2001 02-01MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 2001
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 1, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, Richard
Hatcher.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, David Swartley, Will
Berg.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance
___X___Sally Norton ____X__ Jerry Centers
___X___Bill Nary ___X___Richard Hatcher
__X____Chairman Keith Borup
Item 3. Consent Agenda
A. Approve minutes of January 18, 2001, Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting:
Borup: Good evening everyone, I would like to welcome you to the February 1st
meeting of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. We do have full
attendance by all of our Commissioners. I would like to proceed. Our minutes
are going to be at the next meeting. We do not have the ones from the last ones
ready.
Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 00-055 Request for Conditional
Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to
serve as Sonntag Eye Associates office during
construction by Johnson Architects – Gentry Way and Allen
Street:
Borup: A couple of items to mention before we start. One of the main purposes
of the Planning and Zoning is to gather information. That is what we try to do
and then make a recommendation based on that information to the City Council.
Rather than going through the procedures, the basic format we follow is on this
salmon color sheet that is in the back of the paper. That is the procedure we will
be following for the hearings tonight. A couple of things, or at least one thing
would -- might want to – a couple things to mention. Item No. 6 is a Conditional
Use Permit for Sontag Eye Clinic. They have asked that to be withdrawn. They
have withdrawn their application so that will not be on the agenda this evening.
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-023 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 2
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership –
south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 00-052 Request for Conditional
Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory
Road and west of Eagle Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary
Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on
156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany
Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of
Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
Borup: Then the last three Items, 10, 11, and 12, Tuscany Lake Subdivision.
The applicant, in discussing with staff, decided there are still some issues on
sewer and utilities to the site. They have asked for that to be postponed to a
later hearing, which we will determine, well – continued to March 15th
, is the 15th
the right date? Yes, it would be to the March 15th
hearing. There will not be a
staff presentation, and there will not be a presentation by the applicant. We
would be – if anyone felt that they wanted to leave testimony on that tonight you
are welcome to do that. We will be here and written testimony can also be taken
of course. I would encourage that for anybody that has information on that line.
Item 4. Continued from November 14, 2000: AZ 00-022 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 118.4 acres to R-4 by Gemstar
Properties, LLC, for proposed Springdale Subdivision at
the Seasons - east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and
Ustick Road:
Item 5. Continued from November 14, 2000: PP 00-022 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for 385 building lots and 9 other
lots on 118.4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Gemstar
Properties, LLC, for proposed Springdale Subdivision at
the Seasons – east of McDermott between Cherry Lane
and Ustick Road:
Borup: Items 4 and 5 are continued from the last couple of hearings on
Springdale Subdivision. I need to step down on that application and we will ask
Commissioner Nary if he will go ahead and handle that I -- we didn’t (inaudible)
real formal. Potential conflict, yes.
Nary: It is my recollection that now we are taking up the matters that are listed
as No. 4 and 5 on our agenda. Request for an annexation AZ 00-022 and PP
also 00-022. We had continued this from the last hearing for additional staff
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 3
comments I believe, and we did receive a staff report in our box that’s dated
January 30th
. Mr. Hawkins-Clark, maybe if you had a moment to sort of give a –
or unless you are Mr. Siddoway tonight I guess.
Hawkins-Clark: No, I wouldn’t be tonight.
Nary: Maybe if you could briefly summarize for the record, a little bit of the staff
comments then we could give the applicant some opportunity to give some
rebuttal.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Commissioner Nary, members of the Commission.
The January 30th
report does go into both the annexation application, Item No. 4
and the Preliminary Plat Item No. 5. You should have also received a written
response to our comments that was dated today from Susan Wildwood,
representative of Gemstar on this project. I think the – I guess I will take some
advice to how you want me to proceed, if at all, in responding to Ms. Wildwood’s
memo. In terms of our own staff report, these site photos I believe you have
seen before. This is the revised plat here on the screen. We did an evaluation
of the Ordinance of all the required findings for annexation and zoning. On Page
2, we did note certain Comprehensive Plan policies that we feel do support.
Certainly, this isn’t comprehensive; there are others. On Page 3, begins the
policies that we felt do not support annexation at this time. I guess the main
points that would point out that really have not gotten into the public record from
the last meeting – on Page 4, Item C. Regarding the finding as to whether or not
the proposed uses are designed, constructed and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate with the existing and intended character of the vicinity. There
are a couple of items there that were new, not from last meeting regarding the
City of Nampa, and Canyon County Comprehensive Plans. Ms. Wildwood’s
letter did address that. I think the main point there is that there is a 5-acre
minimum lot subdivision right across the street from this proposed sub. There is
also a designated agricultural land in Canyon County across on the west side of
McDermott. In terms of being compatible, I think those would not be with this
subdivision. The school issue, we got that letter that Wendel Bigham of the
Meridian School District signed, stating that basically they are not giving
opposition. They are not in the practice as the district to recommend that
projects be designed. Rather they just want to be included in the planning
process. This was the first time that we as staff had received anything other than
the first letter from the School District that said they could not support it. We
really haven’t had a chance to verify that with the School District, but assuming
that that’s not an issue then at this point, so some of those could be modified.
Fire has also stated that there is not an issue. The density issue is one that has
come up and been discussed in the previous two meetings. I think that in terms
of the existing Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Wildwood is right that we have to go off
of what is currently and not what’s proposed. We do have that as single-family
residential which could be R-2, R-3, R-4, or R-8. It could be any of those so the
Comprehensive Plan isn’t specific as to which one of those zones could be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 4
requested. Really the only reference in the Comprehensive Plan to that whole
density issue is just the statement that growth should be denser in the center of
the City and decrease as you go to the edge of the impact area. That is really
the only concrete policy that we have, so there is certainly interpretation there.
There is really, I guess you have seen her report I won’t go through that. There
are issues that we can respond to if you would like, but I guess at this point we
do have some comments on the Preliminary Plat that were in our January 30th
memo as well. I think Ms. Wildwood addressed those in her response along with
Scott Stanfield, the Engineer. I don’t know that there is anything really
outstanding to point out on the Preliminary Plat section of the report, thanks.
Nary: Thank you is there somebody here from the applicant that wishes to
speak?
Stanfield: Scott Stanfield with Earl and Associates. 314 Badiola in Caldwell
Idaho, representing Gemstar for this application. Ms. Wildwood was unable to
attend this evening she is in a few hearings over there in Canyon County. She
just asked me to bring forth this letter to you, which I trust is in your packet. She
actually asked me to read that to you and I will try to go through this as quick as I
can.
Nary: The letter of February 1st
?
Stanfield: Correct, February 1st
letter, and all of you do have a copy of that?
Nary: Yes.
Stanfield: Have you all read it Ms. Norton has not?
Norton: It was sitting on the table as we arrived.
Stanfield: As you got together? This letter is written in response to address the
comments contained in the staff memorandum, dated January 20th,
which is e-
mailed to myself. As I go through this letter, I am going to try to paraphrase to
shorten it down.
Nary: That would be great.
Stanfield: Annexation and zoning general comments. Obviously on the items
that support, we are not going to discuss that. Obviously we are not going to
disagree there. School sites, adequate school facilities, or sites are available to
serve the proposed subdivision. I trust you have a copy in your packet of the
letter from Wendel Bigham. We have been meeting with him quite extensively
and are going to keep him in the loop which is what he insisted that we do and
help him acquire sites in the vicinity or other areas of the town that they’re
looking into, sanitary sewer and water. As I have mentioned before, myself have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 5
been meeting with Mr. Gary Smith, Mr. Brad Watson and on occasion Mr.
Freckleton regarding the sewer and the water. I think it is clear that Gemstar will
be putting in all of the sewer at no burden to the City, police protection within the
City limits. I am going to read some of this because I don’t believe the Police
Department had time to respond to Ms. Wildwood’s letters, which were sent off to
the Police Department just yesterday. Adequate police protection is available to
the site. The only comment provided from the Police Department indicated
public safety issues without specifying the issues. Susan spoke with Sergeant
Volker, and if I pronounce his last name wrong I apologize, Captain Musser of
the Police Department because Chief Gordon wasn’t (sic) available. Basically in
that section of Susan’s letter, she addresses the fact that the police just have
general concerns. Not with Springdale but with the City, as a whole they feel that
they are not receiving adequate budget for other areas of the entire City and are
below the national average for officers per individuals. Again, that they don’t
necessarily oppose this particular project. The Drainage Development in the
staff report addresses drainage in the Comprehensive Plan. I think it is important
to point out that a licensed Engineer, such as myself will be preparing the
Drainage Plans. They will be no different than how other systems are treated
throughout the City. We are bound by ACHD requirements, we are bound by
DEQ requirements, and there are BMP manuals. The City reviews them so it
goes through quite a rigid process. That is probably where most of the reviews
are focused on during the Final Platting Plans. People don’t really look at the
street designs much. Everybody focuses on the drainage to see that that
requirement is met. I think in my opinion, we will be okay there. Utilization of
unimproved land without the urban services planning area, I don’t know if
reading the staff report there -- there maybe some conflicting information but I
think it’s important to point out that the subject property is within your urban
services planning area. The project will result in a maximization of public
investments because the sewer, water, and road improvements will be provided
by the developer. Particularly the sewer at no cost to the City. As stated before
that includes everything necessary to get it to the Treatment Plant. Including the
private park that we have, we are exceeding 5 percent open space. I believe we
are like 7.3. The national average for this project would have put it at, around 5
or 5 and a half percent so we exceed the national average in that aspect.
Curtailing urban sprawl, which is defined to spreading out your regular – this site
in our opinion does not consist of urban sprawl. I’ll quickly show you a display. I
pulled these from the assessors’ maps, which are available on CD. I have cut
and pasted recent projects that were not on our updated copy. Here we have
Black Cat Road and Ten Mile, Cherry Lane and Ustick are up here. Working our
way to Cherry Lane at The Lakes, Golf view I believe, Wilkin’s Ranch is up in
here, and Ashford Greens, which is starting to build out. You see all of this open
space in here, which is the City’s Golf Course. As we move over to the west we
have Autumn Faire which has received City Council a few months ago on the
Preliminary Plat. Now we are coming forward to the Final Plat for Phase One.
Turnberry No. 1 and Turnberry No. 2, which is under construction, I believe. It
may be recorded now as a Final Plat, I am not sure however. Here is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 6
Springdale. You can see development has slowly been pushing in this direction
and the diversities are quite obvious. We have a high density here off of Ten
Mile or medium to high density of PUD I believe that process was. A variation of
a whole variety of lot sizes, styles of homes and a good mix. I think the
Springdale will just kind of duck-tail onto that and offer quite a bit for people that
live in Meridian that are looking for that next level to move into. Housing projects
phase with public services and facility plans. Again, this has been a well
planned-out project. We have been through ACHD’s processes regarding
roadway improvements, submitted the traffic report, and revised it accordingly.
ACHD has approved the Preliminary Plat. Phasing will be in conjunction with the
sewer as the developer runs the sewer out to the site. Water -- we will be
working with the City obviously on the water, what they want regarding sizes and
where they want to place it. Encourage new development of higher density
within Old Town and lower and outline areas. This comment has been previously
discussed by Susan, I believe in the last hearing. Again, as Brad pointed out,
this does conform to the current Comprehensive Plan regarding single-family
designation. I won’t read too much more of that because I believe Ms. Wildwood
covered that pretty well at the last hearing. Change in area, adjacent areas.
Again this is an extensive development, contiguous to the east and the northeast
by again Turnberry and Autumn Faire Subdivision. Comprehensive Plan
designations, Nampa and Canyon County. That paragraph is fairly important in
that the fact that Susan has quite involved two projects to the west on the other
side of the County line. Staff mentioned a project, I believe it was St. James
Place. I myself have been working on that project also. The particular reason
for the five acres in that aspect is that the City of Nampa, even though it’s in the
impact area, has no intentions currently of getting sewer out to that area, their
impact area. Drain fields were required; hence, a nutrient pathogen study was
required by the Health District, which investigates ground water levels and
possible contamination to the ground water. As a result to that (inaudible) study
was a five acre average for that development. Five acres was theoretically
enough to keep the pollutants from traveling off site, off of each lot. That was the
reason for the five acres. I will point out that I do have a copy of the Nampa
Comprehensive Plan map. They are not due west of this project, due west is the
County and that is zone (inaudible). The City of Nampa’s impact area – here is
our common corner right here and to the south and to the west of there is the
City’s impact area. That area, I believe on the City’s Comprehensive Plan map,
the City of Nampa is pointed out as one dwelling unit to 2.6 acres. Obviously it is
less than the five acres but it is more than what we are proposing.
Nary: Mr. Stanfield, do you want us to consider that in our decision, what that
Nampa (inaudible)?
Stanfield: Not necessarily I am just giving you the facts.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 7
Nary: Okay, because otherwise we need a copy of it that’s why. Same thing with
your other map you showed us, do you have a copy of that? Do you want us to
use that as --?
Stanfield: No but you can have this.
Nary: Okay that is fine, if you want us to use it as part of our decision though we
need to have it as part of the record.
Stanfield: Definitely, in fact I will include both of them.
Nary: That is fine.
Stanfield: Hazardous uses. Staff suggests that the project could be hazardous
to the neighboring properties without specifying what hazards are posed. I
believe many of the surrounding landowners are in support of this project. I think
some of them are here this evening and may or may not speak this evening.
Staff did point out the (inaudible) to the south, I forget his last name but Tom was
his first name. Two hearings ago we did speak with him afterwards and I believe
we took care of his concerns. Essential public facilities and services, this just
references pretty much what I said previously about the sewer working with the
City and the water. The letter from Wendel Bigham regarding schools, the Fire
Department, which Brad already pointed to, and the Police service. Staff has
made comments. We are in lack of sewer ability from the white drain. I think it is
clear to point out that we are in no way adjacent or anyway near the white drain.
This is again a Trunk Line and a Forest Main Enlist Station that is on its own.
Gemstar will be providing that to the City. Road services, again ACHD has been
through this and required slight revisions, which we have done. Hospital
services. We recognize that St. Luke’s is quite some distance from here. I
believe everybody is aware of the St. Al’s facility going in at the intersection of
Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. Which I hope will eventually develop into quite a nice
medical facility on that corner which would cut down the response time in that
area and really assist in that general area of the town. Additional requirements
at public cost, I think we’ve pretty much addressed that that the developer’s
paying for the sewers, paying for waters, paying for the roads, paying the impact
fees, providing open space and shouldn’t be any additional burden to the City.
Vehicular access again, we have mentioned that regarding ACHD. We also
received a letter from Nampa Highway District and I don’t believe we received
that on time to get that into your packets. Do you have – it will say Nampa
Highway District on the top.
Norton: Yes.
Stanfield: Okay, that letter is pretty self-evident. I will paraphrase it real quick.
We’ve made pretty much relinquished control. Currently they have an
agreement with ACHD to maintain and operate the east and west half of that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 8
The east half is in Ada County and the west half is in Canyon County. The
Highway District pretty much says it’s all yours ACHD build it. Design it to ACHD
standards which we’re proposing, which are more restrictive than Nampa
Highway Districts. I believe we have worked that issue out. Best interest of the
City, staff has mentioned that they don’t think this is in the best interest of the
City. In a short time this development would provide services that will not be
available for some time in the future. Without sewer out there, there will be no
place for the school sites to go. Mr. Brad Watson and I have been addressing
the sewer. Pretty much west of Ten Mile is at or near capacity with perhaps the
exception of the Black Cat Trunk line which the City, I believe doesn’t have any
near plans to install that trunk line. Without a major sewer project in that area
schools just would not happen. Similar to Commercial Development out there
you just need the sewer. Site specific comments, Development Agreement, no
problem with that. Landscape buffer, this is one item we do disagree with
regarding the Preliminary Plat modifications. This application was made under
the previous Landscape Ordinance which required a 20-foot buffer regardless of
where you are at I do believe. Susan believes it is not legally permissible to
impose the standards not in existence at the time the application was made. I
will further add that with the part in the northwest corner and the multi-use open
spaces southwest corner will offer a nice buffer and kind of soften the approach if
one is driving down McDermott. In addition to the 20-feet we are planning in
between there. General annexation requirements, Irrigation District approvals,
staff mentions Encroachment Agreements or response from the Irrigation District.
I think it’s important to point out that Irrigation District will not give an
Encroachment Agreement or License Agreement until you have a Final Plat in
plans. It’s kind of the chicken or the egg thing, we can’t provide that to them until
we get Preliminary Plat approval. I do have a letter with me addressing pretty
much the same subject with Nampa Meridian but it’s for Autumn Faire No. 2
which is further on your list. We have been working with the Irrigation District
and recognize (inaudible) and we can’t get away from that. Existing wells and
septic systems will be removed, and the (sic) streetlights are okay. City
Engineering is not indicating any difficulty with provisions of water service. We
just ask that the City, if they haven’t modeled the water already that they do so
before we get too far down the line and find out we’re in trouble. The worst case
I would imagine, we would have to donate a lot as we did in Autumn Faire for
another well site, which if we have to we have to. Preliminary Plat site specific
comments, (inaudible) on sheet three that is an obvious (inaudible) and that can
obviously be corrected and will be corrected if we fortunately move on to Council.
The centerline is shown as a westerly boundary of McDermott Road. The
proposed right-of-way currently scales at 48-feet, which is what the Highway
District requested. Which was not on the plan prior to going to ACHD so that has
been revised per ACHD. Scaled lot dimensions, we disagreed but there are
several. Perhaps this is an area where we can improve on our corner lots. We
typically label the tangent sections and ignore the curbs. City Ordinance allows
us to include the tangent plus half the curb or half the core however we lay it out.
We did neglect to show those curbs and we have gone through this again with a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 9
fine toothed comb. If you include the curb I believe we did find a couple of lots
that there were 78, or around there for frontage. Those can be easily corrected
with the exception of one where we just have to lose the lot. We don’t have any
room to move it, and we do recognize that. Legend of all symbols not included
on the place of the face of the plat. Obviously we can add any of those to
revisions prior to the City Council meeting. The plat did not include minimum
residential size. We don’t believe this is required by the Ordinance but we will
obviously include it on our next submittal. I believe it is also City code that a
minimum of 1,400 square-feet which was included in our application submitted
September 22nd
. Plat notes should include right format. Again, we don’t have a
problem with including that. Contour lines missing – excuse me contour lines are
there but staff is correct we did not reference that to a particular benchmark. I
could tell you what benchmark that is but that’s not going to do any good tonight.
All I can say is that I believe the contours are typically used by the City to check
and determine if your sewer grades can be connected to existing City facilities
and observe the tie in points. Obviously this one Gemstar is putting in the sewer
so there really is no tie in points to be sure that we can meet. We have been
over the Preliminary profiles with the City of Meridian and keeping the
Engineering Department in sync with what we are proposing to do. Nonetheless
we can add the benchmark on our submittal to the Council. Fencing, no issue.
Phase lines splitting up the lots, this would be my fault. At our previous hearing
that was the evening I spent till 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning and just didn’t see
that so we don’t see that as being an issue. That is an obvious square footage
calculation, we recognize these are not required by code but we do try to submit
them on every Preliminary Plat. We did count probably six to a dozen of those
that were incorrect and those all can be corrected without impacting the plats. I
think it’s important to point out that the computer programs you use today pretty
much uses exact numbers and the numbers who have shown the plat are
rounded numbers so you’re going to see some conflicting information there.
Insufficient wiggle room, staff recommends – we are not requesting any
variances regarding lot frontage lengths, lot widths, or minimum lot areas. Both
codes have had aspects. We feel we are required to show wiggle room. Going
through, I am on page nine now, I am going – no, No. 1 regarding Nampa
Meridian’s Encroachment Agreement. I think it’s also important to point out that
the City’s Final Plat check list, of which I don’t know if you have a copy or not but
I do have a copy of the first page. Item 10, this was under the heading. The
following items are required prior to signature on the Final Plat by the City
Engineer. Item 10 says secure License Agreement with Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District for encroachments to any Irrigation Easement. That is covered
at the Final Plat stage by the City by their own process, and their own checklist. I
will leave this with you also. Item No. 2, block 24 is less than 500 feet. That’s
obvious, that was actually a request – I am going to approach up here so I can
point at it. Right here, Ms. Wildwood on the 16th
of January had a conversation
with Stiles. Ms. Stiles indicated that she wanted the stub street going north to
what you’re going to see later on tonight, Autumn Faire No. 2. That was the
result of her comments, we are flexible, and we can move that around. If you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 10
don’t want it there we won’t put it there. If you want to move it we will move it.
Again, just doing what we felt Ms. Stiles asked for. Minimum street frontages, I
already hit on that that there is a few that look they don’t need it. I checked
before I left the office today and all of those except for the one can easily be
revised without any change to the Preliminary Plat. The regular jog, I believe
staff specifically asked us to address that on the south boundary there to the
west, that ugly looking thing right there. That was a result of the deeds that our
surveyor pulled out and that’s just the way we see it on the deeds. Obviously as
you move to Final Plat you are going to see that move maybe here or there when
you get more involved into a survey. Those are what the deeds of both
(inaudible) and the deeds to the south show up. I hope that explains that and
obviously a Licensed Surveyor has to prepare and stamp the Final Plat. I don’t
see that as being an issue. McDermott Road, I believe McDermott Road has not
been designated by the City for entry corridor status so I question the
requirements might apply. Again, this is an annexation so you can. I think do
what you want if I can use that term loosely. Again, we have the open space on
that end of the project to soften that. Frontage requirements, I already discussed
that. Front indicators, all of the lots that are side specific on our corner lots we
have identified with the word front. I suppose that would be a miscommunication
between myself and Ms. Stiles. I felt the word front would be adequate,
obviously we can add arrows and I don’t see that as a problem. I think it is
important to point out that a builder and a lot purchaser should not be using this
Preliminary Plat to be the layout of the building to purchase the lot. Again, I think
(inaudible) to ourselves of not listing the curbs on there. I believe the staff keyed
in onto the tangent dimensions which obviously look like they are too short.
Sewer and water, we addressed that. Paved pathway, we disagree that we are
required to provide a paved pathway. There is no Ordinance requirement only
request by the Parks Department. We have already agreed to donate the
pathway and provide rough grading for the City at no expense. It would be an
improper exaction to refuse to approve this plat unless we agreed to provide
pavement in addition to the donation and other services. Preliminary Plat
general comments, I believe we – I just trust most of those. Density and
development in the area, I touched in that on the display here and I have some
other displays that I will quickly show you in a minute from Coldwell Banker.
Keep in mind that yellow as the map that we showed you last time which
somehow did not make it with me this evening. Yellow was 8,000 to 8,500
square-feet, pink is 8,501 to 9,000 and blue is 9,001 and up. I’ll grab some of
those. This is kind of a (inaudible) of the area. Here’s Black Cat Road, here’s
Turnberry No. 1, Autumn Faire No. 1 and Autumn Faire No. 2. Ashford Greens,
the Lakes of Cherry Lane, (inaudible) is down here to the south. The Lakes
(inaudible) Dakota, Wilkins Ranch and again this just points out the variation
that’s going on out there of smaller, larger, open space, no open space, and a
school site. More open space, no open space, none, just a good mix. I’ll get
some of the more specific ones here. Dakota Ridge No. 2, is predominately
blues and yellows with blue being 9,001 and up and yellows being 8,000 to 8,500
so there’s a good mix between the two there as we are providing with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 11
Springdale. Wilkins Ranch, a whole lot of yellow which would again be 8,000 to
8,500 just a different project, a couple others mixed in there and a nice open
space. Smaller lots, more open space so I think that has been a well put
together project that pretty much reflects how ours is looking. Salisbury which is
a little bit older but again it is in the area and that’s predominately blue which is
9,000 and up, larger lots but no open space but again larger lots. Hartford which
is in that area that was done a couple of years ago. A lot of blue again but no
open space. I think you have seen a good mix out there. In fact, I am going to
run down some numbers real quick regarding the percentage of lots. Turnberry, I
believe this is between one and two. 8,000 to 8,500 square feet is 61 percent,
19 percent being 8,500 to 9,000 and 9000 and up is 19 percent, predominately
the 8,000 to 8,500 square lots. Wilkins Ranch, 60 percent is less than 8,500
square feet, 24 percent being 8,501 to 9,000. Springdale as we have mentioned
previously, about 32 to 33 percent is 8,000 to 8,500. 41 percent 8,501 to 9,000
and 27 percent 9,000 and above. Again, I hope this demonstrates the mix and
the variety that we are offering out there. Now I will read her summary. None of
these comments require major revisions to the Preliminary Plat. Every revision
requested by the various agencies including staff has been made resulting the
loss of 16 lots without any request for variances from any of these agencies.
Staff’s report simply reiterates information previously presented at the prior three
hearings on this application. This is a little new information provided to the
Commission. This applicant has made every effort to work with staff when the
pre-application meeting (inaudible) to the hearings before this Commission. We
respectfully disagree with much of the staff’s position and feel that we have
presented more than an adequate response, as to every issue raised by the
staff. With my paraphrasing and my additions that pretty much concludes the 12-
page letter. I guess with that I will stand for any questions. I cannot include
these because these are not all ours.
Nary: That’s fine. Questions? Any questions from the Commission? Thank
you, I am sorry let me stop one moment. I wanted to make a correction because
I noted in Ms. Wildwood’s letter on page four. You had stated that the hospital
services and that the St. Al’s facilities that we approve would somehow comply
with that. That was not a hospital that was approved. It is an outpatient care unit
that has a limited hours of service. It is nothing close to a hospital. That was
real specific what was approved. I think her letter is an error or she may have
just misunderstood what was approved. I just wanted to make sure you
understood that. I noted two paragraphs above that you – the way I understand
because most of the time on these types of things what we hear are concerns
from people about traffic. Once it gets approved and built there is not a whole lot
we can do about traffic because that is the Highway Districts (inaudible). It
seems to me that what you’re saying in the paragraph above that or what Ms.
Wildwood is saying is that the assumption is since more development will occur
likely in that area that by the time traffic becomes a problem the Highway District
will fix it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 12
Stanfield: Well I don’t know if that’s what she was saying or not but again, each
one in our project and anybody else’s project has to go through ACHD’s
requirements. In having talked with ACHD, ultimately something is going to have
to occur at the intersection of McDermott and Cherry Lane. I believe the next
project that may come on line after ours, it will have be their four way stop and
then eventually a signalized light there. I think that is pretty obvious.
Nary: But there hasn’t been any commitment or anything at this point?
Stanfield: Not that I am aware of -- simply stated in their report.
Nary: Here’s the same kind of comment in regards to the public safety types of
services. Police and fire, it is just that the assumption as we grow and the City
gets more money from taxes and things like that that the department will grow.
There is again, just an assumption that will sort of catch up to the service
(inaudible).
Stanfield: Yes, there is the assumption that part of the taxes that these people
will be paying on their tax bills is that a portion of that should be your mark to
certain services in going toward the budget for that department. That
assumption’s correct and I think it’s important to point out that the Fire
Department substation on Ten Mile, on South Ustick north of Cherry Lane should
be underway – well I believe it’s underway now.
Nary: I believe it is but theoretically though Mr. Stanfield, the police have to
serve which ever house you built first in that subdivision. If you build the western
most houses, the police have to serve that house regardless of how many taxes
have been paid. Once we annex it and that house gets built.
Stanfield: That is correct they would have to travel to McDermott.
Nary: Thank you I have no other questions.
Norton: Mr. Stanfield, I have a couple of questions. Mr. Tebolt who owns the
(inaudible) had several requests back in December, December the 12th
. You
said you had come to satisfaction – he had a concern about a fence being built?
Stanfield: He had a concern about a fence and I believe his attorney and Mr.
Crookston said that Mr. Humboldt (sic) desired a –
Norton: Tebolt.
Stanfield: Tebolt desired a six-foot vinyl fence. After the meeting we met with
him and explained that that is getting quite expensive. He voiced his concerns to
us that what his dilemma is as he drives through Meridian and sees these cedar
fences with four by four posts that they’re all leaning over. We told him well we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 13
will put in the metal posts like in chain-link fencing in concrete and we will do
that. He seemed satisfied with that.
Norton: So he was satisfied?
Stanfield: Yes.
Norton: I have another questions about where you have proposed your park.
Way in one corner of your subdivision. Could you explain to the Commission
why that park – that you have chosen that particular site?
Stanfield: Yes I can. As some of you are familiar with the Autumn Faire
Preliminary Plat which was brought forth almost a year ago. This is north in this
direction. Turnberry is here, and Springdale touches here. Through that process
the Planning and Zoning Commission at the time requested that we work out a
range of a park with the City which we did and moved onto Council. That City
park in that location was approved. In our opinion just to separate them instead
of combining them into one so that everybody on the west didn’t have to go all
the way to the east and/or vice versa just to spread that out a little bit and soften
the effects coming down McDermott Road.
Centers: So where is that part in relationship to the screener?
Norton: At the other end –
Stanfield: That is correct and they are comparable in size, I believe this one is
slightly larger.
Nary: If you show that top one you can see better. (Inaudible) leave that white
sheet down you can see that park (inaudible).
Stanfield: Here’s the private one we are proposing and here’s the public one.
Norton: Thank you.
Centers: When did you first start your application process, how long ago?
Stanfield: When did we submit it or when did we start it?
Centers: Submit it to the City?
Stanfield: I believe it was September 22nd
. That is when we submitted it and I
believe the City considered that a complete application and accepted it.
Centers: We saw you first in October or November?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 14
Stanfield: I can’t –
Centers: This is the third time?
Stanfield: Yes.
Nary: Any other questions.
Stanfield: I am going to add one more thing before I step down. In meeting with
Gemstar properties that obviously want to move forward on this project asked
that you decide one of two things. That is either recommend approval or even
deny approval to the City Council. They cannot afford to be tabled. They have
an option with the landowners out there and it’s costing them a tremendous
amount of money so we just ask that one of those two things happen.
Nary: Thank you. This is still a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak
on this project please come forward. Sir, come up to the mic.
Stanfield: I will leave these here if you need to use them.
Nary: That is fine, thank you. Actually if you would put that display one – maybe
if you put it on an easel and then if somebody wants to look at it they can. That
would be helpful. Sir if you could just state your name and address for the
record.
Ownby: Dale Ownby, 1824 South Sportsman Way in Meridian. I have a report
with me that I am going to give to the City Clerk here. It is the third quarter
residential vacant lot sales for the City of Meridian. On it includes the location,
the price and the legal description. They start from $20,000 and go up to
$55,000. There were 218 lots that (sic) were sold in the third quarter. About
February the 15th
we will have the fourth quarter available. The reason I didn’t
get the first and second quarters, I just got in from Phoenix about 4:00 this
afternoon and didn’t have time to do the rest of it. At any rate, I am a retired
Real Estate Broker but still a member of the Southwest Regional Multiple Listing
Service and still keep up with market conditions. This gives you every lot.
Location, legal description and I will leave this with Will so if any of you want to
look at it. I just wanted you to know any time you approve a residential
It’s an asset to the City of Meridian because of the demand. These sales may
not correlate with your third quarter building permits. Sometimes they lag, 30,
60, or 90 days out so if you just want to be aware of that. Then this developer –
the figures at least that I have heard is somewhere between 2 and 3 million
dollars they’re willing to invest in sewer lines and pump stations off site. I think
that is a real asset to the City of Meridian so thank you much.
Nary: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 15
Centers: I have a question, without reading the report what does it say on the
lots.
Ownby: It has each individual lot, where they are located, who sold them, and
how much they were listed for. There are 20 pages.
Centers: So the synopsis is that what you are saying is there is a high demand
for vacant lots?
Ownby: High demand that is correct. These are vacant residential lots.
Centers: Okay.
Nary: Thank you any other questions? Thank you is there anyone else that
wants to speak on this application. Sir, please just give us your name and
address before you get started.
Rice: Ronald Rice from 6295 West Ustick Road. My property borders this new
subdivision proposal. The reason I am up here is because I represent more than
just my property. The property joining me on the east belongs to an absentee
owner, Porter. He lives in Bamafu, Utah. He and I both approve of this project,
we would like the Zoning Commission to know that.
Centers: Excuse me, why do you approve of it?
Nary: Please talk in the mic sir, thank you.
Rice: Because we are 81 years –
*** End of Side One ***
Rice: -- our land. We have quit farming entirely.
Nary: Sir which one is your property what is going to be purchased or a profit?
Rice: Yes, mines in the west north corner and his joins me there in the east
Nary: Okay, thank you.
Rice: You bet.
Nary: Anyone else? Yes, sir?
Anderson: I am Mike Anderson. I live at 2000 North McDermott Road. Our
place is the long skinny section just below the crosshatch on the left. We border
McDermott to Cherry Lane. Our country home of 23 years is the most impacted
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 16
by this development. I would like to withdraw our letter of opposition because
Gemstar bought our house and 10 acres. We have rented a place and we are
running. This is no place for a farm boy to live around Meridian so we are gone.
The hospital is three miles away at Mercy at the corner of the interstate of just
listening to your conversations. The biggest impact on traffic has nothing to do
with the subdivision. It is going to be the Ten Mile interchange. You’ve got
millions of cars that are going to come off of that interchange when that goes, so
don’t worry about the traffic around here. There are four lanes in Black Cat, it
has got huge capacity but I don’t think that’s the issues. I got pages of thoughts
about growth but you don’t want to know them. I see no reason to not approve
this request. There are already hundreds of houses just across the fields.
Canyon County’s across the road so it is a political issue is the only reason it
doesn’t keep gong. I see no reason not to approve this don’t table it. I thought
that was the – that’s unthinkable (inaudible) last time – table this thing. There is
no reason for that, thank you.
Nary: Any questions, thank you. Any other folks want to speak on this? Yes, sir.
Janicek: Monte Janicek, 2256 North McDermott Road. I am the owner of this
piece of property here. I believe last – two weeks ago when we met, there was
brought up a little bit about being out there on the fringe and I would like to bring
up some points here. Our house is in the northwest corner of that project there.
We have lived there for 25 years. From our house we have got a big picture
window looking out towards the south from the living room and we can see the
top of the Nampa (inaudible) there. We can also sit there and see the Mercy
Medical Center that sits up on the hill up on Garrity. At night it’s all lit up and you
can really see it there. Here about 10 days ago, they took and moved in all of
their cars and stuff down there at the new Auto Mall and opened up for business.
Boy they turned their lights on over there and man it is just a stadium over there
just lit up. There are some comments around there with all of the neighbors and
stuff how that place is just really lit up now so it’s changing out there. The other
thing is BSU’s over there and they are doing an awful lot of work over there.
They’ve had CanAda closed out there for over a month now and they’re putting
in their sewer line and doing their – putting in water lines and so forth and getting
ready from the BSU center. That ground will never be farmed over there. It’s got
just piles and piles of dirt over there now. Nampa has got big plans out there on
that end of Nampa coming this way so I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of growth
coming from that way. On the other end of us we have got that Turnberry
Subdivision and that went in a couple of years ago. The first phase as far as I
can tell is nearly completed. It is pretty well all built up. They went in last
summer and last fall and put the roads, the water lines and everything in the
second phase so I’m sure they’re going to be ready to start selling lots on that
second phase here pretty soon. Right next to that they built the big Mormon
Church that they just completed from this property. You just look out across
there and you can just see the church sitting out there, it is just out there just as
big as day. You have already approved the Autumn Faire which was mentioned
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 17
a little bit earlier. Right across from me there is going to be the City Park near
Autumn Faire and – is coming along there. One thing that I have a little bit of a
problem with is when you start growing City – boundaries between City and farm
down through a middle of a section. If you are wanting a guy to farm that why
that makes it pretty tough there. I have always contended, I thought that they
always should have your City boundaries along the roadways. Either Black Cat
or McDermott and Ustick or whatever instead of going right through a middle of a
section. Last year on this particular piece of property I had some beans out
there. We hauled in a plane and we (inaudible) them beans out there and I know
once we get to park in there and that subdivision in there they’re not going to like
that too well when I call in a plane. Even though I am just spraying a (inaudible)
on there just a fertilizer they just see a plane and they just don’t want that. I think
you need to really consider what the developer is doing here as far as – I think
it’s a great gift to the City for the sewer that they’re going out there and putting in.
It is a real asset. I mean I don’t know if too many people are willing to come
along and (inaudible) that up for the City there. I know way out on Black Cat I’m
a little disappointed in what I found out that that’s just a temporary trunk line or a
temporary sewer line that’s in there right now. From my understanding this is
going to be a permanent up to standard sewer line that they are going to put into
service this thing here. I think that is a great asset that needs to be considered.
Those are all of the comments that I have any questions?
Nary: Any questions from the Commission? Thank you sir.
Janicek: Thank you.
Nary: Any other public comment? Very briefly Mr. Stanfield.
Stanfield: I need to add one thing, Mr. Anderson I was not aware of the
purchase of the 10 acres on his corner. That must be something new so I just
wanted to let you know that.
Nary: It sounded like he was supportive (inaudible). Brad do you have any final
comment or is there any questions from the Commission for (inaudible)?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. A couple of items I just
wanted to touch on. Scott mentioned water in his presentation. As you might
recall in Autumn Faire, they were donating a well site up in the corner of Ustick
and Black Cat. With the phasing of the Autumn Faire project unfortunately
where the well is, is going to be one of the last phases that get developed. I am
not clear on what kind of phasing they propose or I mean as far as a timeline on
Springdale. The fact is we need additional supply in the area and if we are held
off on getting supply in the Autumn Faire project we are going to have to have
supply provided elsewhere. That was a questions that we have kind of gotten. It
is going to just kind of hinge on the timeline of their development. The portion of
the page 6 of Ms. Wildwood’s response when we started talking about the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 18
bulleted items. In our Preliminary Plat site specific requirements, Item No. G or
Item G, we referred to easements. I see this as a pretty significant issue, the
safford lateral traverses along the eastern boundary and northern boundary of
the subdivision and if you look at the Preliminary Plat you see it going right
through the middle. Do you have one that shows the contours or anything?
Okay, it shows it going right through the middle of the row of lots that Brad is
indicating there. Nampa Meridian has indicated that the easement width of the
safford lateral was 45 feet total. 30 feet to the right and 15 feet to the left as you
are facing downstream. I would assume that the applicant is proposing piping,
the safford lateral if Nampa Meridian – Nampa Meridian will not relinquish all the
easement. I would imagine that they would allow an encroachment agreement.
What we have always required in the past is that the lot line can be set at the
encroachments line. Our concern is you see the ditch going right through the
middle of these lots. We have absolutely no idea how they plan on piping it and
handling it. It could wipe out that entire northern bank of lots so we see that as
very significant. Scott touched on other staff comments regarding our checklist
that he referred you to talking about secure license agreement with Nampa
Meridian for encroachments to any irrigation easements. That note on our
checklist specifically is for encroachments of City sewer and water facilities that
may cross an easement. It is not dealing with encroachments that I just spoke
of. Did you have anything else that you want to add?
Nary: Mr. Freckleton, Bruce could I stop you right there for a second?
Freckleton: Certainly.
Nary: On the Preliminary Plat site specific, you said on G on the proposed
easements – at least the way I read Ms. Wildwood’s letter, it appears that she’s
saying they believe they can meet the requirement that’s imposed by the City.
You are not asking us to amend that G, you just want to make sure they
understand it and are going to meet what is being required?
Freckleton: One of the requirements Mr. Chairman on the Preliminary Plat is that
you indicate how you plan on handling piping of ditches. This plan does not
show any of that all it shows is some contour lines showing where the ditch it.
There are no easement widths on there. They don’t show relocation of the ditch
and a reduced easement width indicating an encroachment and that sort of thing.
Nary: Okay, great thank you.
Freckleton: Sorry I was very (inaudible).
Centers: Bruce, but that could be worked out you think? Of course you wouldn’t
want the applicant to respond to Bruce’s comments Mr. Chairman sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 19
Freckleton: The concern, I guess Commissioner Centers is that the depth of the
lots as shown on the Preliminary Plat is at the minimum 100 feet in depth and 85
feet in width. You go and reduce that down in order to fit that pipe in the back lot
you start getting below your minimum standards for your lot sizes. Where we
were on the ragged edge as it was with the sizes hints our concern.
Nary: But would it be fair to say if they don’t have the approval of the irrigation
district to put those lots there, they’re going to have to remove them anyway. We
can put more specific requirement in our Preliminary Plat if we want to or we
should for what you are saying. If the irrigation district isn’t going to simply let
them build houses of them anyway, correct?
Freckleton: Correct. Typically this would be addressed at this junction.
Nary: Right, we just need to make sure that we are clear on what our
expectation and desire is. We also know that they are not going to put them –
simply just pave it over and build a house on top of it.
Freckleton: Exactly.
Nary: Thank you. Sir, did you want to make a comment? State your name and
address for the records.
Morgan: Where the easement is for that –
Nary: Sir, could you state your name and address first please?
Morgan: Robert J. Morgan, 2250 Morgon Grove Lane. The canal goes right out
on the north of this old subdivision. The easement for that is on the other side.
The road is on the other side of the ditch, 36 feet. Now are they talking about 36
feet on this side too?
Freckleton: The easement width according to the Ada County Highway Districts
is 35 feet total width. It is 30 feet to the right and 15 feet to the left as your facing
downstream. The 30 feet would be to the north and the 15 would be to the
south. That’s correct, however when you look at the Preliminary Plat map, the
location of the ditch is right just above the road that they have shown on their
north boundary.
Nary: He is saying what we (inaudible) the way this plat is drawn that top row of
houses on the picture is drawn over the top of where the easement requirement
is. Not necessarily where the ditch may physically be but where the easement
requirement, it has to be not covered up with a house, you can’t put a building on
it.
Morgan: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 20
Nary: So that is what they are saying.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, If I could just clarify that point just a little bit. The
easements are not shown on the plat at all. According to the contour lines that
are on the plat it would indicate that the ditch is going across the lots. The best
information we have is you would scale it from the contour lines that are shown.
Nary: Thank you, I knew I would get that wrong. (Inaudible) I don’t know that
you had completely finished so I’m sorry if I interrupted you.
Freckleton: I’m done.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Freckleton that question regarding the sewer. Is it
your understanding that once the sewer was developed and done that would it
be turned over to the City or would the homeowners own that sewer?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton, members of the Commission.
It is our understanding that it would be turned over to the City for the ownership
and maintenance.
Norton: Thank you.
Nary: Any other questions for the Commission before we close the Public
Hearing?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the applicant’s response to Mr.
Freckleton’s comments. There are three things to address correct?
Nary: Yes, I’m sorry. Go ahead Mr. Stanfield.
Stanfield: I think I have three things. Regarding the timetable that is a very good
point that Mr. Freckleton brought up. It is contingent upon what the phasing and
the demand in the drives are for Autumn Faire Subdivision which we are moving
quite quickly on I might add. We will obviously work with the City if – excuse me
if this project gets ahead of Autumn Faire and the City doesn’t have a well site,
then we are going to have to provide a well site in Springdale. There’s no if ands
or buts about it. We can’t sell lots without water service so we will work with the
engineering staff regarding that issue but it is a very good point. Regarding the
safford lateral, that – the contour – kind of ducktail these together. Mr. Morgan
pointed out the location of the ditch and that’s pretty much what our records
indicate too the contours aren’t necessarily a ditch line but the way that the
Janicek’s have been irrigating the property and what Mr. Morgan pointed out is
pretty much what we discovered too. That 15-foot looking downstream would fall
in a rear lot line easement. Again, if that turns out to be completely not true,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 21
which the investigations we have found point towards that, we have to meet the
irrigation districts requirements and the City’s requirements. Did I get them all?
Centers: Bruce was that – we’ll ask the source.
Freckleton: The only other item that I had was the encroachment agreement but
I think Scott touched on that too.
Stanfield: Mr. Freckleton is correct, this will be turned over to the City that -- this
sewer system, complete sewer system.
Nary: Any other questions from Commission? Thank you. We will now finally
close the Public Hearing on this item and Commission it is before you.
Centers: I would like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Norton: I’ll second.
Nary: It’s been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing all of those in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: What is the pleasure of the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be first up with – I would like to
recommend that we approve the project for basically three reasons. This is the
third time we have seen this developer. I think he has acted in good faith. They
have come back with a revised plat. Putting in the sewer in is great but I think
the comment that it’s a (inaudible) I really don’t agree with that comment. How
many developers put in the sewer and provide the pump station or (inaudible)
station? We saw no objections to the project, I realized the people speaking in
favor of it may be a little bias but we saw no objections whatsoever. I would like
to give the City Council the opportunity to approve the project. That is the way I
would like to put it. I think what the staff has recommended and what -- I think
things could be worked out, would you agree to everyone’s satisfaction? Okay,
but as I said, I think the bottom line is I would like to give the City Council the
opportunity to approve the project.
Nary: There is a motion is there a second?
Norton: Is he going to make the –
Centers: I made a statement, any other –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 22
Nary: Is there any other comment I guess before than we see about a motion.
Is there a comment that any Commissioner wants to make?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the motion that we approve and
recommend to the City Council their approval of Item No. 4 on our agenda which
was continued. Specifically AZ 00-022, request for annexation and zoning of
118.4 acres to R-4 by Gem Star Properties, LLC for proposed Springdale
Subdivision at the Seasons – east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and
Ustick Road. Including all of staff comments and recommendations starting on
page 7 and specifically where they start with site-specific annexation
requirements and continue through Item 7 on page 8.
Norton: Of the staff report dated January 30th
?
Centers: Of the staff report dated January 30th
.
Swartley: Commissioner Nary, sorry to interrupt you but staff actually
recommended denial.
Nary: I think that is why Mr. Centers is recommending –
Swartley: Just wanted to clarify that, thank you.
Nary: Thank you. I think he has pointed out the ones that just say if you
approve it (inaudible) the ones.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nary: There is a motion is there a second?
Norton: I’ll second that but I do have a question? Commissioner on page – you
just want to go through page 8?
Centers: Well because the next part (inaudible) the Preliminary Plat.
Norton: Oh okay, thank you. I’ll second that.
Nary: It’s been moved and seconded for the approval of Item No. 4, is there
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Nary: Now we are on Item 5. Does anybody have discussion or a motion
regarding Item 5? I guess I will make a really quick comment and I probably am
going to echo the same thing that Commissioner Centers just said a minute ago.
I do think there are things about this subdivision that I don’t particularly like that I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 23
think are a little troubling as to the design and such. I also look at all of the
requirements that are applicable to that. I looked at the requirements for an
annexation. Although I may not necessarily want to live in this particular
subdivision I don’t necessarily think it really goes against what’s required by our
code. I certainly would have preferred to see a few more things that were more
creative than just pretty much a similar subdivision to what we have all around
the City. I think that I disagree with Ms. Stiles comment that it is (inaudible) to
provide the sewer. I think that’s a very big plus to the City to do that. I think
there are some things here that are going to be of benefit to the City. I did get
the flavor from most of the folks that live there that they think the whole worlds
coming there anyway so it’s not going to make a whole lot of difference about
this particular one. They also seem to all be moving from there, I seemed to
notice that. Be that as it may I think there’s – in trying to balance the good and
the bad of what we are getting here with this particular subdivision. Although
there are some things I prefer were better I don’t necessarily think they are not
compliant with the code and that’s what we’re required to do is to evaluate it
against what the requirements are. I think that we probably need to look at Item
G and make it very clear in the Preliminary Plat requirements if we’re going to
approve this plat that they be more specific and provide better information for the
Public Works Department to make sure that those issues are covered. It made
end up being a situation they may lose some more houses than what they want
to be able to do that. Other than that that appeared to be the only thing of real
big significance to me against the plat issue that has been brought forward. The
other things that were in the staff report dealt primarily and predominately with
the annexation request. I guess that is the only comment I have. I think the plat
is probably sufficient. I would prefer it was better but I don’t think it’s necessarily
not in compliance with the code.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, well I agree on Item G. If they can’t build they can’t
build. You know you’re going to lose some lots but I got to think you have your
bases covered on that and if you don’t that’s your hard luck. I don’t think it really
needs to be covered. The Irrigation District is not going to let them build it if they
are encroached, correct?
Nary: Does anyone wish to make a motion of any kind?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the motion that we approve and
send it to the City Council for their approval, Item No. 5 which was continued
from November 14th
. Specifically PP 00-022, request for Preliminary Plat
approval for 400 – that’s not 400 building lots we’ve got a misprint, it’s 385. For
385 building lots and 7 other lots on 118.4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Gem
Star Properties, LLC for proposed Springdale Subdivisions at the Seasons – east
of McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road. Included there with all
staff requirements specific to the Preliminary Plat noted on page 8 and continued
through page 11 of staff comments dated January 30, 2001.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 24
Norton: I’ll second.
Nary: It’s been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 5, is there any
discussion?
Hatcher: We just need a clarification. We have got on our agenda that there are
7 other lots and on the itinerary we have got 9 other lots.
Centers: It was 400 here and it was supposed to be 385.
Nary: I guess before we vote on it, what is it? Isn’t it 385 and 9?
Centers: is it 385 and 9 or 385 and 7?
Nary: The staff report of the 30th
says 385 and 9.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioners that would be 9.
Nary: It is 9 other lots and 385 buildable lots? Is that right?
Centers: So you have noted that?
Nary: That is what’s on the staff report as well.
Centers: So I will amend the motion to be, instead of 7 other lots it should be 9
other lots. All other verbiage to remain the same.
Nary: So second (inaudible)?
Norton: Yes, I agree
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nary: Well if we pass 385 then they can’t build more than 385, that’s okay. Is
there any last discussion before – last chance? All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 00-053 Request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct a 3-story, 87-room hotel in an L-O zone
for proposed Ameritel Inn by B and A Development – Magic
View Drive/Allen Street w. of Eagle Road:
Nary: We can move on to Item No. 7. I think that’s what most of you folks are
here for but we’re going to take five minutes so that Chairman Borup can come
back and take over and we will take a bite out of No. 7.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 25
(Return from break at 8:24 p.m.)
Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 00-055 Request for Conditional
Use Permit for temporary placement of an office trailer to
serve as Sonntag Eye Associates office during
construction by Johnson Architects – Gentry Way and Allen
Street:
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-023 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership –
south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Continue
Public Hearing to March 15, 2001
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 00-052 Request for Conditional
Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory
Road and west of Eagle Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary
Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on
156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany
Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of
Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
Nary: -- if you were here for that. Sontag Eye Associates and 10, 11, and 12
Tuscany Subdivision have also been deferred to March 15th
. If you came in late
then that is what we are here for.
Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 00-053 Request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct a 3-story, 87-room hotel in an L-O zone
for proposed Ameritel Inn by B and A Development – Magic
View Drive/Allen Street w. of Eagle Road:
Borup: It is time to reconvene the meeting, so if we could get started we would
like to. Staff, we are ready to start. As was stated previously, Item No. 6 is off of
the agenda so – Council do we need to make a motion to accept the withdrawal?
We do have a formal letter. Item No. 7 is a Public Hearing, request for
Conditional Use Permit to construct a 3-story, 87 room hotel in an L-O zone for
proposed Ameritel Inn by B and A Development. I would like to open this Public
Hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. The
subject property is here on the screen. Just to orient you, green, yellow Strate
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 26
Subdivision to the north, Eagle Road, and State Highway 55. This is the existing
Credit Union, Idaho Credit Union, Chevron, McDonalds, Texaco here, and Magic
View drive entrance. This vicinity map was done prior to the construction of Allen
which does extend up here. The crosshatched item here is the subject lot. This
lot and the lot to the west were both approved in a Conditional Use Permit last
year. The reason for this is (inaudible) they are trying to – they are requesting to
modify the Conditional Use Permit that already runs on the land on both of those
two lots. There is a Development Agreement that applies to both lots and I
believe you have received comments on that. Here is the proposed site plan that
was submitted with the revision last week. It is slightly modified from what you
originally received in your packets. You should have a January 25th
memo from
Byron Smith, Ameritel Inn. He sites the four changes in that memo. Basically
they are shifting 50 feet to the south of the hotel. Again, here’s – this direction
shifted, this is north this way. The new road, St. Luke’s Drive and then Allen.
They have shifted the building approximately 50 feet to the south and have
added some landscaping here on the north from the original plan. Off site
landscaping north of St. Luke’s Road which is ACHD right-of-way here. In the
curb cut -- they originally showed a curb cut on Allen Street here to serve a trash
enclosure and that has been deleted. Here is a copy of the proposed Landscape
Plan for both the berm and the ACHD right-of-way which the Development
Agreement has a requirement of a 4 foot berm, 6 foot fence. The road comes
through here so you can see the proposed landscaping. Proposed elevations,
for your information the applicant has submitted a request. They have currently,
an application that is pending to go to City Council for a height variance. I have
been in discussion with the applicant about the definition of height in our Zoning
Ordinance and it basically has to do with where the roofline is measured from. I
did not bring that but the ordinance, both uniform building code and the Zoning
Ordinance define roofline on flat roofs as the top of the roof. This is a parapet
here which in terms of the technical Ordinance definition is not a part of the
roofline on a flat roof. The roofline I think more or less comes here which is
below the parapet and which is indeed less than the 35-foot minimum. We are
probably going to have that modified as to terms of the variance request. Here
are north and south elevations. Our staff report dated November 30th
. We just
ask that all of these proposed conditions be incorporated into your motion. The
only change I believe, and the applicant could address this further – have an
addition. We can work on language during the presentation if you want but we
do want to add a condition to – in terms of if you do recommend approval on the
berm plantings here along the north side of the projects. Typically we go out
during inspection after it is constructed and take this landscape plan and that is
prior to getting a Certificate of Occupancy. They have to plant this plan exactly
as planted. They are asking for some flexibility to work with property owners in
terms of the placement of trees to create the best buffering and we would
support – allowing some flexibility on the planting. I think at a minimum we want
the number of trees and the height to be as they proposed. We wouldn’t want
flexibility on that. I guess that’s it thanks. Bruce has something.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 27
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I did want to add one
site specific – or excuse me maybe just clarify, expand on one of our site specific
comments. Item No. 2, page 3 under site specific. This area is subject to
sanitary sewer latecomers and this side would be subject to those fees. I just
needed to kind of add that into Item No. 2. Site-specific requirement No. 2 on
page 3.This site will be subject to sanitary sewer latecomers that’s all.
Borup: Any questions for staff from any Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. On the roof height requirements
you kind of lost me there. You don’t think there is a problem is that the bottom-
line, on the roof height?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct, in terms of the roof (inaudible) when they first applied
there was misinterpretation on our part in terms of what is the basis for
determining roof height per building height. It meets the minimum height
requirement for the L-L zone.
Centers: Or the maximum?
Hawkins-Clark: Maximum I’m sorry, maximum right.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you, does the applicant have a presentation they
would like to make?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name’s Byron Smith,
Corporate Architect for Ameritel Inns, 10200 West Emerald, Boise, Idaho. I just
want to start out giving you a little overview about who Ameritel is. Ameritel is a
locally owned. Treasure Valley based hotel chain with 9 hotels in the northwest.
The owner of the company is Mr. Glen Black. He and his family have lived in
Meridian for over 25 years and they are great people, they care about their
communities. We -- just kind of an example they support the Make a Wish
Foundation, and the Boys and Girl Scouts of America. Any community that we
go into we support the local hospitals and donate rooms for patients who may
need them and need some assistance. We do care about our communities, we
do care about our neighbors and we do want to be good neighbors. Mr. Black
did submit a letter to you folks here last week and attached to it were some
pictures which gives some examples of the type of facility that Ameritel develops.
This one here is our hotel in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The exterior of the building
would be the same architectural vocabulary in terms of material utilization as that
facility. This would be the lobby of our Spectrum property here in Boise and our
Meridian proposal would be utilizing the same materials as well. This is the
lounge in the Boise Spectrum property. We have a number – we have typical
room types and some special (sic) types would be a kitchen suite. We will have
a small conference room. This is the type of conference facility we have and just
another example of another suite, this being a spa suite. An executive type room
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 28
for the – our clientele that we target is corporate travelers, mid-upscale types of
clients and this is another example of a suite. This facility on Eagle Road that we
are proposing has no restaurant, no bar, and as I mentioned, one small
conference room. At this time I would like to turn over the presentation to Chris
Korte with Land Dynamics. We have been working with Chris to assist us in
some of the site planning issues that we have been dealing with. To assist us in
our meetings with the neighbors to address their concerns and discuss with them
how we can (inaudible) the impacts this proposal had on them. So at this time I
would like to turn it over to Chris.
Korte: Thank you Byron. My name is Chris Korte and my office address is 499
Main Street in Boise. I am real proud to be here representing Glen Black and
Ameritel Inns. I’ve worked with them on two or three of their other projects. It is
a lot of fun to work with people who really believe in their community and put a lot
of money and time into their hotels. It is easy to go and say, well go look at this
one. Go inside and see what it is. Glen was concerned, obviously that this area
out here has gone under some tremendous development pressures. We have
got an existing neighborhood adjacent to this project that I will be addressing
here in a few minutes. What I wanted to be able to explain to you is from a
geographer, which I am a Land Planner and a Real Estate Investor. When the
construction of the interchange at Eagle Road and Interstate 84 was put in, from
our perspective what you got is probably the most important interchange in the
Treasure Valley. Highway 55 is the only street highway that goes north in
virtually all of Treasure Valley. It is centered between Boise and Meridian.
Between the traffic that comes on Highway 55 that’s tourist related and the traffic
that comes on Interstate 84 that in its own right would be impetus to build a hotel
or a motel at this location. When you put on top of that what is being built across
the street at St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center in Meridian. What that is, is a
Geographer again, and a person Real Estate and I’ve worked with St. Luke’s.
There is not doubt in my mind that that will be the largest medical hospital in the
State of Idaho. Definitely within the Treasure Valley within 5 or 10 years. I think
the building they are building there now is probably larger than their hospital in
downtown Boise. From our perspective being in the hotel business we see this
as a double situation. We know that there are going to be a lot of doctors that
are going to be coming into this facility that want a place to stay. We know that
there will be a lot of families because the way hospitals are working today, they
want people in the hospital and out as quick as possible. Some of these people
that may live in Elko live in McCall and live in certain areas they’re not ready to
drive home. We see a very large symbiosis between a quality hotel and St.
Luke’s Regional Medical Center. That is the reason why Glen and Ameritel Inns
have looked at this site because it is a premier location and we know we’ve got
an issue that we need to solve or address with the neighbors. With that I would
– we gave you a series of pictures. I’m going to kind of go through that. I have
never run one of these meetings with a computer. This is going to be great. I
would like to do it with the computer so the audience can see as well as we can
see what we are going to go through. So Brad over here is going to try to take
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 29
my key on which one of these buttons to hit and then we will go through it. The
first one I would like to hit is called Browman which is the one in the center there.
Browman – this is a picture of the actual hotel that is going to be built there and
the landscaping. I would like to address the issue of the height elevation if I may.
Ameritel is very proud in the architectural integrity of their buildings. What you
see above the -- I’m really going to get high-tech and see if I can burn my eyes
out.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Korte: Right there is the actual roofline of the hotel it sits at 33 feet. What you
see above that is a parapet wall that hides any on the top mechanical equipment.
It provides an architectural treatment to the building that goes all the way across.
This is all a (inaudible) as well so this whole area which adds about 7 feet, it
adds heights to the building but it really doesn’t add any more rooms, it isn’t
occupied. It meets the height standard across here. The buildings, if you’ve
seen the one out by the Spectrum, they’re –
*** End Of Side Two ***
Korte: -- 20 to 25 feet tall at the time they plant them because they want this
facility to look like it’s home in a short period of time. Those trees can cost
anywhere from $1500 to $2500 just to be able to put those trees in the ground.
Again, there is a pool but there really is no bar, there is no restaurant. It is made
for the corporate individual and the family in a family type environment. They
have an excellent continental breakfast. They have waffles and I do suggest that
you do stop at the spectrum if you have not and just kind of check it out. We are
very concerned about the neighbors and I know that you have had a lot of
discussions with neighbors regarding this area. It is one of these classic land
use battles, or classic land use conflicts. This area is urbanizing and here came
in this gigantic interchange and it got slapped right in their back yard. I don’t
blame any of them for being concerned. It is a very difficult situation and that’s
why, as I’ve said before, that you get paid the big bucks which is nothing to be
able to take on conflicts of this nature. We held an initial meeting with the
neighbors here to get input from them and then take that input from what they
had to say, go out on the field and see what we can do to help mitigate the
problems and issues that may be inline. You have some of the pictures I think
but if we could go back and hit, I think it’s ground existing? Correct, right there.
This picture starting out right where it is now is looking in a northwesterly
direction. You will see – this is a major out-building right here, this is an out-
building, that is an out-building. You can see this is a house here, and there is a
whole series of trees. If you keep moving across you’ll see a two-story house
here, you keep going, a single-story house here, a two-story house here, another
two-story house that has a swimming pool, and then it hits the fence and goes
out to Eagle Road. This berm is starting to be built right in this location here. I
don’t think it’s quite 4 feet in height, it might be but they’re building the berm.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 30
You will see Byron Smith standing right there and he is about 6 feet in height.
What we wanted to first see was is what this fence was going to do which was a
requirement of the Development Agreement and the landscaping. If you could
go to the next picture which is ground buffer. If you want to start scanning over –
yes. This is a fence – just keep going on over, that’s 6 feet in height. You’ll see
Byron right there he’s about 6 feet in height and a series of trees. These are the
typical size trees that you see planted on landscape berms when they are put in.
You can stop right there. When we first looked at this you can see that fence line
from the ground level went across and we felt that perhaps that wasn’t adequate
buffering. What you see here are series of 12 large, columbular trees. These
are graphically represented in clusters as it relates to home. These trees – that’s
a 15 foot height right there. So what we were looking at is strategic locations in
concept as it relates to home. Those trees are about $1500 to $2000 a piece
and they have them at the landscape firm that we plan on using. If you could go
back now. This is a wintertime shot and then summer existing. If you want to go
ahead and start to pan over. This is the scene in the area along the edge – you
can keep going – in the summertime. What you have is a very dense group of
vegetation there. It’s very difficult to see through at all. In the summertime, 7
months out of the year there’s a pretty good buffer. You can see the house right
there and the window going across. Then it goes back out to the road and now if
you could put on a summer fence. Then what we wanted to look at was the
summertime from ground floor with the fence in place. This does not show any
deciduous trees by the way and the Landscape Plan does show deciduous trees.
You can see that that’s a very good buffer as it relates to traffic, any type of
access that’s going to be coming into the hotel and out from the ground floor
level. This is going to be a very excellent berm, a very excellent buffer. Brad if
you could now go back and – we then wanted to look from the third floor so
where it says third-floor existing. This is looking again towards those storage
sheds on the lots, the out buildings in the back and then we start coming across.
We got a lifter and we came up to the height of the third floor. If you could stop
right there for a second so we could get an idea from that third floor how you
were looking down. It’s important to note, if you see the plans, we’ve designed
the building so it’s north south so there are no windows other than the stairwell
windows that look in this direction. That will be the side of the building. You can
continue on Brad (inaudible) long. That’s the area where the swimming pool is.
It’s in here and then again it goes on out to Eagle Road. Then we decided to put
the fence in which is now third floor buffering. Now this fence here is conceptual
going all the way down. Just a minute Brad. Right here is where the bank is
proposed which is coming to you soon. We have some view sections that would
show how that works. This is a conceptual look if the fence was put in all of the
way down; there is no berm. You can continue across now Brad, this is great.
Again, the strategic location of trees as it relates to homes. Again, this would be
the back of the building looking straight that way. There are not windows here
and then you can continue on across. From this we had a pretty good idea, the
type of buffering that needs to be done. If you could go now, back again and go
to from lot no buffer. One of the neighbors was gracious enough for us to go in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 31
their back yard so we could get a picture of what this would look like. If you see
right here you will see those are the guys standing on that lift. We scale the size
of this building as if they were in here looking into the building. This right here,
you see this (inaudible), that’s actually a snowplow. This came from one in Idaho
Falls. I colored in that part of the building, actually that’s supposed to be snow
across there. Actually it isn’t as tall as it is right there. Anyway, that gave us an
idea of what this would look like from the backyard looking towards the building.
If you go to lot, I think width buffer, yes from lot buffer. This would be the
construction of the fence and again the importance of strategically locating
groups of trees. We have proposed 12 trees, minimum height of 15 feet so
these can be located in strategic locations as well as the berming that is
proposed under the Development Agreement. If you could back up again, Brad
is he there?
Hawkins-Clark: I’m here I’m just trying to do this.
Korte: Let’s look at cross-section for a second. This is what we did. We came in
and we started to look at if you put in the berm, you put in the fence and you put
in trees, line of site distance, (inaudible) sites if you keep moving over are white.
The second floor line of sites is in purple and so what you start to see – this is
the side of the building. What you start to see is if you can get 15 to 20 feet near
the berm you virtually have the building blocked at the least portion of the
building that may have any windows. Back one more, and let’s go to site plan.
You’ll have to move down because I made this awful big. Yes, just keep moving
down and then move to the right a little bit. This area – yes that’s good – this
area here from the nearest home is 335 feet, about 240 from property line –
actually 239 and 135 feet of onsite landscaping. We moved the building as far to
the south as we felt we possibly could and we’ve come in here with 135 foot
landscape setback which I can say is there’s not very many projects I’ve worked
on that are dedicated to 135 foot landscape area. What you’ve got here is a 4
foot berm right here. This is a 2-foot berm and these are series of the large pine
trees and deciduous trees located on the corner. This is a drainage pond if you
could move down just a little more. This is an ACHD drainage pond so what
we’re trying to do is just wrap this around as it relates to these two lots right in
here and provide this landscape buffer located on the edge. All of these will be a
series of trees located in there, some of them fairly large, the 15 to 20 foot trees.
Okay if you will back up Brad. I’m hesitant to show this one but I am going to go
ahead. This is the concept of the trees, go ahead and hit concept. The reason
I’m hesitant to show this is that it’s kind of hodge podging things onto the map
but what I tried to do here was is to take and scale those trees that are located
on the Idaho Falls site, on that roman drawing and show you how this would look
on the piece of property. Forget that there’s nothing here, all of this is snow.
That would actually be landscaping because it would be 135 feet of grass, lawn
and berm in here. You could go further to the right. This would be the concept of
the berm, you can keep going. At the edge where the road starts to make the
corner, size and the types of trees that would be planted in there. You can see
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 32
that tree there is up against the wall of the building and this building is three
years old I think. They plant in very large trees in their project. I think about 40
percent, if I’m correct of this site is landscaping. That’s a tremendous amount of
landscaping. We’ve tried very hard to design this to take into consideration the
neighboring property owners. In this application was a request for a 75-foot tall
sign with this. Obviously my client wants to also trap people that are on the
interstate. After discussing that – could you – I guess this one will work. After
discussion that, meeting with the neighbors that application for a sign will be
withdrawn or the act of this will withdraw that sign. We will advertise through
media and then there is on the building. That’s one reason why this center
portion is higher. The Ameritel logo will be on the building on the east side and
on the south side. We’ve agreed that the logo would not be on the north side
which would face the residents’ to the north. We agree with the proposed
Change of Condition and if I may – I started to think about perhaps some
language for that condition. I’m going to give this to the Commission if I may,
which would be two additional conditions. I may run out of copies here.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Korte: The first condition of approval would say compliance with plans on fine
dated blank or as amended by the Commission or Council. What we’re wanting
to see is that we are committed to build what you see and that establishing that
condition is saying that what you see is what you get. The second condition
would read: supplemental landscaping shall be placed along the north berm.
Said landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 12 evergreen columbular trees a
minimum of 15 feet in height strategically located to buffer existing homes
directly north of the hotel. So that it’s clear that is a Condition of Approval. In
meeting with the neighbors, quite frankly I really feel sorry for them. When that
road got built, the State Department of Transportation let them down. There
should have been a sound wall, there should have been a berm built on Eagle
Road. It didn’t happen, and I don’t know why it didn’t happen but it didn’t
happen. With the building that happened to the south of them -- of course I was
not involved in that but the issues of the convenient stores, the large Texaco
sign, all of these things that are placed upon them I feel for them. They’re in an
area of transition between this gigantic interchange and a standard single-family
residential subdivision. We felt that it was not appropriate for us to put that sign
up. It’s going to hurt the hotel. We hope that there’s enough with St. Luke’s that
it won’t hurt it that much. The issue of the berm, when you enter into this project,
quite frankly between – in my opinion what was built across from that convenient
store is not an adequate buffer. The neighbors felt that that buffer should have
been better and I think it should have been better too. What happened, and why
it happened we don’t know. We’re having to live with some of the past decisions
and what we want to do is be a good neighbor. I believe that – and I will have
some rebuttal time I assume. I believe that a hotel of this magnitude is a pretty
benign use. It isn’t a very tall structure if you really get down to it and we have
really tried to buffer and make this work. With that I would be glad to answer
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 33
any questions. I don’t know if you have anything else Byron to comment. I
would be glad to answer any questions that you might have regarding the design
and the hotel itself.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Korte: I was hoping so, sometimes –
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Korte, thank you for coming. Do you have in writing that you will not
seek the 75-foot sign?
Korte: We do not have in writing, but I can say that here verbally, that we are
withdrawing that request. Is that a correct statement?
Smith: That’s what I heard you say.
Korte: Okay, that’s the correct statement. We’ve had a lot of discussion about
that but I think that it would require an amendment to the Development
Agreement as well.
Norton: I see.
Korte: It’s something that is dear to them that they’re going to give up. We’re
hoping we don’t have anything at this point in time to somehow get some sort of
presence on Eagle Road that would identify that the Ameritel in is there.
Whether we can do that or not we don’t know but we’re going to be looking at
that.
Norton: Then how many rooms do you have, guest rooms?
Korte: Eighty-seven.
Norton: Eighty-seven, and what is the approximate cost of the room for per
night?
Korte: I’m going to say in the 80 to 100-range.
Norton: And you’ll give a discount maybe to patients and doctors, is that
correct?
Korte: That is managements decision not the Land Planner but that’s what
Byron said.
Norton: I heard that there might be some rooms available.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 34
Korte: Yes.
Norton: We, as a Commission, have studied those signs very thoroughly and
you can’t see the sign. I doubt if you would be able to see your 75-foot sign from
the freeway because of the way that it is.
Korte: As big enough or bright enough you might –
Norton: Well you have to be at the Texaco site in order to see that. Those are all
of the questions that I have. Also, I think I speak for all of the Commissioners we
certainly appreciate all of the effort that you have gone through. You can tell that
you’ve worked with the neighbors and have shown what it would look like.
Korte: That was done not only for you but I understand because I have been in
the business a long time that there is a fear of the unknown. I feel for neighbors
that you hear something is coming in and you can’t really visualize what it is.
What we’ve done here, I think is an honest attempt to visualize what it is whether
the neighbors like it or don’t like it I’m sure you’re going to hear. At least I’ve
done my job to let them know what is coming at them. I think that they deserve
that.
Norton: Thank you.
Korte: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I echo Commissioner Norton’s comments on the
presentation and the materials you gave us. You held two very informative
neighborhood meetings. What was the attendance like in – did you meet with all
of the joining neighbors? Joining meaning directly to the north?
Korte: Yes, the first meeting was held here and I’m going to say there was 10 or
15 people here. People in a 300-foot radius were –
Centers: They received notice.
Korte: -- notice of that. The second meeting was held at the Ameritel Inn at the
spectrum and I personally went and handed out a notification and put it on the
doorstep or met with the people. On all of the people on Autumn Way on both
sides of the street which is basically the houses on the north side of the street
from down to the curb if they had a plat up there up to Eagle Road. I gave one
neighbor about 20 of them and said if there were other people that would be
interested in having attended. We didn’t have a good turn out at the meeting at
the Ameritel inn but I think that the people that did show up, some of them were
the ones that are most impacted by this thing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 35
Centers: How many homeowners at the first meeting and at the second
meeting?
Korte: Probably I want to say 10 to 15 at the first and I’m going to say 5 to 6 at
the second.
Centers: Was the whole neighborhood notified?
Korte: Not of the second neighborhood meeting. The people that were notified
were the ones felt were –
Centers: The adjoining?
Korte: -- were the actual ones with the largest impact.
Centers: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Any other questions?
Korte: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. I assume we have a number of people here that would like
to make a statement or testify on this and we would like to give everyone a
chance to do that. We’re hoping that we will be able to keep things pertinent and
not overly repetitive so we’ll start with that. Let’s go ahead and start with would
anyone like to come forward? Let me ask that, do we have a neighborhood
representative?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: A few? Wait a minute here, the reason I asked that we can allow some
extra time if we have someone speaking for the neighborhood but that also
assumes that the people you’re speaking for will not also be speaking.
Bowen: The neighborhood has about four people to spark. Is it four, five?
Borup: So not really one representative for everyone?
Bowen: No.
Borup: Okay, let’s go ahead and proceed.
Bowen: My name is Mark Bowen I reside at 3067 Autumn Way. I’m one of the
neighbors directly adjacent to the site. Just in the way of comment to start with –
Borup: Which house is yours, how far down from Eagle?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 36
Bowen: If you look at the purple lot I am the second house right there. We were
the home with the – that’s why you’re the planner. We’ve been through this
before and I suppose we’re going to go through this some more. I certainly
appreciate the efforts that Ameritel has made to work with us. We the
homeowners are in somewhat of a bind and that there was a plan originally
proposed. Then we get a curb thrown at us and a much different development is
proposed. I just wanted to start out by reading some of the policies from the
Comprehensive Plan I would like to touch on. The first is –
Borup: Unless there’s some extenuating circumstances we’ve got about three
minutes per person. I don’t want you to waste your time on something that –
Bowen: All right well let me – I’ll just skip to –
Borup: -- we already have, that’s just for your benefit.
Bowen: In our previous discussions with Eagle partners in the Findings of Facts,
some of the comments made from Planning and Zoning Director, Shari Stiles
there were four requirements I want to read about the mitigation requirements.
First, No. 4, the six foot high masonry wall shall be constructed prior to obtaining
building permits along the northern and westerly boundaries of this property. No.
5, 20 foot planning strips is required adjacent to residential use. This can be
reduced with construction of masonry wall. Areas shown as lawn is not to be
replaced with bark, rock, et cetera. Item 6, a minimum of one 3-inch caliper tree
is to be provided for every 1500 square feet of asphalt provided detail landscape
Plan then includes sizes and species of plants for approval prior to obtaining
building permits. Landscape Plan is not to be altered without prior written
approval of Planning and Zoning. Item No. 11, illumination of the site shall be
designed not to cause glare or adverse the impact neighboring residential
properties. When we spoke out against the development, the first development
was denied. In comments from City Council members, Councilman Bentley
stated the interest of the City of Eagle Road would not be enhanced and
protected, a 24 hour gas station, a 24 hour hotel and a 24 hour motel would not
provide that enhancement or protection. He felt a better location for this type of
the project would be south of the interstate. Councilman Roundtree, this is not
going to be the first or the last development to be proposed for this area but at
this point he was not inclined to support the application. Finally, (inaudible) that
he’s not convinced that it was in the City’s best interest to allow a motel hotel to
be located as adjacent as this one would be in relation to Greenhill Estates.
There needed to be a better division between whatever is constructed in this
location and the existing neighborhood. We oppose the 24-hour business
adjacent to our properties. We understand that there’s going to be development
and we’re not opposed to development. We feel that the mitigation – we’re
caught in a dilemma. If this project is approved we want to have the opportunity
to talk about what mitigation means to us. We feel like there are things that need
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 37
to be mitigated along with light, sound, noise and all of those kind of things. Our
stance is No. 1; we’re opposed to a 24-hour business. If however it is approved
we would like the opportunity to work with the landowner to develop the
mitigation, thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bowen? Mr. Bowen did you attend both meetings
that the applicant had?
Bowen: No, my wife did I didn’t.
Borup: She attended both?
Bowen: Yes.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Centers.
Centers: What is your definition of mitigation?
Bowen: Well we would like to see a masonry wall as it was originally proposed
by Planning and Zoning to mitigate some of the sound. We agree with the
landowner that we would like to work with placement of trees. We were opposed
to the sign, the 75-foot sign. We are also opposed to the illuminated sign on the
north side which they’ve also appeared to remove.
Centers: (Inaudible) that worked with you?
Bowen: Yes.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, so Mr. Bowen you said that the previous project – you
quoted from the prior City Council members that didn’t like it. How much closer
to the homes was that previous project going to be?
Bowen: I can’t tell you exactly but the motel was north of the Chevron, so it was
much closer to the homes than the current project.
Borup: I think it went where the Credit Union is now?
Bowen: That’s correct and it was also a 3-story hotel.
Nary: Do you know if that buffering that they’re suggesting -- I think it’s 135 feet
from the property line. This is significantly further with the berm and the fencing
that that won’t satisfy the noise concerns and things like that you have?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 38
Bowen: A wood fence doesn’t buffer sound.
Nary: Well the sound is 200 feet away, does it make a difference or not or do
you know?
Bowen: Well we have got a highway right in the backyard too.
Nary: Do you know?
Bowen: I don’t know from 200 feet away.
Nary: Okay, thank you.
Norton: Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Bowen, what type of businesses would the
neighbors like to see? This is going commercial and is there a certain type of
business that you would be interested in?
Bowen: Yes, we were fine with the office use, the single story office that was
proposed originally. I think all of the homeowners were quite happy with that
proposal. We’re concerned with the 24-hour business and the multi-store facility.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Bowen.
Bowen: Thank you.
Childe: My name’s Gary Childe, I live at 3157 Autumn Way in Meridian. My
house is the first house in the subdivision near the empty lot there at the corner
of Eagle Road coming in. A lot of comments that people have made and are
going to make are of the same that probably I’ll say. What I want to say right off,
I oppose the project. I’ve been in construction and development for over 30
years and I tend to listen to developers, architects and contractors talk about
projects of this size or any size that I deal with every day. I read between the
lines. There are a lot of things that I have not heard here tonight about the
project. Probably a lot of it because I haven’t been at the two meetings, one
because the first one I didn’t know until it was too late. The second meeting was
the night that I had a previous meeting in Nampa. I did call and talk with the
gentlemen about my concerns. Looking at a lot of these plans here, I see that it
only affects the people who are directly in front of them. It doesn’t affect anybody
down the line so we’re looking at trees, fencing and everything directly in line
with that hotel. If you’re my house on that corner it’s the ball field. You see lights
all night, the big signs from the gas stations. I’m definitely going to be seeing the
signage wherever they put it on this hotel from my house. I’m already seeing
enough lights I don’t even need a nightlight in my house, I’ve got plenty of lights
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 39
from development. I am also concerned about the sound. I’m concerned about
the 50,000 cars a day to go by my house. I’m concerned about the semi like last
night that came to a screeching halt at the stop sign, blaring his horn, running
through the stop sign, and continuing on. To me, it’s just a never-ending problem
that is only going to get bigger. I’m not happy about it at all. I really want to see
if you do approve it and I do think you probably will anyway no matter what
anyone says up here. I really think that someone should take a real hard look
about the Comprehensive Plan that you have that you’ve created out here
because it is not a good one. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Childe? Sir, how long have you lived there in your
house?
Childe: I just moved in around September.
Nary: Which one is it sir?
Childe: It’s the first house right there on that lot there.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: So the buildings were already there when you moved in? I mean
everything that’s there now was already there right?
Childe: As far as I know unless there’s been something done most recently.
Borup: Thank you, next?
Horel: My name’s Chuck Horel and I live at 3043 Autumn Way. I did not attend
either of the meetings with Ameritel due to work conflicts. I’m sorry I didn’t, they
have a wonderful presentation here and I see that they are willing to work. I was
going to present something that they totally blew out of the water with their
drawings so I really appreciate that. What I find though is that when I go around
town not only Meridian and Boise, is that between most residential subdivisions
and commercial operations where there are 24 hour services we have – and I’m
going to say this as a general statement but I see more concrete barriers. Taller,
sound and safety barriers. Some of the points that Mr. Korte made that the
highway came in our backyard and all of sudden we’re looking at 15,000 auto
trips a day back there if the figures are right from ACHD. All of a sudden I think
that noise and safety -- and a lot of it is noise is a real issue with the residents of
the subdivision. One of the things that we would like to see is a berm of at least
four feet tall. I see they’re working on that and yet it isn’t there yet. The fence
issue, the wooden fence does not act as a good sound barrier. With the auto
trips per day that we see coming by there we definitely need to see – and we
talked about mitigation. This is one of the issues that we really have to address.
We feel that the developer, in developing this property has planted the seed and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 40
so we feel that they are ultimately responsible for helping us to mitigate this
situation. We feel that as far as some of the variances we see here, the Ameritel
is asking for variances in their height so then we would probably ask for a
variance in the height of the fence on top of the berm, and make it a little bit
taller. I like the idea of the 15-foot tree, and we know that those are going to
grow. Initially we’re going to have an awful lot of construction back there and lots
of noise so we would really like to see this sound and safety issue addressed. I
guess that’s kind of my statement here.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Norton: Where’s his house and how long have you lived there?
Horel: We’ve lived there 15 years and we are the fifth house in – and it directly
borders, it looks like bisecting the purple property.
Norton: Thank you.
Nary: About right here is that –
Horel: Yes sir.
Borup: Do you have the spelling of your name?
Horel: Horel.
Borup: Thank you.
Horel: It’s not Church Horel. Whatever the last meeting was, I didn’t know I had
been here.
Borup: Thank you sir. You’re right next door to Mr. Bowen?
Horel: Yes sir.
Borup: Thank you.
Foley: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My
name is Howard Foley and I reside at 2875 Autumn Way. The location of my
property and my wife’s property -- I better say that too, is a kind of pie shaped
piece of property down at the end of there. To make sure – I have some
documents I would like to leave with the Commission. They are simply copies of
the development and I assume you have those or are familiar with those as well
as the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. I do want to indicate to the
Commission that as a neighborhood what we tried to do was pick three or four of
us to talk about different topics so that we didn’t repeat ourselves but that we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 41
addressed what we thought was important. I too, along with the rest of
neighbors appreciate the efforts that Ameritel has made. I have stayed in their
facilities, they’re good facilities. I’m not sure the issue is whether they’re good
neighbors or bad neighbors. A good community people are not community
people although I tend to think that they are by reputation. My quarrel and my
neighbors quarrel is that this is a commercial development. This is not a limited
office development. This is purely and simply a 24-hour business, 365-day-a-
year commercial development. That is totally inconsistent with the
representations that were made to this Commission as well as the City Council in
the Development Agreement itself by the developer. This Development
Agreement is not old. This Development Agreement was entered into in March
of 2000 it’s not a year old. I wouldn’t go so far as to say the ink isn’t dry yet but it
comes darn close. We feel like that we as participants and neighbors had a part
in that initial annexation and the Development Agreement and what was
represented to us and what was represented to you. There are some key
phrases in the Development Agreement and I’ve attempted to highlight those. It
does talk about it being a written commitment in paragraph 1.2. It talks about the
developer representations in paragraph 1.5. It talks about the concept plan, it
talks about the developer voluntarily and at its urging and request sought the
approval of this Commission as well as the City to have this property annexed
and zoned as limited office. There was representation and representation to the
affect that there would be single story, eight to five types of buildings. As Mr.
Korte indicated to you, it’s readily apparent to an awful lot of people that there
are going to be services related to St. Luke’s hospital. I think all of us assumed
or envisioned that those limited offices would be doctor offices or other
supporting facilities. No one ever mentioned the word 3-story, 24 hour a day,
365 days a year hotel. I appreciate the efforts in terms of the buffering and I
would agree in terms of lying the site and those sort of things with properties that
are directly behind the hotel. As we all know when you get 30 or 35 feet up in
the air and you start looking at angles, that line to site changes. My property is
going to be exposed to the windows what are on the west side of that hotel. My
other neighbors who are here are likewise; backyards are going to be totally
exposed to that. I would tell you that I think that the rationale of the City Council
when the Marriott Hotel was requested which is now in the property behind now
the Chevron. Those rationales and concerns as to why that was rejected are
exactly the same as exists with this property. It is the intense commercial use.
There is no buffering, there is no transition area, and there’s really no nothing
except that in our backyard is now a 24-hour business. My concern beyond that
of course is that the representation of Ameritel. I certainly take, it their word by
way of example that there is going to be no bar, no restaurant, that’s today. We
must assume I guess, if this Development Agreement has no more meaning than
the developer puts to it in terms of the representations made to you in February
and March of last year, that as soon as an opportunity presents itself for a bar, a
hotel and whatever other commercial developments there might be, I assume
we’ll be back here again. I guess my point is to try to urge you to hold the
developer to what they represent. They represented limited office buildings, they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 42
asked for that annexation and I would be – I think it’s a fair guess to say they
didn’t come in and ask for a general commercial zone because they knew they
wouldn’t get it. This is a way to get that type of development which is
inappropriate in my opinion, backed up against the neighborhood. Those are my
comments.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Foley?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, how are you Mr. Foley?
Foley: Good.
Nary: Now I’m looking at the fourth page of this Development Agreement of 4.2.
It seems clear to me that this Development Agreement at least anticipated that
there obviously could be change. It wasn’t meant that this was going to be
written in stone wouldn’t that be correct?
Foley: I think there’s a vast difference between a saying that there maybe some
modifications to agreement. In the areas that we all deal in there are certainly
are modifications to agreement. This is a wholesale change. This isn’t a
modification; this is just a total abandonment of the other representations of this
agreement. I don’t disagree with you that it says that and I recognize that it
does.
Nary: Let’s move down to 5.1a. It says there and you highlighted in this copy
that the property should be zone limited office and the applicant shall use the
property to develop professional office uses. With any other uses permitted in
the subject zone only as a conditional use. That tells me, and a hotel is a
conditional use, that they’re telling you in this and giving you notice that if they’re
going to ask for something other than an office, they’re going to come back here
and ask this Commission to do it like what they’re doing. It doesn’t sound like
they’re trying to hide anything. It sounded to me like – part of your statement
was is they asked for something else when they really wanted something
different.
Foley: I have no idea of the course of discussions. What I am saying is, I guess
in the third part beneficiary sense to contracts and agreements. The
representations made were that these would be professional offices. Those
things that are specifically called out as permitted and limited office zones.
That’s not what this is, these are not professional doctor, lawyer offices in those
sort.
Nary: I agree, and if they were going to build that Mr. Foley they wouldn’t need
our approval.
Foley: Correct, I understand.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 43
Nary: But because they’re asking for additional use that’s why we’re here is
because they’re asking for an amendment to this and it is a Conditional Use. It is
allowed in a L-L zone isn’t that right?
Foley: I’m simply suggesting that had they come in, had this been on the table in
the beginning as an annexation and to make this property commercial which is
going to be the effect if you grant this Conditional Use that I think the view would
have been that’s entirely inappropriate. There should not be full time
commercial. The Comprehensive Plan says that that there should not be full
time commercial use abutted to neighborhoods if that could be avoided.
Nary: I would agree, Mr. Foley there isn’t anything in this Development
Agreement that says a 24 hour limited office use would not be allowed.
Foley: No, I’m telling you of my experiences when we dealt with the developer
initial and what was envisioned and what we believed was incorporated in the
document by implication. I don’t know of that many 24 hour dentists offices,
stenographer offices, I just don’t know that many. It could happen but that’s what
we’re trying to avoid.
Nary: But there isn’t a limitation to that, there wasn’t a limitation put into this
agreement that it said it couldn’t be a 24-hour business of some sort. Right in
front of this property, that red one that’s on there that’s a 24-hour business,
correct? That’s fairly high traffic. Isn’t that the McDonalds and the – right to the
east (inaudible) McDonalds and Chevron correct. That’s a 24-hour business as
well.
Foley: It is.
Nary: Do you have any particular studies or any type of evidence regarding hotel
usage, either Ameritel types of hotels or other hotels as to what kind of trip traffic
it generates other than the ACHD report? Trip traffic noise, any of those kinds of
things?
Foley: No, we took it face value, ACHD’s estimates of the number of trip traffics
that are coming through there.
Nary: Okay, I think I had one more question. On the Development Agreement
on Page 6, 5.1, .10, and .11 it talks about a 6-foot fence on a 4-foot berm in two
places. I’ve heard some of the testimonies about a masonry block wall instead
and I wasn’t here whenever that was discussed. It seems that they have, they
have previously agreed. They’re not asking to do anything different, they’re
simply asking to put the – or they’re going to put the wood fence on top of the
berm like it’s in here. You don’t disagree that that was already part of the deal in
doing this?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 44
Foley: No we do agree with that and I guess our sense is this; we’re willing to
live absolutely with this deal and keep this as limited office and deny the
Conditional Use. We would be more than happy with a solid wooden fence.
That more than adequately protects us when have what we envisioned from
eight to five professional offices and those sort of things. If the deal is all going
to be changed then I guess what we’re saying to you is we think it would be
appropriate from our standpoint that that change also include a masonry wall.
Nary: Great, thank you.
Borup: Any other questions, Commissioner Centers?
Centers: Two questions Mr. Foley, how long have you lived at your present
location?
Foley: I have lived there 15 years.
Centers: That long, and I see your name in the original proposal to the City
Council. Were you there supporting the original annexation and zoning?
Foley: I testified we were supportive of –
Centers: So you were speaking in favor of –
*** End Of Side Three ***
Centers: -- that’s all I have.
Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Foley on – you had mentioned a couple of times I
think on single story buildings. Was that a part of the Development Agreement, I
could not find that –
Foley: It isn’t. I guess I’m saying to you that I think by implication we assumed
that those would be single story type of buildings but there was no limitation on
that. There could have been a two-story building or a three-story building.
Borup: I assume it would have been assumed it could be anything that complied
with City Ordinance?
Foley: Sure.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: It does make – the development group make reference to this conceptual
plan is that what you are leading up to there?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 45
Foley: Right, it’s the initial drawing and on the buildings they’re depicted. They
say they’re single story.
Borup: Okay that’s where that came from. One of them also depicted a
restaurant is that correct?
Foley: Yes, it was represented that that wouldn’t be a 24-hour establishment that
it would be there to serve only the people that would be in the building from eight
to five.
Borup: Into what building?
Foley: Building one.
Borup: That’s where the restaurant is? Well that doesn’t matter. I think if the
restaurants going to be there they’re going to get anybody. They don’t care
where they come from they fill their seats.
Foley: The representation was though, that it was more in the nature of a
cafeteria to serve that building in those facilities and it was not going to be a 24-
hour type of restaurant.
Borup: I remember that. I don’t remember they resisted to service those but it
would not be 24 hours. That is – curious on your statement on the masonry wall.
Are you saying if the motel went in you want a masonry wall?
Foley: Yes.
Borup: So if the masonry wall is there you’re fine with the hotel?
Foley: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that I’m opposed to the project but if it
is going to go ahead that we think that’s a fair mitigation to the noise and sound
that we think is going to increase.
Borup: Were you talking about trying to get a variance on the height also? Are
you the one that said that or was that someone else?
Foley: No, I didn’t say that.
Borup: That was Chuck that said that. Any other questions for Mr. Foley?
Foley: Thank you sir.
Borup: Anyone else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 46
Bowen: My name is Ann Bowen, that’s B-O-W-E-N. In the past I’ve been known
as Ann Bolin here and I want you to know that I don’t care to be beheaded over
my opinions. I have been to – I am the fourth house, the one directly adjacent to
the parking lot of the new Ameritel. I was at both of the meetings that they had
and found it very helpful to speak with them and appreciate that they’ve been
willing to work with us. When we worked with Eagle Partners we got nowhere
and we were totally taken advantage of. That’s why we came into this very, very
cautiously because they didn’t do anything we asked which is quite obvious to
any of you that drive by. I would like to share with you some of the daily things
that I deal with living next to Chevron and McDonalds so close to my home.
When I walk out into my backyard at night there could be five people standing in
the middle of my lawn and I wouldn’t be able to see them because the lights from
Chevron and McDonalds shine straight up my eyes. They do not shine down on
the ground; it’s totally blinding. I can’t even tell if my kids are out jumping on the
trampoline, if I have a fence, nothing I can see nothing from that light. I found
that in order to sleep –
Borup: Does this come from their canopy?
Bowen: -- from the canopy, from the pumps, from all of it. They don’t shine
down as they promised; they shine straight out. I found in order to sleep, the
best thing to do is to turn on all of the fans in the bathroom and that way if
muffles all of the noises from the cars, from the music playing at their pumps.
Even though I’ve called numerous times and asked them to turn it down I’ve
gotten nowhere. The smell of the old McDonalds grease is nauseating. It is 24
hours a day and I like to be out in my yard, it makes it very difficult. We can’t
entertain out there any more. I have a beautiful two-story home; we have four
bedrooms upstairs that face this development. There’s that 75 foot bubble sign
of Texaco’s that flashes every second. When you’re standing in any of our
bedrooms it’s like being in a disco, it shines off of the lights off the walls off the
mirrors, everything. It’s very obnoxious and it’s very annoying. We talk about
these things going in, I want you to understand why for our neighborhood we
need to have a buffer. We need to have a serious buffer that will protect us
because we have not been protected in the past. None of the things that we
discussed before came about; they disappeared from all of the records although
all of us remember discussing them. What I would like to say today is I feel like
we need to have a center block or a concrete block wall. I appreciate that they’re
willing to work with the tree and I’ve even had Mr. Korte over to my home and
shown him what I need to have blocked so that I don’t have this parking lot there.
I would hope that they would go by their words because we certainly don’t trust
eagle partners and what they did. I’m hoping that we can trust these people.
There are a couple of other things that I would like to see. One is that the
windows that are facing our neighborhood in the motel, even though they’re in
the stairwell I would like to see those be a one way window so that people are
not looking out at house. Maybe no one wants to look out at us anyway but
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 47
there is the illusion that people are staring down at what we are doing and I
would like to see that that happen also, thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Bowen? Mrs. Bowen I would – and I meant to
ask this with one of the others also. The issue on the buffering, it has been
mentioned several times to have additional buffering between neighborhood and
intense use but nobody’s mentioned what that buffer should be, how far, what
dimensions we’re talking would provide an adequate buffer, how many feet?
Bowen: Is that something we can put together and present to you tonight?
Borup: I’m just asking for some input on what’s felt.
Bowen: I would like to see five feet of dirt. They have four feet now I would like
to see that go another foot. I would like to see at least a six-foot wall. I would
prefer to have a wall that instead of it’s flat at the top is rounded so that people
can’t jump over it. Having a bank and those other things back there for security
reasons I would like to make it difficult for people to get over into our yards. I
would also like to have some shrubs and things planted on our side of that wall
so that it looks nice so that we also have a decent view. I would take a 10-foot
wall, would you give it to me?
Borup: So it sounds like these things would make it bearable?
Bowen: Because we’ve learned in the past that we don’t have a lot of control
what’s going on around our neighborhood the only thing that we have left is to
buffer it and protect it. That is all we can do at this point. That’s what my goal is,
is to try to get a decent buffer so that whatever you guys do to it isn’t right in our
faces.
Borup: Probably one of the best buffers in just distance. The further away
something can get that’s – I would be interested in an opinion on what they’ve
done with their siding where they have it 300 and some feet. 300 and some feet
away with the buffer they did as opposed to an office building could be right up
20 feet from the road. Another 100 and some feet closer probably.
Bowen: Right, they have made it a much more beautiful place. We’re leery
because of this McDonald’s mess.
Borup: I understand.
Bowen: We’re very leery.
Borup: I guess it depends on where you’re located and whether this would be a
buffer from McDonalds or not. For some of the neighbors to the west it looks like
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 48
this could maybe help them with some of that. Realize it’s going to depend on
where you live.
Bowen: I don’t know a 25 feet sign is pretty tall.
Borup: Seventy-five feet you mean?
Bowen: Seventy-five-foot sign is pretty tall to block that.
Borup: What right – you’re not. Thank you excuse me.
Norton: I just have one comment Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bowen, Planning and
Zoning recommends to the City Council, the City Council has the final say. Just
for the record, this planning body did deny that chevron sign and City Council did
pass it. We tried not to get that sign.
Bowen: Yes, and I understand there’s a new sign Ordinance in place and from
this point on people won’t be able to get away with that. It still makes Meridian
look tacky. I think everyone agrees with that.
Centers: I have a question too Mr. Chairman. What kind of a fence do you have
now?
Bowen: There isn’t one.
Centers: You have no fence?
Bowen: No, there is not a fence.
Centers: Behind your property, chain link or –
Bowen: We don’t have a fence behind our property.
Borup: No, there isn’t any (inaudible) that whole way there.
Bowen: No, in fact you can see that from these pictures. You can see that right
here. This is the (inaudible) chain link fence that they gave (inaudible) right here,
we don’t have fences. Our dogs used to all run out and play and our kids and
(inaudible).
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you Mrs. Bowen.
M. Lloyd: Mr. Chairman, I’m the – been chosen to summarize I guess where the
neighbors backing up to the hotel here –
Borup: Can you start with your name?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 49
M. Lloyd: I am Michael Lloyd and I live on 3091 East Autumn Way.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
M. Lloyd: I live right here split on the border between the proposed property and
then the existing one which presents a big problem for me personally. Could I
just have one minute to talk about my personal thing before I get into the
summary for the neighborhood. I did go to the first meeting of Ameritel. In that
meeting my wife attended with us and we indicated some serious security
concerns that we had with the hotel, hotel parking, cars being out there at night
and travelers coming in. The hotel has done nothing to mitigate those problems
that we brought up at that time. In addition it’s a well-known fact that hotels
typically like to focus on the beauty of their properties and leave the security
issues to insurance companies. That is definitely one area that I personally feel
has not been addressed. I was not able to make the second meeting
unfortunately because I had a conflict but I wish I could have. Personally what I
would like to see and I don’t even know if this is possible but I would like if you
could write into the agreement is that the buffer, both trees and an 8 foot wall on
a minimum of a 5 foot berm be extended all the way down to the end of Eagle
Road. That would mitigate that problem that I have being split right between
those developments.
Borup: Are you right next to Mr. Bowen?
M. Lloyd: Yes.
Borup: The plat that we’ve been given shows landscaping on the whole – along
all of your property line.
M. Lloyd: Not a fence? If they could do that I would love it. The problem is I
think that there’s maybe some (inaudible) because it doesn’t show a fence it just
–
Borup: But it doesn’t show a fence anywhere on this site.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I know you have more to talk about Mr. Lloyd, but what
security issues are you talking about?
M. Lloyd: So it’s a well-known fact in the hotel industry that security is a major
problem specifically with travelers coming there and parking their cars at night.
With burglaries that can occur there, we requested in addition to the buffers of a
wall that somebody could not climb over that the hotel provide a security guard
that would be a full time 24 hours right in the parking lot just as they do in the
library which is much, much smaller establishments right down here in Ada
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 50
Library they have a security guard out there. In fact in all of the libraries they do
now.
Nary: Do you have any evidence for that statement you made that car burglaries
are fairly common in parking lots of hotels?
M. Lloyd: I did not bring that particular evidence tonight I do have some
evidence on security of hotels that –
Nary: In the Boise area or in the Treasure Valley or like police reports? What
type of information?
M. Lloyd: Statistical from basically just national types of things.
Nary: So you don’t have any local ones knowing whether or not in the Boise
area if that is a particular problem or not?
M. Lloyd: No, but I would like the Council to know that I have submitted a
request for report from the Police Department so that I could obtain those local
reports. I just have not – they have been slow on processing that and I have not
received those yet.
Nary: From Boise Police?
M. Lloyd: Ada County.
Nary: From the Sheriffs Office?
M. Lloyd: Yes.
Nary: Sorry I didn’t mean to interrupt, go ahead.
M. Lloyd: No, thank you very much.
Borup: The plat that we have does indicate a fence behind your property.
M. Lloyd: I would love it if they could do that and extend it like I said down
(inaudible).
Borup: Okay proceed you said you had some other things.
M. Lloyd: If that’s – I would just like them to go into a presentation now on the
summary. I’ve requested use of the overhead just so that would make it easier
and quicker to go for the Council. They said that we could indeed set that up. In
addition I have these copies to be submitted as evidence and I do have some
additional ones that don’t have all of the overheads in them that maybe we could
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 51
just use to help go along here. There we go it’s smarter than me. As far as
compatibility with the neighborhood – wow that’s interesting. I’m not going to
spend a lot of time on slides that we have already gone over but the question
was asked what uses that the neighborhood believes are compatible or not
compatible in this area. All this slide does is (inaudible) uses are and what I’ll do
here is instead of going down from these one by one unless –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: There’s a portable one over there if that would help you.
M. Lloyd: Thank you very much. To save time instead of going through these
one by one I would just say if you have any questions to go ahead and feel free
to stop me. Are there any questions there? We’ve already covered that
mistakes were made before. I would like to point out that we believe the City is
working very hard to assure these mistakes do not happen again. They’ve
applied for new sign ordinances and landscaping Ordinances and so we
appreciate that work by the City. The example above is just one about managing
growth there. Right down the road from the Chevron – I’m not used to this – is
an Eagle Eye Medical Center, which is a two-story office building, very
professional. It just would have been nice if those two could have been switched
with the lower intensity usages coming closer to the neighborhood. That’s just a
general comment, an example there. The City has wisely established the area
as limited office. As dated, limited offices design to act as a buffer and as for
professional usages. Does a hotel/motel fit into that? In cases where it does not
abut neighborhoods the neighbors believe that it would. When it does abut
neighborhoods because of the other stipulation there we believe that it does not.
Of course in a C-G district it fits perfectly as it says it’s purpose is to fulfill the
need of travel related services as well as retail sales for the transient and
permanent motoring public. We went around – and this will not be in all of your
packets, I did not for some reason get this copied. Just look at all of the current
hotels that are within four miles of the proposed hotel and how far they are from
existing neighborhoods. Actually, the Best Western in Meridian and I didn’t have
it on the slide here, these two, Microtel are more than a mile. They go out here
another four times as long. The closest ones that we found were the Holiday
and Express and the Sandman Motel. The current L-L buffer behind our house
is represented in yellow there and it varies from anywhere from 500 to 600 feet
depending on where you u go along behind a neighborhood. The proposed
Ameritel building is shown there at about 150 feet. I w would like to point out that
that is actually from the properties to the building. They moved it a little bit so
maybe plus or minus 40 feet. These other ones were just measured roughly to
the edge of the property not even into the property into the buildings.
Borup: You’re saying that’s from your property line to their building?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 52
M. Lloyd: Yes, like I said they’ve just recently moved another how many feet, so
that may not be exactly?
Freckleton: It’s 335 feet.
M. Lloyd: 300?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
M. Lloyd: Right, I don’t think it’s that far.
Borup: It’s 200 – I’m trying to read that I think it says 239 feet.
M. Lloyd: so they’ve added another 50 feet or so it looks like. Again that is to
the building not to the edge of the property which would be much less. The
measurements actually looking at here were done just to the edge of those
properties not all of the way into the building. All of the neighborhood is asking is
that we manage growth and stick to the plan. Please keep the 500-foot sliver of
a buffer for us. That we don’t have 24 hour round the clock the development of
retail businesses located within that area.
Borup: I’m confused on your 500-foot buffer. You’re saying that’s what you
currently have?
M. Lloyd: If you look at the distance across that all of the way to – now I’ve got
another one –
Borup: Is that the distance to the Credit Union?
M. Lloyd: No, let me show you this. If you look at – it’s kind of hard to see on
here. This area that goes along behind the house, the homes, the area behind
the homes there. Down here at the bottom of course, it’s less. It’s like 500 feet.
Up here where the proposed development goes I think it’s probably closer to 600
or more. What we’re saying is this area along here –
Borup: Are you saying keep everything south of Magic Hill?
M. Lloyd: That would be fine too, if you want to say that.
Borup: Is that the 500, is that what you’re trying to point out?
M. Lloyd: That’s what we’re trying to point out. Exactly, thank you.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 53
M. Lloyd: Try to keep facing these north. This is another view of the area that
you can see with the limited office of course right here. That’s the proposal that
we have for as a buffer zone and then all of the commercial area around there.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question as to where you got that
documentation?
M. Lloyd: Which one?
Hatcher: The one that you were just showing, showing the commercial and the
limited office?
M. Lloyd: Oh, yes. That’s out of the Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: Are you talking the draft, the new proposed one?
M. Lloyd: Yes, not the –
Hatcher: That’s the part we currently have to enforce.
M. Lloyd: Okay.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
M. Lloyd: So I’m not – well let me say this then. The point – I think on the slide
you’ll see the point that I’m trying to make. I’ll never get this right, sorry. We
don’t believe there’s even a need to locate these types of facilities directly in our
backyards. That is because of the future proposal where you see all of the
acreage that is going to be developed in a commercial type of a setting. There
are plenty of other sites that the developer or the clients could look for putting
these types of businesses. I also had one in there; I’m not going to try to flip
through it – on the extreme need for office buildings. We believe that there will
be quite a need due to St. Luke’s right across from the proposed area for
medicals, doctors and other types of offices into that area. This has been stated
before, but we do believe that there are violations of the current conditions of
use. Some of those again, are subject to interpretation between the neighbors
and the Council. Then last I would like to go into what was presented during the
proceedings for the original Development Agreement and these come out of the
meeting notes. These are direct quotes and the first specific statement of the
type of development when questioned by the neighbors was, it’s going to be
office here, what type of office? It could be medical, it could be general, but it will
be office. I added the underline and the italics. Even more specifically on the
type of office, we talked about the building. The northerly building would be one
story. Again, we know we are backing up to neighbors so we don’t want it to be
two stories. The one below would potentially be a two story. Now you can
imagine they were facing things north and so when he said the one below he
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 54
would have been referring to the building right next to the Chevron instead of the
building right next to the proposed – right next to the neighborhood. We see this
as a kind of a concept plan we are going to do – we are comfortable with trying
to stay within these perimeters. Once again, the neighborhood does not believe
that those perimeters are compatible. Eight hours, nine to five day workdays
versus 24 hour around the clock. Five days a week versus seven days, double
the amount of space and they’re not even including the areas and the recreation
(inaudible) on three stories. One versus three stories so three times the number
of stories. Four times the number of height. The sign they’ve taken out so you
can get rid of that. No wall signs on the office building, they taken out so you can
get rid of that. The last thing that I would like to present and this goes to the fact
of the statements that were made in the original Development Agreement. This
is actually taken from the conclusions of the Boise City Council on a nearly
identical CUP for a three story hotel proposed in – sorry, I’m reading it. On
August 11, 1998, in a proposed -- there was proposed in an L-L District next to a
pre-existing neighborhood. The CUP application was denied for the following
reasons. It was moved by Weatherall and seconded by Turley that the Council
find the Conditional Use not appropriate based on the issue of compatibility with
the neighborhood. That the use is not compatible with the neighborhood given
the use patterns of the hotel as opposed to an office next to a single-family
neighborhood and that motion carried five to one.
Centers: And that was a Boise approach you’re talking about there?
M. Lloyd: Yes that is Boise. I’m just using it not as a – as an example.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, which hotel was that? Which hotel was (inaudible) and I
quote?
M. Lloyd: Would you like me to answer that question?
Nary: Yes.
M. Lloyd: Candlestick.
Nary: Okay.
Borup: Where was that located?
M. Lloyd: It’s down in the (inaudible) office off of the main quarter that goes Park
Center Boulevard. These are the facts -- Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law from the Boise City Council on that same three-story hotel on November 18,
1998. Again, this goes to the statements that were made when the original
Development Agreement was being discussed. The Council finds the Planning
and Zoning error in finding the construction of a three-story hotel to be
compatible based on the fact, the representations were made to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 55
neighborhood during the rezone process which placed the original LOD, limited
office with design review zoning on that property. The previous owner developer
represented to the neighborhood that the use of the subject property would be
office. Again, that is Boise but all we are asking is due to the previous denial on
the hotel, in Ada County, The Marriott, and due to the findings of this fact that
Council also deny the same application.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Lloyd?
Centers: How long have you lived where you’re at Mr. Lloyd, real quick?
M. Lloyd: I have lived there four months. One of the things that’s so upsetting
personally, to me is that I studied the Development Agreement very seriously
before I bought the house and talked to neighbors about it and they were so glad
that they finally had an agreement where office would be going into their
backyards. That they didn’t have to worry about more things coming like
Chevron’s and service stations and 24 hour hotels and things like that.
Nary: Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Chairman wasn’t the Candlestick Agreement – was it the
Candlestick Hotel that was being proposed on a smaller piece of property closer
to the neighbors?
M. Lloyd: My understanding is that it was actually – the property itself was a little
bit further from the neighbors but I could go and research those facts. I have no
idea about the size of the property. Everything seems very similar in terms of
percent of landscaping to percent of hotel and things like that. I think it was
probably and I could – I have this stuff here – a little, like a 120 rooms versus 87.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you sir.
M. Lloyd: Thank you.
Seele: Good evening. My name’s Jonathan Seele with W H Moore Company,
600 North Steelhead. I’ve had a lot of the word of trust tonight and I suspect the
Eagle Partners won’t be in front of you here too soon. The W H Moore
Company, and I think maybe some of you know Winston Moore. His work is
important to him and trust is important. We recognize if we try to stick it to you
here and we come back the next time you’re going to remember that. In saying
that, I would to give you a little bit of history because I’m the one that was here
almost a year ago. I’m the one that went through P & Z and some of you were
here all through the City Council on this as far as getting the annexation, the
rezone and the Conditional Use Permit at that time. What participated this whole
thing was we wanted to determine the design of a road which is now the St.
Luke’s extension, Allen Street. ACHD wanted to see it built, so did the course of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 56
City of Meridian. They said to us, well we’re not sure when we can build it, we’re
not sure of the design but if you submit a Designing Application we can get the
process going. By the way we would almost likely ask you to build it which we
did build it for them. We submitted to P & Z what we called a Concept Plan. If
you go back in the minutes you will see where I referenced Concept Plan to add
(inaudible). What we presented was we presented two offices on the west one,
which in fact when they mentioned there in the minutes that my quote, I was
referencing the west parcel. Two office buildings on the west, the most
(inaudible) being a two story. Two office buildings on the east parcel on the east
side of Allen Street of which one would possibly be a restaurant. We present it
because at that particular time there were some preliminary discussions about a
restaurant. Keep in mind as we said then this is a constant plan this is kind of a
swag. We think this is what’s going to go in there. We know it’s going to be
office but there maybe other uses and one of them possibly is a restaurant. As a
result to that we came in and Mr. Foley in fact had made a comment. I’ll give it to
you where he said; well we did not represent a 24-hour restaurant. What started
creating this whole process is I said we’re going to do a restaurant. So it
questions, well what kind of restaurant? How many hours of operation, how big?
My comments throughout the whole thing were this is a Concept Plan. We don’t
know exactly what it’s going to be. Our best guess is this Concept Plan that
you’re looking at now but we’re not sure. We think this is a reasonable
assumption but we’re not sure, again Concept Plan, I kept saying that. In fact,
and I’ll be glad to give you this if you’ll look right there it mentions where they ask
me about a 24 hour restaurant. Would you agree not to do a 24-hour
restaurant? I said I’m not comfortable with boxing ourselves in. We don’t know
what’s going to be there. Well along the short of it to get to it is we finally
realized that it was too difficult for us to be able to tell you what it was. You were
saying, we need to know before we approve. The neighbors rightfully so also
said, we need to know what it is, we didn’t know. What we came down to is we
simply (inaudible). We think it maybe a restaurant and you can fault me here
and Mr. Foley can fault me here that I probably should have said, well maybe it
could have been a hotel, maybe it could have been a day care. Maybe it could
have been a retail showroom, maybe it could have been this but it would have
come back to the same thing, what exactly is it going to be? If it’s going to be a
hotel, how big, if it’s going to be a day care, what? I couldn’t answer these
questions so ultimately what we came to, and I said to you, and again it’s quoted
in here is if you try to box us in Mr. Moore, not as a threat, we’ll withdraw this
application because we don’t know. We’re trying to make our best estimate.
What we will do for you is we will say right here now and that’s in there that you’ll
approve office use. If it’s anything other than office use we will come back for a
Conditional Use Permit. That as was pointed out in the Development Agreement
is what it says. It’s office use, anything else we come back. That is exactly what
we’re doing. Our intention a year ago and our intention tonight is not to deceive,
our intention was this is our best guess. We know it’s going to be office, anything
else we’re not really sure. We think it’s reasonable that it might be restaurant.
Then it could be a (inaudible) of other things and we would have gotten back the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 57
exact same things. Tell us what it is, we can’t prove that if we don’t know and we
didn’t know. Office is the least intrusive use there and in fact it even mentions in
the minutes – in fact I think with either City Council or P & Z that they mentioned
that the neighbors had fought for office, they wanted office and I can understand
that. We were able to agree with office with the understanding anything else –
and that was also said, you get another bite at the apple. That’s exactly what’s
happening tonight, they’re coming in for that. Our intention again, is not to
deceive. A couple of other things you keep bringing up are 24 hour. There is
nothing in there quite frankly that says we can’t have a 24-hour office. That is
becoming more and more of a reality in fact we’re doing one right now with Ida
Corp on Emerald, 24-7. It is happening, that’s not necessarily what we’re going
to do there because, again, we understand the neighbors as Mr. Korte has said.
We’re very sensitive to that and we are not trying to deceive him and I hope that
they believe me when you look through this that I repeatedly said this is a
concept plan don’t box us in. If you box us in we’ll pull it. It’s not because we
wanted to, we were trying to get the road built. We had to come into something
and I’ve (inaudible) with commercial that’s what you’re forced with. We have to
make a decision up front, what we want, what we don’t always know. It’s a lot
different with residential. We’ve run into that dilemma all of that time, we’ve ran
into a dilemma here. Again, like I say if you look for things that I’ve got the wants
for City Council right here the same thing. We repeatedly say that.
Centers: Which road?
Seele: I’m sorry?
Centers: Which road?
Seele: The Allen Street in the St. Luke’s extension (inaudible). That was the
only way that we could do it. We could not come in and just say we would like to
build a road, rezone it and we’ll come back later. There was a requirement for a
Development Agreement and that was one of the biggest hurdles in fact you’ll
approve this project without a Development Agreement. City Council came back
and said we have to have it so Keith Bird actually said, quote unquote, let’s wait
loosely to find Development Agreement which we did. It said office, anything
else that all bets are off. I even referenced in here about a C-store, and it said
the same thing. If we were to come in with a C-store all bets are off, we start
over again. That’s exactly what we’re doing here so I don’t think the issue’s that.
I think the issue is you have the opportunity to prove what I think is a good
quality hotel and in fact I may mention we’ve been approached by two other hotel
operators in the past since we’ve had this (inaudible). Both have been what you
consider your typical free weight budget motels. We did not pursue those and
the reason we didn’t pursue those is because we did not feel that was suitable
for this area. We feel that an Ameritel hotel is in a quality facility that the City of
Meridian should be proud to have. I think it will bring things to the City, I think it’s
an attribute to the City, I think that they have gone above and beyond on their
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 58
landscaping, their development plan, they’re trying to work with the neighbors.
That I think is the issue tonight. Anyways, I don’t mean to take a lot of your time
but I think there needs to be some things that are straightened out here.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Steele?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Steele you were quoted here in the previous persons
testimony and it says here it’s going to be office here. What type of office it could
medical, it could be general but it will be office? That sounds a little bit more
definite than the other stuff you’re talking about.
Seele: Yes.
Nary: Why is that?
Seele: Because we were referring to at that point, the westerly lot. The westerly
lot had a one-story office building on the northerly portion and a two story in a
southerly. That was where the question came up because I referenced the two
story there. We really strongly felt that that would be office. If you look at the
concept plan and I have a small copy here. If you look at the concept plan –
right here, here’s your two-story office building right there. This is the westerly lot
–
Borup: You can use your mic.
Seele: This is the westerly lot this is where the bank is going. This is where
another proposed office building and this is where a building permit has been
submitted for another one. In fact, the total square footage of this is about
73,000. We’re actually going to build 53,000 we’re building less. We felt almost
absolutely confident, I mean as much as you can be – again, you’re looking into
a crystal ball and we don’t have any greater visions than anybody else. WE felt
this would be office. This is the one we felt would be most likely would be
restaurant or what I regret now I didn’t say something else, I didn’t’ list. What I
maybe should have done was put out the L-L zoning list and said okay, these are
all of the possible uses. Again, we would have gotten back to the same thing,
what is it going to be? Hours of operation, how big? I could answer those
questions at the time so we’re referred to this which is a two story. We felt if
there was going to be – because we realized that there would be – you know
there was a very slim chance that anybody’s going to approve a retail or anything
else over on this (inaudible) other concept other than office. Here there was a
possibility because it further away, it was next to the Chevron it seemed more
logical. Again, it was assumptions and it was the best we could do at the time.
That’s what it was referred to.
Nary: Mr. Steele.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 59
Seele: Seele.
Nary: Seele, I’m sorry.
Seele: That’s okay.
Nary: It looks like this agreement was signed in March of last year by Mr.
Moore?
Seele: That’s correct.
Nary: When did they begin negotiating with this hotel?
Seele: I don’t know Jim when did they –
Boyd: September – October.
Seele: You know it’s one of those things as Mr. Korte had said –
Nary: Could you repeat that because he’s not –
Seele: -- Yes, September – October of 2000.
Nary: Was there ever any attempt or any attempt by Winston Moore, W H Moore
to secure something other than a hotel for that sight?
Seele: Like I say we had two hotels before but we felt this was a good use.
What exactly Winston Moore was thinking I don’t know he didn’t share that with
me.
Nary: Let me ask you two hotels before what? Before you signed this
Development Agreement?
Seele: Yes, we had two other hotels that approached us but we never signed
anything with them because we did not want to pursue. We did not feel that they
were at the quality level.
Nary: So when you were proposing this Development Agreement they had
already had been approached by two different hotels –
Seele: No the Development Agreement had already been well signed, we’re
talking –
Nary: So after the Development Agreement was signed was when other hotels
came?
Seele: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 60
Nary: And did they ever seek out a restaurant or anything else?
Seele: We had talked to, on I think at a very preliminary basis restaurants.
Certainly when you’re out there marketing you’re talking to offices you’re talking
to restaurants, you’re talking to anyone. You don’t wan to send them down the
road you want to at least listen to what they have to say. Again, I’m not involved
in the actual pure negotiations of that but I suspect that they look very hard at
this. They recognize that they had office approval and this is not going to be an
obvious slam-dunk. That we were going to be faced with what we’re going to
tonight if we did proceed. Again, you have to understand that you may probably
appreciate this. You can be talking to somebody, nine months later you would
still be talked in and there’s nothing definite. Sometimes, as we all know things
in the real estate industry can move slowly whether you’re buying a home or
you’re trying to sell a piece of commercial real estate.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Seele I have to agree with your statement on that I
think the Development Agreement’s probably rather vague. As you say you did
not know what it would be. By testimony the one part that bothers is the
statements on a one story, two story. Even though that was not part of the
Development Agreement the testimony seemed pretty specific on that. Any
comments on – your testimony seemed pretty specific on that. There would be
on story next to the neighborhood and the two story further to the south.
Seele: But bare in mind we’re also talking about the westerly lot which is right
abutting to it and the question was referred to office on those uses. We showed
the two story up towards the south in other wards up towards Magic View. If I
recall at the point, the question was asked I think whether that might be a two
story in the back. We did not envision that. That’s exactly way on the westerly
lots that we have developed it. We have – after this we’ll have the bank. We’ll
ultimately have another 17,000 square foot single-story office building to it and
we’ve had in for permit an office building on the area that will front Magic View.
Borup: Now we’ve gone from one story, two story to a three story now?
Seele: No, I guess I disagree with that. We had shown it as office but again it
gets back to the same thing this is a concept plan.
Borup: No, I’m saying that I agree that the Development Agreement does not
specify heights, hours of operation or anything –
Seele: It doesn’t.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 61
Borup: So anything that would be approved in that zone and a hotel certainly is
with condition use in an L-L zone. The statement still seems fairly strong on the
one story, two story unless the testimony didn’t mean anything.
Seele: No, I know. The testimony means something but again when you’re
referred to the westerly lot and that’s what the discussion was on because we –
Borup: Just on that one lot and that did not apply to the other lots?
Seele: No, and again it comes back down and I hate to keep repeating this.
Again, we were saying that if we deviated from office we would come back. You
had the opportunity as you have tonight to make the call. We didn’t know any
other way to accomplish this, if we wanted to keep going and the ultimately get
that road built.
Borup: I understand, that’s part of the way development works.
Seele: Yes.
Borup: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Seele, do you have any or maybe the hotel folks want
to add more of this at the end. You have a lot of neighbors here that are
concerned about their neighborhood and concerned about this type of use that
close to their neighborhood. Do you have any other things that W H Moore
wants to address towards those things that are part of this Development
Agreement? We talked about fencing and things but these folks are wanting
more than that.
Seele: I think that quite frankly the Ameritel has done a great deal. Has offered
to – and again, Mr. Korte can speak to this probably better than I can. Moving
the hotel as far south as possible, acquiring a lot that’s far in access to what they
typically need, bringing in your 15 to 20 foot trees, putting them up on the other
side which they don’t have to do in fact if you talk to ACHD, that berm on the
north side, they let it be weeds. Their interpretation of landscaping is round off --
*** End Of Side Four ***
Seele: -- totally because of the neighbors but that’s certainly an important part of
it too. We recognize the importance along with the marketing of our projects. I
think that the Ameritel has gone to great lengths in order to I think address that I
don’t think that they’re ever going to 100 percent satisfy the neighbors and I can
understand their concerns but I think they’ve done a great deal. I keep hearing a
lot about Eagle Partners and we’re unfortunately not involved in that you know?
We don’t have any control in that. That’s like you trying to control something in
the City of Boise you can’t do it. I guess that’s why they call him Fast Eddy.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 62
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you Mr. Seele.
Seele: Thank you.
Brown: Kent Brown, 3161 Springwood Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I live in the
neighborhood and yet I’m not adjacent I sat on the commission when this was
annexed and I don’t believe that I made the motion I think I made Richard do it.
It was represented to us that it was going to be office. Mr. Seele is right that they
said that we would have another bite to come back if they changed that. Mr.
Nary brought that up too. The neighbors do deserve an office use next to them,
that’s typical, that’s what’s done other places. I’ve tried to, in my mind at least
think of a place that you have a similar hotel next to a single-family development
and I can’t think of one. I look at the other places in the valley, I can’t think of a
single-family development that is next to a hotel. There are other places that are
multi-family developments but that’s part of what you do when plan. You plan
you; you work your way away from the major roads with those kinds of
developments. I don’t need to make this very long I just – what was represented
before with annexation led everybody to believe that we’re going to have office.
This is different. I have worked with Ameritel Company when I was working for
the City of Boise. They do keep their word, they do what they say they’re going
to do, they’re a good company and I think that Mr. Korte has made a great
presentation. I want his toys when I have to come before you too because he
has done a good job. I think that they’ve made an honest effort to do that but it’s
not a good use as the neighbors that are adjacent to this have said you don’t
have this kind of intensive use next to a neighborhood without some kind of good
buffering and in general practice, I would say that you have an office use. Mr.
Korte can probably give some examples of where there are others but I couldn’t
think of any. Are there any questions?
Borup: Questions for Mr. Brown? Thank you. Do we have – come on up.
P. Lloyd: I’m Pauline Lloyd I live at 3091 Autumn Way -- I’m sorry we do abut
the parking lot, part of it not. We are directly impacted by this. I would just like to
state that as a mother, the idea of having a hotel behind me is completely
unacceptable. It was my understanding that there would be offices there. I can
live with that, a hotel you’ve got people coming and going at three in the
morning. You have people that could be coming – you have crime. You could
have people that could be coming over the fence. Variables that would make me
feel as a mother that I couldn’t provide a safe home, a safe yard for my children.
My point is just strictly – is with (inaudible) that it’s just not appropriate to have a
hotel right there in our backyards. That’s it.
Borup: thank you, any questions? Thank you ma’am.
P. Lloyd: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 63
Borup: Do we have anyone else that hasn’t spoken that would like to come up?
Barnes: Ladies and Gentlemen, Bob Barnes, 2855 Magic View Drive. We’re
around the corner down the street. We live a whole lot closer to the other
existing Holiday Inn Express. Frankly we have a lot more negative impact from
Chevron and Texaco. We don’t even really realize the motel is there. Hubble
Engineering offices, those people start at 6:00 in the morning and a lot of times
they’re still busy at 9 sometimes 10:00 at night. Frankly that’s about the same
hours the motel traffic is in Holiday Inn express. The Ameritel as far as a fine
establishment I think you couldn’t ask for a better one. I feel for the people that
are in relatively close proximity. Eagle Road is not Park Center Boulevard, it’s
probably the busiest road and the busiest intersection in the state so there’s
probably some trade offs. I think what Ameritel is offering for buffer and maybe it
could be enhanced to meet some of the problems that they’re arising. I still think
they would make a great neighbor and I don’t know if there is security issue
above and beyond the Fast Eddy and the Texaco. There’s so much traffic in and
out of there I don’t know that you would attract any more risk with the motel.
Anyway, that’s my opinion I would welcome them as a neighbor and they would
be as close to me without a buffer as they are to the other neighborhoods so
thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Barnes? Thank you sir. Do we have one final
comment from someone? Seeing none, does the applicant have a – excuse
me?
Horel: My name is Mary Kaye Horel I live at 3043 Autumn Way. I’m directly
impacted by this lived at a house of 15 years. I would like to sell it, want to buy
it? Probably not, that’s one of the problems. I just want to submit a drawing that
was given to us neighbors at a meeting. I wasn’t personally at that meeting but
this was what we envisioned there was to be in the back yard of our
neighborhood. As you heard we all would agree that we probably could go along
with this kind of scenario. I think this is a beautiful package I think what they are
offering us is very creative but it’s still the issue of would any of you want to live
directly behind a motel or a hotel no matter how beautiful it is. Now if we have a
fight with our husband or wife it would be a nice place to go and we’re probably
going to have a few fights if this goes through. Please bare in mind if you were
in our positions, what would you want? If you wanted to sell your property. Do
we have any option, our greatest investment is in our home and we’re losing a
good share of it. Please consider that and I wanted to mention this (inaudible).
Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Horel? These go down here and I think that did
your – we had testimony that you had two neighbors that sold their homes in the
last six months did they lose money on those sales do you know?
Horel: Yes they did.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 64
Borup: They sold them at a loss, less than they paid for them?
Horel: I don’t know that because that is information that we often don’t – do you
want to tell us what you paid for your car or some of these things are very
personal and there’s a point of which. To answer, have they – was it a
successful sale, no. How much did they lose, no, they weren’t going to express
that to us. There are other people on this section that are planning to leave soon
and we personally have put a lot in our home, we’ve enjoyed living there, like the
access, we’ve loved Meridian but personally my attitude is changing a lot
because of the issues that are going on here. My background is in design; I’m
an interior designer so I perceive all of this thing from a different angle than
maybe some people would. From an artistic sense as well the balance isn’t right.
That’s just another little issue. I don’t know what else to say.
Borup: That’s fine, thank you.
Horel: Any other questions?
Borup: Mr. Bowen, were you the one that was – were you coming up for
(inaudible) rebuttal?
Korte: Thank you. Again, my name’s Chris Korte – oh right, I’m sorry.
Unidentified Speaker: (inaudible).
Korte: Yes, gray hair it used to be light. I have to chuckle first of all. Mike Lloyd
brought up this issue of this 3-story hotel in Boise and maybe I’ve been in this
business too long. I owned that piece of property and sold it to United Heritage
for their corporate office building and then sold another piece next door to St.
Luke’s for one of their medical clinics. Here’s St. Luke’s over here but Unite
Heritage is now in Meridian and yes, there’s not an extended stay on the
property. That piece of property, when we zoned it had covenants on it and in
the large 5 acre subdivision next door was a very prominent Boise attorney who
had a very interesting legal document written up between him and the land was
us involved. Five years after we sold it the gentlemen came forward with that
extended stay project and we told him from step one that we didn’t think that he
was going to be able to do anything and indeed Mr. Weatherall reminded him,
who happened to be a good friend of the lawyer anyway. The issue of putting a
masonry wall on top of the berm is a very difficult if not impossible thing to do.
When you’ve got a berm that’s a four to one slope it’s not engineered compacted
soils and then you put the weight of a six to eight foot masonry wall on top, we’re
curious as to whether that thing would hold. The Development Agreement had
been established for the six-foot wood fence and the landscaping and that’s what
has been built. I wasn’t involved in that Development Agreement but whether
this hotel goes here or not the issue of the amount of traffic that’s going to go
back and forth in front of this area is no different whether it’s a hotel or not a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 65
hotel. The four-foot berm and the landscaping and the fence was what was
proposed and is actually half built at this point in time. We calculated that 50
percent of this piece of property would be in landscaping. I think that Mr. Borup
brought up the point that if this was to be an office development it could have
been within 20 feet of that road and most likely there would be a parking lot
adjacent to that neighborhood not 135 foot berm landscape strip. Not the
additional 15-foot height trees that we indeed agreed to plant in there. Ameritel
is making the commitment and I think going beyond the standards as should be
required by a Conditional Use Permit in all the work that we’ve done here to try
to prove that we indeed can be a good neighbor. Could you put – you can’t put,
okay we’re down but I’ve got all of the boards. I hope I’ve got the boards. One
thing about an area – I told Mrs. Bowen that if we were in Seattle we probably
wouldn’t be sitting here arguing over this because the whole thing would be pine
forest but what we’ve got is, is basically a field that has been flat with no trees,
no vegetation and no buffer and so in comes all of these developments and you
can in essence see them. I think that Mr. Foley’s house is either this one or
actually I think it’s the one right over here –
Borup: Yes.
Korte: -- that ends up facing in this direction. What you’re going to see in a very
rapid period of time is this building I think they’ve already submitted for a building
permit on and this building is 19 feet high, has varying façades and is 19 feet
high. This building here is the bank; these are the out buildings that we showed
you on those pictures. When you take a line of sight from Mr. Foley’s house,
he’s going to be seeing through a 19-foot story building, the landscaping, another
19 story, 19 foot building to here. These houses here, not only is their sheds
there but they’re going to be looking through the bank which has 20-foot façades
which are shown right here. This is the bank, this would be the line of sight from
a double story and a single story and then a landscaping is going to come in.
Over a rapid period of time as this field develops these types of uses tend to
disappear and as the vegetation grows up in essence it finally disappears. What
we’re suffering from here is, is a neighborhood in rapid transition and I don’t
blame them for their concerns and I don’t blame them that they’re down here
fighting for their rights because I would be too but those changes are coming and
after awhile it will melt in. If you can say that the Chevron and McDonalds and I
guess it’s Fast Eddy’s is here and you’re over here this building is probably going
to take them out, the issues of the lights and hopefully the sign though I don’t
know exactly how the McDonald sign sits in here so the building itself is going to
act somewhat as a buffer from some of these rather bright 24 hour uses there.
Hatcher: Excuse me, could you put that board up on a pivot on the podium so
that the neighbors could see the latest plan?
Korte: Over here where it says, please offer or could I just –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 66
Nary: Everyone ignores that so it’s okay.
Korte: Mr. Foley’s house is here and these come down, these are the out
buildings. This is where the proposed bank is this is the cross section of the
bank and again the line of sights as it comes in through the building. Regarding
the issue of 24 hour and noise I can say for sure that one thing about people in a
hotel or motel they sleep, that’s the intent behind them renting the unit. It is very
similar – what noise. They have 24 hour on site management an office building
does not. From a security perspective if you go to the Ameritel at the spectrum
when you look at where the counter is you’ll see a whole series of TV screens
and there are probably 15 of them. Every one of those TV screens is connected
to a camera around the interior I can say it is not on the exterior. They have a
very significant security system there and as technology goes on it makes it even
easier for them to do that. Regarding noise and issues I can say this that the
amount of noise generated from this hotel will never create the amount of noise
that my neighbors barking dog does. What I’m getting at there is that when you
have residential development adjacent to you there are impact and I mean
directly adjacent to you there are impacts that are caused by your neighbors that
can be just as obnoxious if not more so than from the use of a hotel. We think a
300-foot setback from the nearest house is an adequate setback that there will
not be a noise issue with the neighbors. The same issue regarding the lights as I
said before that people sleep in hotels and Ameritel inn is concerned about
making sure that their residents of their hotel can sleep well. Again, what you
have there is, is it’s 135 foot setback from the parking lot to the street plus the
berm and the trees which is something far greater than you would get from an
office complex. All I can say is that we’ve tried our best. We’ve tried our hardest
to meet our commitment and our concern. There’s been a discussion regarding
the fence out to Eagle Road. I believe that there has been an injustice done thee
for whatever reason there has not been a fence built from this location out to
Eagle Road and the first thing I would request is, is that the zoning enforcement
officers of the City of Meridian take a look at that, why isn’t it there? Why is it a
chain link fence, was it supposed to be a wood fence? Maybe that that ought to
be looked into to see if he didn’t meet his commitment. If the commitment isn’t
met than maybe somebody’s going to have to step to the table and make that
commitment to the neighbors because it’s the right thing to do. I’ve asked the
neighbors to go down and talk to planning staff and maybe the chain link fence is
what was supposed to have been there. It’s hard for me to believe that –
Borup: I think that had something to do with the ditch company and they’re
worried about burning.
Korte: Yes, we researched that and the ditch company doesn’t have any
regulation over that it’s a local ditch and it’s whoever runs –
Borup: I know that came up in some testimony previously.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 67
Korte: Yes, and that’s why we thought we couldn’t put a wood fence in there. So
in summary, we’ve really tried to do the best we can. We believe the symbiosis
of this hotel and the hospital is an important thing and we hope that you look
favorably on our request and will approve it.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Korte?
Norton: I just have one question. The staff has made several comments and
none of those have been addressed yet, is there somebody else going to be
addressing parking issues, handicap parking places that sort of thing?
Korte: What we have to get to the staff is the number of employees. There may
be a discrepancy of five to six parking spaces is that correct Byron?
Smith: (Inaudible) therefore employees won’t be (inaudible).
Korte: Right so do we have to add a few parking spaces we might have to – we
have adequate space to the south to do that?
Borup: I think what Commissioner Norton is getting to -- you’re prepared to
comply with all of staff comments, recommendations and the few conditions we
brought up here as well?
Korte: Yes.
Borup: That makes it three, any – yes, commissioner Nary?
Nary: Mr. Korte do you have a comment – what Mr. Brown had said his
testimony was that – he said his recollection there was not a lot of hotels built
next to single-family residential subdivisions. There’s obviously a reason for that,
it’s not just convenient. Do you have any input as to why that is and why would
that be then compatible to build this one next to this subdivision?
Korte: Well what’s happened here is a rapid change of land use. There hasn’t
been a transition of land use out into – it’s just all of a sudden it’s there and
here’s this residential subdivision. To some extent this is kind of a unique
(inaudible) situation. Is there hotels near houses, yes there are? There’s one in
park center it’s I think either four or five stories tall on Loggers Creek, it used to
be the Doubletree or something Inn. Basically on the other side of Loggers
Creek is the east end subdivisions so yes they are located adjacent to
residential. Are there more? I could probably run around and find them. I know
there are some on Vista Avenue that are near residential uses. It does occur, it
does occur. They typically locate in activity centers that typically aren’t
residential nature.
Nary: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 68
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you sir.
Korte: Thank you.
Borup: Does staff have any comments you wanted to make on anything?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, member of the commission I don’t think we
have anything else to add in terms of the discussion in general. There is one
modification to our staff report that we wanted to propose that should you get to
that point it’s on page 3, Item No. 5 of the existing Development Agreement
terms. One of those is that the development requires existing utility easements
in lot two and three to be vacated prior to applying for the building permits. Staff
had discussions quite a bit on that item with the western lot, the bank and the
intention there was to only vacate if the easements have an impact on the
building, i.e. the easements run underneath the building which would not be a
permitted allowance in most situations. In this case and the bank case, the
easement lines do not run under the buildings so we would just propose that you
omit that.
Borup: Thank you, commissioners? Staff would like some discussion. Do we
want to close the Public Hearing or keep it open for a while in case –?
Centers: I would like to close that we close the Public Hearing relevant to CUP
00-053.
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Motions second, any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Anybody like to start, do you want me to start? I’ve gone back and forth
on this thing over the time we’ve looked at it. The design of this building is it’s a
wonderful building (inaudible) I think Ameritel is the best looking hotel in the
valley if not the whole state and their new designs and I would really love to see
it in Meridian. At this location, you know the intersection of a freeway and a state
highway as been stated it’s probably ideal. I think the buffering is – they’ve gone
to great extent and on our way they’ll probably buffer the main objections that a
lot of neighbors have at the C-Store and some of the other things. The concern I
have is the previous agreement. This was approved previously, there’s a
Development Agreement, it maybe was not specific but I don’t think there was a
lot of doubt. What was indented that it was office buildings and one or two
stories. The findings talk about – and I’ve read so many things here I can’t
remember where but about having the office building as a buffer for more
intensive uses. I don’t know that this complies with that intent.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 69
Centers: Since we’re discussing, I think as Mr. Steele pointed out and I think it’s
probably correct they more than likely didn’t have tenants or buyers lined up.
They had to come in with a proposal, they wanted L-L zone and L-L zone allows
a number of uses. One of which being the hotel of course. I don’t think it was
deceitment on their part originally I wasn’t here at that time obviously but they
didn’t come in with a specific business or design or anything.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess I’m sort of in the same quandary that you stated
and I guess that the gentlemen that spoke earlier had said no matter what
everybody said we’re just going to approve it anyway. I guess I don’t (inaudible)
if I agree with that. I think at first blush, certainly it would make sense that this is
a location in Meridian that is more useful for this type of use than other types of
uses but that’s why there’s a freeway off ramp there, that’s why the development
that is existing there is there. I think if the Ameritel presentation is probably the
best hotel design that you could have for that piece of property. The problem
that I have is I don’t know that a hotel belongs there either. I guess the problem
that I have primarily, I guess from the legal perspective is that these folks from W
H Moore signed this agreement less than a year ago and in a very short time – I
understand what Mr. Seele said and I know this was not meant to be written in
stone but they didn’t make an agreement with these people. They did commit to
some concept that was not a hotel. There is a reason in my opinion that hotels
are not built next to single-family neighborhoods like Mr. Brown stated because
there is some incompatibility that is inherent in that type of usage. It really
concerns me when we have a Development Agreement in a very short shrift
someone wants to change it. We turned down a project about two or three
months ago that wanted to rezone an existing CUP on Fairview that was for
(inaudible) offices to commercial uses because it was a better use to the
developer because they could make more money and it would be a better way to
sell it if they did that. This Commission said, no you made a commitment to
these people that live right across the fence as to what’s supposed to be there.
We don’t necessarily think that without any effort to try to do anything different
that that’s the appropriate way to do that. In this case, I agree with
Commissioner Center’s I don’t think that W H Moore was trying to deceive
anybody but they made a commitment and they did say they would have to come
back and ask and now they’re asking. My view is there’s not really any attempt
to really comply with this Development Agreement that we’ve seen. If they’d
come back and said look, we’ve owned this property for five years and I agree
with Mr. Korte that Candlestick thing is a whole different scenario it really is an
incomparable situation to this. If they’d come back and said we’ve owned this
property and it isn’t sellable like this and it doesn’t work this way and it isn’t
compatible with the surrounding uses and they’re – the transition has passed
that we’re looking further down the road then it would make some sense. At
least to me and I’m just one vote here but we haven’t had that. They made an
agreement less than a year ago and that’s what they were going to look for. I
can understand why these people on that side of the room felt like they’re just
getting sold another bill of goods by somebody else. You may not admit that but
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 70
that’s what it feels like to these people. There’s a reason that this Development
Agreement was approved, because the belief by the Commission and the
Council at the time was that was the most appropriate use of the property. I
haven’t heard any evidence as to why this is a more appropriate use of this
property than what was agreed to less than a year ago. It’s a tremendous
design; it is a beautiful hotel. They have done more than any other hotel would
ever do to make this workable for the neighbors. No other hotel would put up a
135 feet of landscaping, no other hotel would move the building south to satisfy
the neighbors. No other hotel would ever do that. I don’t believe that Ameritel is.
That’s not what these people agreed to do a year ago. A conceptual plan is a
concept but it is the lease to believe that the Commission had and that the
neighbors had that they would try to do that. I didn’t hear that they tried to do
that at all and I haven’t heard anything at least to me that says this is better than
what was proposed. This is just different than what was proposed. I just have a
hard time with that and I don’t think at least in my opinion that this ordinance that
applies 11-17-3 of the City code C and D which talks about the compatibility this
use will not – in C it says that the use design construct operation maintenance is
harmonious within the (inaudible) care of the general vicinity that such use will
not change the essential character of the same area. If you’re talking about in
relation to Fast Eddy’s and Chevron this is great but not to those other people on
the other side of the fence, I don’t think it is great. I think it is a use that is not
appropriate at this time; it may be appropriate in the future. At least to me, I
don’t think it is at this time.
Borup: Anyone else?
Norton: I have mixed feelings on the whole project. We’ve heard from the
neighbors, we’ve had letters from the neighbors. Ameritel came in and has done
extensive information, held neighborhood meetings. I think out of the five or six
people that testified only maybe one or two of them actually went to the meeting.
I know everybody’s schedule is real busy but at least everybody here tonight saw
everything that Ameritel did. I can see the hotel as being extremely handy to St.
Luke’s and the patients and the doctors that might need emergency housing for
the night. I think it’s a beautiful plan the setback is fabulous. It looks like if the
motel was built there, people would use, not the street closest to the neighbors
but the one between Chevron and Texaco because that’s the closest where the
hotel is going to be. I don’t know, I still have mixed feelings on it but I think
there’s one thing that I would agree with the previous Commissioners is the
Development Agreement was not adhere too. That’s what people trust, you
know a Development Agreement, people trust that and as Mr. Nary had spoken
that this was signed on March 21st
, and today is February 1st
not even a year
after the Conditional Use Permit. You can also have apartments on that site;
there are various other things that you can do with Conditional Use Permits so I
don’t know what to do.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 71
Centers: I kind of echo Commissioner Norton’s feelings to an extent. It’s an
area in transition as Mr. Korte pointed out. When you buy a home that’s backed
up to vacant land, you’re just crossing your fingers as to what’s going to come in.
You just never know. I still disagree with Commissioner Nary. I don’t think W H
Moore was trying to deceive the neighbors. I know how they go in and it was
annexed at that time with an L-L zone which would be the appropriate zone to do
something with so that they could develop it to the appropriate buyers or leasers.
I guess it’s just – I suspect too at the original meeting a year ago almost that
there were a number of people here that were opposing that. I suspect that, if
I’m incorrect. I look at that hotel and then I look at the last presentation by Mr.
Korte and the eye of site and the buildings that are going up. It’s going to be a
nice structure and probably a lot nicer than what you have with the Chevron and
Texaco that aren’t going to go away. I kind of echo Sally’s comments but that’s
kind of my stand.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher?
Hatcher: My whole take on it is basically I see two sides that are both in
(inaudible). I believe that W H Moore and Ameritel come before this board –
they’re completely right, the have not violated anything, they’ve come here with
good faith. I believe that there was no deception. However I believe that they –
representation of the intent for the land would be was misconstrued. I don’t
believe it was intentional. Being in the design profession I know exactly how it is
when you’re grabbing at stars at the beginning just to try to pull something
together. Whether it be a restaurant or be a hotel or be a care facility because
that’s allowed in an L-L zone also. We could have an ambulatory center there;
we could have a nursing home there. These are allowed facilities. On the one
side I could sit up here and I could approve the Ameritel project because that’s
what’s allowed. There’s no violation, there’s no – they meet every bit of our
ordinances and our concept plan and the whole nine yards. Then also the other
reason that I’m up here is to help buffer what’s in the best interest of the City.
Citizens are the City and is this project in the best interest of the neighbors that
are adjacent to this project and I don’t think so? We talk about rapid
development of the property. Yes, extremely rapid development of the property.
No chance for a buffer, well that neighborhood was there first and the buffer
needs to be created within that development. I take my hat off to Ameritel; I am
very impressed with the presentation, the product, the service, every ounce, and
every bit of it. I welcomed them to Meridian, I would love to see them build
Meridian but on a different site. That site is not appropriate. It’s too close tot the
neighborhood. That side needs to be part of the buffer zone. Anything that I
could do to help them build it somewhere else I would love to do it but I can’t
approve this project for that site.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think what I heard from the people that got up here.
There were two people that had just moved in, one in September one four
months ago. For the most part, I think if we allowed Ameritel to go in with an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 72
engineer block wall on their property they would probably be in favor of that with
a rounded top. I guess being the wrong site and the wrong location and excuse
me but I think that’s what, for the most part that’s what most of them said. Give
me a block wall and we welcome. I guess you see what I’m saying?
Hatcher: I would have to disagree with you Commissioner Centers but what they
said is if we didn’t listen to them and didn’t do what they asked us to do i.e. not to
approve it then at last recourse, please at least give us a block wall so we don’t
have to the additional automotive traffic that’s driving past our bedroom window
at 2:00 a.m. in the morning that’s what they asked.
Centers: Well Commissioner Nary I think a lot of that traffic is generated by the –
Nary: (inaudible) answer.
Centers: -- excuse me – by the Chevron, the Texaco, the McDonald and the
Ameritel is willing to go in with that.
Hatcher: I totally agree –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Hatcher: If we could get rid of Chevron and Texaco I would but I can’t, you’re not
going to get rid of it.
Nary: Maybe that’s where that cinder block wall needs to be.
Hatcher: Yes, these guys got the short end of the stick and it was before my time
but there’s nothing I can do about that but I can do something about this.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I guess I want to make sure that it’s clear because I’m not
sure Commissioner Centers (inaudible) me. I really don’t believe Winston Moore
or W H Moore company was trying to deceive these neighbors but they made a
commitment to these neighbors. They made a commitment to conceptually build
an office building there and my opinion is, is they didn’t attempt to follow through
with that concept and they haven’t let this really mature. If we’re going to have a
Development Agreement people, it has to have some meaning. It has to have
some (inaudible) that’s why these people come here at 11:00 at night and wait
here this long to hear this is because they believe when we agreed to this
Development Agreement with W H Moore that it meant something. Less than a
year later, you want it to mean something else. I agree, what they agreed to was
to come in and ask and that’s what they’re doing and I guess my opinion is the
answer is no. You had an agreement to build something else, and it may have
been a concept but I didn’t hear you try to adhere to that concept nor did I hear
that this was better. You’re providing something better than what we
conceptually agreed to a year ago. All you’ve provided is something different,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 73
something that maybe can make better money or provide something pretty and
that’s nice but that doesn’t mean it’s a better use of a property than what was
conceptually agreed to by this Development Agreement. I guess, again, it’s just
one vote but if this Development Agreement is supposed to mean something and
we’re not just going to keep changing it every time somebody decides that
doesn’t’ work for me now then I think most people don’t find that to be very
credible by either this commission or the City Council when we do that. There’s
no evidence for history to show why a change is necessary. The only evidence I
heard that the change is necessary is because that’s what we want to do. We
want it to be a hotel now; we don’t want it to be an office. When we asked for it
to be an office that wasn’t really what we were committing to forever that’s just
what we were doing to be annexed and get this moving along, well too bad.
There isn’t any evidence that’s been faced before us that I heard that there’s a
reason to change this Development Agreement other than that’s just what we
want now.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary, when they originally came before
the Commission and the Council they had no plan, they had no buyer, they made
no commitment other than committed to an L-L zone and they gave possibles.
You don’t know that they didn’t go out and pursue people to put office buildings in
there, they could have. I suspect they did and Ameritel comes along and when
you say to make more money there’s nothing wrong with making more money on
a piece of land that can be developed. You don’t know that they didn’t pursue
people that would want to occupy an office building and put that type of project
in. As Commissioner Hatcher stated everything is within the guidelines for the
CUP.
Nary: Well Mr. Chairman what we do know is we asked that. When did you start
working with this hotel, when did you do anything else? They went with other
hotels right after they signed this agreement. They didn’t place evidence that
they did attempt to market this property differently. They didn’t put it in evidence
that they tried to adhere this Development Agreement. They didn’t put in
evidence to refute the statements that were made to the people in the public
hearing that this was going to be an office. You’re right, I don’t know all I know is
what they have told us which is we didn’t do that and we didn’t do anything
different than tell you that we wanted a limited office type zone and we didn’t do
anything else that’s it. They didn’t place evidence to say why does this
Development Agreement need to be amended other than we want a hotel there
now not an office building and that’s all they did, nothing else. I agree, making
money is not a problem, I don’t have a heartburn with that but I do have a
heartburn when you make a commitment and sign an agreement that you don’t
put on any evidence as to why should I change it now. That’s my problem is
there’s no evidence to tell us anything.
***End Of Side 5***
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 74
Centers: -- Mr. Chairman, I can understand that Commissioner Nary but I don’t
think they need to provide evidence. We didn’t ask them if they pursued tenants
for an office building so that they could develop for offices. They volunteered, we
asked them when they contacted Ameritel or vice versa and it was September of
last year. They turned down a couple of other lower grade motels that they didn’t
want to get interested in. We didn’t ask if they had pursued other avenues for
the Development Agreement. I don’t think – I think they’re being pretty harsh
that –
Borup: Are we to a point for a motion? I’ll make a motion to at least to see
where we go.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I would move for the recommend denial of CUP 00-053,
request for Conditional Use Permit to construct the 3-story, 87 room hotel in a L-
L zone for proposed Ameritel Inn by B & A Development and that’s if you drive
Allen Street, west of Eagle Road.
Hatcher: I would have to second that.
Borup: Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION TIED: 2 AYES, 2 NAYES
Centers: There you go Keith.
Borup: Two in favor, two opposed. I guess I just – I realize the discussion is
over. If I was a neighbor there –
Hatcher: Two in favor of the motion?
Borup: I don’t know what I’m trying to say right now. I would not be opposed to
that at that location but because – but obviously they do. I vote aye, favor the
motion.
Hatcher: You favor the motion? Three ayes, two nayes?
Borup: Right.
TIEBREAKER VOTE: 3 AYES, 2 NAYES
Borup: Thank you everyone. I don’t know if there’s any clarification, that’s been
stated early this is recommendation to the Council, this will still go before the City
Council for another public hearing. A month – do we know? I’m not sure what
their schedules are but it will also be noticed. There will be a notice, the same
ones that are notified before will get another notice so hopefully those that aren’t
will let their neighbors know. Okay let’s move on to the next item.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 75
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 00-049 Request for Conditional
Use Permit to construct a branch bank with drive-thru teller
in an L-O zone by Mountain West Bank – Magic View
Office Complex:
Borup: Item No. 8, Conditional Use Permit. Request for Conditional Use Permit
to construct a branch bank with drive-thru teller in an L-O zone by Mountain West
Bank – Magic View Office Complex. I would like to open this hearing and start
with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup I think you – this is a four story bank that – just
kidding.
Borup: Thank you Brad, we needed that.
Hawkins-Clark: This application is for the lot immediately west of the project you
just completed. The cross ash pieces the entire five acre parcel that the bank is
proposing to occupy the northeast corner. There are site photos looking at the
northwest from Allen and Magic View and then looking west from St. Luke’s
Drive. Here is the proposed site plan. Again, the development agreement does
apply. In this case it’s a 20-foot buffer instead of a 30 along the north boundary.
Same conditions in terms of the four-foot berm, six-foot fence landscaping shown
here. They would have one entrance off of Allen here that would be – I’m sorry
here, that would be a combined entrance for the office building to the south
which has been submitted for a building permit to the City. They are proposing a
drive-thru. Here on the west side, two isles. You should have received first of all
our recommended conditions in the November 30 memo and they asked if those
be incorporated into your motion as well as my January 18th
memo that proposed
two modifications to the site plan – I’m sorry to the amendments. One of those
as mentioned at the last item was the easements and just recommending that
that be omitted because the easements don’t conflict with the proposed building.
Item No. 7b, that condition should also be deleted that relates to the license
agreement with ACHD. The pertains only to the landscaping in the right-of-way
on the north end of lot two and this is lot three. One Item that’s not written there
is the latecomers fees. We ask that that also be incorporated as with Ameritel
Inn, Item No. 2 for the sewer, thanks.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Norton: I do, Brad for 7c you wanted it omitted but the bold language put in?
Hawkins-Clark: I’m sorry yes, that’s correct. Did I say omitted all together?
Norton: Yes, and then where – the first No. 2 for the latecomers fee?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 76
Hawkins-Clark: Right for the latecomers, right. I would also point out, Chairman,
Item No. 5 about the proposed three drainage soils. There was a modification
there to the site plan, I’m not sure if you’ve received that. They’re proposing
drainage soil here in the northwest, drainage soil here in the northeast and
drainage soil here in the southeast. They actually have modified that to just
incorporate – yes, some (inaudible) disposal pits for the drainage. The
landscaping, in terms of the area and the configuration of these areas hasn’t
changed it’s just that the use for drainage has.
Borup: So you’re saying those will become landscaped areas now rather than a
soil?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct so that would imply that Item No. 5, on page 2 could be
deleted. That’s all I have.
Borup: Thank you, any questions from the Commission? I might just comment
that this – as far as my understanding this is in compliance with the previous
agreements and the reasons before us are because of the drive-thru. A drive-
thru does require a Conditional Use Permit. That really is the issue that we’re
addressing here tonight. Is the applicant here – like to have a presentation?
McKinnis: I’ll try to keep this brief. This is our rendering of our Mountain West
Bank and 24-hour spa.
Borup: We need to get your name and address sir.
McKinnis: Yes, my name is Mike McKinnis I’m Senior Vice President of Mountain
West Bank. I would like to give you just a little background on our banks since
we’re not necessarily a household word yet here in the Treasure Valley.
Mountain West Bank was founded and was headquartered in Coeur d’Alene in
1993. We have offices in Coeur d’Alene, Hayden Lake, Post Falls and Boise.
We are acquiring three offices of First Security Bank and four offices of Wells
Fargo so we will add three offices here in Boise, one in Ketchum, one in Haley,
one in Brigham City and one in Park City, Utah. We will be an 11 Branch Bank,
about 300 plus million in assets. It will make us probably the second largest
independent bank, community bank here in the state. Mountain West Bank is
part of Glacier Ban Corporation which is a publicly held bank holding company of
about 2.3 billion in assets, Headquarting Kalispell, Montana. Mountain West
Bank acts independently with local decision making within the communities that
they serve. We have as products, residential lending both mortgage and
construction. Commercial real estate, both mortgage and construction.
Complete array of business banking services both low and deposit, we are
primarily a business bank but we have a complete array of consumer banking
services including electronic banking. We also have extensive SBA lending
experience. We do a number of SBA loans both here, in the southern district of
the SBA and north of the Spokane District. We are looking forward to opening in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 77
Meridian. This is going to be our southern regional headquarters building. It is
only going to be one story. We are looking forward to this because we have a
relatively short fuse where we are. If you’ve been by our office in downtown
Boise we’re at 15th
and Idaho. We are in a modular building down there; we
have a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Boise, which it expires July 28th,
so we’re pushing it. Our hours of business are from 9:30 to 5:00, Monday
through Thursday and from 9:30 to 6:00 on Friday. We are not open on Saturday
and Sunday. I want to mention just a little bit about the design of this building.
We also held a neighborhood meeting in the first part of December where we
wanted to generate some comments from our neighbors and as a result where
you see the drive-thru now that was originally located on the north end of the
building. Because of the comments from the neighbors we swung that around so
not only is it on the west side but the cars now are facing south so there’s no
headlights that are sitting there looking into the neighbors yards. We did
redesign it; our drive up is lit with security lights that point straight down. They
don’t blast out to the side and we have security cameras not only on each of
those drives but also on the automatic teller machine which is located right there.
The reason we want a drive up to begin with is that the majority of our business
customers are busy people. They like to drive-thru, they don’t like to have to
park, come in, and wait in line. They will go right through that drive-thru and
most of those customers we’ll never even see in the branch. The ATM is a drive
up ATM, it is not a walk up ATM although you could walk up to it I suppose if you
wanted to. As I said, we have a dedicated security camera on that ATM 24 hours
a day. All of the speakers will be using pneumatic tubes going overhead to
service that ATM and also remote speakers those are directional speakers which
are pointing directly to the cars when you’re talking to them. They are designed
not only to direct away from any of the neighbors but also they’re designed for
confidentiality because you don’t want the guy next to you listening to what
you’re telling the teller when you’re sitting in the car in the second lane there.
Those are directional as much as we can make them. Our ATM will remain open
for 24 hours. It’s a drive up, security on drive ups – again, I have no statistics to
back this up but I’ve been in the business 25 years and I will tell you that drive up
ATM’s are a lot more secure than walk up ATM’s no matter where you put them.
No matter how well lighted they are. Our business is primarily business banking.
We don’t have a lot of consumer walk through type traffic. We do not expect that
after business hours we are going to have much use of the ATM although we do
feel it necessary to keep that open for customers that do work at night or want to
make deposits or whatever at night. Again, we’ve got the six-foot fence and the
four-foot berm to try to shield us a little bit from our neighbors. Our signage is on
the northwest side of the building pointing back down what is Allen Street, St.
Luke’s Drive when it bends around. I’m sorry northeast yes thank you. Down
there in the corner of the building, yes right on there. Then we have one sign
that points directly south on the front of the building. That’s pretty much it except
for a monument sign which is down there by the drive in where the entrance is,
the curb gutter. That’s the extent of our signage. Again, Idaho Credit Union is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 78
next door with ATM’s existing so that’s about it. Thanks for your time do you
have any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Nary?
Nary: Where the drive-thru were on the side of the building, I don’t know if
there’s a fence there along with the trees on that site map. Is there a fence
along that west boundary there?
McKinnis: I don’t believe so I don’t –
Nary: Is there any houses or is that all field as well?
McKinnis: I believe that’s essentially going to be developed again into another
building over on that side.
Nary: Oh, I see.
McKinnis: Yes, this is just the –
Nary: I see.
McKinnis: Yes, we’re up in the northeast corner.
Nary: Right I was thinking it was on the – I thought it was on the – I’m sorry I
thought it was on the western portion of that property.
McKinnis: No, it’s on the northeast corner.
Nary: Thank you, I’m sorry.
McKinnis: There’s your bank right there and this is another proposed single-
story –
Nary: Single-story?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nary: Thank you, that’s my mistake on where it was located.
McKinnis: No problem, anything else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 79
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKinnis are you familiar with the staff comments as
of November 30th
?
McKinnis: Not completely but if you read it to me maybe I can.
Norton: They have several site-specific requirements. Are you going to be the
one speaking to this or is there somebody else that will be speaking to the staff
comments?
McKinnis: This is a design build job so we’ll let him talk too.
Norton: That will be fine.
Seele: Good evening again. Jonathan Seele, W H Moore Company.
Borup: I think what we’re looking for is if there are any of the staff comments you
had.
Seele: I know that’s where I was getting, I didn’t know if you wanted the name
first. In fact, Brad and I have talked about the staff comments that memo that he
has is a result of that where you’re deleting the License Agreement and you’re
modifying the vacation of the easements. Other than that everything’s
acceptable.
Borup: Same with ACHD?
Seele: With the License Agreement?
Borup: No, with Ada County Highway Districts comments too?
Seele: Yes that’s fine.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Seele?
Norton: So you agree with all of staffs comments including adding the
sidewalks?
Seele: Yes, ma’am. The sidewalks are there already except for the ones who I
see will be accompanying with the building itself which will be designed, yes
ma’am.
Norton: Thank you.
Seele: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 80
Borup: Do I have anyone who would like to testify on this application? Go
ahead, I said to realize that the reason we’re here is because of the drive-thru.
Horel: Right. Chuck Horel, 3043 Autumn Way. Just to comment, a clarification
actually. Is the building taking up the whole northern half of that parcel?
McKinnis: This is where the building is right here. (Inaudible) this is all part of
the development as well. We’re taking just this square here.
Borup: So the lot is taking the north –
McKinnis: There are really now three buildings, not two.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: The banks on a lot that’s on the northeast corner and that’s the whole lot
that you see up there then the building itself is just that little area in the center.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup, would it be prudent to bring up at this time the
testimony from, excuse me if I get this wrong, W H Moore? The initial concept
plan for this lot when you guys were all taking about the offices and stuff like that
they’re proposing 7800 square feet of office I think they’re now proposing 5300
square feet so it might be –
Unidentified Speaker: Thousand.
Hatcher – thousand excuse me. It might be three buildings with a lot less square
footage so keep that – and it’s all single-story instead of two story so keep that in
mind. (Inaudible) at three buildings
Horel: This was a surprise because when you pointed out the little corner, I
thought this wasn’t clicking.
Borup: I think that building may be smaller than what the original concept was.
Horel: My only comment here is – and it has to do with the berm and the fence.
We’re looking for, again the tallest most substantial piece of equipment that we
can get there to buffer the existing real estate and then the commercial.
Borup: I think we realize that, that the four-foot berm and the six-foot fence was
always part of the development agreement. That was no matter what goes in
there. That was what was agreed to.
Horel: Right.
Borup: so let’s say you’re talking a ten-foot –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 81
Horel: -- (inaudible) long range planning and I know I can’t go back to what we
just went through with the hotel. If they come back and there’s no continuum of
a buffer of the same type of berm if they’re allowed to build a four-foot and a six-
foot fence and all of a sudden down the line there’s –
Borup: You’re talking down the line of undeveloped areas?
Horel: No, the same berm but to the –
Borup: East?
Horel: -- east. What happens if we allow this berm to be built in such a manner
that then let’s say the hotel comes to the City Council and the City Council
approves the hotel. Then they come back and they say well we know that you
want a bigger berm but gee here’s a six-foot fence and a four-foot berm for 50-60
feet or however wide this is. How is that going to tie in with the berm to the east?
I mean it’s just that – as theoretically that something would happen. I’m just
trying to trouble shoot a little bit and pre-plan here –
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Horel what would you suggest then?
Horel: Maybe some kind of a meeting with the developer and bank and seeing
what we can do in addition to a six foot fence and a four foot berm.
Nary: Isn’t that what the development agreement was for, and that’s what they
agreed to? All you’re saying is this has potentially they may be build something
else to the east and potentially this four foot berm and the six foot fence may not
be sufficient for something that’s developed on that other piece of property.
Horel: Right.
Nary: However right now – yes right now. Doesn’t it seem unreasonable to then
tie the developer to say well we don’t know what you’re going to build on the
other side because we just turned that down so wait and build a fence when you
can figure out what goes on the other side, do you want to have a fence there at
all, and they’ll build the building but you won’t have a fence, don’t you want the
fence?
Horel: Yes it’s true. Like I say, this is just a conceptual thing that I’m just trying to
troubleshoot a little in advance and not cause any problems for anybody but just
to try to alleviate the problems. I see what Ameritel had proposed as far as size
of trees and everything like that and I think that was just a wonderful plan.
Borup: But you’re not going to get that. Those side of the trees is way beyond
what was agreed in the (inaudible).
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 82
Horel: Also, that clarifies – I say I didn’t realize there were any buildings and just
a suggestion about maybe addressing (inaudible).
Borup: Thank you.
Horel: Thanks.
Hatcher: Keith, when we approved this 13, 14 months ago my memory’s kind of
vague on sequence of events. I know when we approved the project, basically it
picked up from where the existing chain link fence is to the west end of the – not
the banks parcel line but the questioned property line.
Borup: Right, over – like right over here somewhere?
Hatcher: Yes, over – exactly. The sequencing of timing isn’t the – wasn’t the
fencing – was the fencing to go in at the time of development or prior to
development? Basically that whole strip of fencing –
Borup: Things weren’t necessarily the same after they left us by the time they
got it –
Hatcher: -- yes I know –
Borup: -- approved and agreed on.
Hatcher: -- because we had the whole big discussion about that strip that was
along – that’s in ACHD’s jurisdiction. The gentlemen earlier brought up a good
point about their concept of landscaping as round up. It would seem to me that
the developer and the realtors and stuff like that could come to some sort of
agreement to help that project and help the neighbors. Get the four-foot berm in
there. Get the six-foot fence in there. Get it in there so it’s congruent, so it’s
exactly the same, you don’t have these pieces and parts and patches.
Borup: You’re talking about the parcel down there – Eagle?
Hatcher: Exactly, that’s obviously nothing that’s in our control. I’m bringing it up
now because it’s an issue that’s going to come back to us on every project that is
development because we’ve got the next parcel then the next parcel. We’re
going to know these people, you know first name basis. Maybe we might have a
beer or two after or maybe we might have to be dodging bullets, I don’t know.
The point is, is can we take this particular issue, get it resolved through some
sort of means with the developer and the realtor and what not. Get them their
fence and get them their berm and be done with it. The Development
Agreement specifically states four-foot berm, six-foot wood fence. There’s not
going to be anything more than that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 83
Borup: As Commissioner Norton was pointing out, that property is owned by the
Highway District and that’s been part of the problem but –
Hatcher: Yes, is there anything somebody could do to go back to the Highway
District and get that last chunk of fence put in to match the rest of the
development? I think that the City, the developer and the realtor would have
enough clout to work some sort of agreement out you know with common – I
mean, an easement, a maintenance easement?
Borup: And that’s what it’s through worked out here. You’re talking about the
parcel that’s –
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Steele with W H Moore just got a hint and
maybe he’ll take it back to his boss and see what they can do. I think that’s
about all we can do at this point and hopefully go from there.
Borup: Yes, well said. That might – that may be something that could be
addressed on the next project. Is there someone else that would like to come
forward? We’re still taking public testimony.
Boyd: My name is Jim Boyd and I represent Magic View Partners. Back track a
little bit here, I think – and Brad correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t we required to
do the berm and the fence –
Borup: Yes.
Boyd: -- prior to start a construction.
Hawkins-Clark: Certificates of Occupancy. It’s tied to Certificates of Occupancy.
Boyd: So when we get an approval on something and start building something
than we will do that berm per that development agreement and build a proper
berm, put a fence on the top. That’s what we agreed to, that’s what we plan on
doing. Landscaping and we’ll deal with ACHD to do that landscaping on their
land when we do that. It’s not going to be the extent the Ameritel has proposed
because they’ve gone proposed going well beyond the normal standard to really
buffer away because of the three story that and the neighborhood. I might also
add that we talked about showing three buildings here and in fact of what
Jonathan was saying earlier when we first came before you we bought two five
acre pieces and the issue we were dealing with and many of you I’m sure
remember back because it all began back when the Chevron and the Credit
Union were coming in. There was discussion about this new loop road. There
were a lot of meetings held at ACHD with regard to that loop road and there are
some scenarios where the loop road would actually come in off of Eagle Road
and loop down between lot one and two. Brad you may want to show that up
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 84
there as where they originally had talked about it. We owned the land. Do you
have a pointer or anything? Right there, between the red and the blue. They
even talked about a concept that way, ACHD had. Then they talked about the
other concept which goes further over and then ties back into Allen Street.
There were discussions for months about what ACHD was going to do and there
was development coming. Some of the other parcels are currently built. The
two-story office building, Hubble Engineer got in before the road was put in. I
think the Holiday got their approval before hand so there was a lot of
development going on and getting going in that area. I think the City had talked
about – I know ACHD had talked about that whole area, see that whole
subdivision as a future and how are they going to get access out to Eagle Road.
The current Magic View Road was too close to the freeway to have a stop light at
Magic View. There were a lot of people including Jackson that wanted a
stoplight at Magic View. It was determined that they needed to use a current
stop light that St. Luke’s has and then tie this loop road in. We own a piece of
property, I can tell you if we would have come to you, to the City of Meridian we
could not have gotten a building permit to build a building because one of the
requirements was that road had to be put in because of all the future
development that was going to occur. We were in a hard stop and that’s the
reason Jonathan was the spokesperson for Magic View Partners that come in
here and in order to move the process along we had to come in with a concept
in order to get the road in. We had to come through the City of Meridian and go
through the steps and we did that. That’s the reason it was kind of nebulous and
–
Borup: I think we realize – appreciative Mr. Boyd and I think that information’s
probably helpful to a lot of the commissioners that weren’t here. We kind of need
to get back on – do you have any other testimony pertaining to the bank?
Boyd: No, just that we’ll finish off the berm and put the fence on. We want to be
at complete because it’s a project that we’re going to – we’re in for a building
permit on this building. We’re meeting the Zoning Ordinance requirements and
there’s nothing to bring before the Council so we want to have a well landscaped
buffered development.
Borup: Thank you.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup I think I’ve got a question before he leaves. How far –
to what extent to the east does your Development Agreement extend to?
Basically to the chain link fence?
Boyd: Our Development Agreement only covers the property we own and the
property we own would be the purple parcel and the parcel with the cross hatch.
Hatcher: Up to the chain link fence?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 85
Boyd: Right, up to the chain link fence?
Borup: Thank you, come on up.
Lloyd: Commissioners do I need to state my name?
Borup: Yes.
Lloyd: Okay, I’m Michael Lloyd again, 3091 East Autumn Way. I just wanted to
state for the record that you mentioned that some people were opposed to every
development and I want to say that for this particular development I believe that
this does meet the concept of the original Development Agreement. The one
story building next to the neighborhood. The only issue that I have that I believe
can be simply resolved is again the one with security. We talked again in the first
meeting about security of the bank. Of course with the ATM going in there and
that is the only thing that we did address because that’s the only thing different
about the Development Agreement. They told us the same thing about the
security cameras which I believe is very helpful. The only request that I have
and I don’t’ know how this could be done, I do have some proposals. Is that we
get a fence tall enough in there that somebody can’t easily climb it. You’re life is
I think based by your past experiences and I’m just going to be very quick here.
In a neighborhood that we lived in earlier we had a taller berm, a six foot berm
with fence just like the one they proposed right on the back of it. We continued
to have problems because we backed up to a street with kids that would jump
the fence. I remember one time in the middle of the night, there was some
commotion going on out there. There was some construction that they had
across the street on the church that they were building and I find a teenager right
in the back yard just hiding there behind the fence because the police had driven
down the street, caught them screwing around over in the construction site and
what do they do? Boom, right in my back yard. That happened to my neighbor
not less than three months after that point in time. What we did, because of
these occurrences is we got a dog and that solved the problem. The problem
with this development is that we can’t get a dog to put back there because of this
utility easement that runs from the irrigation ditch all of the way along there.
These are our homes. This is where the proposed development’s going to be.
Basically our concern is that someone can jump over there, use that as an
escape route, and hide there. I talked to Detective Crumb who’s in charge of
commercial basically neighborhood watch and commercial security indicated that
if somebody is going to basically do an ATM robbery on a drive up site they will
hide wherever possible right next to that site in a bush or behind the fence.
Again, I think this can simply be resolved by simply putting an eight foot fence
instead of a six foot that can’t just be easily jumped over and not a lot of expense
to the developer either. I would suggest that that be put in the – added to the
Conditional Use for this approval with respect to the variance itself (inaudible)
being applied for, for the ATM. Now you have a possible proposal for a fence –
well again something you can grab.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 86
Borup: Anyone else?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, if I can successfully complete the question.
Borup: Sure.
Nary: Can you put fence in your yard on your side?
Lloyd: What’s that?
Nary: You said there’s a ditch between where this berm and six foot fence is
there’s a ditch in there?
Lloyd: Yes, there’s an irrigation channel.
Nary: Okay so couldn’t you put a fence on your side of the ditch?
Lloyd: If I put a – within the other side of the easement so that they can have
access up and down there. I certainly can’t put an eight-foot fence because
that’s not allowed in a neighborhood use. I think I would have a hard time trying
to prove that before City Council.
Nary: You would have to put a six-foot fence?
Lloyd: Right and that’s why I have the proposal here that I believe does meet as
Planning and Zoning that would be six on the one side and eight on the
development side.
Nary: Mr. Lloyd, do you have a fence now on your side of the property I guess
that’s what I want to know?
Lloyd: On our side of the property we have basically a little four foot – it’s almost
like a wooden post fence back there.
Nary: Like a spud rail fence (inaudible)?
Lloyd: Yes, and that’s in – not on the edge of our property but inside that
easement even though our property goes all the way to the edge of that
easement.
Nary: Thank you.
Nielson: Joan Nielson I live at 3019 Autumn Way and I’ve lived there for 17
years. I also want to suggest that we have a more secure fence. A wooden
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 87
fence can break down. Also I’ve seen a dog over the fence, I could probably
climb over a wooden fence and this is behind the –
Borup: The six-foot fence?
Nielson: The neighbors dog does on the side without rails.
Borup: I would like to see that dog.
Nielson: This is the one that sits behind Crossroads Development and it is on a
berm and it is cedar or cinder block or something.
Borup: It’s not on a berm.
Nielson: That’s not a berm that is a berm?
Borup: Right there is but the fence is – the berm went up to the lawn. They built
the fence and then bermed it up so the fence got shorter.
Nielson: Questions?
Borup: Thank you anyone else? Did the applicant -- any other comments from
staff?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman (inaudible) point out two things the limited office and
residential zones are restricted to six foot unless variance is applied for. The
second thing, the development agreement we do – if you approve the conditions
as we propose them, we propose to change the development agreement so that
that berm and fence have to be constructed prior to issuance of the building
permit. That was a change that we recommended. Right now it would be
actually just occupancy so they could actually be doing construction work and get
it all done and then put the berm up before they get occupancy. The terms of
timing that’s in there.
Borup: Earlier I believe the applicant said they agreed with staff comments, is
that still the case?
McKinnis: Yes sir.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Brad what do you think currently is in there? What are
you planning on doing, changing the Development Agreement?
Hawkins-Clark: Right, that’s Page 3, we’ve got some suggested time frames that
are actually either non-existent or unclear in the development agreement and we
just wanted to clear those up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 88
Norton: So you’re talking about a?
Hawkins-Clark: A, right, 7a.
Norton: Could we also include in that for the applicant to seek a variance and
build an eight-foot concrete fence?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s a Conditional Use Permit you can flip whatever conditions
you would like.
Norton: How we do get more accompany to build that fence?
Hawkins-Clark: Actually the development agreement is signed with W H Moore
company not with – nonetheless. The responsibility on all of these Development
Agreement is conditions lies with W H Moore not with the bank.
Norton: Okay thank you.
Borup: Mr. Swartley, the Development Agreement is reached – attorney and City
Council (inaudible) that out. Do we even have any authority to discuss
Development Agreement?
Swartley: We can make a recommendation to City Council I believe but we can’t
change the development agreement no.
Borup: Did the applicant have any final words?
McKinnis: No sir that’s it.
Boyd: My name is Jim Boyd representing Magic View Partners. I would want to
go on record saying that we’re happy to build the four foot berm, the six foot
fence and do a good quality job. We don’t want to have to put a concrete wall up
if we can help it. It just doesn’t work for us.
Borup: Commissioner Norton a concrete wall on top of a berm does not work
structurally. You need to build a ten-foot wall and then berm it up to the wall
would be the only thing that would be practical to get that same effect. Anyone
else have any other questions or comments?
Hatcher: No.
Borup: Motion?
Hatcher: I motion that we close the public hearing.
Norton: I second it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 89
Borup: Motion second, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, if there’s no discussion on this application I’m ready to
make a motion.
Borup: If there is that can happen after the motion.
Hatcher: I make a motion that we recommend approval to City Council for CUP
00-049, request for Conditional Use Permit to construct Branch Bank with a drive
thru teller in an L-L zone by Mountain West Bank in the Magic View Office
Complex to include all of staff comments.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is second, any discussion?
Norton: Did you want more details – excuse me on the staff comments? Would
you mind if I amended your motion?
Hatcher: Go ahead.
Borup: Yes we’re open for discussion (inaudible).
Hatcher: You could recommend it.
Norton: Recommend an amendment to your motion to include the staff
comments in the staff comments from November 30. To amend on Page 3, --
excuse me let me start – to amend site specific requirements beginning on No. 7
and these would include the comment to Brad Hawkins-Clark dated January 18,
2001. To delete 7b of the November 30 comments, to delete 7c as written on
November 30 and to insert the words the Development Agreement requires that
any conflicting utility easement –
***End Of Side 6***
Norton: -- prior to submittal for a certificate of zoning compliance for the bank
and then just one other adjustment. Site specific requirement and November
13th
No. 2, the wording to include a sanitation sewer and water service to this site
will be provided via mains and services that were installed as part of the recently
complete St. Luke road extension project to include the following words, and
subject to latecomers fees.
Hatcher: Yes, I will take that to my motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 90
Borup: Mr. Swartley, any questions?
Swartley: (Inaudible).
Borup: Yes, essentially I think (inaudible) staff comments plus the staff memo
plus the verbal item on No. 5.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make one real brief comment because
some of these folks have asked about this fencing and all of that. We would look
absolutely ridiculous to hold these people to this agreement in eh prior project
and turn around to the next one and change it. It would be pretty silly for us to
do that and I don’t think we’re going to -- that wasn’t part of the motion so that
isn’t what we’re going to ask them to do. Partly because I agree with what you’re
saying, it’s that maybe it would be nicer to have something different than was
there. That’s why there’s a Development Agreement. Secondarily I don’t really
believe that that is an adequate for security for what’s going to be there. I don’t
think it would be fair to change it simply to be based on the fact they’re going to
have an ATM on the outside of the building. I don’t think it’s necessary to make it
more secure. You can wall it up, put barbed wire around it and probably be more
secure but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be better. I just wanted you folks to
understand you can’t have it all that sometimes you have to stick with what was
there and then (inaudible) I think that’s going to be adequate.
Borup: Thank you, call for the vote all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you, Commissioners thank you everyone for coming. We still
have a couple more items and if we think we can get through them quickly
Commissioners do we want to try to go ahead and get them off of the agenda?
Norton: Sure we just have one more though.
Borup: Right one more. I’m sorry we only have one more. Hopefully this should
be fairly simple.
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 00-023 Request for Preliminary
Plat approval for 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4
acres in an R-4 zone for Autumn Faire No. 2 by Gem Star
Properties – east of Black Cat and south of Ustick Road:
Borup: Item No. 9 is a Public Hearing. Request for Preliminary Plat approval for
30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres for Autumn Faire No. 2 by Gem
Star Properties. I would like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 91
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, this application,
Preliminary Plat for 30 building lots and 2 other lots, the actual boundary’s not
reflected on this vent map, but it is the second phase that is proposed as the
Autumn Faire Subdivision. The Sky Pilot Drain, I think, courses along this
direction, and it’s on the south side of that. The plat is shown here; they are
utilizing a stub street that was proposed in Autumn Faire No. 1 here. They are
also proposing the park which, as you probably recall, was much discussion and
involved a Development Agreement and tied to all the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Autumn Faire No. 1 in terms of phasing requirements and
that kind of thing. Our conditions were recommended in the December 7th
memo. There has been facts submitted today, I’m not sure if you had it in your
packets from Scott Stanfield from Earl and Associates regarding the Lot 19 –
let’s see, it’s – Item No. 17 on Page 4, it’s Lot 9, Block 18, and they have
submitted three different options of how a minimum 1400 square-foot house
could fit on that lot. We had some concerns about that, about the configuration
of that triangular lot there, right here at the corner, in terms of being able to meet
the minimum square footage house size on that. They have submitted three
different options of how to do that; so if you haven’t received that, I can give you
copies or just know that there are ways to get that.
Borup: We’ve got one.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Several of these conditions are tied over and slar to
Autumn Faire No. 1 in terms of the Latecomers Agreements. I don’t believe that
there has been any other changes that we’ve received to staff from the applicant,
so I would just end with that. Thanks.
Borup: Any questions of the Commission of staff?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, one thing that I just wanted to touch on briefly. We
talked a little bit at the hearing for Springdale about the ditch across the north of
Springdale. I was noticing in this Preliminary Plat that the ditch appears to be in
a different location than it was shown on Springdale. So, again, this points to our
Site-Specific Requirement in our new memorandum, No. 6, regarding this notice
specifically about the Sky Pilot Drain which is the one that goes diagonally
across the northeasterly boundary of this, but now I’m kind of wondering about
the ditch that’s going along the southern boundary as well. If you recall, the way
the contour shows in Springdale, it showed it making the corner and being fully
within the lots along the north boundary of Springdale, and in this plat, it shows it
making the bend and going across the southern edge of the lots in Autumn Faire
No. 2. The magic ditch: it moves.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Stanfield.
Stanfield: Scott Stanfield, Earl and Associates, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho,
regarding Gem Star. The contours that were on the other ditch, I’ve already
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 92
explained that. That’s not the ditch, that’s the contours that we picked up in our
topo. This, what you see there, is what is representative of what some of the
other testimony was that the ditch really is on the north side. We are going to
face the same issues on this particularly if this phase ever develops there in the
big open space you see there on the park. That’s where it’s really impacted.
We’re not planning anything for that area because we can’t get the sewer to that
location. Hopefully that addresses some of the concerns. Quick history on this.
We went to the Council with Autumn Faire No. 1 Preliminary Plat, if you will, the
Council, as a result of the park said, well, what are we going to have around the
park, get some lots around there so we don’t have a park in the middle of a weed
patch. We went back to the Engineering Department and said, is there enough
sewer capacity for this many lots, and then we went back for them, and there
was enough sewer capacity. We just ran out of grade right about where the last
lot on the south is, so that’s why it stops right there. So this is pretty much a
result of the Council’s wishes on Autumn Faire. It’s something that we really
didn’t plan. We could do originally, or you would have seen it with the first
Autumn Faire. I’m just going to skip over this letter real quick. Number 6; there
was a strikeout. This is a memo from City Staff dated June 29th
. Prior to
signature on the Final Plat has been stricken out, and then they request that the
City Council on the Preliminary Plat encroachment agreement, I have a copy of a
letter that we obtained late this afternoon from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
that addresses this. I don't believe that you have this in your packet because it
was rather late that we received it. It pretty much addresses the issue, and
something that I mentioned in Springdale, the second to the last paragraph in Mr.
Anderson’s letter pretty much states that you need final plans to do an
encroachment agreement, and obviously we cannot do one at the Preliminary
Plat stage, the Council level. Obviously we have to comply to their wishes again.
I hope that this letter takes care of it, and I want to thank Mr. Anderson
personally for taking care of that this afternoon for us. No really other issues on
Comment 13 regarding the block length. I think we’re both on the same page on
that item. Fourteen, staff requested some clarifications. The curb and gutter and
the land pretty much drains toward the Autumn Faire Subdivision, so we intend
on carrying it right over into the Autumn Faire, and then into this piping system
and into the extreme northwest corner of the triangle piece that you see, that’s
an open-space lot that’s preserved in Autumn Faire. That’s how we’ll take care
of the drainage. I know in the past people have tried to put drainage inside the
City parks and try to pull one over on the Parks Department, but Tom and I have
already talked about this, and he said if you want to, just keep us in the loop.
That’s not what we plan on doing. We plan on bringing it in the Autumn Faire
system and keeping it separate from the parks. No. 17 we took care of, 18 and
19 are oversights on our part: typos and not grabbing the street name from
Turnberry that little piece on the culdesac.
Hatcher: One question for staff. Typically in the past we haven’t allowed sewer
to be carried across ditches, but yet, here we are? Why? I’m just – we felt like
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 93
it? What was the – I mean, I know we’ve gotten beat up, we, up here, have
gotten beat up by you in the past trying to propose that. Yes.
Borup: Is this going higher than water level? The ditch? It’s going under.
Stanfield: No, there’ll have to be a culvert right there. This, the Sky Pilot will be
tiled.
Hatcher: It’s going to be tiled, it’s not left open?
Stanfield: No. Autumn Faire No. 1, it was required to be tiled, and we proposed
it to be tiled, and we clear it.
Freckleton: I can address that if you would like me to.
Stanfield: It’s always been open ditches (inaudible) carry them across.
Freckleton: Our facility plans have lines on them that show the service area.
Those aren’t chiseled in stone. If we can gravity-flow areas, we can do it. Scott
has talked to, had several meetings with Gary and Brad Watson and there were
some capacity issues, and Brad modeled this, and X-number of lots can go in.
So that was how we arrived at that.
Hatcher: I’m not – wasn’t too concerned with going out of our boundaries
because you know I was a proponent of Bear Creek. I was more concerned
about sewer over the ditch, but the ditch is tiled, so never mind.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, maybe because of the late hour, Mr. Stanfield, but on No.
17, tell me again how you’re going to top a 1400 square-foot house on that,
because in the picture it looks like it touches the property line.
Stanfield: Do you not have the three options?
Borup: We have the one option.
Nary: Right. That’s not a (inaudible)
Stanfield: Well, it was proposed one, but that’s not going to work.
Borup: Let me speak from experience on some of these lots. They’re tough.
Any reason you just couldn’t move that lot line over to the west eight feet?
Stanfield: Which lot line?
Borup: Between eight and nine? That would give you another eight feet on nine
and still –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 94
Stanfield: Let me pull out my blue line.
Borup: You’ve got an 88-foot lot here.
Stanfield: That’s no problem. Either-or.
Borup: I assume you can go with two-story home on there, too. You’re trying to
do it with a single-story?
Stanfield: Well, on the current layout is rather oddly shaped. We’ve proposed a
couple options not knowing which direction. We just wanted to show that there
are options. You’re right.
Borup: I mean, you can get a house on there, but it may turn out to be an ugly
house and may be real tough. When you’ve got a lot like that that’s going to sell
for less –
Hatcher: That’s what makes your and my job unique.
Stanfield: It’ll be the last lot to sell.
Borup: It depends on what price you put on it.
Nary: It’s going to have a trailer on it.
Hatcher: Make that a neighborhood park. Let’s do that.
Borup: Just to sell a lot like that, the price has to be a lot lower and then it’ll go.
I just thought that would be an easy solution, and the other lot is still a large lot.
There’s a little over 11,000 feet now. Okay. I didn’t mean to interrupt.
Nary: That’s a question, like I said, I heard Mr. Stanfield say. We’ve answered
the question, and I guess (inaudible).
Borup: Anyone else? So it sounds like you have no concern on any staff
comments?
Stanfield: I think I went through those, and I hope that you understand the
irrigation encroachment in the letter we have here.
Borup: I, too, probably have some of the same concerns with Mr. Freckleton on
that drainage ditch to the south. You don’t have anything to spare on those lots,
they’re both 100 feet on the whole subdivision.
Stanfield: We’re not seeking any variances.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 95
Borup: So that may restrict some building footprints on those lots.
Stanfield: Correct.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, when you’ve got lots that are backing up together and
they’re 100-foot in depth and you’ve got to squeeze a ditch in there, typically, and
what we’ve asked for in our comments is that Nampa Meridian, if they’re going to
grant an encroachment agreement, the lot lines be set at the encroachment
agreement therefore creating a common lot down through there where that ditch
is going to be. I don’t see how you can physically get an 8000-square foot lot in
there when you’ve got 200 feet of depth and you’ve got to squeeze a ditch in
between them.
Borup: I don’t know, unless it’s changed, but Nampa Meridian has given
encroachment agreements on lots in this situation. The ones I’m thinking of
were deeper than 100 feet.
Freckleton: If you get an encroachment agreement and your width of your
easement is only 10 feet, you’ve still got 90 feet of depth, and you’ve got 80-foot-
wide lots. You don’t have square footage. That’s our concern. He’s going to
lose lots and lots just aren’t going to work. This ditch needs to be accounted for.
Borup: Any comment on that, Scott?
Stanfield: Well, these are things that I’ve gone over with Mr. Anderson, and
that’s the result of the letter that you see before you, and that’s straight from him.
If you like we can step back and take another look at it. It’s completely up to you.
Again, this is something that we didn’t foresee until we went to Council with
Autumn Faire.
Borup: It sounds they’re wanting a maintenance road over the top of the tiling.
Was that talking about the Sky Pilot? And you’ve got plenty of room on Sky Pilot,
at least more room to do a 28-foot that he wanted? Right. You’ve got another 20
feet.
Stanfield: And there are things we could work out, but –
Borup: And how about the ones on the south?
Stanfield: The south, those are 100 feet, but in this instance –
Borup: And what size easement were there – irrigation running on those?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 96
Stanfield: That one would be -- how did he phrase it? That was the one that
came up in Springdale about 50 feet downstream to the left looking downstream
and 30 feet to the right.
Borup: Is it really 50 feet?
Stanfield: That’s what they’re – 45. And in this case, the uniqueness about this
is the same developer on both sides of that parcel. I think there are more
flexibilities and things we can do.
Borup: Have you any idea what size that tile’s going to take for that one?
Stanfield: I would hate to give you –
Borup: I would assume it’s a lot smaller than Sky Pilot.
Stanfield: Sky Pilot is a sub drain, and this is an irrigation lateral.
Borup: So it’s just providing water to properties downstream?
Stanfield: Correct.
Borup: You feel confident that you can comply with what Nampa Meridian wants
and still have a buildable lot?
Stanfield: I think we can. If we can’t, where does that leave us?
Hatcher: Redesign.
Stanfield: Redesign, correct. Resubmit design.
Borup: That’s on the staff comment.
Stanfield: We can’t have an encroachment agreement for the Council. Mr.
Anderson pretty much pointed out in his letter.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess that’s what I heard was really what Mr. Anderson
was saying that simply the encroachment on this change is saying signature on
the Final Plat is crossed out and the City Council hearing. That’s all he was
saying that he doesn’t want us to do. The other one, which I think hope covers,
and I think it does from which Bruce raised, like he said, he’s going to have to
comply, and if he can’t he’s going to have to redesign and they’ll have less water.
Borup: So that would change back to say prior to signature on the Final Plat?
Nary: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 97
Borup: Which is the original staff comment on that item? You’re saying that you
feel you can comply with all the original staff comments?
Stanfield: Right.
Borup: Anything else from the Commission? Thank you. I notice that we do
have a few more people here. Anyone have any other testimony that is here to
see how this works out? Okay. Thank you.
Hatcher: I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Okay, I was going to see if there were any final staff comments.
Anything final from staff?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, we hear the concern about the actual
encroachment agreement; isn’t that the agreement is sort of where the time-
frame problem comes in. It’s just impossible for them to do prior to City Council.
I don’t think the intent for us was to put them in a bind as Scott’s letter said, a
rock and a hard place. It was mainly, you know, you approve this plat, it goes to
City Council and City Council approves the Preliminary Plat, and for some
reason these lots are changed. It’s really a headache for everybody because
then you’re going to have to come back before us to really submit a whole new
Preliminary Plat application if it does modify. Maybe we can change the wording
instead of saying an actual encroachment agreement with NMID, and some kind
of commitment with NMID or something, a letter that clears this up prior to the
Council, but not an agreement, I guess.
Stanfield: That would work. The problem with the encroachment agreement,
they can’t do it without Final Plat and plans (inaudible) legal documents to.
Surely after this, if you choose to recommend approval to the Council before we
go to Council, and I just ask that we perhaps do our scheduling of the Council
meeting in conjunction with one another so they won’t get to Council and request
it tabled because we haven’t received anything from Nampa Meridian. Right
away we’ll get with them after this –
Borup: I’m sure staff will definitely work with that. It’s always easier to go back
than ahead. I think that would be appreciated if there is going to be a delay that
you’re anticipating rather than ask for it at the time of the meeting. I think that
makes sense to me. Good.
Norton: I was wondering if staff was working on wording on that.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, could I say – does this fit, what you’re asking for, Brad? It
says prior to the City Council hearing subject on the Preliminary Plat submitted
copy of comments from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District in relation to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 98
Encroachment Agreement needed into their easement? Does that cover what
you are asking? It sounded to me like you were wanting comments like you
would get from the Highway District, this is what we think, this is what it looks like
to us, this is what we would have to do, something like that. Some commitment
or some comment, is that right?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, I have to just keep belaboring this, but my concern
is there is an existing easement out there. The easement is not shown on the
Plat. We do not where it is. Typically when we have a Plat and this is the
situation, the applicant will go to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and try and
negotiate a reduction of the easement width or an Encroachment Agreement.
Nampa Meridian will very rarely reduce the width of an easement, they will leave
the easement where it is, but they will allow an Encroachment Agreement onto
that easement. So what we have done –
Borup: Especially if it has been piped. Is that true?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. What we have done in the past is we have said okay, the
lot line needs to be set at the easement line. If you get an Encroachment
Agreement, we will allow you to move the rear lot line to the Encroachment line.
You still have to have a common lot back there for the access to the pipeline that
is under ground. So I do not see anyway physically possible when you have a
block of lots that only give you 200 feet, you still have a ditch that you have to get
through there, and Nampa Meridian has to have an easement for that pipeline.
Now, if they agree to reduce the width of their easement via an Encroachment
Agreement, it will be less of an impact then it will be if it has to be the entire 50-
foot width or whatever the case may be, 45-foot width. These are all unknowns
at this point in time. We do not have a clue what they are going to do.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: So, let me put you on the spot then Bruce. Your recommendation is
denied until they bring this back with a little bit more detail because for one, I am
hearing you saying, and again I probably got it wrong. You are saying that with
only 100 feet on each side and the high likelihood that they are going to have to
have some sort of common lot maintenance road, something like that along this
line, there is not enough room to have 200 foot lots on each side of the ditch,
correct?
Freckleton: That is what I am saying, correct.
Nary: So your recommendation would be that we either table it or deny it
because it does not appear at this point in time physically possible to comply with
our plat requirements.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 99
Freckleton: Commissioner Nary, I believe that Scott could go and look into this.
I mean I think it is just some homework that needs to be done on this plat, and I
guess I would hate to see it passed on to Council and then have the bottom drop
out of this. Because of this issue, and then have it right back here again.
Nary: And it has been at least the last while that we have had – at least that I
have been here, this commission has tried very hard not to pass it onto the
Council and have it figured out later rather than figure it out now. Would that be
fair?
Freckleton: Yes, it would be. I mean it would be nice if we had the benefit of
120 feet or 130 feet deep lots here, but we are right down to the bare minimum
as it is.
Borup: The policy of having a separate lot is that within the last couple of years?
Freckleton: I was trying to think of the first project that we did that on.
Borup: Because I know other ones that have been approved with an
Encroachment Agreement and that the ditch was on the lot even though the
fence could not go back to the property line, but it was not a separate lot. Again
it was more than 100 feet deep though. So the effective use of the lot came out
– I have to go back and look, but you know 90ft or something.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup, I think it seems the solution or the action that this
commission needs is pretty obvious. Is that we postpone or table this for another
two or four weeks until the issue is resolved and an updated Preliminary Plat is
presented to us.
Borup: I would more comfortable before it goes to City Council. Scott, do you
see the concern there? Do you really have a solution – oh did we?
Nary: Yes we did.
Borup: Oh, I am sorry.
Nary: So that question is kind of rhetorical.
Borup: Yes, Commissioner Hatcher did you have a motion?
Hatcher: I motion that we reopen the Public Hearing –
Borup: I would like you to go ahead and make your motion.
Hatcher: What?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 100
Borup: I think we probably have enough agreement unofficially, that you could
go ahead and make your motion. I think it would be all right.
Hatcher: My motion would be to reopen the Public Hearing and table –
Borup: Oh, I thought you wanted to continue it for –
Hatcher: Well we have to reopen it before we can continue it.
Borup: Oh, I am sorry. Yes you are correct. Do we have a second?
Nary: There was no second. It is just lying here, but it is open.
Hatcher: Never mind the hearing is open. I motion that we table we PP 00-024 –
Norton: What a minute. Is the Public Hearing still open?
Borup: Yes, it is still open.
Stanfield: Obviously we have to table this because Mr. Freckleton shed some
light on it that I was unclear. I have seen several developments in recent ones
where they are 100 feet deep where there is an irrigation line in the back where
the fences go all the way past it. I know Nampa Meridian allows it, but Mr.
Freckleton did shed some light on it. So I think in light of that we have to table it.
I just think we need to give us enough time because Nampa Meridian is a judicial
–
Borup: How much time are you talking? I mean time is money and we would
like to work through this.
Hatcher: March 15, 2001 because March 1, 2001 is already full from what I
understand.
Borup: We would have room on the March 1st
for a short one. If February was
full, if it was a lengthy one we would not have room on March 1st
, for a small one
we would.
Stanfield: March 15, 2001 would give us all –
Borup: We are okay on the March 1st
agenda if you –
Stanfield: March 1st
will be adequate. If Nampa Meridian does not respond and
do not get it resolved, I will send you letter.
Borup: Early enough?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 101
Stanfield: Right, correct.
Hatcher: I motion that we continue PP 00-024 until our March 1st
meeting.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-023 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany
Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory
Road and west of Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to March
15, 2001
11. Public Hearing: CUP 00-052 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Residential Development in a proposed R-4
zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II
Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle Road:
Continue Public Hearing to March 15, 2001
12. Public Hearing: PP 00-024 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on 156.21 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by
Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of Eagle
Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 15, 2001
Borup: Items 10, 11, and 12, we have discussed it, but we have not made a
motion on those.
Hatcher: I motion that we continue Items 10, 11, 12 as it relates to Tuscany
Lakes to March 15, 2001.
Nary: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: One final motion?
Hatcher: I motion that close this Planning and Zoning meeting.
Nary: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1, 2001
Pg. 102
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK