application form,
that you received from the developers, a letter from Mr. Vance dated on the 14th
of February about the Macaile Meadows Subdivision Traffic Impact Statement he
did. He states that Pine is a collector that carries volumes for Westdale along
with Driftwood. He neglects to mention that Pine Street also carries traffic from
Lewis and Clark Middle School as does Driftwood. The secretary at Lewis and
Clark gave me the following statistics on the traffic that the school generates.
They have 960 kids that attend that school. 560 of those children arrive via 20
bus routes plus two or three special needs busses. Four hundred of those
children arrive and depart via parental pickup. There are 120 staff members, 50-
60 kids check out of school on a daily basis for dentist appointments, doctors’
appointments, et cetera. There are also a varying number of busses arriving
from other schools bringing children over to Lewis and Clark to attend the
English As a Second Language classes and tutoring. So, with the known
numbers that we have, Lewis and Clark generates 1194 trips per day on Pine
Street. Pine Street also gets traffic from East Pine Executive Park businesses
that are off of Cloverdale that use that too.
Borup: Okay, the school said that they did not have any children walking to
school.
Turney: There are some children that walk, but I am talking about the kids that,
well –
Borup: Well, the number you gave me added up to exactly what the population
is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 23
Turney: Yes, yes that’s my fault. I didn’t take into account those that walk but,
the kids that walk come from our subdivision and Crossroads. They haven’t
been a whole lot because they usually walk right by my house in the morning
and I don’t see too many of them. So, 50 maybe, maybe as much as 100. But
the majority of the people arriving at the school, are driving. That is a significant
amount of traffic and a lot of that traffic does come down Driftwood in the
afternoon, even the school busses. Other concerns that we have are that Mr.
Butler mentioned that he made the concessions of the minimum square footage
for the lots bordering Crossroads and bordering Westdale. But, they also agreed
to abide by the Meridian City code of minimum square foot homes that state that
these homes are to be built so that they are interspersed uniformly. If they are
going to intersperse those smaller homes uniformly, how is that going to effect
the agreement that they have made with us to put a certain square footage of
home next to our border? Does that invalidate, then, what they have said that
they are going to do for us? The other concern that we have is that – it was my
understanding that at that second neighborhood meeting, single story homes
would be limited to both the border with Crossroads and the border with
Westdale because when that property was still the sod farm we paid more for
those lots because of the beautiful view we had of the mountains and of Squaw
Butte. If we get a second story home right behind us, that view disappears. A lot
of us feel very unhappy with that situation. We would like to see the single story
homes bordering us as well, to alleviate some of that.
Borup: Do you know how many two-story homes you have on that street now?
Turney: Let’s see, that border that. One, Two, Three, -- Five.
Borup: Well, maybe that’s not – that statement works both ways as far as the
view.
Turney: But, there is nothing to see on our side, unless you are going to look at
the school.
Borup: You’d mentioned –
Turney: We have a view –
Borup: You’d mentioned Squaw Butte.
Turney: Yes, well, we can’t see that anymore except on a clear day and Wal-
Mart kind of blocks off that way, too. But we still – may I show you?
Borup: No, I understand. I think you can –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 24
Turney: We still have a view to the Boise foothills, but right now if a second-story
home is in my backyard, I am not going to be able to enjoy that view in the same
way.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, ma’am do you have a view easement recorded on your
property?
Turney: A view easement? No.
Nary: I mean, you said that you paid more money for your lot to have a view,
but do you have an easement to maintain that view recorded on your property.
Turney: Not that I am aware of, no.
Nary: Okay, thank you.
Turney: Okay, the other concern that I think that a lot of our homeowners have is
that the owner of record for the property on which the Seventh Day Adventist
Church sits and the owner of record for the proposed Macaile Meadows
Subdivision is the same. Southern Idaho Corporation of Seventh Day
Adventists. So, we would like to know why the owner of those properties is so
resistant to providing access for the residents of Macaile Meadows to Cloverdale
road through their own property? Why should all the traffic generated by their
subdivision have to be funneled through an existing residential neighborhood or
into a school zone? I don’t feel that any residential street should have to be used
as a thoroughfare for any other subdivision. Funneling traffic into a school zone,
as on Pine Street, is an equally unattractive option. I think it would benefit both
the residents of Macaile Meadows as well as those of us in Westdale Park, if
Macaile Meadows had its own independent access to Cloverdale. Independent
of Driftwood and/or Pine Street.
Borup: Okay, anything else?
Turney: That’s all.
Borup: Do you have any comment on – I realize that none of us have seen a
written report, but – ACHD’s comments on the choker, the traffic calming. The
applicant thought that he was talking about a different location than the ACHD
was talking about. Any input or comments on that?
Turney: As I understood, the developer said that he was going to put chokers on
the east side of the intersection of Parkdale and –
Borup: Well, he was purposing that and thought that that would be more
effective. I just wondered if the neighbors agreed with that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 25
Turney: I think the neighbors were hoping they would have chokers on all four
corners and that they would have speed bumps, not only along Driftwood, but
maybe one or two coming out of Parkdale.
Borup: You don’t want a choker to disgrace people going to Pine, do you?
Turney: Excuse me, I mean to discourage people going down into the cul-de-sac
area of Driftwood and discourage people from traveling up East Driftwood. They
also wanted to maybe get a speed bump or two coming out of Macaile Meadows
because you are going right into a school zone there on Parkdale.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman is Driftwood there? Ma’am, is that your basic 36-foot wide
street? Is that what that is?
Turney: Yes.
Nary: And is there parking on both sides as well?
Turney: Yes.
Nary: And is the school, right where Pine Street narrows down, is that
approximately where Lewis and Clark sits, right there?
Turney: Yes.
Nary: Thank you.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Miss Turney, where is the stoplight on Cloverdale? Is
that at Pine or is that at Driftwood?
Turney: The stoplight is at Pine or Executive and Cloverdale.
Norton: Okay, thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess I had a question for Brad before I forget about this,
since we are talking about Cloverdale. Do you know in the ACHD’s long range
plan, we talked about Pine Street at 2003, is there any intention by them, that
you are aware of, about widening Cloverdale in this particular area? I mean,
because if you look at this map that was provided by the developer here. This is
Cloverdale and these are houses here and houses here. This whole area is
other than this big church right here. I think it is still just two lanes. The last time
I drove on it. I think it is just two lanes going north from Pine Street.
Turney: Cloverdale?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 26
Nary: Yes.
Turney: Because we have a little bit of a three-lane turn until you get to –
Nary: I mean there is a little teeny turn lane, but people start turning way before
that turn lane starts. I didn’t know if there was any attempt by ACHD in the near
future to widen Cloverdale.
Hawkins-Clark: I’m looking at their five year work program, which goes through
fiscal year 2005, for them it is not listed.
Nary: oh, okay, thank you.
Turney: The other thing about Pine Street light, since you were asking, is that
there is no protected left hand turn and when school lets out and the busses
leave, and after the busses have dropped the children off, they cannot get out
into the traffic very well. Traffic backs up along that street because you can’t get
around them on the right side because Pine Street is too narrow. That creates a
real traffic problem by not having a protected left hand turn, as well.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I guess in a synopsis, you’re major concern is traffic and
congestion.
Turney: And safety.
Centers: Well, that all ties in with that. And if there were a 36-foot street along
the church property to the proposed subdivision that would probably relieve that.
Turney: We feel that it would probably relieve a lot of the traffic coming down
Driftwood, because they would have their own access to Cloverdale. It would be
much quicker for them than trying to come down through our subdivision and
back up to Cloverdale.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Any one else. Thank you ma’am.
Turney: Thank you.
Borup: I believe there are some other that –
Boyle: I will try to keep this brief Commissioners. Clint Boyle, 4243 East
Driftwood Drive. I am just going to highlight some points here and run through
these rapidly because I know my time is short here with the three minutes. First
of all, I guess I am a little bit concerned, I never received the legal notice on this.
Just due to my profession and association with some of the neighbors, that was
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 27
how I was informed with the hearing dates and the neighborhood meetings. So,
I guess, my first question is, even though I received notification just through word
of mouth in the neighborhood, I guess, I just want to verify that that was
adequately legally notice and that we are not missing other neighbors that should
have been noticed with this. I believe that the requirement is 300 feet from the
perimeter and I should fall well within the 300 feet. Outside that, there are a
couple areas of concern. First of all, with an R-8 zone, my understanding is that
some of the allowed uses within that include duplex units and then there is some
conditional uses for even higher densities than that. In the staff report it stated
that a development agreement was not necessary. I guess, that is something
that I disagree with. I feel that there should be a development agreement that
would restrict this subdivision to single family residential. We certainly are
opposed, at least I am speaking on my behalf and hopefully the neighborhood
too, to anything more than single family residential there. Traffic is a major
concern for us and, maybe, not so much as traffic volumes as cut-through traffic
issues related to Pine, related to this subdivision. I think that those are items that
will be brought out at ACHD, so I don’t want to get into a lot of that unless the
Commissioners have questions on that. There are substantial concerns with
traffic being volumes, being cut-through, being safety, et cetera. As far as the lot
sizes again, in looking at lot sizes as well as the block length – and I am glad that
the staff brought this up – those were not indicated on the Preliminary Plat. If
they are looking to disperse the home sizes, I would certainly like to know how
those are going to be dispersed throughout the development. Again, in our
subdivision in Westdale, we have homes that are 1500 square feet and larger,
excluding the garage. The developer has committed to provide a similar size,
abutting Westdale. I think that if you look at some of the Comprehensive Plan
policies that you have, it relates to protecting and maintaining residential
neighborhood property values, improving each neighborhoods physical condition
and enhancing quality of life for residents, infill in single family areas should be
considered at density similar to the surrounding developments, infill will improve
existing neighborhoods. I am just giving you some of the policies out of your
Comprehensive Plan. I guess I would ask at this point, my request, because I
didn’t hit all of the items that I wanted to, would be that I feel that there are
substantial issues, certainly with traffic and with other items that would warrant
further consideration of this development. I am in favor of the single-family
residential development there, but I feel that there are various items that
definitely warrant consideration with this application. My request would be that
you guys allow for further consideration by at least tabling this to a later date so
that we can deal with ACHD issues, get those resolved and deal with other
items.
Thank you.
Borup: Could you state your address again, Mr. Boyle.
Boyle: 4243 East Driftwood Drive.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 28
Borup: Is that in Phase 1 or Phase 2?
Boyle: If I can point to it here -- I don’t know because the lots aren’t numbered, I
believe it’s this one, one of those right in here.
Borup: Okay, what’s the zone of your subdivision. The lady wasn’t sure.
Boyle: It is R-8.
Borup: It is?
Boyle: The point of clarification that I just would like to make. The only
reasoning behind an R-8 zone in ours, the only reason it does not comply with an
R-4 is due to the width of the lots. The width of the lots, as she stated, varies.
Typically, mine is a 68-foot wide lot. I believe that when I have looked at this they
varied between roughly a 65 up to 75-feet in width. The area requirement of the
lot is well in excess of a R-4 zone. So, outside of the –
Borup: Yes, but that was done because of the configuration of ground. That’s
obvious, if it was wider you would have two streets down there and the lots could
have been smaller. It is just a development fact. Thank you, sir. Any other
questions from any of the Commissioners. Thank you.
Curtis: Scott Curtis, I’m at 4132 East Driftwood Drive. I am at the northwest
corner –
Borup: Didn’t you raise your hand earlier, sir?
Curtis: Yes I did.
Borup: And you said that someone else was speaking for you?
Curtis: Holly Turney is representative of our Homeowners Association.
Borup: Right, and I asked for a raise of hands for everyone she was going to be
speaking for. That’s why she was given the extra time.
Curtis: Oh, well, may I be brief.
Borup: Yes, sir.
Curtis: Okay, considering I live at ground zero there, the northwest corner of
Parkdale and Driftwood Drive, I just want to make a few comments. First of all, I
would like to thank the developers for having the neighborhood meetings. They
have already agreed in advance for speed bumps, chokers, and single story
dwellings adjacent to our lots, although now I guess that is not the case. They
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 29
have agreed to that on the Crossroads Subdivision. I just think it would be a
really good idea to wait on this subdivision until we can figure out the problem
with Mr. Clark in providing access, now this is the first that I have heard of it.
Through two neighborhood meetings, this is the first I have heard of access
provided by Mr. Clark who owns the property to the north, to private access to
Cloverdale. It is just going to choke up Cloverdale as it stands right now,
anyway. So, we need more access, that is, north to Fairview via Venture and
perhaps into the subdivision via Florence from the north east corner of
Crossroads. The bottom line is, single entrance to 115 homes through a
subdivision and a school zone does not make sense to me. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Anyone else?
Mohler: Good evening, my name is Todd Mohler. I live at 4133 East Driftwood
Drive, the opposite corner that we just heard about. I just have one comment,
other than, agreeing whole-heartedly with the comments put forth before by the
homeowners associations and by the other gentlemen from our subdivision.
People being people, chokers and speed bumps typically don’t work. I have
seen, day in and day out, and late at night, people jumping square speed bumps
on the dead end side of Pine to go down an undeveloped road at high speed. I
have also seen at 1:00 a.m. in the morning a doublewide mobile home jumping
the same square curb and going down that unpaved road. I don’t think that any
accommodations for reducing traffic through Pine, through Driftwood, into the
subdivision is going to help, without alternate primary access to Macaile
Meadows. That is all I have to add.
Borup: Thank you. Go ahead.
Connolly: Hello Mr. Borup and members of Planning and Zoning. I am here to
voice my concerns about the safety –
Borup: Ma’am would you state your name please, first?
Connolly: Oh, I’m sorry. Teresa Connolly, 4177 East Driftwood. I am here to
voice my concerns about the safety of our subdivision. We have a lot of young
children. Ninety percent elementary age or younger who live on our street. I
have 12 kids who get on the bus at my stop and I am one house away from that
intersection. I feel that with this subdivision, the increase of traffic will increase
the chances of a severe, if not fatal, accident. As the proposed plan indicates,
Parkdale Road will be the only way in or out of this area. Driftwood has already
become dangerous with the turn around traffic that Pine Street has added.
People who are traveling down Cloverdale or down Executive, come down Pine,
go into our subdivision and flip U-turns trying to get out and if they finally cannot
get to Eagle Road, they turn back around speed back towards Cloverdale. We
have been told that they will put speed bumps and bulb-outs on Driftwood and
Parkdale and we need these things now as it is. There is Lewis and Clark Middle
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 30
School and there are more children who walk through our subdivisions and on
our streets. If you take a look at the area now, you can see that this increase in
traffic should be definitely unacceptable. Executive and Cloverdale has an
inadequate light signal, unprotected left turns onto Executive, no right turn lanes,
et cetera. The sidewalks on Cloverdale do not connect, so, kids have to go out
to the street to get back around, if they are walking home north from the school
onto Cloverdale. Mr. Butler had stated at the neighborhood meeting that the
access road via the church – that he would try to get that as a public access road
for both construction and public access to the subdivision until the north bound
entrance – would be completed, so that the traffic would not be impacted on
Driftwood and Pine Street. I guess that is no longer an issue. So, I propose that
Parkdale be closed and made for emergency access only. Response to that was
that they wanted people to flow from subdivision to subdivision. My rebuttal
would be that we are not connected to Crossroads Subdivision. We have an
emergency stub in right there and other subdivisions in Meridian are not
connected to each other. A good example would be over off of Mayflower, South
Mayflower and the new Crawford Subdivision off of Cloverdale and Overland.
That is a perfect area that is paved, but is blocked off into emergency access and
they have another access off of Cloverdale Road for that subdivision. I highly
suggest that you keep the traffic out of a school zone area. Crossroads
Subdivision already has a light for access to Fairview and Florence Street.
Venture is already stubbed in and access from Cloverdale could be easily made.
I request that you keep in mind the safety of our children and the children of the
school. Would it not be better to have the flow of traffic heading north instead of
south right into the entrance of the school? If the proposal is accepted as is, I
would like to request that road improvements be made first before any
construction is to start: bulb out, speed bumps, residential area signs, caution
children playing signs installed immediately, a temporary access road from the
church driveway, which was discussed at the meeting for public access and
construction access. When and if Pine Street continues through to Eagle Road,
something will need to be done to that intersection. I would also like to invite the
members of this board to take one week and drive Cloverdale between Fairview
and Franklin and Executive and Pine Streets between 7:00-8:00 a.m. and 5:00-
6:00 p.m. everyday. Sit on the corner and see what we are trying to convey to
you guys tonight. It’s ridiculous. Please consider the safety of the children and
the residents of this area. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Anthony: Good evening. My name is Max Anthony and I live at 4154 East
Driftwood. I would like to point out a couple of things. Tonight I speak to you as
a resident of West Westdale Subdivision, but also as a resident of the community
of Meridian and I speak on that behalf because someday I may have a student
going to this school at Lewis and Clark. I think that you have heard from the
other people in this room, that the issue, not only resides within our subdivision
about the safety factors of our children, but also the children of this community
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 31
the traffic flow will induce upon that and create long term. I think it is very
obvious that the biggest issue, and even the developers have spoken about it
tonight, that the traffic is the main concern for people. The symptom is that is
safety. All of us, or the majority of us in this subdivision have children, small
children. I have a three year old and quite honestly my wife is due in about two
hours with another baby. So, in particular I have a very big interest in the safety
aspect of this whole proposal. I would like to point out that my home resides on
the north east corner of Parkdale and Westdale. I also have a square footage of
1900 square foot of my home and it is a single level home. All of (inaudible) that
have been addressed tonight directly affect me more than anybody in this room.
The view, property values and quite honestly I am one of the directly most
affected people by the traffic flow in on that northeastern corner. I think it’s very
helpful that the gentlemen have had some sessions with the neighborhood. But
quite honestly I’ve (inaudible) the sessions they have had and even the personal
time they have spent stopping by my home to visit with me one day, were not
really vested in our interest as in that these guys would be good politicians
because they are very good at lobbying for what they want in this. Now I
understand that businessmen have a job to do and I respect them for that. But,
let’s (inaudible). We have a lot of people that are going to be affected by this and
I would hope that you would take all of the things that have been said tonight into
consideration. We have a lot of people that are concerned and have spent a lot
of time and effort, as you can see from the prepared statements and all of the
people that have gathered together to address you tonight. I hope that you put a
lot of thought into that. The last thing I would like to address is the fact that the
emergency access road that keeps coming up here, even if it is put in, I’m not
sure that that would reduce the response time of emergency vehicles coming
into that area. If you think about it, it’s not distance that’s important for
emergency access, it’s response time. By putting in an emergency access with a
gate and all those types of things, it still doesn’t reduce the response that is
needed to get to that house, that I believe one of you gentlemen addressed, if 27
or 28 would be on fire. So, let’s keep in mind that when we are addressing the
emergency response aspect, it is response time not response distance. Thank
you. Any questions?
Borup: Thank you, sir. Any one else? Mr. Butler, did you have some other
comments here?
Dodge: Good Evening, Mr. Borup. I’m Gary Dodge. I live at 1848 North Cool
Creek in Meridian. I work as the Financial Officer for the Seventh Day Adventist
Church Headquarters located in Boise at 7777 Fairview. We were the sellers of
the property to the property developers and I just wanted to give you a brief
background and a couple of comments this evening, if I could? We chose to sell
this to the developers feeling that this was probably the best of the opportunities
that we had that made proposals to us. All of the other proposals were a much
higher density that they would be requesting. We felt that this particular
developer would bring in R-8 zoning which would be compatible with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 32
Driftwood area. There have been concessions with the Crossroads
Development and there have been questions raised, Mr. Chairman, about the
emergency access that we talked about this evening. The church has granted
the emergency access for the benefit of the temporary in that we don’t feel that a
permanent access coming out to Cloverdale is in the best interest of the flow of
traffic. It is too close to the light, it has lots of complications in the width of the
road that is there. We are providing a temporary access to help alleviate this, so
that when the development north of the property can take place that the proper
access for the flow of traffic would be available to the development. The access
to it would not be impeded because it is gated, because it is a crash gate that the
Fire Department and police would want. So, there is no slowing down for that. I
just wanted to share with you that from the church’s standpoint and from my
office’s standpoint, we felt this was a good use of the property. We find that with
our expanded activities at the church and the church school there that this
additional 28 acres is no longer necessary, since the sod farm has left and there
was always a plan to develop this for the benefit of the church and it’s growth.
That’s why we have done that and we think it is a good thing and we just wanted
to share that with you this evening. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Nary: Have you thought about whether or not providing a full public access
roadway and propose that to the Ada County Highway District?
Dodge: We have not proposed that to my knowledge at this point in time. When
we talked with the developers and this option was suggested, I believe, from
those individuals that they were working with it would be adequate. Feeling that
it was adequate for the immediate needs, we were willing to go ahead with that
particular proposal and agreement with them.
Nary: Okay, would the church be interested if that’s what we said that they had
to have, would the church be interested in doing that? We don’t always have the
situation that the other property owner is the same party and I think that that is
what was brought up. If that is what we determine, is the church interested in
doing that?
Dodge: Is the church interested? I think we are interested in trying to facilitate
this project and, if that is necessary, we would certainly want to talk with the local
church because one of the things that I think you need to keep in mind here, is
that the vacant property that is still retained, the 26 acres where the church and
school facilities are, we lease that out, the open space that we have there, to the
Capital Soccer Team and so we are a little bit concerned. The amount that we
have there and the kids that are running around with a public highway running to
the north end of it as well. That doesn’t necessarily –
Borup: Will you keep it down, please?
Centers: A fence could be put up though, couldn’t it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 33
Dodge: That doesn’t necessarily preclude that certain other things could be
facilitating that. But, we chose to do this at this time because we felt that the
development from Mr. Clark is not in the long distance, but maybe more in the
short distance because I believe he has made some proposals to the Planning
and Zoning here.
Shreeve: Is the church in the City of Boise?
Dodge: Yes.
Nary: Okay, and this property is –
Dodge: This property is in Meridian.
Nary: When the church was built there in that site does it have a CUP? Do you
know?
Dodge: I do not know.
Nary: Do you know if there was a Concept Plan initially?
Dodge: It was in the county when we accessed it.
Nary: Yes, but when the church was built it was in the county at that time?
Dodge: That is correct.
Nary: Okay, so there is no – do you know if there is a CUP for that church?
Dodge: Let me – I don’t – I don’t think Bob and I –
Nary: I wondered if there was a Concept Plan or anything like that? Some of
these folks in the back, is what I am wondering is, what was their expectation of
what was going to be back there?
Dodge: Yes, there has always been a master plan for that which included the
development, some of the ideas of development was for a retirement center,
community there. What the scope and density of that would be was never totally
identified. There have been discussions of an Alzheimer Facility there. There
have also been other discussions within the church of whether or not we would
develop it for single family or multi-family development in the future as well. But,
it was always one master plan at one particular plan that I’m aware of. That has
been discussed, but never totally architecturally drawn out.
Nary: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 34
Borup: Anyone else for Mr. Dodge? You are still the owner of record, though,
correct?
Dodge: That is correct.
Borup: Could you explain a little bit on the easement that is a 20-foot
easement? That’s the discussion about this point on the –
Dodge: I think the – Bob, do you remember what the distance on that -- it’s at
least 20 feet, I know.
Borup: You need to repeat what he said.
Dodge: I understand. It is a 20-foot easement, but I would share with the
Commissioners here that approximately the first half of that coming off of
Cloverdale is already a paved access coming into our parking lot area and
probably exceeds the 20-foot. The 20-foot would be further down.
Borup: Okay, so that access on the north side of your property.
Dodge: Yes. That would be on the north side of the property coming in off of
Cloverdale is where the current entrance is on the north side of the property.
Borup: Is that a temporary easement or a permanent or –
Dodge: It was temporary based upon what we were understood we would do at
this time to facilitate the emergency access and that for the health and safety
issues of the community back there.
Borup: So, the timing on it was until, I believe you said earlier, until there was an
access to Fairview?
Dodge: I believe that is correct.
Borup: That was the length of time on the easement.
Dodge: It wasn’t time certain as much as it was time for the secondary access
that we believe best (inaudible) coming off of Fairview through Mr. Clark’s
property.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Centers: So, based on that you wouldn’t be willing to grant a permanent
easement of any size?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 35
Dodge: No, I apologize if you misunderstood me, I kind of gave you a long
answer to that. It is not precluded that we would not give one at this particular
time.
Centers: All right, thank you.
Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? If not, Mr. – Oh, yes sir. Yes
sir.
Kite: My name is Bob Kite. I live at 11279 West Hickory Dale in Boise. I’m with
the firm of Skinner-Faucet. I’m the legal Council for the Seventh Day Adventist
Church. One of the concerns, if I may address just briefly, on the access to
Cloverdale that precludes a full roadway coming on the Seventh Day Adventist
property, is that running beside the current access is a building that is owned by
the water company. There is a well on the Seventh Day Adventist Church
property that has been put in there and is owned by the Water Company. They
have built a permanent building in there. So, there are real questions, whether
or not a roadway could be run completely on the Seventh Day Adventist property.
The other issue –
Borup: Do you know what the set back from that –
Kite: I don’t know the exact set back, but we have been looking at that and that
is one of the concerns we have about granting that. The other issue –
Borup: But, does it appear at this point that at 20 feet that it –
Kite: 20-feet is not a problem because we have got the roadway in to provide
the emergency access because it is already coming through the roadway that is
coming into the church.
Borup: What I was kind of leading to there, if the rest of the road access was on
the other property, is that a problem?
Kite: Well that could be. One of the concerns, right now, is that the two
properties to the north of the Seventh Day Adventist Church property and the
property that is north of the property that is to be sold to the developers. We
have had conversations with Mr. Clark about trying to get the north-south road in
now. The problem is that until he gets his developments finalized on those two
pieces of property, he doesn’t know where he wants that road to go. That would
apply, probably, on both of those pieces of property. We are concerned that
whatever goes out to Cloverdale doesn’t create more traffic problems than it
solves, from the standpoint that the Boise property of Mr. Clark on the front half
of his property there, immediately north of the church property, is currently zoned
for a multi-family, high density housing. So, if we put a straight shot road out to
Cloverdale there, which his property joins into, we may in essence be creating a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 36
larger traffic problem in the long run than if we can wait a little longer for him to
get that roadway developed and put in place.
Borup: That has not been zoned yet, has it?
Kite: We are talking about the Boise portion.
Borup: Oh, the Boise portion, okay.
Kite: The Boise portion, which is immediately north of where the church currently
sits.
Borup: So, that has had a zoning –
Kite: It’s our understanding it’s zoned R-18. 18 units per acre.
Borup: Okay, any other questions from the Commissioners? Thank you, sir.
Okay, Mr. Butler, I guess it is finally your turn.
Butler: Do I need to say my name and address again? Mark Butler. Mr.
Chairman, members of the Commission, Pat Dobie with Dobie Engineering is
here and I would like to first, if I could, touch on the plan related issues, maybe a
little bit on traffic, but not much. Pat would like to touch on some of the
transportation issues and of course, he is here to answer any questions you may
have. The first thing is in relationship to the access time to the property and the
need for the police vehicles or fire vehicles to come in off of Cloverdale. The
staff report from ACHD says that the Pine-Executive extension is planned to be
done in couple of years, or something. Somebody mentioned that the Dakota
Company is doing some sort of a development, finishing the Crossroads and
they are actually going to be putting in the road quickly. I happen to know Larry
Dirkens, who is standing out there, who is with the Dakota Company, and I asked
him when that road is going in? He said that he has all of his approvals from this
City for the southern phase of Crossroads and he will be having that road
connected by August. So, I think that’s a great positive if there are concerns with
fire departments –
Borup: Well that is just going back to where Crossroads Subdivision starts, I
believe.
Butler: No, he says it is going to be constructed from –
Borup: Clear to the school?
Butler: Yes, well, what he told me – he’s out there, and hopefully he is with me –
but, what he told me is that that is going to be constructed as – he said a five
lane road – but, hopefully, it will be a three lane road from Eagle Road to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 37
boundary of his property and then the gap is to be filled in with a 24 or 30 foot
roadway as is there now, by ACHD, to connect that piece.
Borup: That’s right.
Butler: ACHD will be doing the other part. Even so, and I’m not saying the
response time is a good response time, but maybe they made a mistake when
they approved the school. If we look at the situation that is there now – I’m not
saying it’s a good situation. – If the police and fire do need to get to the school,
they have basically the same route to travel and same distance. So, maybe they
saw an exception for access to the school as opposed to us, I’m not sure. But, it
looks like a similar response time. Either come around Fairview, Cloverdale, into
the school or Fairview, Cloverdale, into our access way. I know that they would
have to cut a gate to get into ours, but it looks somewhat similar. Hopefully, Mr.
Dirken and ACHD will complete that roadway and that won’t be an issue.
Hopefully, you can also make finding that this subdivision in relationship to it’s
design, size, with our proposals with minimum lot sizes, meet those
Comprehensive Plan conditions. The gentleman who read those, to me – of
course, I’m representing the developer – but I thought, sounds like we are right
on and sounds like we are meeting the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. If you look at the surrounding area of the R-8 to the south,
I believe the Crossroads Development having been build to an I Zone. From
what my understanding is with a PUD, Plan Unit Development, or PD, whatever
you call it and having to put in more open space in their development, maybe
because of all of the commercial they have got. It is a little bit different
circumstance, but basically building lots that are similar in character to what I
understand your R-8 allows. It looks like we have some compatibility issues
there that are good. I guess they are not issues. Also, the lots to the south of
us, Westdale, has no open space, and I’m not faulting them for not having any,
I’m sure it wasn’t the code at that time, but we do have open space where we are
providing for a park. I think that, hopefully, adds value to our properties and
thereby, with the open space we are putting in and the plan for our community
thereby helps property values. I really can’t see how 100 square feet difference
in a house size would impact values, but I’m not a value expert. Somebody said
right.
Borup: Could you comment on – as far as duplexes – there are no duplex lots
planned?
Butler: We would certainly agree that says that duplexes shall be prohibited. No
duplexes are planned.
Borup: Thank you.
Butler: We certainly would agree to limit the density to 4 units per acre. Traffic
study, again, Pat will comment on that. Dakota Company – I used to work at the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 38
Gas Company years ago and we used to put temporary patches on gas lines
and the foreman used to say that temporary is meaningless. We would never go
back and fix the temporary patches unless it leaked again. What I am trying to
lead up to, and it is not helping me very well is, we are looking at a temporary
situation here. In the temporary situation, as far as the roadway accesses go,
we meet all policy requirements of ACHD and Pat will touch on that. Beyond
temporary – and I’m sure this property will develop to the north of us. With that
kind of density I think that Mr. Clark would be very interested in getting it
developed. -- Beyond temporary, we are going to have a connection, definitely
up to Fairview. That alone would give us this secondary connection. It’s likely
that Mr. Clark will have some sort of connection out to Cloverdale. I would hope
that that could be incorporated in his development and to not have to be a
burden on the church. Especially when, technically, it’s not necessary. I know
there are personal concerns with roadways, and hopefully ACHD can give you
direction that shows you that even them, as a Commission feel that, technically
it is not necessary to have a roadway – full access public roadway – through the
church property. The idea of having chokers on the east side was to limit the
access going eastward and actually, hopefully limit people from coming westward
on that particular segment of roadway. We don’t know that we need chokers on
the north side going into the development. It seems like we would rather leave
that the better access for easier flow down to Pine. Plus, there is a stop sign
there, too. I know sometimes people don’t stop at stop signs, but there is a stop
sign there. We would rather not – I don’t think we need the chokers there.
Stubstreets are a bummer. When people buy next to them and it is vacant
behind there, and, I guess, I would probably hope it never developed. But, they
are there for a reason. They are there to provide access for other folks and you
probably know that. The Highway District has determined the limits on that in
relation to safety. Sir, capacity wise it probably can handle 15000 trips a day. A
36-foot back-to-back road. From a safety perspective, ACHD has determined
that threshold is up to 2000 on this type of a roadway. So, we’re well below that
and hopefully you can consider that information when you deliberating on this.
Mr. Dobie, if you would like to comment on traffic related issues unless you have
questions of me?
Nary: I just had a question for you Mr. Butler. One of the things that I thought I
heard some of the neighbors say from Westdale is that when you had had your
neighborhood meetings you had made the commitment on both borders to have
like-size houses, single-story houses, both on the Crossroads side as well as
Westdale. When I heard you testify tonight you said that you really didn’t want
that on the south side of your subdivision. Why is that?
Butler: There may have been a misunderstanding. We did – I did go in there
personally and say we are going to do single-story on the west side. The south
side, when we started the meeting, I said we are not planning on single-story. I
gave them the same spiel I did to you, with the nine lots. We have nine lots, they
have 19 lots. Then in the meeting, it kind of broke up. Mr. Hudd is one the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 39
developer and he said that there is a possibility they could go to single story. We
spoke with Jim Mercaile, had a meeting on it. Then I sent an employee of mine
out to count single story and two-story. It just -- after looking at it we didn’t feel
like we needed to go to single-story since is was nine lots to 19. If you want
single-story, we will do single-story. That was why?
Borup: But, you were staying the same on the square footage requirements?
Butler: We were proposing the 15 on the south, which is what their covenants
are.
Borup: Yes.
Nary: Thank you.
Butler: Dobie, and then if you have more questions –
Borup: Mr. Dobie.
Dobie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Pat Dobie. My address is
777 Housestone Drive in Boise. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you have. But, I would like to just make a couple of comments first. First of all,
Pine Street at the present time is a work in process. It is not complete. There
are plans in the works to connect it all the way through to Eagle Road. There is
a signal being designed out at Eagle as we speak. That will be constructed this
summer. ACHD is currently planning to extend that road in 2003. But they are
also planning to use impact fees to pay for it. As you read in the paper this
morning, as they collect impact fees, they build roads. It is projects like this, of
generating the working capital, in order to make Pine Street a reality. As far as
the traffic from the school, schools are major traffic generators. This is a large
facility and it generates a lot of traffic. Because of that, they like – both the
Highway District and the school districts – like to locate the schools on
(inaudible) streets. It was put there for a purpose. It is not a mistake. It is a way
of accommodating the traffic without sending that traffic through residential
areas. At the crossing of Parkdale and Pine Street there will be a control device
installed there. Either a traffic signal or pedestrians crossing signal or some sort
of control device to allow the kids to safely cross the street. This is actually a
good location for it. You can funnel all the kids to one central location and you
can manage their activities. As far as the issue of a road, an exclusive road, out
to Cloverdale, from Macaile Meadows. Visualize for a second the circulation
pattern that would evolve. For the residents of Macaile to get to the school they
would have to drive out to Cloverdale, down to Pine, back to the school. These
are young kids. A lot of parents do drive their kids to school. Some of them will
walk, but the young kids will probably be driven. The similar route will exist to get
to the shopping center. They will drive out to Cloverdale, up to Fairview, down
into the shopping center. You know, this is really contrary to neighborhood inter-
connect activity, in an attempt by the highway district to reduce the traffic on
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 40
critical arterial intersections. Quite honestly, the Highway District probably
wouldn’t buy off on that. They would be very strong and resistant to that. There
were stub streets originally planned to serve that property. This is the
manifestation of the planning that’s replaced prior to this. Now as far as the
traffic volumes, ACHD has adopted standard, and the City of Meridian has
adopted those standards. Generally speaking, it is 1000 vehicles per day on
new street and residential developments with the possibility of going up to 2000
vehicles per day as future growth in the area occurs or in cases where there is
either no front-on housing or it is a short stub within 500 feet of the intersection of
the system street, like Pine Street. The traffic volume on the streets coming out
of Macaile will be approximately 1000 vehicles per day. On the section of
Pinedale, just north of Pine, it may range up to 1500 vehicles per day. But, this is
well within acceptable quality standards established by ACHD and adopted by
the City. In the long term, it will be a connection to Venture. The traffic volumes
on these street will decrease. My estimate is that they will fall below the 1000
vehicles per day once that connection has been made because, again, Fairview
is a major arterial and it is a major direction of travel. Just one last comment on
the street to Cloverdale. As was mentioned before, you need to be careful of
that street and the interconnection between Macaile and Pinedale and the future
connection through the Clark property to Cloverdale Road because that
interconnection has the possibility of drawing traffic back into this area. It will
cause a negative effect by backflowing the traffic up to the shopping center and
out to Eagle Road. I think that location of the stub to the north, which is
proposed in the site plan, is an ideal location. It introduces a lot of right angle
turns and a lot of discontinuity to the internal street system and will tend to
discourage external traffic from coming through. A direct connection from these
lots out to Cloverdale, with access to the Clark property, creates the potential for
future conflicts and should be avoided. I’ll answer any questions that you may
have.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, sir, the access through the church property, your not in
favor of that. I think what you are really saying is that when the Clark access,
we’ll call it, that goes to the north, will be the answer.
Dobie: Yes.
Centers: When is that predicted? When can we see that? Is there any definite
time frame? I have read a letter, but it doesn’t give anything definite and until
then what do the residents do when they want to get out? You say they can’t go
out to Cloverdale on that street, if it were in there. So what is your option until
the Clark access goes in?
Dobie: Well the option is to use Pine Street. Pine Street is a system street that
accesses Cloverdale at a signalized intersection. There is a signal right there.
When Pine Street is extended and fully improved there will be left turn bays and
protected left turn phases added to the signal
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 41
Centers: And it is not extended or fully improved now.
Dobie: Well, it is in the plan to be done in a few years.
Centers: When the impact fees come in.
Dobie: Following completion of the development here.
Centers: Right.
Dobie: In the meantime, as this property develops, utilities will be installed,
infrastructure and improvements will be stubs closer to the Clark property and
the develop ability of that site will became much more ripe.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dobie, so, are you saying that the impact fees from
this subdivision is part of what ACHD needs to build the rest of Pine Street?
Dobie: ACHD is funding the construction of Pine Street with impact fees.
Nary: I know they are funding it with impact fees, but they are not funding it with
these impact fees, they are funding it with the Crossroads Subdivision impact
fees, aren’t they?
Dobie: Part of it. Part of it. The – you realize the school paid no impact fees
and it’s a large traffic generator. The school contributed to the need for the
extension of Pine Street. But, ACHD currently has Pine Street in a five-year
work plan. Projects enter that plan and exit that plan on a yearly basis. If
development pressure is constant and traffic is growing then, Pine Street will be
constructed according to schedule. If development is truncated for some reason,
it could fall off of the schedule. This –
Nary: I guess, you know, Mr. Dobie, not to – far be it from me to be
unsupportive of the Ada County Highway District, but I seem to read a whole lot
of stuff about – been lately – that even with all of the impact fees they have
collected, they still aren’t building projects that are already in their work plan
because they don’t have the funds to build them. So, although, it would appear
to me, from the information we have heard tonight, that if the code of
development didn’t help build Pine Street, they wouldn’t be building that one
either. I don’t see – I guess, what I think is what these residents are saying is
that we don’t want to have to bet that this is going to get build and that will help
and that will be okay once that happens. I guess, what they are asking us is –
the decision we have in recommending to the City Council is – do we do this now
or do we wait until that north is developed, until somebody comes in and says
that this is happening, this is available, this is going to be done now rather than it
might be done? The other thing I was curious about Mr., Dobie, I notice you use
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 42
the same traffic counts in your study that you submitted as well as what ACHD,
but these traffic counts also appear to have been done prior to the school
opening. Isn’t that right? So is the traffic count higher now, since you said it is a
big traffic generator? This says April of 2000 is when the traffic count was done
and the school didn’t open until September.
Dobie: Yes. The traffic counts that I used in my analysis were collected last
week.
Nary: Okay, this is April of 2000. So, was that a typo?
Dobie: No. No. There was a subsequent traffic study that was submitted to
ACHD staff.
Nary: Okay, so that’s something we do not have. This says that in the ACHD’s
preliminary report that we were given tonight it uses the same number, the 13794
from April of 2000 that is in your report is in their preliminary report.
Dobie: ACHD installed two counters on those streets last week and collected
counts. In addition, there was a signal operation analysis conducted at the Pine
Street- Cloverdale signal last week, just to see what the conditions were. That
information was forwarded to ACHD and will be available by the time they meet.
Their staff wanted some very current data as to what the operational conditions
were.
Nary: Do you know what it is?
Dobie: What the numbers are?
Nary: Yes.
Dobie: No, I don’t.
Nary: So, the only ones that we have before us right now are a year old?
Dobie: Yes.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Dobie? Thank you, sir. Okay, did staff have
any other questions, or any other comments? If not, sit this time.
Commissioners, any discussion, comments?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think what I propose we do – and we can certainly
discuss it first – is that we do continue the Public Hearing and continue this
matter to a date certain, if these folks want to come back, that we still leave it
open for the traffic information. Obviously, that is a pretty significant concern of
both parties, both the developers as well as all of the neighbors. I think we are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 43
going to need a little bit more information. I think that the developers have heard
some concerns and if some of the Commissioners want to voice what their
concerns may be, if there is any, that might give them some food-for-thought
before we come back. That might be helpful to the neighbors as well as the
developers.
Borup: That is what I was going to ask for. I think that it would be appropriate,
Commissioners, to express any thoughts or concerns, if there is anything else
you would like the applicant to take into consideration.
Norton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant should take into consideration
the suggestion of a development agreement that would restrict all of the homes
to a single-family, single-level – excuse me, rather than two-story, one-story.
Traffic is definitely a problem and I don’t know about the R-8. I still have
concerns about a R-8 depending on if these are all single-family homes. I can
certainly – I think we hear loud and clear the traffic problems coming in and out
of that.
Borup: That seems to be the main concern. I mean, the R-8 is bordering a
potential R-15 and an 18 now, there needs to be some transition, somewhere.
Norton: But, again, we have heard a lot of promises and we don’t see anything
in writing. So, perhaps a Development Agreement would be in order.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, also if we all lived in a perfect world, but, I’d like to see
potentially some discussion with Clark. To see if there is just some chance of
constructing a road to the north. Now, understanding that he may have plans, he
may not have plans and constructing that road may or may not impact his plans,
but I think that if we could get something worked out there now, it certainly would
be beneficial, if at all possible.
Borup: He may or may not be willing to do that, but a temporary road went into
Crossroads Subdivision. The current Records Avenue was a temporary paved
road. But, yes Mr. Centers.
Centers: Well, I guess, when I see it again, I need to see another access other
than Driftwood. I think it is an unfair burden on the homeowners on Driftwood, to
ask them to wait for a possibility of another access through the Clark property. I
just think that’s an unfair situation and it is not fair to ask those homeowners, or
to tell them that we may have this later with Clark, we have this agreement
coming, I’m sure that he is going to develop that property. You don’t know if he is
going to develop it. I think I would have to see another permanent access. I
think that if this subdivision would have come in with an R-4 and another
permanent access, we’d be done with it tonight. That’s my personal opinion.
Borup: I’d – go ahead Mr. Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 44
Nary: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. I did see some – I want these
neighbors to understand, that in general, my opinion is that an in-fill development
is a very positive thing. It is better than a patch of weeds, it’s better than other
things that could be build in this area. There are two things that are being asked
of us, one is annexation and the second is Preliminary Plat. I don’t really have a
problem with the annexation. I think this is a good location to be in the City of
Meridian. It obviously does border the City of Boise, but it is a good location for it
to be in the City. The R-8 zoning with a Development Agreement is fine, that is,
appropriate, as you can tell with Westdale. R-8 is fine, it depends on what you
are going to build there. Obviously, the bigger question is the Preliminary Plat
issue and I would agree with Commissioner Centers, if this was an R-4 and it
looked like Crossroads and it looked like Westdale, we probably wouldn’t have a
problem. But, the secondary access is a significant concern, both from a safety
aspect and a traffic aspect. I want all of you neighbors to understand, we don’t
control the traffic, the Highway District does. They determine whether a road
could go through the church to Cloverdale. They determine whether or not there
is another access they will allow into this subdivision. We don’t determine that.
We just decide whether or not the houses fit the way they want it to fit versus
what the roadways look like. I think what the developer need to look at before
we come back again is making those commitments on the plat as to what the
house sizes are supposed to be, those are supposed to have been there
anyway, so, that they need to do. I think I did hear them commit that they would
–- could live with the single- story along both the borders so that they would be a
good transition from the other developments and I think that is reasonable, that’s
reasonable and fair for both sides to have that. I don’t see a problem with
waving fencing, that’s the Council’s decision, ultimately, but, obviously you don’t
need to double fence that. I don’t think there is anybody that said anything. The
R-8 versus the R-4 isn’t significant as long as there is a development agreement
and they are already committed to that, designating house sizes. They do have
good green space, that is something we always do want to see. They did do
that, they have done some very positive things. This is a very nice subdivision.
It really is a very nice subdivision. In general context, if it wasn’t a traffic issue, in
my opinion, this is compatible with the other two subdivisions over there. This if
very similar to size and style and scope of the others. I don’t agree with
Commissioner Centers, I am very troubled in agreeing to this plat today with the
hope that in the next couple of years all of the roads will work out. I think folks
that live in the north end of Boise thought the same thing 20 years ago and it still
doesn’t work out. Lots of people hope things are going to work, and we would
like them to work, but I’d really rather see something a whole lot more concrete.
I am afraid that having a single access will make it very difficult and we will end
up with cut-through down a street that has parking on both sides, or try to get
people down that road and trying to funnel people one way, never seems to work
very well. I’d like to at least see some attempt to that, maybe there isn’t one and
we will decide whether or not we really want this.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 45
Borup: Do we have any other comments? I think I’d echo, pretty much, what
was said. That the access is a big concern to me. I would also hate to see the
access to Pine cut off, though. I agree with Mr. Dobie that traffic going to the
shopping center needs an access, rather than going to the Fairview
intersections, but I would see that as a minor access and the major to Fairview or
to Cloverdale, if that can be worked out. The other comment I have, I don’t think
it is our responsibility to legislate a neighbor’s view. If that was a concern, the
houses on the other side of Driftwood would have the same problem within theirs
–the houses across the street in their own subdivision. That would probably be
the only thing I may differ with a little bit there, but, yes, if the developer could
take a look at looking at something on access, I think there is something for you
to look at until we continue this. We need to decide a date. I think that is going
to be the first available date, May 17th
, our second meeting in May. We are filled
up, up until that point.
Nary: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would move that we continue both AZ 01-005 and
PP 01-006 the request for annexation and zoning of the Macaile Meadows
Subdivision and the request for Preliminary Plat of the Macaile Meadows
Subdivision until the – continue with the Public Hearing being open and continue
this hearing until our May 17,2001 Planning and Zoning meeting.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I would like to thank everyone for being here this evening. I think it
would be an appropriate time to take a short break. About a five-minute break
and we will reconvene.
(Short Recess at 9:15p.m.)
***End Of Side Three***
(Reconvene at 9:30p.m.)
Borup: Let’s reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting and proceed with –
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. We have now been meeting twice a
month since August and we have been going very regularly to 1:00 and 2:00
a.m. in the morning. It is hard on the Commissioners and on the audience to pay
attention at that time of day and still get to our paying jobs at 8:00 the next
morning. I know we all spend a lot of hours working on planning and zoning and
studying all of the projects, but I would suggest that we all try to end these
meetings between 11:00 and 11:30. I would request permission tonight if there is
a forum here to leave at 11:00.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 46
Borup: I think that the rest of the Commission – We’ve had that discussion
before or similar to that. So, let’s work to see how close we can come to getting
wrapped up by 11:00. We’ve had an unofficial policy before to try to -- no new
hearings after 11:00 and out by 12:00.
Norton: Or out by 11:00.
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 01-004 Request for annexation and
zoning of 16 acres from RT to R-15 for proposed Fountain
Park by David Waldron – southeast corner of Locust Grove
and Wilson Lane:
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-007 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for planned development, proposed Fountain Park
on 16 acres for apartments within a proposed R-15 zone by
David Waldron – southeast corner of Locust Grove and
Wilson Lane:
Borup: Okay, Item No. 8 is Public Hearing, a request for annexation and zoning
of 16 acres from RT to R-15 for proposed Fountain Park by David Waldron and
Item No. 9 is the joining Conditional Use Permit application for planned
development, proposed Fountain Park on 16 acres for apartment in a proposed
R-15 zone by David Waldron. I would like to open both of these Public Hearings
and start with the Staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup. The subject property is the center
of the screen here. As you stated, 16 acres. Surrounding uses include D&B
Supply to the north, the Eddy’s Bakery, Wrecking Yard here, Fred Meyer on the
north side of Fairview, proposed Locust Grove Place Apartments by Lee Centers,
which you reviewed a couple of months ago. Immediately west, single family
rural residential type houses to the south, the recently approved Butte Fence
Project is here on this piece, Jackson Drain courses the southern boundary
along with the Settler’s Canal. They are proposing a rezone to R-15 from the
current county zone of RUT. Some site photos here. Wilson Lane on the north,
currently 25, posted at 25 miles per hour, does dead-end at the Butte fence
currently. There is an existing single-family house on the parcel on the east end,
I believe, towards the east end. As far as the Conditional Use Application, Item
No. 9. Here is a proposed site plan. 216 units, they are 14 multi-unit two-story
buildings. All the building types are identical with the exception of just this one
building here. This is a proposed eight-plex. All of the rest are a proposed 16-
plexes. Single entry, full access here off of Locust Grove and full access here off
of Wilson Lane on the north. So, two access points off of the two adjacent public
roads and then an internal 25-foot wide travel lane with this here. The main
ACHD requirement is a 100-foot center turn lane on Locust Grove, here adjacent
to the entrance. A few other highlights of the staff report, which we do ask that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 47
you include in your motion, dated April 2nd
. They are proposing a common area
here that has a water feature in the center. They have standard parking. The
club house here at the entrance, along with the pool. The multi-use pathway
courses the full southern here. They are proposing to pipe the Settler’s Canal
and keep the Jackson Drain open and the pathway would come along here. The
pathway would also connect with the Locust Grove Place Apartments here on
the west side of Locust Grove. Here are proposed elevations of the 16-plex.
You should have in your packets and have had a chance to review. Elevations of
the clubhouse and garage and the trash enclosures on the bottom. These were
color, I guess they didn’t come out color, they are the same there. I think there is
just four items I wanted to bring to your attention from the staff report. First one
there on page five, we did ask that the applicant did address the water feature
and the issue of design and depth and safety there on that – how that water
feature is going to be designed. So, if they could do that. Then item 17, we
asked, if possible, if there was no rear building elevations of the 16-plex or any
elevations of the eight-plex. We have no problem, we are assuming that they are
going to be constructed to the same quality of the elevations that were
submitted. For your benefit, we asked if they would have those. Then we did
ask on item 18 that they verify the open space, subtracting out the street buffers,
which are not allowed to be calculated in the open space. Then 19 regarded the
fence. I was told, verbally, by Phil Hull, the representative’s landscape architect
who drew this up there. The main fence that they are proposing is here along
the east boundary only. They would not be fencing any of the south. They
would simply have a landscape berm as their separation here on Locust Grove
and Wilson Lane, no fencing. We just wanted to have some discussion about
the type of fence along that east boundary. Then Item No. 21, there was no
discussion of any phasing in their application, regarding how they might phase
the construction of this project, so, we wanted that addressed, too. That’s all I
have.
Borup: Any questions or comments –
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question for Staff. How do you get into
these apartments? Is it inside entrance?
Hawkins-Clark: I’ve seen several different types –
Norton: I don’t see any doors.
Hawkins-Clark: any what?
Norton: I don’t see any doors to get in. Are they on the sides?
Hawkins-Clark: I think they enter, underground. It’s a unique style.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 48
Borup: How about we ask that to the applicant when he comes up. We don’t
have any floor plans to see that do we?
Hawkins-Clark: I think they do have probably shared entrances in this one.
They are not independent.
Borup: With hallway down the center is what I am assuming.
Hawkins-Clark: There is no floor plan submitted.
Borup: Anyone else? Is the applicant representative here? Please come
forward.
Waldron: Commissioner, my name is David Waldron, I live at 1933 Springbrook
Lane. I have a couple of handouts here for you. The staff report mentioned the
absence of the eight-plex elevations, which I have, and also the backside of the
16-plex. These also are colored so it will give you an idea of the color scheme
that we are using. Also I will just quickly show you how (inaudible) –
Nary: Could you say that again on the record, I couldn’t hear –
Borup: Just on that mic.
Waldron: On the typical 16-plex and also the 8-plex we have stairways on either
side of the main elevations that serve the four units or the eight units in the
middle and then we have stairways on either end of the building that serve those
units. So, we have –
Nary: So, the exterior, these are not entrance doors for the residents? These
pictures here, the entrance door isn’t internal?
Waldron: Yes, external.
Nary: Okay.
Borup: Similar to a motel.
Waldron: What I am showing you there is the stair system leading into the
building. I am very pleased to present a project that we are proud of. I think the
name Fountain Park reflects the concept that we were after when we began the
project. We were intent on creating a design that had a fairly low density. Our
216 units are sitting on 16-acres of land. Approximately half of that, or 8-acres,
is green space. So, I think that as you can tell by looking at the landscape plan,
we were very interested in creating a high level, kind of, park setting for this
project. The apartments themselves will be what I would refer to as upper-end
type apartments. Very generous inside with nine-foot ceilings and finished out
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 49
very nice. We were intent, also, from the beginning, to keep all of the billings to a
two-story level. This pretty much dictated the lower density. If you start going
three-stories, that requires a lot more parking and you end up just loading the
site with parking and buildings and very little landscaping. The buildings
themselves, as you can see in the color renderings, have horizontal siding with a
beige color, grayish-brown roofs. We are also planning to add some river-rod
accents as a (inaudible) around the building. That’s kind of it, fast and simple.
I’d like to turn over to Phil Hull to talk about the site development and details,
unless you have any questions for me.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, how big is the clubhouse?
Waldron: The clubhouse is 3000 square feet. Internally it has a great room with
a fireplace, an inside workout room, and offices.
Hull: My name is Phil Hull with The Land Group, 128 South Eagle Road. Mr.
Chairman, members of the Commission, I would just like to keep this brief, so, I
am going to mainly just address or respond to some of the staff comments on the
initial presentation.
Borup: I appreciate that. That’s what we like to hear, just addressing staff
comments that you need to clarify.
Hull: Okay, the first item deals with the water feature and there were some
questions on the design and the style of that. What we are thinking of doing
there is, what we would call a zero-depth water feature. Something similar to
what you would see at Heritage Park in Eagle or The Grove in downtown Boise
or even Generations Plaza here in Meridian, with basically a flat plane with
fountain jets that come up for kids to play in and what not. So, it’s an interactive
type of feature with zero depth, so you don’t have liability of kids falling in and
drowning and that sort of thing. The next item I would like to point out is on Page
5, No. 12, the pedestrian connection to Wilson Lane. Right next to building A-1
we would be more than happy to make that connection. I think that is a great
suggestion that they had there. Next item is No. 17 on Page 6. Oh, 17 I believe
Mr. Waldron took care of by handing out the 8-plex building elevations and the
rear of the 16-plex.
Borup: You’re right.
Hull: No. 18 deals with the open space calculation. On our package that we
submitted on the master plan, we had shown 55 percent open space,
landscaping. In doing the recalculation on that we came up with 50.13 percent,
351000 square feet, which is just a little bit over eight acres. So, we did come
down about four and a half percent or so. The fencing on No. 19, page seven,
we would propose a six-foot cedar fence, metal post. I believe the last item was
21, construction phasing. We do not intend to phase this project at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 50
Borup: Looks like that covered it. Any questions from the Commission? Okay,
thank you, sir.
Centers: I have a question for staff, the minimum landscape for this type of
project is normally what?
Hawkins-Clark: ten percent.
Centers: And they are going 50.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Come on
up, sir.
Livingston: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Richard
Livingston. I reside at 1280 North Locust Grove, which is the property
immediately south of this proposed project. It is a great looking project and I’m
not opposed to it going in, except for two small items. One again we are looking
at a traffic situation that I think is going to be intolerable, for the short term,
anyway. I am also, kind of wondering why a fence wasn’t proposed on the south
side of the project so that I could receive some relief from noise, traffic lights, and
what not. I feel a little bit like David being on the run by Goliath, forgetting to get
my stones or something. As far as the traffic on Locust Grove right now –
Borup: Mr. Livingston, just a clarification. Your parcel is that triangle piece
directly to the south?
Livingston: That’s correct, Yes. I noticed the site pictures didn’t include –
Borup: This is your parcel right here?
Livingston: That is my parcel right there.
Centers: How much land do you have and big –
Livingston: That’s a two-acre piece.
Centers: With a single-family home on it?
Livingston: Yes.
Borup: Do you know the width of the drainage right-of-way there, by any
chance? Is there a right-of-way? Well, it’s on the plan here.
Livingston: The northern border of my property is the Jackson Drain and the
property line runs from what I understand down the center –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 51
Borup: It looks like close to the center of the drain. Is that correct, there is no
right-of-way for the Jackson Drain?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe it is easement –
Borup: That’s what I meant to say was an easement.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, I think it is easement and I believe 25-foot was shown on
the north. I don’t know what, on this gentlemen’s south side, it would be. The
easement from the centerline for the highway– the access maintenance road, if I
remember right, is on the north side.
Borup: Okay, here, I show that the 28-foot easement on the north.
Livingston: Yes that’s for the canal.
Hawkins-Clark: For the Settlers?
Livingston: For the Settler’s Canal. It’s not necessarily for the drain to my
knowledge.
Hawkins-Clark: Right, sure.
Borup: Yes, the site plans show the 28-foot easement north of the property –
northeast of the property line, but – okay, thank you. Go ahead.
Livingston: So, my concern at this point is that until the ACHD widens the south
portion of Locust Grove from Fairview to Pine to at least three lanes – with
Locust Grove Place going immediately across the road, they are talking of
generating – well, their plan said 660 trips per day, which is probably a
conservative figure. The latest traffic count that I had from the ACHD was
October 18, 2000 was 6,326 cars a day, already. If you add in Locust Grove
Place, when that is in place, you are talking almost 8000 cars a day on that road.
They already backup way past my property on peak – in the evenings – and
peak traffic times. North of Fairview, they are starting to – they put in a bridge –
and they are going to be starting to widen that to three lanes all the way to
Ustick, which, I know, but can’t prove, that that will increase the traffic on the
southern part, past my house, significantly, once that is done. Nobody – well at
least I almost never go down Fairview to Eagle – I mean Eagle to Fairview – and
come in my property from the north. I always cut through the back because it is
quicker. And knowing all people, they will soon find out once that is three lanes
north, and the traffic count on that already is 3000 north of Fairview on Locust
Grove. So, I believe with Locust Grove Place going in across and this going in
just to the north there, this will probably dump another minimum of 1000 car trips
per day right out to that street which is just south of Eddy’s Bakery and the video,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 52
which generates, I don’t know how much traffic there, but it is just a nightmare at
that corner already. I think you are looking at gridlock and safety problems and
what not and I would sure like to see a fence put up between – on the north
property line or their south – between my property and theirs. I would really
prefer an 8-foot high block wall, but, no, that is probably not – wouldn’t be
required but, that sure would be nice. I would ask you that you would postpone
approval on this until the ACHD widens Locust Grove. It is supposedly slated for
2003, which you probably already know. Again, I would assume it’s high enough
on their list, maybe they will find the money for that, but I’m not – there is no
guarantee. I would just ask that you consider those two things and possibly
postponing it until that road is done so that it can handle the amount of traffic that
we’d be looking at. Thank you very much.
Borup: Mr. Livingston. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? I have a
question on – is your house on the south of your property? Or in the center?
Right at that corner there.
Livingston: No, it’s probably right about there.
Borup: About in the center of your –
Livingston: I’m about 40-feet off of Locust Grove.
Borup: About half-way between the frontage on your –
Livingston: Yes, probably a little – well, actually it is more to the south, I think I
am probably about 50-feet or so from my south property line, the house is.
Borup: Then, questions on your statement on a fence. You said you would like
it somewhere between the properties. Have you got a preference on location?
Keeping in mind that the Jackson Drain is there.
Livingston: Well, as far as – no, I don’t have any – such as –
Borup: Well, to put it down their property line is in the middle of the drain. So, it
is going to have to come out of the drain on one side or the other.
Livingston: Right.
Borup: Would you be opposed if that fence was on your property, on your side
of the drain?
Livingston: I don’t believe so.
Borup: That would be acceptable to you?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 53
Livingston: I think that I could work with that.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, one of the things we have sometimes done, Mr. Livingston
is look at trees as a buffer in those types of things. Would that be acceptable?
Would that be something that you could live with on your side of the property
line, if there were trees?
Livingston: I believe I could, but trees grow kind of slow. So, it would depend on
the type and if –
Nary: I’m not talking stick trees, reasonable mature trees, those types of things
that – I am assuming what you are wanting is some sort of buffer and shield. It
appears on the drawing that there are not houses up against the property line. It
appears that there is the water amenity, then there is parking, and some covered
parking –
Livingston: It looks like it is mainly parking.
Nary: It’s a long way from the residences to your house so it is just more noise,
some street noise, some buffer –
Livingston: I mean, I’m spoiled. It’s been all open, it’s quiet. I like that. So, I
would prefer, as much as I can –
Nary: Some kind of buffer would make it more compatible to you.
Livingston: Something would be nice, yes.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you, sir.
Livingston: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Anyone else from the public? Would you like to come
back up then, sir?
Waldron: One quick comment –
Borup: Yes, we would like any comments you have on anything that has been
testified on so far.
Waldron: I respect the comments that Mr. Livingston is making. I would just like
to point out that we were really interested in the very beginning of the planning
to—
Borup: You need to test to find the microphone, please.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 54
Waldron: You’ll see that after the entry, the first building that we have, which our
rec building is actually about 150 feet from the property line. We were estimating
that it was a good 200 plus feet from the house. I failed to mention it before, but
we were determined not to put any structures up against the property that would
look down on his property. As far as this screening that he is requesting, we are
real happy to accommodate whatever it would take to satisfy him on that. I
would prefer the foliage. I think maybe Phil could speak to specifically what that
could be, but we are happy to do whatever it would take.
Borup: Would your preference be on the south side of Jackson Drain? Just
looking at your plat, you have a meandering sidewalk there that looks like would
be real hard to get a fence along that area and keep the landscaping and I
assume the amenities you are trying to achieve.
Waldron: Yes, I think that would be fine.
Borup: I’m not saying either way, that’s why I am asking what your preference
would be?
Waldron: I guess my preference would be to do whatever would make Mr.
Livingston happy.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: Chairman could I borrow that -- the house is over here, is that right?
Waldron: Right.
Nary: These, these are carports? Do they have storage behind them?
Waldron: No, they are carports.
Nary: They are carports. So, are there some lights that are going to spill across
this direction?
Waldron: No.
Nary: So, there is solid wall here?
Waldron: No, they are open carports. So, there would be headlights when they
pull in.
Nary: Right that’s what I meant, well, you just said no. So there are headlights
that are going to come across this direction?
Waldron: Right, I thought you meant lights coming down from the carports.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 55
Nary: Headlights coming across and then there would be headlights coming this
way that spill across his property as well as some headlights this direction. And
you have no fencing at all or anything here to block that?
Waldron: That’s correct.
Nary: If we were – I agree, I think what Chairman Borup was saying – I’m
assuming you would like to keep this as open as possible.
Waldron: Right.
Nary: So, getting some mature trees through here to shield his house from
some of that lighting, that wouldn’t be a problem?
Waldron: Correct.
Nary: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Okay, any discussion from the Commission?
Norton: How big is that span? Could somebody calculate that?
Borup: From where to where?
Norton: Where we are talking about putting the trees.
Borup: Along his property line?
Norton: Yes, along his property line.
Waldron: I don’t know if I have this.
Centers: Could you come back up just one minute? I have a question regarding
the traffic. What are the projected rents and the projected number of children or
occupants per apartment?
Waldron: We have, of the 216 units, we have, I think 96 one-bedroom units and
120 two-bedroom units. We don’t have any three-bedroom units. I can’t give
you a precise number of children that we would expect, but our renter profile
would be the mid-20 to mid-30’s couples.
Centers: What are your projected rents for the one’s and two’s? Are you still
thinking about it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 56
Waldron: I don’t know if I can give you a precise number. I think the one’s will
be somewhere around $660 a month. The two bedrooms will be probably in the
$825-850 range.
Centers: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Commissioner Norton asked that length. I calculate close to 550-60 feet
along the property line that runs north and south.
Norton: How many trees might that be? So, it looks like you and Mr. Waldron
would be able to work together.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Any other discussion with the Commission? I see none. Do you want to
do anything else?
Centers: I would like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Motion seconded to close the – are you closing both?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second to close both Public Hearings. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any discussion? The first item that we would need a motion on would
be, of course, for annexation and zoning of the 16-acres from RT to R-15.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion and that we recommend to
the City Council for approval AZ 01-004 request for annexation and zoning of 16-
acres from RT to R-15 for proposed Fountain Park by David Waldron, the south
east corner of Locust Grove and Wilson Lane including any and all Staff
comments.
Norton: I second.
Borup: And there were no – the applicant had agreed to a couple of the staff
requests. So, is that part of your motion, too?
Centers: Well, that wasn’t on the annexation.
Borup: I’m sorry. Yes. Any other – did we get a second?
Norton: Yes I did.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 57
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any opposed?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I’ll try this. I would like to make a motion and
recommend for approval to the City Council that we approve CUP 01-007
request for Conditional Use Permit for planned development, proposed Fountain
Park on 16-acres for apartments with in a proposed R-15 zone by David
Waldron, southeast corner of Locus Grove and Wilson Lane incorporating all
staff comments. Specifically, item eight, where the applicant has stated it would
be a zero-depth pool. Item 12, the applicant has indicated that that staff
comment is not a problem. Item 17, the applicant has submitted the rear
elevations and we find them acceptable. Item 18, very adequate open space at
50 percent; item 19, the applicant has stated that they are going to provide a six-
foot cedar fence with metal posts at the area described and Item 21, the
applicant has stated there is no phasing – it would be constructed all at one time.
In addition, the applicant has stated that he will work with the property owner to
the south, Mr. Livingston and provide mature trees as a buffer. That’s a difficult
one. You know, I don’t think we can specify a dollar amount or how many. They
have stated they will work together, do we want to leave it at that?
Borup: I think Mr. Livingston also said trees or fence, maybe that would be up to
his choice.
Centers: Well, the applicant didn’t address a fence. I think they both agreed on
mature trees.
Nary: Actually I think the applicant said –
Centers: Do anything. So, we will leave it at that, that they work it out between
themselves. All right, I close my motion.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I would whole-heartedly second that motion. It is a
beautiful project. We only wish that Richard Hatcher were here to look at the
vinyl siding.
Waldron: We missed the opportunity to discuss the (inaudible) roof and the –
Borup: I was going to comment on that too. Very well documented. It is nice to
see a complete documentation like this.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I only have one comment and I did hear Mr. Livingston’s
concern about traffic and that roadway. I have driven over there a lot. I do think
that having that secondary access off to the other lane will help to some degree
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 58
because – folks, I’ve driven down Locust Grove in that location and if I lived in
this apartment complex, I wouldn’t want to drive out there. I would go the other
way. At least having that other access, I think it is going to help. I don’t know if
there is a lot to do in that area until they widen it but, at least having that
secondary access, to me, at least makes it somewhat agreeable to be able to do
this. So, I am supportive of it as well. I think it is a nice project and I think having
the two accesses will help alleviate some of the traffic concerns.
Borup: Are you ready to vote?
Shreeve: I second the motion from the table.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 01-009 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for planned development to include office, retail and
industrial for proposed Treasure Valley Technical Center
by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited
Partnership – ¼ mile east of Linder Road, north side of
Overland Road:
Borup: Item No. 10. Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit for planned
development to include office, retail and industrial for proposed Treasure Valley
Technical Center by Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited
Partnership a quarter mile east of Linder Road, north side of Overland. I would
like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup. Western Electronics is located
here on the north – I’m sorry, the southeast portion of this property. It is the
entire crosshatched piece here. A Veterinary Clinic here, Overland Road
bordering the south and I-84 the north. It is already annexed already in the City
zone is light industrial. So, the reason for this Conditional Use is to get approval
for an overall concept plan to develop the full acreage. Site photos, they do
already have the majority of improvements there as far as landscaping, signage
for the Western Electronics. South, across Overland is currently ag-land. Here
is the concept plan that was submitted. They are talking about seven different
buildings that contain about 261,000 square feet of floor area. On 32.79 acres,
they have proposed 46 different potential uses for these buildings and we have
outlined those in the memo dated April 3, 2001 from Bruce and Dave McKinnon.
The elevations that were submitted with the application are here. To my
understanding, these elevations are not necessarily tied to any of these
particular building types, they are more or less sample elevations but, the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 59
applicants certainly speak to that. There are a couple of different side and front
elevations here. In terms of the staff report, itself. We have asked you as the
Commission to the Council, on Page 3, Item No. 1, to determine which of the lists
of the uses list that should be included in the Plan Development project. We do
have some concerns about the amount of uses proposed. There were two
options laid out here, later in the staff report. We have basically said that the
Council or Commission could require conditional use for any or all of the
buildings as they come through. The second alternative would be to allow 20
percent of the land area to contain non-conforming uses. As you know, the Plan
Development Ordinance, there was a Zoning Amendment before you last month
where we talked about how you can have 20 percent of the total acreage be
uses that don’t necessarily conform to that zone. So, that would be the 20
percent of this 36 acres, could be used as not falling under the light industrial
category. Then item number 3, Bruce is going to highlight in a minute a couple of
the issues on the sewer and water. The water department did comment about
the well number 22, it does need to be completed prior to this project being – any
building permits being issued. Then the last item to point out, number nine on
page five. We feel that the applicant should be required to submit some sort of
plan before requesting the Sign Program Approval. Given the amount of
numbers, we do have in our new Sign Ordinance a requirement for a Plan Sign
Program. We would ask that they submit some form of theme that would be
used and general sizes and locations, before those would go on the plan.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, just a couple of points
that I wanted to just touch on to maybe clarify some points. Page No. 4, Item
No. 3 talks about the sewer situation in this area. This development does fall
within the Black Cat Trunk service area. Bear Creek Subdivision was approved
ahead of this development, ahead of Western Electronics. There was a –
calculations done, showing that with the discharge of Bear Creek Subdivision via
the lift station to the receiving sewer in the Ten Mile drainage, that there was a
remaining capacity, available capacity of no more than 80 gallons a minute.
That’s why we have that restriction and that comment.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton, could you expand on what 80 gallons a minute means to
a novice? How many – is there a rule of thumb, it handle so many square feet of
business buildings or people? I don’t know if that means anything to me.
Shreeve: How are you going to regulate it?
Freckleton: The lift station that they have is going to regulate it.
Borup: It has got a meter or that is the capacity of it? It starts malfunctioning if it
gets over that, is that what you are saying?
Freckleton: The pumping capacity of the lift station cannot exceed 80 gallons a
minute.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 60
Borup: So, if more development was done that could handle that, what
happens?
Freckleton: If more development was done above the 80 gallons a minute?
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: They are going to have to look at some alternatives. Some of the
alternatives –
Borup: I guess the question is, can that be somewhat determined before the
buildings are built, before it is being used? Or do you wait until after the fact and
see what happens?
Freckleton: I think –
Borup: I would assume there are some guidelines that we can say, this intense
of a use is all that you can go up to until something is improved.
Freckleton: Right, and I think that that responsibility lies on the design engineer
for the development. He knows what our restriction are and --
Borup: So, say 80 gallons a minute would be natural restriction on the project
development and up to them to show otherwise?
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: I think that clarifies it, somewhat, for me. Thank you.
Freckleton: It is kind of a crystal ball question as to what the discharges are for
the different types of uses. I couldn’t tell you. Then the water situation, we are in
the process of drilling a new well in the Bear Creek Subdivision. Preliminary
calculations that the Fire Department have done for fire flows are up in the
neighborhood of 23 hundred gallons a minute, fire flow demand. Until we have
that well drilled and on-line, it is another crystal ball question as to what we can
deliver to that location. I do know that they have had some dialogue with the Fire
Department about alternative fire suppression systems and perhaps their
engineer can speak to that tonight.
Borup: Could you speak to the time frame on – you say the well is in a process
of drilling. Does that mean there is a machine out there right now?
Freckleton: Very shortly. I don’t believe we are set up on it yet.
Borup: But, what type of time frame on that well?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 61
Freckleton: It will probably be mid to late summer before that’s on-line.
Borup: Okay, thank you. I interrupted you on something else?
Freckleton: That’s all that I was going to touch on.
Borup: All right, I didn’t interrupt you then. Any questions from the Commission
or any of the staff?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I’m sorry, the only other thing I was going to
point out there is, in ACHD’s April 4th
letter, yesterday, they did – one of the items
they talked about is recommending the closure of one of these two western
driveways. So, that will impact the site design if that goes through as the
Commissions final decision over there at ACHD.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, to expand upon ACHD’s comments as well. We
received in our packets two different correspondents from ACHD.
***End of Side Four***
Shreeve: The ACHD has requested some additional data, some up-to-date data.
It appears that the traffic counts that were included in the traffic study were over
a year old. The second was the April 4th
correspondence of Christi Richardson.
You should have both of those in your packets.
Borup: Yes, we just got them today. Is the applicant here? Would you like to
come forward?
Yaka: Mr. Chairman, member of the Commission, my name is Clinton Yaka,
BRS Architects, 1010 South Alonte. I’m just here to answer any questions that
you may have. Also with me are two representatives from DBSI and also Mr.
Callaham, our Civil Engineer, if you have any questions for them?
Borup: Yes, the first question would be, is are you in agreement with all of
staff comments?
Yaka: Yes.
Borup: So, no concerns on the sewer flow or any of that on how it will affect your
development?
Yaka: No, not at 80 gallons a minute.
Borup: Any comment on the – it sounded like the ACHD commented on –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 62
Yaka: Yes, they are only allowing us three curb cuts and we have no problems
with that either.
Borup: Pardon, okay, so I’m assuming you are going to eliminate one of the
ones on the left there?
Yaka: Yes, we will have a discussion with the Highway District about that.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry I didn’t get your last name.
Yaka: Yaka
Nary: Mr. Yaka, you are asking for a Conditional Use Permit to basically build
six buildings.
Yaka: Not necessarily six buildings.
Nary: My point exactly. I don’t know exactly what you want to build, I don’t
know what you want to do when you do it there. The Conditional Use Permit is
supposed to relate to uses of some sort. I look at your laundry list of proposed
uses and I can’t see what you eliminated out of the potential uses you could
have there. I’m not sure whether you want us to design your project, but I’m not
sure why we are wasting our time when you don’t know exactly what you want.
Yaka: Exactly. We are here for a conceptual Conditional Use Permit. What we
are trying to say is that we don’t know if we are going to build six buildings, one
building or 14 buildings. We want the latitude of building those 46 uses within
the amount of square footage that we acquired. I think it is – whatever the
square footage was.
Nary: Okay, let me stop you there for a second, Mr. Yaka. We don’t have a
conceptual Conditional Use Permit. We have a Conceptual Plan that we look at
and say that sounds like a good idea. For example, about two months ago we
had a conceptual plan for an industrial type of park, an office building type of
park at the intersection of Eagle and Overland. They brought us their conceptual
plan, which included the buildings, landscaping, and a proposal of the kind of
uses that they want to have. You didn’t bring that. You brought us building
elevations that may or may not exist, numbers of buildings that may or may not
exist ever, and a whole laundry list of uses that aren’t compatible together. So, I
guess I think conceptual plan is a great idea, I think that is a wonderful things to
do, but that is not what you are asking us to do. You are asking us to give you a
permit to have (inaudible) to build one or six buildings and 50 different things that
we can’t do.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 63
Yaka: Can the Commission approve the Conceptual Plan based on the square
footage and the 46 uses that we have requested and if whenever a building
comes up that we come before you for a Conditional Use for that specific building
and a specific use.
Nary: Well, I think that’s kind of what the staff was recommending and I guess
that you are here sort of prematurely. That was one of the proposals in there.
Borup: That’s why I read a staff’s comment.
Nary: That they can do but usually you have done that before you come here.
Usually that’s what we are talking about. They don’t suggest it, they are already
doing it. What I guess I am troubled with is spending the time in reading this stuff
and that’s all that Staff was wanting, saying tell us a little bit more about it and
give us a little more concrete. Then they would recommend to us in a report that
that is what we would pass along to the Council, that this Conceptual Plan makes
sense, it’s a good idea, here are some uses, let’s have some limitations through
a Development Agreement or something like that. We’re not quite there yet. It
sounds like we are carving it out tonight and that is a pretty time consuming
process. That’s what the staff processes are for, to do that.
Yaka: Okay, so, what are you recommending?
Nary: Well, I’m just one person. Maybe everybody wants to carve it out tonight.
I guess, I look at it and say, you know what, this isn’t done. You need to go back
and work with the staff and bring that back, like you just said, like they
suggested, and saying here is what we kind of want to do and then we will give a
Conditional Use Permit each time.
Yaka: Couldn’t the Commission make that motion as part of one of the
conditions of approval for this Conceptual Plan, that whenever we want to build a
building and we know the use that we come in front of you again for the
conditional use for that specific building?
Centers: You’re not going to build it all out at once.
Yaka: No
Centers: You’re going to build one at a time --
Yaka: Right, and we don’t know what—
Centers: When you get a tenant or a buyer.
Yaka: Exactly.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 64
Centers: And that’s what you have to do is come back at that time because if, as
Commissioner Nary points out, you’re asking for a lot of uses and a lot of open
ends and we’ve seen problems with that. Even recently. The one plus you have
there, you don’t have homeowners living next door, do you?
Yaka: No.
Centers: And you have the interstate bordering you. So, you are not going to
have a lot of objections here. But, the Staff said they could require a Conditional
Use Permit for any or all of the offer mentioned prohibited uses. So, you come
back one at a time. I don’t know. What does the staff comment on that?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers, I think we probably feel that a
conceptual CUP is of no real benefit to the City. If they do come back through
and it is going to be a CUP, which is what I am hearing you lean towards, the
usual rule of thumb is 10 percent flexibility. So, if somebody has a CUP that is
approved, they have 10 percent flexibility to sort of modify that without coming
back before you. For instance, if they have 250,000 square feet approved and
you were to say, okay, that’s it, that’s maximum on that. We at staff level, if they
came in with ten percent above that and added another 25000 then we could do
that, but the amount of details in uses is our main concern. I think that if this
general layout, you appreciate and you want to approve, they come through and
we would just basically track each project. We would say, you have to have this
maximum number of parking stalls, this maximum height of your buildings. We
could track that as each CUP came through the process. That would not
necessarily be a big issue for us, I don’t think, at our level. They come in, we
compare the buildings with what this conceptual plan says and we can live with
that. it is the uses I think is the biggest concern.
Borup: But this time they could do anything that will approve it in the industrial –
the I-L zone, is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That is correct. Except they –
Borup: They need to be before us on anything in the I-L zone. So, is that what
you are trying to accomplish here tonight, get some uses, some of the
commercial uses that are in addition to the industrial zone?
Yaka: Right.
Borup: Okay. You’re looking for assurance that that is going to be okay before
you go out and try to attract the tenants?
Yaka: Exactly.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 65
Nary: Mr. Chairman, so that I can make it very clear. I don’t think this is a bad
idea. I just don’t think that it is a very developed idea. I think it is a good use of
the property. I think Mr. Centers is right, there are only neighbors across from
Overland to the south, correct? There are some farms and some single-family
homes so I think that it is a good location to do something, like what you are
talking about. I don’t think there is enough information for us to really pass this
forward to the City Council because I think they are going to be in the same boat
that we are by saying, well what do you want to do. They want to know what it is.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with what you are wanting, but I think what
the staff is saying is that a Plan Development is supposed to be a plan. The plan
here is very broad, very general.
Yaka: Yes, exactly.
Nary: It is very hard for us to deal with very broad and general because it is
really not our position to design your project for you.
Yaka: Well, we are not asking you to design the project. We are asking you for
approval on a Conceptual Plan of development that has x amount of square feet
and has x amount of buildings, but we want the latitude out of it. Say 20,000 to
50,000 square feet, to have a portion of it turned into an electronics plant, part of
it offices, some of it into an RND building or maybe a commercial or retail
building.
Nary: What I am reading is that we can do that, but that is not what your
application is for. Your application is for a Conditional Use Permit with really no
uses accepted, all uses allowed, even ones that are not allowed in that zone and
that is what I am saying is the problem. Maybe we are just talking about two
different things. What I am reading in the staff report is that they wanted to see a
plan, that there really is a Conceptual Plan that they can bring forward and we do
review those and say, yes, that sounds like a great idea, go forward. When you
get the uses, then come back and get the uses.
Yaka: Which we do, we listed 46 uses.
Nary: Did you eliminate any?
Yaka: I think we did.
Nary: You didn’t eliminate very many of them. All I am saying is that the
Conceptual Plan and a Conditional Use are two different things in the staff’s mind
and in my mind. Maybe that is where my hang up is.
Borup: Mr. Yaka, it looks, to summarize, it looks to me like what you are trying
to accomplish is to do some commercial uses in the industrial zone.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 66
Yaka: Yes.
Borup: Are you looking for a conceptual approval from the City that you can
proceed on that assumption?
Yaka: Yes.
Borup: Then you are willing to come back with specific conditional use on the
buildings --
Yaka: Yes.
Borup: I can see – it makes sense to me that they would not want to proceed
and try to sell commercial property when the City has no intention of allowing
that. If they could get some type of assurance within certain guidelines that that
would be approved. Then –
Nary: And can understand that and don’t –
Borup: And the industrial is the most intensive of the zonings anyway. In a
sense – some sense – it is a little bit of a down zone use.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what you are saying and I understand what he
is asking for – what he is asking for in his testimony – but they are asking for us
to hand them a blank check permit to build whatever they think they want to build
and then we have to carve it out on the other end by saying, no, we don’t want
that.
Yaka: No, we’ll – if the Commission approves this conditional use on the
Conceptual Plan – we will be glad to come back to you or just to staff, whichever
is necessary, and show you what the use is and what the building will exactly
look like, once we know what we are going to build.
Centers: Well, and you would have to because you have homeowners to the
south that may be here, as we have seen in the past, in groves. If you elected to
put in a shopping center or a radio and TV or restaurants they would be notified.
I don’t know if the notification on this application went to property owners within
300-feet – the standard rule. They probably saw this and I don’t know how they
are going to do their thing across on Overland where you have – I know all of the
businesses there because I don’t live that far – but, if you advertise that you are
going to be putting in a shopping center, you will have a lot of people here,
probably. I understand your conceptual plan.
Nary: And I do too. I think – what I am asking from Brad – I know we have
reviewed conceptual plans before and said that that sounds fine and we’re okay
with that and then bring back conditional uses when you do that. I don’t have a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 67
problem with what you are wanting to do. I just have a problem in granting a
very open ended Conditional Use Permit that we have to carve out every
exception between now and when you actually get a building. I’d rather go
forward as we have done and say that that sounds fine, go figure out what
commercial use you actually want to put there and then we will have to
determine if that is compatible or not.
Borup: Can we make that into a motion and move on?
Nary: Yes.
Centers: Yes, I think you can.
Nary: Well, we need to make sure there are not other people who want to
testify.
Borup: Right. That’s -- no one is on the list, do we have anyone here to testify
on this? The longer we take the -- okay. We were about ready to make a
motion.
Callaham: I just thought I would make a quick statement.
Borup: Okay.
Callaham: My name is Craig Callaham. I’m with Quadrant Consulting, the Civil
Engineer for the project, 405 South 8th
Street, Boise. At the Planning
Department’s request we put this Planned Unit Development Plan together so
that we could get a concept to work under, kind of an overall picture of the whole
thing and then come back in with the individual conditional uses like you are
talking about. This was Planning and Zoning’s thought is that they wanted to
show you guys the whole picture in order that you would not see these hodge-
podge little pieces coming in and you would have a master plan that
encompasses the whole thing.
Borup: So, do you anticipate the road of the main entranceway would stay the
same then?
Callaham: Yes, most of that main road is already built, but the –
Borup: Oh, that’s true. So, you just have the other half to do anyway.
Callaham: A large part of this is already developed and been approved through
the City already and like I say, this is just what you are talking about doing.
Saying, okay this is a good idea, go forward with it and then come back with the
specifics. That’s why we are here. So, we are in agreement with that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 68
Nary: Yes, and I think we are on the same page, I really do. I just think that we
are talking about some more semantic difference and some of the more technical
differences of having it. I don’t think that we are really far apart.
Callaham: Right, just getting past that -- this is a good concept for this. That is
the only reason that we are here tonight. Any questions?
Borup: I hope we see you often then.
Callaham: Yes, probably even four or five or six times.
Borup: Thanks. It could have been made easier if the list was shorter, but it
covers everything in commercial, so, it sounds like we are leaning towards –
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would move to close – well, is there any other staff
comment, I’m sorry. Any other public (inaudible) before –
Borup: No, we already asked. We are ready for a motion.
Nary: I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Centers: Second
Borup: Motion seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend to the City Council for CUP 01-009,
but with the following amendment. This is initially a request for a Conditional Use
Permit. What I would recommend that we recommend to the City Council for
approval is the Conceptual Plan proposed by Treasure Valley Technical Center
for the proposed retail office, industrial Treasure Valley Technical Center by the
Meridian Freeway Associates and DBSI Industrial Limited Partnership- a quarter
mile east of Linder Road, the north side of Overland Road. That it be basically
the conceptual plan as presented with the appropriate staff comments and that
the developer here, the Meridian Freeway Associates, will return with all uses on
this site by condition – we require there to be a Conditional Use Permit that will
be reviewed both by the Commission and the Council upon each –
Borup: All uses or all non-conforming uses?
Nary: All non-conforming – all uses not allowed uses in the industrial zone
already. So, all uses that are not already allowed by the existing zone. That
would include any commercial uses, residential uses, and some of the other
things. I think they had asked for some of the ones that are not allowed in the
industrial zone. It would include any of those. So, that all that we are essentially
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 69
approving and recommending to Council is the Conceptual Plan to go forward.
Not the specific building design, not the specific layout of buildings, not any uses
at all until they bring back what uses they actually want to put that are not
currently already allowed use of the zone.
Borup: Did Council get that motion down?
Council: Yes.
Borup: Really? I’m impressed. We have a motion.
Centers: Second.
Borup: And a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
Norton: Do you want those blueprints?
Borup: Would these be of benefit to anybody?
Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ 01-003 Request for rezone from R-4
to C-C for Partition Specialties, Inc by Ronald and Coleen
Schaub – 1315 North Meridian Road:
Borup: Item No. 11, request for rezone from R-4 to C-C for Partition Specialties,
Inc. by Ronald and Coleen Schaub – did I pronounce that right? – at 1315 North
Meridian Road. We would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff
report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. Again, this is a small lot on
Meridian Road, it has an existing house on it. C-C zoning is all on the east side
of Meridian Road from Cherry Lane down to a little more than about a third of a
mile. The west side of Meridian Road is all zoned residential right now with the
exception of just two lots here down to the railroad tracks. Except, this C-C
zoned lot which is immediately north of the subject lot and then two lots to the
south is this limited office lot. Both of these are – this is the insurance use here,
this is an existing house that I believe a few years ago they came through to
rezone – strictly a rezone to C-C. They chose not to move forward with any
actual development plans in terms of turning it into retail, but the zone did
change. So, they are proposing a C-C on this parcel to match the zoning around
it. This is the front of the house here on the right hand side, the rear alley lot
entrance there. The alley, as you can see, is currently just gravel/dirt that is not
paved. Ada County Highway District has a policy that if it is a rezone or
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 70
annexation they cannot make a property owner construct the improvements, if it
is only a rezone or annexation. Only if it is a Development Application. So, what
the Highway District has done is simply give them a list of things that if they
choose to redevelop this at any time in the future – building expansion or
something else that would trigger development application – then their conditions
would kick in. The main one that – we went through and compared the findings
and you can, obviously, read those through. We felt that since all of the findings
have to be met, that the C-C probably does not fit, but that a limited office zone
would meet the findings. So, we are recommending denial of the C-C, but a L-0
zone. We did include the condition for a sidewalk along Meridian Road, which
was also a condition that the City placed on the nail salon shop, which is just
kitty-corner to this subject parcel. There is a nursery, herb – Good Sense
Nursery is immediately across the street and then the salon is there. They did
construct a sidewalk. Meridian Road – it is hard to tell when that is going to be
widened. It is in the long-range plan for a compass, but it is not in any kind of
short-term, five-year work plan for ACHD or anything. We’ve got that as a
recommended condition of the rezone as well as providing some parking in the
rear of the building. It came to my attention that it may be currently used already
as an office. I cannot confirm that and that would be something to discuss. If so,
then certainly it is not a conforming use, to be used as an office. That is an R-4
zone. I think that is all that we have.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Mr. Schaub.
Schaub: Yes, my name is Ron Schaub, 376 Bloomington Drive, Meridian.
Borup: Okay, any – obviously staff has recommended, first of all a L-0 zone,
which would probably be the biggest. Any – would that be prohibited at all for
what you want to accomplish?
Schaub: The only reason we submitted for the C-C was because of the property
north of us. I’ll be very honest, this is a very new thing for us. I really don’t even
know what a C-C zoning is, other than the property north had it.
Borup: Yes. Okay. I think that – and did you have a chance to read the staff
report?
Schaub: I did, I actually read it this morning. I was in –
Borup: So, any questions on any of those recommendations?
Schaub: No, the only thing that I do have a question on is the sidewalk.
Considering, I don’t know where it starts and stops in the sense of the two
neighbors next to us. There is an elevation difference between our property and
the property south of us of about 15 to 18 inches. So, I don’t know exactly how
that sidewalk would make sense there. I am not opposed to putting it in as long
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 71
as it makes good sense in dollars spent. Being a little company, we always look
at dollars. We knew we would have to do something to the rear access.
Borup: For the parking?
Schaub: That was already part of our consideration for buying this. We are a
very small company that operated out of our house, actually, for years. Due to
the process of adopting two knew little kids, the noise level, went to a point
where we could no longer deal with it in the home.
Borup: You had already met with ACHD and a Tech Reviewer – I mean a –
Schaub: No, we have not. We just got this packet back, actually, I believe, two
days ago. Like I said, I was actually in Nevada and flew in for this.
Borup: Okay, the sidewalk is a fairly standard requirement. They have normally
done that and I think –
Schaub: Again, I have no issue with it I just don’t know how to make it –
Borup: Well, I don’t think they want steps in them, so, there would need to be
some type of grade adjustment to gradually tie it in.
Schaub: Again, we can do all of that. I am familiar with how to do that
development. I’m just not sure how that affects the master plan, if we slope the
way in that one instance to put a sidewalk in.
Borup: Well, it’s not going to be when the – you mean, master plan as far as
when the street is widened?
Schaub: Correct and then –
Borup: But, fortunately, then your sidewalk would be temporary.
Schaub: Correct.
Borup: So, it would not – you don’t have to worry about the design of that road,
the ACHD would take care of that. I think that you just need to design it so that it
is safe.
Schaub: Okay, and then the other thing that I have seen in subdivisions, where
they put signs or elevations on them, so that you can’t walk off of them. I did not
thing that would be aesthetically pleasing to this area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 72
Borup: No, I don’t think that that is an intention. Until the road is completely
developed, I think that as each one happens the sidewalk could conceptually get
down the whole street. All right, any other questions from the Commissioners?
Centers: Yes, how many – excuse me, go ahead Sally.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Schaub, is there currently an office being conducted
out of that house?
Schaub: I have temporarily – I am kind of using it and kind of not using it in an
assumption that this would happen. So, I’m not going to lie to you. Yes, we are
kind of there. I haven’t been in town for the last six weeks so, we have – we are
a small architectural sales company. We sell and install operable walls in large
convention centers, hotels, that divide big room into little room, big architectural
sky lights, outdoor stadium seating, things of that nature. So, we have no – no
one comes to use, we go to them. I have a Salesman and a Project Manager
and myself that use this facility or will be using this facility.
Norton: And how long have you kind of been operating?
Schaub: About a month maybe, maybe a month and a half.
Norton: And when did you submit your application?
Schaub: March – about that same time.
Norton: Okay, thank you.
Schaub: I think that it was more of a dollar issue for us than anything.
Centers: How many square feet is the building? You’re not going to remodel it?
You are just going to pretty much leave –
Schaub: We are going to leave it exactly intact. It is about 1,850 square feet,
but it has a full basement, which we are only going to use for blueprints, records,
and things of that nature. The basement really isn’t a –
Centers: The way I read it, you are going to need four and a half parking
spaces. Now are you going to be able to get those into the back and have one
handicapped spot?
Schaub: I guess the question is, is the basement considered office space if it is
not going to be used for – the basement is just going to be storage and no –
Centers: Did that include the basement? The square footage quoted?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 73
Schaub: Yes.
Centers: How much above ground?
Schaub: It’s 850, to the best of my measurements.
Centers: So, we’re talking two parking spaces and one designated for
handicapped.
Schaub: That would be easily accomplished in the back.
Centers: Okay, and they can get in and out?
Schaub: Yes. We have had no problem other than in the mucky rain. So, I
already know that we have to deal with –
Centers: and you have got to pave it.
Schaub: with the pavement and access onto the property. The property, in the
back, is fully landscaped. The intention was to put some parking, whatever that
criteria was, and then do the water drainage into the existing lawn or with a
French drain, or something along that line. We don’t think it is an issue.
Borup: Okay, anyone else? Thank you,sir.
Schaub: Thank you.
Borup: I assume that we don’t have anyone else from the public here. No one
signed up. Commissioners.
Centers: Why don’t we close the Public Hearing?
Norton: I second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Norton: Well, the City Clerk had indicated that they had applies back in January
for this and so I can see that if he has been operating for about a month trying to
think whether or not this would be getting through, I think it is rather reasonable.
I would like to make a motion.
Centers: Excuse me.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 74
Norton: Yes.
Centers: I have a technical question. Do we need to deny the request as written
and then give him L-0 zone?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Just make a motion to the other.
Norton: I would like to recommend to City Council for the RZ 01-003 request for
rezone from R-4 to L-0 for Partition Specialties, Inc. by Ron and Coleen Schaub
at 1315 North Meridian Road with all Staff comments.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Norton: Mr. Chairman, could we have a five-minute break, please?
Borup: We could do that. Let’s keep it real short.
(Break at 10:00 p.m.)
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 01-005 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for gasoline facility consisting of a 3,612 square-foot
canopy over 5 multi-product dispensers, cashier’s kiosk and
parking lot improvements in a C-G zone for Fred Meyer
Gasoline Facility by Dakota Company, Inc. – 1850 East
Fairview Avenue:
Borup: We are reconvening our meeting. Item No. 12, Public Hearing for
Conditional Use Permit for gasoline facility consisting of a 3612 square-foot
canopy over five multi-product dispenser, with a kiosk and parking lot
improvements in a C-G zone for Fred Meyer Gasoline Facility by Dakota
Company, Inc. I would like to open this Public Hearing and start with a short staff
report.
Hawkins-Clark: How short?
Borup: As short as you can make it. Staff, and the reason for saying that is – it
looks to us as substantially the same application that we heard before. We have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 75
a couple of new Commissioners and they’ve studied the reports so, go ahead
and proceed.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay, staff recommends denial. Thank you.
Borup: Okay, any questions from the Commission?
Hawkins-Clark: See, did you inform the other Commissioners – I don’t if it was in
there. The Planning and Zoning Commission did previously recommend
approval of the kiosk at this location, but the City Council denied it and I think
some of those details got included into the staff report. The City of Meridian,
unlike Boise, does not have an Ordinance that says that you cannot submit the
exact same application within one year. We don’t have such an Ordinance. So,
they are certainly more than welcome to submit an application.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, just so we are clear on the record, Brad. The basis of the
denial by the Planning Staff is the reason stated by the City Council in the prior
denial of this application?
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Okay, Mr. Durkin. And we all got copies of that –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin, my address is 380 East Parkcenter Boulevard,
Boise, Idaho. I am here tonight on behalf of Fred Meyer Stores, the applicant.
As you know, this matter has been before you once before. This application is
extremely important to Fred Meyer and it follows an industry trend towards
offering fuel services to shoppers. The Fred Meyer Store is set up to offer other
neighborhood services along with food and general merchandise. You may
know, there is a bank inside the store, coffee shop, ice cream, dry cleaning,
sandwiches, et cetera. These services allow shoppers to do many things without
driving all around the City. Fuel is really a similar type of use for Fred Meyer. It
is an additional service to provide Meridian customers and allow them to shop
Fred Meyer. It will allow Fred Meyer to compete with Wal-Mart, K-Mart, WinCo,
et cetera. Fred Meyer is the lifeblood of this center and more than 15 other
shops and tenants depend on Fred Meyer traffic to the center. The request is
well within the guidelines of the City code. Parking ratios meet or exceed the
City requirements. Landscaping exceeds all City codes. The signage is well
within all of the City codes. Traffic is really a non-issue. ACHD is happy with the
traffic situation. The updated traffic study points out that this service will result in
230 vehicle trips per day. There are no additional curb cuts to the location.
There is no pedestrian interference. The fuel line is set back 100 feet from the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 76
street and there is a 40-foot berm between any traffic and the sidewalk that the
pedestrians use. The Council concerns that are stated in the Staff report are the
result of an inaccurate, inadequate presentation provided by a Seattle
engineering firm hired by Fred Meyer that presented this matter to the Council.
Page two of the staff report spells out the three Council concerns. No. 1 was
parking. The man that made the presentation was not aware that with this
addition to the center the parking ratio still exceeded the requirements of the City.
That’s only considering the Fred Meyer parcel. When you consider the overall
shopping center parcel, it far exceeds the parking requirements of the City. His
response to the Council was, I don’t know, I’m not sure. He flew in on an
airplane, made a presentation and wasn’t familiar with the site. He had
inaccurate traffic study information. We have hired Dobie Engineering to do an
updated traffic study and Ada County Highway District is in agreement with that
traffic study and they are completely satisfied that the traffic is a non-issue on
this. That was the second point that the Council used in denying it. The third
point was the pedestrian hazards. As you can see, the set backs are so great
that there is no threat to the pedestrians. When asked at the Council meeting
exactly where the location was, he had submitted a plan to Council showing the
fuel island not here, but over here.
Borup: To Council?
Durkin: And then he had another plan that showed it over here and then he had
another plan that showed it over here. If you look at the minutes from the
Council meeting, one of the Councilmen said, well, where is this? How far away
from Locust Grove is it? He said, I think it is 105 feet. Well, it is 820 feet. The
comments on the record and in the minutes from Council were that this is an
awful lot of congestion to put over on that Locust Grove corner. I happened to
be in the audience that night and – I think that some of you know that I do a lot of
business with Fred Meyer – and I thought it was a tragic presentation, full of a
lot of misinformation, but I was unable to get up and correct any of it in front of
Council. So, the only thing that Fred Meyer could do was reapply. The first
application that Fred Meyer made was over here. Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended that if we moved over here – the Council denied that
application and recommended that it be moved up here. The Council
recommendations to relocate it to a point in the center, it just will not work for
Fred Meyer. It will not work for AVAS, the developer of the center and it really
won’t work for the consumer. The location the Council preferred is on a private
street that would require shoppers to crisscross the center and burden one-
access point for this use. Our location is centered in such a way that the traffic is
spread evenly throughout the center. It is safer. Nobody wants to go down a
back street behind a building to fuel their car up. By you giving me an approval
tonight with the strong recommendation to Council, it will enable me to get back
in front of Council and correct a lot of inaccuracies in the previous presentation. I
really want to stress to you that there are 15 tenants in that shopping center that
are relying on Fred Meyer to bring traffic into the center. Fred Meyer has been a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 77
good corporate neighbor. They have a 40-foot berm in front of this project that
separates any fueling operations from pedestrians. The height of this canopy is
lower than the height of the other pad buildings in the shopping center. I just
have a photo that I would like to show you. The reason that I brought those
photos, I want to remind you, and I will remind the Council as well, that this isn’t a
convenience store operation. This isn’t like Chevron. This is a very see through
facility. We are adding landscaping. We have submitted a landscaping plan that
is attractive. There will be an addition to the landscaping. There isn’t a car
wash. This is a real minor addition to the center, but it is of major importance to
Fred Meyer. So, I am asking you for your approval, again, tonight, and allow me
to go back in front of Council and correct the previous presentation.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Dirkin?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, may I borrow the pointer? Mr. Dirkin, now I recall this from
the last presentation and so if it is not the same, please correct me. What was
told to us previously was that this, the canopy and the signage and all that, was
really geared towards the store. It wasn’t really intended to grab more traffic off
of Fairview, but rather the people that were in the lot or in the store, either
entering or exiting, coming to Fred Meyer anyway, would be able to use that
facility.
Dirkin: That’s correct.
Nary: Now, one of the things I heard you say in the beginning of your
presentation was that this is another attempt to provide a use on this property to
prevent people from having to drive a long way and to compete with Wal-Mart.
But, Wal-Mart doesn’t have a gas station. At this time, anyway, they don’t have a
gas station.
Dirkin: I have a little inside information on that, but
Nary: Well, today, they don’t have a gas station. And, there is a gas station
right here. Correct?
Dirkin: That’s correct.
Nary: What I am torn about, and was torn from the moment I read this report, is
that I was here when we recommended to move it to this site, and I was one of
the people that felt that was the best of both worlds, even though this
Commission discusses putting it in this location as well for the same reason the
Council wanted to put it in this location – to pull the traffic away from Fairview
and move it further back into the lot and provide, basically, less congestion in this
particular entrance way. We felt as a Commission that this was sort of the
compromise position and the Council felt that this other position was what they
wanted. I am wondering, it sounds to me like you sort of want it both ways. You
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 78
can’t really say, I just want to provide another little use that would be helpful to
the center and the community, but yet I want to put it out on Fairview because I
really want to pull traffic in off of Fairview and not really – If it is just to provide
use into that lot, where you put it – in the back – wouldn’t really make much
difference.
Dirkin: Commissioner Nary that is a really long question, but it raises a lot of
questions. I know that it is late and I will try to hit the answers quickly on all of
them. The operation is geared so much to the store that there is no signage on
this canopy along Fairview Avenue. The signage is along the back. If you are
familiar with this store, this is the grocery entrance to the store, this is the general
merchandise entrance to the store and this is the home improvement entrance to
the store. I don’t know if any of you read The Statesman today, but they talked
about grocery stores. The average trip, in Boise, to a grocery store – the
average family visits the grocery store twice a week. The average family visits
general merchandise, discount department store once a month. I don’t know the
averages of an average family visiting a home improvement area, but I suspect
from my training as a retail analyst that it is a couple of times a year. So, this
area at Fred Meyer is most heavily used, if you are familiar with it, if you have
driven out there. This is where, if you are going to go grocery shopping, you go
in and out here. This is where you pick up your groceries. It is Fred Meyer’s
desire – this is a heavy access point and these two are heavy access points.
The shopper – the mother with the children in the car buying the groceries and
wanting to accomplish this service – when she is in the grocery store buying the
groceries, she can say, I would also like to buy 20 dollars worth of fuel or 10
dollars worth of fuel. They give her a code, she takes her groceries out, puts
them in the car, drives over here, punches that code in and leaves. She can’t do
that with the Chevron next door. The Chevron is a completely different type of
operation. There is a restaurant inside, there is a car wash, and there is a drive
up window in the back. It is a different trip. The whole argument, Commissioner
Nary, about congestion, is just not there. It won’t stand up. The people who are
going to be using this facility are already in this parking lot. This does not – there
is no obstruction to the view. There is no heavy traffic, there is no car wash, and
there is no mess. There is no congestion, it’s really not an issue. The shopper –
the user of this facility – your not going to leave your house at 5:00 at night,
during the peak hour traffic, drive over here, fight the traffic to get fuel and then
drive home. That isn’t the use. The user of that operation is a customer that is
already in the Fred Meyer Store and they buy fuel while they are buying their
grocery and other household items. I really have to stress to you that within –
you mentioned Wal-Mart, they don’t have fuel – there is a lot next to Wal-Mart – it
happened to be on the board during an earlier presentation and there will be an
application in here within a few weeks to add fuel to that facility. If the application
isn’t in already, there will be an application in here soon for WinCo to add fuel out
by the Home Depot Center. This is just coming – it is a nation wide trend, it isn’t
unique to Meridian and it is a real important trend for the food operation of a
store like this.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 79
Nary: Mr. Dirkin, just so that I am clear. Everything you said makes perfect
sense to me, but it also makes perfect sense if the building is over here or over
there.
Dirkin: Well, then that raises another issue. I’ve been in front of this group a
long time, for a lot of years, and I don’t want to get in an argument with you, but
Fred Meyer is really concerned about the safety. Their shopper – their average
shopper is a woman and she is their with children and doing things and they’re
concerned with putting their fuel operation or any of their operations in an area
that would be not appealing to their shopper. To have it behind a building like
that is not an attractive situation.
Nary: You mean from a safety perspective?
Dirkin: From a safety perspective. Not that there is any threat here, but it is just
not – if that were going to be the case, their shopper would not use that, they
would not consider that to be a safe or a reliable, long term –
Nary: It is really more marketing, isn’t it?
Dirkin: I don’t think so. I think that it is sincere safety concern.
Centers: How many feet from the sidewalk?
Dirkin: One thing that I should point out, this part of the drawing right here –
everything here is below ground. This is an underground tank. So the canopy
here is the first thing that is above ground. That is 117 feet from the sidewalk.
So, it is a great distance back. Also, this is a 40-foot landscape berm that --
***End Of Side 5***
Dirkin: (inaudible) in the edge of the parking lot that is existing now and the
sidewalk. So, there is a substantial separation from the sidewalk. The canopy is
set back 117 feet from Fairview Avenue. If you were to compare that to
McDonalds – there hasn’t been a congestion problem here – they are 60 feet
from the street. If you compare that to the Key Bank building, they are a little bit
closer. They have a drive thru, there isn’t a congestion issue there. This is
TCBY, there is a drive thru, and this is 44-feet from the street. There is a drive
thru around the building, there isn’t a congestion problem there. I just don’t
believe that congestion –
Centers: Does Fred Meyer have a gas station at another store?
Dirkins: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 80
Centers: What is the average number of gallons that they sell per month? That
will be a congestion indicator. Say, 10 gallons per car.
Dirkins: I have no idea, but I can ask. I have a representative that flew in from
Portland, Dick Clark from Fred Meyers. I’ll have him come up in a minute if you
have those kinds of questions. I honestly don’t know the answer.
Clark: For the record, my name is Dick Clark. I’m with Fred Meyer Stores, PO
Box 42121, Portland, Oregon, 97242. The honest answer to your question is, we
are relatively new at this and we have opened four stations in Alaska, we have
one station open in Pocatello, we have what we call our Garden City store on
Chinden that will open, hopefully, this Saturday, if everything goes right. What I
have observed that the gallonage is not consistent. It is predicated on market
conditions and competition. Where we price, historically, is – ARCO is
historically the low price leader and we don’t go to that level. We price based on
the major brand competition within the market area.
Centers: So, you don’t want to answer how many gallons per month?
Clark: I can’t answer that because there is no average. We haven’t been doing
this long enough for me to give you accurate data. All that I can tell you is that in
the few months that we have been operating these, the gallonage, for example
the four stations up in Alaska – all four are different based on the market.
Centers: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clark, is there an on-site attendant?
Clark: Yes, there is an on-site attendant in the kiosk.
Nary: Okay, so you can pull in and purchase gas. It isn’t just the people that go
into the store?
Clark: That’s correct. Actually, the people in the store do not purchase gas in
the store to correct Mr. Dirkin. They pull to the kiosk and can purchase gas at
the kiosk either with credit card or cash at the kiosk.
Nary: So, is there 24-hour sale?
Clark: Yes, there is 24-hour sale similar to a card-lock, but the kiosk is attended
during the normal operations of the Fred Meyer store.
Nary: So, Mr. Clark, who is this meant to appeal to? The customers of Fred
Meyer or the customers of Fred Meyer as well as the general public and that’s
why you would like it close to the roadway?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 81
Clark: What we are finding out is that the majority of our customer – and again,
we’re new into this so I can’t come up here and give you actual hard data
because it is premature. What we are finding, based on some surveys that we
are doing is that the majority of the customers at the gas station are Fred Meyer
customers. Yes, we do get customers off of the street, but they are pass by trips,
they are there anyway.
Norton: Chairman, I have two questions for Mr. Clark. No. 1, I know that staff
had an issue regarding safety, which probably covers both of my questions. So,
you have 24–hour open, but you also have big safety stop switches out there in
case something happens. Is that right?
Clark: Correct.
Norton: And you have a security guard inside Fred Meyer that can be
contacted.
Clark: Correct. We have alarms.
Norton: Okay, then the next question I have is – there is usually a big fireworks
tent right close to where that gas station wants to go. So, who gives permission
for that Top Fireworks people to sell fireworks next to the new gas station?
Would that ever happen?
Clark: Well, I can’t – I would look to staff, but I assume that there is a fire
marshal involved in permitting that particular operation and there is going to have
to be a distance between the service station and the fireworks stand.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. Commissioners. The traffic report
does say that out of the 1685 trips, estimate 230 of them to be new traffic and 20
of those – that during peak hour it would be 20 vehicles per hour that would be
new captured. I think that probably answered the questions Mr. Dirkin.
Dirkin: Can I just make two more points and then (inaudible). I think that is a
really good point, good question on fireworks. You should be aware that the
fireworks stand operated was rented from Fred Meyer and I think that that would
be a really good condition to put on, that Fred Meyer not be allowed to rent to
one that is – whatever. I just want to tell you one thing. I do a lot of research on
this subject for Wal-Mart, for K-Mart, for Fred Meyer, and for Albertson’s and for
other companies throughout the United States. So, a lot of my data is based on
the average of these other companies and what they are doing. They all do
different types of operations. I do know, with the exception of Albertson’s, they
are all geared – the promotion of it is geared to the Fred Meyer shopper. I
wanted you to –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 82
Borup: Thank you. Do we hear a motion?
Nary: I would love to close the Public Hearing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Is anyone for a motion or do we need a little discussion first?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, the only information I would want to put on the record is
that the concerns that the Council had – and I really – the strict concerns that
were raised by the City Council on this previous application – and I really think
that we tried to address some of those previously. I think that some of that has
been addressed tonight by the presentation. Realistically, the Ada County
Highway District Traffic Study says the traffic is significant as to what this may
cause. So, I don’t see that as a relative and factor for our body to use as a
reason to deny this project. The other thing I will put on the record – we just
earlier approved a 216 unit apartment complex across the street from this
project. That will generate traffic just as well. Everything generates traffic.
Fairview Avenue is built to deal with that. I think it does deal with that. I think
putting it at that entrance is a decent compromise. It certainly does – it wouldn’t
have even been an issue if it was by the garden area, but I understand what Mr.
Dirken says and I don’t disagree that there is some concern of having it too
isolated and too far away that you would have the danger of people being
unattended and not visible to the public when they are fueling, as well as a
potential for spills or fire damage – those kinds of things that if it is too
unattended -- I think it is a reasonable compromise.
Borup: I too was looking at the three items from City Council. I think anything,
any recommendation we make, especially if it is to the negative, needs to be
backed up by facts and reason. They add parking, I don’t know where that even
came from. Unless it is beyond our ordinances. The additional traffic – yes it
does – 20 cars in a peak period, which as you said is not – the average
pedestrians – in looking at this layout again, if that was up in some of the other
areas in the middle of the parking lot, I think it is more of a hazard for pedestrians
than down at this end. You’re not going to have pedestrians walking where the
station is now. If it is up somewhere in the middle of the project you have got
parking that has got to pass the station to get to the store. So, I think the
argument on a pedestrian hazard is just the opposite from –
Nary: And I think, Mr. Chairman, too, the fact that there is no convenience store
or anything else. There is no pedestrian that is going to walk to the side unless
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 83
they are just meeting their mom, (inaudible), and coming out of the store. There
is not really a particular issue, I don’t think.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else?
Centers: No, I agree. Pedestrian traffic, right there, -- I’ve been there – is not
that heavy, period. I don’t see the rationale.
Norton: It’s the entrance I use because it is not very busy.
Shreeve: Going with traffic, with the gas station next door, they are going to
come for gas anyway.
Borup: Any other discussion.
Nary: All that’s being said, I would go ahead and move that we recommend
approval of CUP 01-005 request for Conditional Use Permit for the gasoline
facility consisting of a 3,612 square foot canopy over five multi-product
dispensers, cashier’s kiosk, parking lot improvements in a C-G zone for Fred
Meyer Gasoline Facility by the Dakota Company at 1850 East Fairview Avenue.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Commissioner Norton, you need to leave?
Norton: Yes, would you mind?
Borup: Okay. Would the Commission like to proceed? This looks like a pretty
simple request. Technically the applicant does not have to be here, I believe. Is
that correct? The applicant doesn’t have to be here. They normally do? Would
we like to go ahead and open this and – with no testimony it will probably go a lot
faster.
Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 01-008 Request for Conditional Use
Permit of 3 residential lots to be developed as subdivision,
pool, clubhouse and recreation area in an R-4 zone for
Packard Subdivision by Packard Estates Development,
LLC – north of East Fairview Avenue, west of North Eagle
Road on North Hickory Way:
Borup: Item No. 13, Conditional Use Permit for three residential lots to be
developed as a subdivision, pool, clubhouse and recreation area in an R-4 zone
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 84
for Packard Subdivision. I’d like to open this Public Hearing. We’ll start with the
staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Staff report, you have our staff report.
Borup: Yes, we do.
Hawkins-Clark: Do you have any questions?
Centers: Was there anything major that you wanted to point out? That’s why
they are not here, right?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, I think the only reason for this is that this Packard Estates
was just a straight plat. It was not a conditional use. So, technically, they are not
permitted under the subdivision to do anything, but single-family homes as the
plat states. So in order to get around that, they have to do a conditional use plan
development to do something other than a single-family house on these lots.
These lots were originally intended for single-family homes.
Centers: They are just improving the subdivision.
Hawkins-Clark: Right, and again, I think the initiative came from the
homeowners who wanted another amenity.
Centers: Chairman, I’d like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Okay.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I only saw two comments. One was on parking and I don’t know if that
was really a concern. If it is for the neighborhood you are not going to have
people from outside the subdivision coming. So, the majority of it is probably
going to be foot traffic anyway. Then, the garbage was the other thing but, that is
something that can be worked out with staff, too, isn’t it?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yes, it will only be open, as I understand, to the
homeowners. I suppose that there are some people who live on the north end of
Packard that may drive down here to park or if there is a party and somebody is
carrying cake and balloons and something that they will need to drive. But, I
would think that the – I think there are nine stalls – Yes, that’s true, along street
parking in addition.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 85
Borup: Okay, does that conclude your report? Oh, I guess it did. We already
closed the Public Hearing, I’m sorry. Do we have a motion from anybody?
Shreeve: I would like to make a motion that we approve CUP 01-008, request
for Conditional Use Permit of three residential lots to be developed as
subdivision, pool, clubhouse, and recreation area in an R-4 zone for Packard
Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC – north of East Fairview
Avenue, west of North Eagle Road on North Hickory Way. I would like to adopt
all staff comments and conditions.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any opposed? I see none. The motion passed.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I move the meeting be adjourned.
Borup: We have a motion to adjourn.
Hawkins-Clark: I do have – I’m sorry, one thing. We had a steering Committee
meeting today with the Comprehensive Plan. We are actually, believe it or not,
have a couple of dates to throw at you.
Borup: For a work session?
Hawkins-Clark: Well that was the thing. We actually talked about going to Public
Hearing on May 31st
– is that the Thursday or is that – We’re going to have a
revised map for the Comprehensive Plan and some test amendments that we
would have available to the public. We are shooting to have that all done by the
end of April. So that would give up 30 days, what we need for required public
notice to have the Public Hearing the end of May. If you want to – you already
have a special workshop with the City Council the Tuesday that same week –
that joint meeting – so, the question was, if you want to one, either do a special
workshop some other Thursday in May to just basically hear the changes to the
Comprehensive Plan and we can just go over it as staff with you. The public can
come, but they won’t be able to testify –
Borup: Right, that’s what we discussed before – having a workshop.
Hawkins-Clark: So, do you want to do that? The Committee’s preference was to
just get this thing moving and have a Public Hearing on the 31st
. If you don’t
want to have a workshop – or if you do want to have a workshop, could it be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 86
earlier in the month? Or you could just do the workshop on the 31st
and then we
could have the Public Hearing sometime in June.
Borup: From our previous experience with the Landscape Ordinance and the
Sign Ordinance, we thought it would have saved a lot of time at the Public
Hearing if we would have had a workshop first and the Commission wouldn’t
have had to go through to familiarize ourselves with it during that time. How
many were here when we went through that? Isn’t that what we decided then,
that we could have –
Nary: I’m sure they made it a little easier because we didn’t have a two hour
staff report explaining all of those things with the public sitting here that they
couldn’t participate in. So, it would be, I think it is helpful to have a workshop of
some sort and then have a Public Hearing.
Borup: Especially on something of this size. This is a lot bigger thing than the
Landscape Ordinance.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, we would probably have to have it at the middle school, or
somewhere, actually, is what we are talking about. It might be up to Will.
Borup: For the Public Hearing?
Hawkins-Clark: For the Public Hearing, yes. We’ll probably try to get a sense for
RSVPs, or something, to see.
Borup: I am going to be out of town at the – that fifth Tuesday – the fifth Tuesday
or the fifth Thursday? Fifth Tuesday, I am going to be out of town then. I am
going to be gone from the 20th
to the 5th
.
Shreeve: So, that is a scheduled time, the 31st
?
Hawkins-Clark: No, we are just throwing it out for –
Borup: I mean, a workshop can be held without me, but I am very interested in
this.
Hawkins-Clark: Mainly we just want to know so that we can –
Nary: So, if we wanted to have this for Keith to be here we would have to have
it on the 10th
or a different day of the week.
Borup: Well, before the 20th
.
Hawkins-Clark: We can’t –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 87
Nary: Can we have it on the 10th
.
Hawkins-Clark: I don’t think we can be prepared, frankly.
Nary: No, not for a Public Hearing. I’m saying for a workshop to discuss it. Can
we do that on the 10th
or is that too soon?
Hawkins-Clark: I think that we could do the workshop then.
Nary: The Public Hearing, it sounds like, from what he’s saying, is that he would
rather wait until June so that we can have a workshop and be familiar with it and
do it on the 10th
.
Borup: I just think that we would come across like we know what we are doing if
we do have a workshop. This thing is a much bigger nature than the last two.
Nary: I agree. I think you’re right. I know that they want to keep it moving, I
understand that, but it does feel like we can spend a lot of time with the public.
The other side of the coin there, Keith, is that dialogue good for the public to
understand so that Brad doesn’t have to spend the next Public Hearing taking an
hour and a half to present so that they someway to respond.
Borup: I think both.
Nary: So, if we are going to do one big Public Hearing –
Borup: I think he still needs to do close to the same presentation, but we have a
better opportunity to ask questions and get a lot of our questions out of the way.
Nary: The other side of the coin is, do you really think we are going to just get it
done in one?
Borup: One workshop or one Public Hearing?
Nary: One Public Hearing.
Borup: I don’t think so.
Nary: The reason I asked that, Keith, is that if it is anticipated we do more than
one Public Hearing, then why not use the first Public Hearing as that opportunity
– we’ll see how long it goes, have a set time. Say we are going to meet from
7:00 to 11:00 and if we take two hours to go through it ourselves, the public is still
getting educated on it, they get a couple of –
Borup: That might be a chance for us to take public testimony and we can listen
to everything and act like we know what is going on.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 88
Shreeve: And then if need be, after that – if we need some kind of a workshop –
Nary: If we are going to take a couple here anyway, maybe not having a
workshop isn’t going to –
Borup: When are you figuring the first meeting? The first Public Hearing? On
what date?
Hawkins-Clark: The 31st
is what the steering Committee recommended.
Borup: Of May? I will be gone.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes and there may be some advantage in the workshop, just to
talk about how you want to handle the Public Hearing because if it is anything
like what our open houses were like. You are going to have a lot of people
coming in and talking about their one acre piece, their two acre piece, their three
acre piece. We are talking about the entire area of impact. How do you want to
organize – it is really going to be a different animal all together.
Nary: What do we have – Can we do that discussion on the 17th
of May, we
don’t have anything else scheduled. Because, I do think that it makes sense to
say, if we are going to do more than one than what piece are we going to talk
about in part one, so that we can tell the public, look, we are only talking about
this tonight and we are going to have another one and we are going to talk about
these other things. Then people don’t have to feel like I have to come to eight
meetings just to get my peace in.
Borup: Couldn’t it also be noticed that way? That this many sections will be
discussed this night.
Hawkins-Clark: I think, typically, most jurisdictions – you actually publish in the
newspaper the plan, the entire plan – a map of the whole plan. Well, I know that
Eagle and Boise have both done that. I don’t see why you couldn’t designate,
text wise, and one –
Shreeve: You could say emphasis on this hearing will be –
Hawkins-Clark: Like, right, North Meridian.
Nary: If somebody wanted to come and they said, I can’t come the other two
times that you have scheduled so far and I just have my little five-minute thing I
want to tell you. Then I guess we could determine and say, sure, we’ll take that
now. We really want to focus on these other things. Maybe we can put that on
the 17th
, to talk about that and then we would not waste a lot – then even if we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 89
are just sitting and having a dialogue in front of 200 people, they are still learning
something, they are still hearing it and you don’t have to repeat it a second time.
Borup: And our regular meeting on the 17th
?
Nary: Well, just to kind of talk about the agenda. How are we going to process
this stuff?
Borup: How about the workshop? Do we want to do it then, too?
Nary: Well, I don’t know. What I was saying is that maybe we don’t need to
have a workshop since the anticipation is that we are going to have more than
one Public Hearing anyway.
Borup: I’m kind of leaning towards that now. Maybe have one Public Hearing
and stick a workshop in between if we think it is necessary.
Nary: Yes, if we think it is necessary. At least at the first Public Hearing, if we
just say, look, we are going to have a meeting from 7:00 to 11:00 and if the first
two hours is the staff report and our dialogue of it, then that is the way it goes.
Centers: I’m fine, along with the majority.
Borup: So, we just don’t have a date, or do we have a date?
Hawkins-Clark: We would like a date set for the hearing so that we can –
Nary: Well, if Keith’s not going to be here May 31st
, can we do it the second
Thursday in June, instead, as the first Public Hearing and we’ll plan on May 17th
to talk about the agenda, the process
Borup: Oh, the second Public Hearing?
Nary: No.
Borup: Second Thursday?
Nary: On May 17th
we’ll decide on agenda, process, how we are going to
conduct the hearings and do the first hearing on the second Thursday in June,
the 14th
.
Hawkins-Clark: So, if you do have issues to continue from the first June meeting
that would be the only risk to that. I mean, you would be putting.
Nary: No –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 90
Centers: He’s talking an extra meeting.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh an extra –
Nary: Right because May 31st
wouldn’t have been a meeting for us anyway, that
would have been a special one.
Borup: Right, oh, you’re saying the second Thursday in June?
Nary: Right because our meeting was the 7th
and the 21st
.
Hawkins-Clark: So you would have three Thursday’s in a row?
Shreeve: Hold on a minute the 14th
of June? That is the AIC Association of
Idaho Cities Conference that week.
Nary: Okay, how about the 28th
?
Borup: Who does that affect?
Shreeve: I know it will affect me, I go.
Nary: I don’t know if I will have to go or not. So, maybe it would be safe –
Borup: Is that daytime – that’s after 6:00?
Shreeve: Well, typically there are some night activities associated with it.
Nary: If we did the Public Hearing on the 28th
, I know that is kind of pushing it far
out, that might give you time to set it up if you have got to use the school.
Borup: The 28th
of June?
Shreeve: Well, if we are having – this is a suggestion – if we are having a
special date why not pick the 13th
. Does it have –?
Hawkins-Clark: Does it have to be a Thursday?
Shreeve: Maybe pick something besides a Thursday.
Nary: It doesn’t have to be a Thursday. I think the only reason we didn’t do
Wednesday, is that Sally had a conflict on Wednesday. I don’t know if it is every
Wednesday. That is why when we had to pick what day the meetings were,
Thursday was the only day we didn’t have a huge conflict. I don’t know if it is a
conflict every Wednesday.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 91
Borup: I don’t think it was, if I remember, but I can’t –
Shreeve: Which means that we could do something even May 23rd
.
Nary: Well, you have a holiday in there, too. That’s the thing –
Hawkins-Clark: Right that’s the Monday, the 28th
.
Borup: What were we talking about doing on the 17th
, just talking about
procedure?
Nary: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: Just how to conduct the Public Hearings, basically.
Borup: And we do that at the end of our meeting?
Nary: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: On the 17th
.
Nary: Now we are just looking at the day to do this, we could do it on –
Borup: Does somebody want to make a motion to adjourn?
Shreeve: I make a motion to adjourn.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Somebody seconded that too, I’m sure.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:36 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
April 5, 2001
Pg. 92
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK