2008 08-14 SpecialMeridian Plannin4 and Zoning Commission Special Meeting August 14, 2008
Special Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 14, 2008,
was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Michael Rohm, Commissioner Tom O'Brien and Commissioner Wendy Newton-
Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline, and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X David Moe -Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the special
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for August 15th and I'd like the clerk to
call roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda would be the option of the
agenda. Commissioners, there is no changes to the agenda, so could I get a motion to
approve the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have no Consent
Agenda tonight, so that takes care of that.
Moe: The next item -- before I get started on the public hearings for some of you folks
that have not been here before -- or if you have you have probably heard me say this
before, but I'll just give you somewhat of a rundown of how the proceedings will go this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special- Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 2 of 49
evening. I will open the public hearing on this evening and those hearings that we will
be looking for public comment would items four, five and six only. All others on the
agenda have -- all those public hearings have already been closed and we will do
deliberations beyond that. Having said that, once I do open the hearing, the staff will
give a brief overview of the project, giving the reasons for their findings and whatnot.
After that time I will request that the applicant come forward and they will be given 15
minutes to give their side of the hearing itself as far as what the staff comments were
and their reasoning for wanting to move their project forward. After that 15 minutes --
there are sign-up sheets in the back. I don't know if you have signed up for that, but all
the folks that have signed up in the back will be given three minutes to explain their
opinion of the hearing and whatnot. Once the sign-up sheet has been completed, I will
again, then, ask if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward
and speak and you also would have three minutes. Based upon the crowd this evening,
if there is a homeowners association that is here with a representative that would be
speaking for these subdivisions and whatnot, they would be given more time to speak at
that point. After the public's had their time, I will, then, ask the applicant to come back
up again and at that point give rebuttal to the comments that were made during the
public hearings. After that is done, then, the Commission, then, will deliberate and
make a decision.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-002 Request
for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map
by changing the land use designation for approximately 10 acres from Low
Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and Victory by
Rose Law Group -NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: AZ 08-010 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 3.75 acres from RUT and R1 to C-N zoning
district for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group -NWC of E. Victory
Road and S. Eagle Road:
Moe: So, having said that, I would now like to open the continued public hearings on
CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010 for the Eagle and Victory and ask the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you tonight
is a Comp Plan amendment request and an annexation request. The applicant's
proposing the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change it from low density residential
to a mixed use community designation for approximately 15.5 acres of land. The
annexation itself is primarily these three parcels located at the northwest comer of
Eagle and Victory Road and that area includes 3.75 acres. As you can see,
surrounding the site there are some built-out subdivisions. This is Woodhaven to the
north, as well as Thousand Springs Subdivision to the north. To the east is Thousand
Springs and some agricultural land. East of that -- or, excuse me. West -- excuse me.
West of that is agricultural and Thousand Springs. To the east of this is agricultural
RUT zoned property. And, of course, south of this is Medford Place, zoned R-8.
Currently this is what our Comp Plan looks like now. Again, you can see the low density
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 3 of 49
residential designation. If this goes forward with an approval, you could see down here
on this -- this area would change. Staff is recommending denial of the Comp Plan
amendment and the annexation request tonight for reasons being, one, if you look at
this current Comprehensive Plan map here you will see that there is a neighborhood
center here designated. Here is some opportunities for mixed use community on this
site to the east as well and, then, unfortunately, I don't have a blow up, but if you look at
this plan here you can see there is an abundance of commercial opportunities there
along Eagle and Overland Road. Here is the concept plan the applicant's proposed
tonight. Roughly, 20,000 square feet. Proposing -- they are proposing two drive-thru
businesses. One, obviously, will be a Walgreen's pharmacy. The other one is
proposed as a bank. Because they are within 300 feet of a residence, they will have to
go through CUP approval to get further development applications to get this approved
on this site. Access to this development is proposed. One right-in only from Eagle
Road and, then, the applicant is proposing a full access point here on Victory Road
roughly 300 plus or minus feet from the intersection. Also, if you note on the concept
plan here, this is how this intersection is supposed to be developed by ACHD in the
future. As Council -- as the Commission is aware, this won't happen until 2011. The
other thing that staff would like to point out is on the southeast comer the Commission
just forwarded on a recommendation of approval for a similar project with some drive-
thru businesses, a potential Walgreen's on that comer as well. So, staff feels there are
some opportunities already in this area that would allow for that. The other concem
staff had was on this submitted concept plan currently the applicant is not proposing any
pedestrian or vehicular connectivity. We just adopted some new code requirements
that require that -- that requires that connectivity. Of course, the Comp Plan also states
in our mixed use language that if you're going to have neighborhood commercial you
should provide that connectivity with the adjoining neighbors and at this time the
applicant hasn't provided that on this site. Again, the landscaping and elevations were
not submitted for staff to review either, so staff doesn't really have a clear vision on how
or if this would blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has received quite a
few comments on the project. Just prior to last week's hearing we received 27
signatures, a petition in denial of the project. And as of today staff received five more
letters of written testimony from neighbors in the surrounding neighborhoods, also
asking for denial from the Commission tonight. Again, staff is recommending denial of
the CPA and annexation request and staff will stand for any questions Commission may
have.
Moe: Are there any questions of staff at this time?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. State your name and
address for the record.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Shawn Nickel.
Address 6223 North Discovery Way in Boise, Idaho, here tonight representing seven
property owners and a development company. We are requesting, as staff indicated, a
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 4 of 49
Comprehensive Plan and also we have annexation and a zoning request for three of the
properties that are within that Comprehensive Plan amendment. As staff has indicated,
the Comprehensive Plan for this area shows quite a lot of medium density residential
surrounding this -- I call it an island, because it really is an island surrounded by higher
density residential and with a mixture of medium density residential. Medford Place is a
four-plex development and as staff indicated, Woodhaven, Thousand Springs, and
those -- and Tuscany to the south. Staff has indicated in their report that this proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment is not in the best benefit of the city. The purpose
statement for the mixed use areas states that the designation will provide for a
combination compatible land uses developed under a master or conceptual plan. The
purpose of this designation is to identify key areas which are either in-fill in nature or
situated in highly visible or transitional areas of the city where innovative and flexible
design opportunities are encouraged. Bill, could you change the slide, please. Could
you go one more time? Those three points that were part of the purpose statement, the
in-fill, the high visibility and transitional areas, and the innovative and flexible design, all
apply to this property and these seven -- these seven properties that are part of this
amendment. To the north of these properties is a 15 foot imgation easement that pretty
much separates this -- these properties from the development to the north.
Unfortunately, when Woodhaven and Thousand Springs were developed, there was no
consideration for these properties given and, therefore, no stub streets, no pedestrian
connections or anything as part of those developments and so when I -- when I say this
is an island, it really is kind of a low density island with individual single family houses
that are directly accessing an arterial roadway. In the stated goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, as part of staffs recommendations, they present the following:
No provided pathways or vehicle connections to the adjacent properties. And, again,
unfortunately, there was no allowance for that to the north. However, staff will -- change
the slide again. Thanks, Bill. This is a concept plan that we have -- that we are
providing. This is based on staffs analysis and recommendation. So, what we have
done is we have made sure to insure the city that -- and, again, the annexation and
zoning is only for this portion of the property right there, but when we originally met with
staff, they thought it appropriate to bring in all these properties as part of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, instead of piecemealing them or further leaving
another island in here, just to focus on this comer. So, the main changes that we have
that we are -- we are showing a commitment to those cross-accesses for vehicle cross-
access and circulation to the west and we would agree to dedicate cross-access
easements across our property. In addition, we have provided -- we can hardly -you
can't really see it on this site plan, but the existing sidewalk comes in front of
Woodhaven right here and, then, our plan on the annexation portion is to provide a
pedestrian pathway along the north boundary that will stub here and, then, with across-
access easement, continue that concept through here. Obviously, the sidewalk along
our portion of the annexed property and, then, again, the cross-access and pedestrian
concept throughout that -- throughout that whole area to provide that -- that connection
that staff said that we originally - we originally left in our first plan. And, again, we have
gone through ACHD. They have approved aright-in only on Eagle Road. They did not
feel it was appropriate to have aright-out due to the distance between the intersection
and our northernmost portion of that property. We have agreed with that. They have
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 5 of 49
also provided us with a full access that will align with this property over here. I believe
their future intention is that once the properties to the west redevelop, cross-access is
granted and gained, that a future full-time full access will be right here about mid section
of that -- of these properties and aligning with that Tuscany access point. Right now this
-- this would -- it meets -- it's been approved by ACHD. It meets their policy. It would
probably become right-in, right-out at some point once the access to the west was
gained. Staff also indicated under the transitional use -- transitional uses are
encouraged through the Comprehensive Plan, because the area to the -- to the north
and surrounding residence uses are low and medium density, higher density at the
comer of Medford Place with the four-plexes, we believe that given the fact that there is
-- that these properties can no longer -- and you will hear some testimony from those
neighbors when they come up, but these properties are no longer suitable for residential
as they are today. That a low density designation is not an appropriate designation at
this time and that's one of the reasons we are requesting a change to the
Comprehensive Plan. And with regards to the variety of commercial and retail
opportunities, it is stated that the current mixed use designations are to the east. Large
commercial developments on Overland and Eagle Road. Staff, can you change the
slide? Actually, go back to that one, please, Bill. One up. The other way. Stop right
there. Sony. Thanks. This slide (right here indicates the nine existing access points
that are currently on these properties accessing Victory Road. So, as you can see, if
these uses were to stay single family, we have nine separate access points coming out
to Victory. Our proposal again -- and a responsible build out of this area would
eliminate the majority of those access points and the functionality of Victory Road would
be maintained. Or the future functionality of Victory Road will be maintained. Okay. Bill,
forward, please. The other direction. That right there shows the -- again, the cross-
accesses that we would establish with this one right here and, then, those access
points. One more forward, Bill. Again, this is the annexation and conceptual site plan
that is part of the annexation request. I wanted to point out that one of staffs comments
with regard to buffering and transition to the north -- and I do want to point out that there
is a 15 foot wide existing canal easement on the north side of all these properties going
from intersection to the west that provide a natural permanent buffer in addition to what
landscaping that we would provide within our site as part of the buffer requirements of
the city code. So, in all you're going to end up with about a 40 foot wide buffer. Fencing
or wall would be provided, as far as -- in addition to landscaping, trees, a berm and,
then, that setback, that all provides that transition. If you could go one more, Bill. And
that's a little different look with the -- the existing aerial underlaid, just to show how that
-- how the -- the existing houses and, then, the transition to the future buildings on this
portion. And, again, we would continue that concept all the way to the west. One more,
please. This is across-section showing what it would look like at that northern property
line with that -- with that buffer. The property line with the wall or fence, the berm, and,
then, a dedication to the lighting, make sure that the lighting does not -- does not bleed
into those -- into those properties. That's all part of -- it will all be part of a future
Conditional Use Permit if we move any further forward, we would come back with a
Conditional Use Permit because of the drive-thru uses that are proposed with this. So,
you will be able to get more specific on all the details of this -- of this concept plan that's
in front of you. Bill, one more. That's a picture of that 15 foot buffer, so this is the north
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 6 of 49
boundary of the properties I represent. This is the south boundary of the lots in
Woodhaven and Thousand Springs and that easement. Again, Bill. Okay. You can
back up. Okay. Thanks. So -- song, Bill. One more time. Can you go back to the very
first slide? Right there. That will work. Thank you. So, as staff has indicated with the
-- the amount of existing mixed use in the area, I do want to point out the Silverado and
EI Dorado developments that are up here -- keep in mind those are mixed use regional
and as we go along in the years and see how those are developing out, those are more
of -- the majority of those are destination type of commercial. Call centers, hotels,
engineering firms and the like. Those are commercial uses and mixed uses that are
drawing from the whole valley. People are coming from -- from outside the Meridian
area to go to work at those places. What we are proposing here and what we proposed
two years ago on this side over here is community mixed use that's going to provide
neighborhood and community services to the residents that are in this area right here.
As you can see -- one more slide forward, Bill. You can see this slide right here
represents all of the existing -- and, then, these little hatched areas here are all the
proposed and approved preliminary plats of all the residential developments that are in
this area compared to the small amount of service, mixed use, and commercial that is
actually provided if you take into consideration that Silverado and -- or EI Dorado and
Silverstone are -- are that regional quality. Staff has indicated there is a neighborhood
center designation right here. There is also one over on this side. And staff can correct
me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this area right here has been approved. There a very
small amount of commercial that is actually approved with that and the majority of it was
residential. I just -- it's my opinion and the opinion of some of the other developers in
the community that those mid block commercials are -- they are just not embracing
those mid -- those mid mile commercial designations at this time, because you're not
really seeing those develop too much. So, again, we are proposing -- we actually have
a use that wants to go here. We are proposing this area to -- to that service mixed use,
such as you see on the east side. And, then, staff goes into an analysis of the site -- of
the site plan, the concept plan. I have already addressed the cross-access. Again, our
commitment to those cross-accesses and to those access points. We have provided
some elevations and if staff wants to go forward to the very end of my presentation, I
think I have one elevation there that -- and, again, this is not necessarily part of the
Comprehensive Plan discussion, although it -- it's related. If you guys feel that you
need more detail, more elevations, the annexation and zoning portion of this application,
we can definitely present more information for you if you -- if you so desire. I also want
to point out that Victory Road is currently a three lane -- three lane roadway in front of
all of these properties where we are proposing access, so there is a two travel lanes
and, then, a tum lane in the middle. So, staff has indicated that there is a delay in that
construction of the intersection of Victory and Eagle until I think 2011. The roadway in
front of these properties we do have sufFcient circulation and roadway pattern right now
and, then, in 2011 that whole intersection is going to be -- going to be redesigned,
hopefully.
Moe: You need to finish up, please.
Nickel: Yes. With that I will stand for questions. Thank you.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 7 of 49
Moe: Any questions of the applicant?
O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chairman.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: Yeah. Shawn, on -- you say that that's already a three lane roadway at
Victory?
Nickel: On the west side of Victory from Eagle Road it is three lane to the west, I
believe until the Tuscany access and, then, it goes back down to -then, it goes back
down to two. So -- you can go to the one aerial, Bill. Right there. So, what I'm saying
is in front of this -- in front of these properties it is -- actually, it's tapered down right
about here after where our access point would be. So, yeah, this is three lanes along
this stretch right here. I don't know how far down it goes before it goes back.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
Moe: First person on the sign-in sheet is Rex Young. When you folks come up,
please, state your name and address for the record, please.
Young: My name is Rex Young. My wife Marla and I live at 2950 East Victory Road,
Meridian. When you look at the map up here, our property is located where the numeral
four is on the map. We are directly across from the entrance to Tuscany Lakes off
Victory Road. We moved to this location to take advantage of country living and we
have lived there now for a little over 37 years. I still remember the first night that we
spent there, the next morning I got up and went out to get my newspaper and
something seemed strange. Part way back I remembered what it was. It was so quiet.
It's not so anymore. Over the years we have observed many changes. At the time of --
that hearings were held for Thousand Springs Subdivision, we had some concems.
Those concems were resolved by restricting to single stories those homes that abutted
our properties and by the lots being made larger, transitional lots, as required by the
Comprehensive Plan that was in effect at that time. During the hearing process before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, one of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners
told me, after -- or during my testimony, he said, Mr. Young, whether you like it or not,
one of these days your property is going to be commercial. When Woodhaven
Subdivision hearings were held, we had some of the same concems. We given no
concessions for larger transitional lots and restrictions were not made requiring single
story homes on lots that abutted our properties. In fact, the largest lot in Woodhaven is
smaller than the smallest lot that abuts our property in Thousand Springs. Now, when
I'm working in my garden area, I have an unrestricted view no longer of the mountains,
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 8 of 49
but the back side of a two story home and we all know how unattractive the back side of
some homes can be. When Tuscany Lakes Subdivision -- or Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision across Victory Road to the south of our property. During those hearings I
had violently objected to the placement of the entrance and exit road into Tuscany
Lakes. I suggested that it be moved to the west and aligned With Brandys Jewel, which
is the entrance and exit road from Thousand Springs. That would permit them to shave
off the hill and improve the safety of that intersection and at a future date when the
school was completed, install a traffic signal. I was given no consideration on my
objection. Now, I can sit in my -- in front of my kitchen window during the hours of
darkness and as I look out at that window, I have an unrestricted view of vehicle after
vehicle, their lights flashing on my kitchen window as they make left turns onto Victory
Road. To the north of our property is the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easement
and Mr. Nickel showed you a view of that easement, which is behind the property that
they intend to develop and I've got a couple of photos here that I want you to take a look
at. This was taken kind of from the center of my property looking to the east and also
looking to the west.
Moe: You need to wrap it up, sir.
Young: When -- when I measure the distance across that -- he says it's 15 feet, but
according to my measurements at the back of my property it's about 30 feet of distance
between us and where their property fence lines would be, which would help reduce any
adverse impact upon them. One comment that I want to make. A lot of the people who
live to the north of us have made comments that the reason they bought their homes
was that they wanted to look at our trees and I have got some nice trees on my
property. Some of those same people to the north that want to look at my trees, use
that as a target when they discharge their illegal fireworks around the Fourth of July.
And some of those same neighbors to the north of us, they like to throw their garbage
across the fence into that easement and I frequently have to go out there and pick it up.
With the high cost of fuel --
Moe: Mr. Young, you were given three minutes you have gone way past that, so you
really need to wrap it up fairly quickly, please.
Young: Yeah. I certainly will. With the high cost of fuel, we would certainly welcome a
Walgreen's in our neighborhood. I am sure it would save us from many six mile round
trips to secure prescriptions and other miscellaneous items. I believe that the best use
of our property would be to approve this mixed use designation and we recommend
such, because as all these events have unfolded, our property has become less and
rest desirable for residential purposes. Thank you. Do you have any questions of me?
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 9 of 49
Rohm: Thank you for that testimony, though. That was a -- you did a good job.
Moe: Next on the list is Vem Irwin.
Irwin: Yeah. My name is Vem Irwin and my wife Jean Irwin and I live at 1803 Primrose
Drive in Nampa, Idaho, for one reason - I bought that whole comer there, the whole
piece that's in question I used to own. I farmed the whole 40 acres when I was there
and that property -- the reason I live in Nampa now, because -instead of there is
because the traffic and everything else and all them houses was built in behind me that
I had no say so to why they were there or if I could stop them. When I moved there it
was a gravel road and I could ride my horses up and down the road, but, then, they
paved it and that took away that privilege. And, then, the taxes had gone up so much --
Ijust own the comer, number nine right now, and I got my tax assessment this year, I
called the tax assessor and he wanted to -they figured on raising it a considerable
amount and I asked him how come they -- why they thought they could justify raising it,
he says, well -- I says because it's zoned RUT. And he says, well, you know, it should
be commercial. I says, yeah, but it isn't, so you got to tax it as what it's zoned today, not
what the future might be. And he says, well, let me go out and take a look at it and I
says would you buy that property and build a house on it and he says, no, I probably
wouldn't. And says, well, I don't think anybody else would either, because we used to
have accidents on that comer that rolled almost to our house and we were set back
from the house and so he went -- he went out there and took a look at it and he says,
you know what, he says I think I'll just leave the tax the same as it was last year, which I
thanked him very much for, because I didn't want to pay the increased taxes. But the
neighbors on the -- the neighbors on the north, the ones that are objecting to it, I didn't
have any say so when they moved in there or not and so you -- there is two things that
are fairly primary in -- in real estate and that is growth and change. You're going to
have that whether you like it or not. So, this is just a process of that -- of those two
things, growth and change. When we moved there in 1958 there wasn't much there.
Other than the house on each comer -- I mean to the other comers, the next closest
house was a quarter mile away and we kind of liked that. But that's why I'm not there
now, because I don't like living in a congested area and I think the highest and best use
for that property, even though your -- your biggest opponents of this property -- or this
change is the one on the southeast comer and -- and they don't want that property to
go, because -- to mixed use, because they want theirs already, which is already, I
understand, been approved and they don't want any possibility of a tenant being stolen
from them to go over there. So, you know, you can't -- you can't control growth to a
point. But I think the highest and best use of that property is mixed use commercial
and, you know, the staff, they have got their personal feelings and I think they ought to
put their personal feelings aside and approve it for this request. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Wendell Jeffries.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 10 of 49
Jeffries: My name is Wendell Jeffries and I live at 3130 East Beamer Court. I am the
secretary for the Woodhaven Neighborhood Association and am speaking on behalf of
the association. We have submitted petitions earlier to the Commission --
Moe: Mr. Jeffries?
Jeffries: Yes.
Moe: Is there anyone in the audience that you're speaking for that could identify
themselves?
Jeffries: I don't know if anybody -- Mr. --
Moe: Raise your hand if he is speaking for you. Okay.
Jeffries: Okay. Our subdivision consists of about 29 homes. We submitted a petition
that was signed by virtually all of the homeowners in the subdivision opposing this
development. The only ones that hadn't signed it are ones that I couldn't get ahold of,
out of town people, people on vacation. The -- some of the concerns we have are the
traffic access into this area, as most of the people know, this area is very congested
already. That's one of the reasons why ACHD wants to widen it to a five lane road on
Eagle Road to handle the traffic. Putting more commercial into that area will only
increase traffic into that area, whether it's just a store or seeing their development plan,
they have got other businesses and everything in there that are going to increase the
traffic. There is also issues as far as the access off of Eagle Road. The only thing they
have is they right turn only access coming in, which will help the people coming in from
the north, does nothing for the people coming in from the south, east, or west, so that
traffic is all going to be diverted onto Victory Road and will have to come into the
development from that area. And I sympathize with the homeowners that are in this
area and they want to get out of this mainly because it's not the way they remember it
and everything. We are trying to take of care our residential area -- it's developed into
residential all around the development and to put commercial in between residential to
the south, to the north, and to the east does not seem to be the best use of that area.
We recognize something's going to happen. I think -- if staff will move back a little bit to
the street map of the area and join -- our subdivision consists of Moon Dipper, Reamer
Court, Hood Ranch, and Crater Place, which are just to the north, occupying about two-
thirds of this proposed development. If you look at that, the number of homes that are
in there and the amount of area that's in the proposed area, there is probably more
room in that area for homes than there is where Woodhaven is right now. So, to say it's
not conducive to residential I think is misleading. You could develop that area into a
residential with some berms on the roads. The -- most of the homes in Woodhaven that
border this development are two story homes looking out over this area. The developer
has indicated that they would plant trees along that area. That's good. Fifteen years
down the road when the trees get mature. What about for the first 15 years when we
have got lights out there, two story homes looking out on a commercial development
with lighting and everything else 24 hours a day. That's going to be an issue. Probably
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 11 of 49
decline some of the values of the homeowners that live in that area. We also have
concems about the noise from the businesses in that area. As you noted from the
earlier map, the drive-thru accesses for the two businesses, the Walgreen's and the
bank, are on the subdivision side, not on the Victory Road side, so that traffic is going to
be coming through, the speakers from those drive-thrus are going to be echoing back to
the north. So, those are some of our concems. The developer earlier indicated that
roads around there are three lane. They are, actually, two lanes at the intersection of
Eagle and Victory and that will not change for three more years. Eagle Road is three
lanes just before Moon Dipper and that's the street that enters our subdivision. Victory
is three lanes up to about where this commercial development starts, then, Eagle to the
south and Victory to the east are both two lane roads. So, there are no real three lane
roads at that intersection.
Moe: Mr. Jeffries, you need to conclude.
Jeffries: The last item that we have more of a technical issue is the posted notice for
the property indicates that it is 15 acres and I notice in the agenda for this meeting it
indicates that we are considering approximately ten acres and so the posting on the
public notice on the property we feel are misleading as far as the number of acres .that
this development entails. It also does not indicate exactly how much of that
development is going to be commercial. It says the northeast comer of -- or the
northwest comer Eagle and Victory. That's what this whole development is. So, how
much of that is commercial versus the whole project. So, with those items we have a
technical objection to the proposal.
Moe: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Rohm: I just have one.
Jeffries: Yes.
Rohm: You heard a couple of the other testimonies before you that are property owners
as part of this development. It seems to me that had your development not occurred,
then, there wouldn't have been the issue for them to not be able to develop at this point
in time. So, it -- so, it seems to me like if one is allowed, certainly the other should be
considered.
Jeffries: Yes. And we realize that that area is probably going to develop into
something. I'm not sure that commercial is the right type of development for that area.
Some of the other areas like to the east of Victory -- or east of Eagle Road has been
proposed as low density office buildings, things like that. I think something like that
might work in that area, have less impact on the homes around it. Commercial, I think,
is going to have a more negative impact on the remaining homeowners that are around
there.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 12 of 49
Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Next on the list is Jim Allen.
Allen: My name is Jim Allen. I live at 3040 East Victory, Ada County. We are still Ada
County. Thank you. When we moved there about 20 years ago, I had three neighbors.
Two of them are here now. The third one is down about there. We moved from Kuna
20 years ago. A subdivision was built around us. A subdivision is built around us again.
Is it time to move? It might be. What I can see, as far as the ground, there is always
going to be kids being bom, there has got to be some place for the kids to grow, there
has got to be someplace for development to support the kids. You might be able to
control some things with kids, you can't control others, because there is going to be
more kids. You can control the development as to how you see the best usage of it. I
think the best usage for my piece of property, which is one with the cul-de-sac that has
the V at the top just south of Carter. Would probably be a mixed use. Not necessarily
commercial, but mixed use. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much. Next on the list is Barbara Marquart.
Marquart: Hi. My name is Barbara Marquart. I live at 3100 East Victory Road, which is
with these neighbors and all of the issues that have been addressed to you this
evening. And as you visit our neighborhood I think we have all come to the conclusion
that it's changed. Now, I guess the challenge is to best see how we can improve that
area and not leave these residential homes to simply act as a buffer to the subdivision
that moved in around us. What is needed are ways to protect the neighbors and
address their concerns and also to allow that property on Victory to transition to new
growth issues, which are a part of your Comprehensive Plan. I wish our property was
like it was when we moved there and the neighborhood had not changed. We loved our
open fields, the deer, the pheasants, the quail and the sunsets that weren't obstructed
by two story homes. Those days are gone and now we see a need for change to that
area and the best use would be for it to be a transition into your Comprehensive Plan
that becomes probably not commercial, but a mixed use property and not keep those
homes in a residential area that were appropriate years ago and certainly not today.
Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you. Next on the list the Bob
Aldridge.
Aldridge: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Bob Aldridge, 3300 Falcon
Drive. I'm to the southeast of this area. The whole essence of a Comprehensive Plan
is to control growth. Is to channel where things are to go. I have been here far too
many times now as we looked at the east side of this Eagle Road situation going to the
north. We have now approved well over 20 acres, not counting the Easy Jet area, of
commercial use in this area, that will develop. This is supposed to be a neighborhood
area. I'm afraid it's going to turn into another Overland and Eagle. We are currently two
lane roads in that area. At the last hearing this Commission properly said that the
access on Eagle Road for the division at the southeast should be single and should be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 13 of 49
moved away from the existing areas. We have to control this area. I agree that this is
going to change. I have been there for 25 years. I intend to stay for awhile. But I want
to be able to drive through that intersection without fear for my life. The problem is
going to be what is the best use for that area and right to the south of that is a very
probable use for that. That was approved because that comer is one that doesn't work
well with straight residential, because it's going to be next to a five lane road one of
these days. They did a good job of internalizing coming from a different direction and
having high density residential. This is not transitioning, because you have residential
to the north, to the south, to the west, et cetera, that the transition is to have different
kinds of residential in there. You have properly, I think, segregated the commercial
usage on the east side and that will continue, that will allow some control of that, it will
allow you to control access on that. If we place this into a more commercial area, you
have abandoned the whole concept of the neighborhood division. I think the idea of
putting things in mid sections is going to take some time. It's going to have to be
pushed. It's going to have to be held to. And if that concept continuously gets chipped
away at, those central half mile areas are not going to work, because you allowed too
many commercial comers to develop. That destroys the whole reason for the half -- the
half mile comers. I think simply in this case there is plenty of commercial in this area. It
will develop. The real problem is that even though you're doing a Comprehensive Plan
change for ten and a half acres, despite the sign is 15.5, all that we see before us with
any kind of guarantees is a small comer section on a two lane road with a do not access
across that, it's far too close to the intersection, with no guarantees down the road, that
same developer or somebody that you can control access with, comes in and you can
control what happens, more that to another area. You have to deal with what's here.
It's simply premature. If when the entire area is ready to develop, when they have had
the entire plan in place, that's the time to approve all of this. Doing it as a unified whole
and planning out what's the real uses are and, then, setting proper controls.
Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, Mr. Chair, I have one.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Aldridge, did you -- you state that we need to give the center --
neighborhood centers a chance to -- for the idea take hold, but did not you benefit from
getting your comer --don't you own the comer on the southeast side?
Aldridge: I do not own that comer. I'm the land owner to the southeast who is coming
in saying, please, buffer it. Please, hold down the access, so I can get out of Falcon
Road.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Aldridge: I don't -- but all from that comer. I think my statements in the prior meetings I
wish everybody would go away, just like the -- just leave me alone.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 14 of 49
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That was my mistake. I had -- I had thought you --
Aldridge: No. I appeared in support of that, because there the landowners or the
principal developers did an excellent job of working with surrounding and buffering,
changing and this Commission I think took the final step by changing the access on
Eagle. That's a proper way to do this. And this is not being done in this case, it's being
done piecemeal.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks.
Rohm: Well, now I have a question.
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: As you stated, we made the changes on that previous parcel to the southeast
comer. How would you suggest ingress and egress to this property, whether it's mixed
use or otherwise now -- is before us this evening. They suggested right-in, right-out
only off of Eagle and --
Newton-Huckabay: Right-in only.
Rohm: Yeah. Right-in only. Excuse me. And how would you view -- how would you
say it should be accessed?
Aldridge: Commissioner, if I were king for a day, I guess, and trying to design this
project, what I would look at -- there is access coming through the back of Thousand
Springs, coming into the back of this project and on the west end of that project. When
you have the entire project in place, you can have access that comes in not directly off,
you can have access coming in down further that lines up with Tuscany. The problem is
right now you have no guarantee of that. The only access that's being provided is far
too close to the intersection, with no guarantees it can be moved. And staff property
pointed out in its report that they would want to have that either closed completely or
turned into a right only down the road, because you have no guarantee in doing that.
So, you have got to figure out some way that you take this away from intersection as far
as access and that can be done in two ways. One, going further west, just as on Eagle
Road you go in from the north to get away from other roads. And, number two, having
cross-access, access coming in from the Thousand Springs area, so the people e
especially if it's residential, because that and it gets rid of this problem of commercial
usage that conflicts. What I'm afraid of is with this kind of access, especially when it
turns into five lanes, if you come out to that and you're sitting there trying to get onto
Eagle Road, and you're looking at five lanes of traffic, you come clear across on that
with the intersection now stop lights, people coming through at speed, you're going to
immediately look and say the way I'm coming out is is to go back out, go through
Thousand Springs, come around out to Eagle Road and, then, come south and you're
going to have a heavy amount of commercial traffic exiting through a residential area. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 15 of 49
think that's one of the reasons why Thousand Springs and the other subdivisions there
are as concerned as they are. We have seen that happen in other areas here in
Meridian and it's been, frankly, a disaster for those neighborhood areas.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? No? Okay. Next on the list would be Dave Marquart.
D.Marquart: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Change is --
Moe: Name and address.
D.Marquart: Dave Marquart. Thank you. 3100 East Victory, Meridian. This is not --
Bill, could I have another -- or Anna. Thank you. There we go. My home is located
right here. One of the nine different kinds of entrances into this piece of property.
Change is inevitable. We see it every day. Every day. Some of it's good. Some of it's
planned and some of it's not. I have lived on this property for many years now. Not as
long as others in this area, but -- and I have seen the change happen. Some of it's
been good. Some it's not been good for me. I have had the opportunity to testify at
both Thousand Springs and Woodhaven's proposals. I was not in favor of nor against
either one. I just wanted to make it better for us. It was going to go into the City of
Meridian, we were in Ada County, and we knew that eventually we would become
Meridian and we wanted to make it the best - I wanted to make it the best that we could
in that change for the city when they took it over. Well, it's coming to that soon and this
may be that time. Well, change is coming again to this particular piece of property and
to my wife and I. Seven of us live in this small strip of land that you can see listed here
and we are surrounded by the city and you could call it an island and I don't know,
someone ahead of me did, but it's -- it is surrounded by city all the way around us and
so we are sitting there in the plan right now with RUT, R-1 s and large residential --
excuse me -- area. Well, here is the opportunity for us to fix that. Now, there may be
some challenges in terms of access, but I think the developer has given you the
reasons why they can live with that and, apparently, the person who was willing. to
purchase this is willing to live with that, too. So, it's I think not necessarily a good thing
for us to ask for where the road access is to be if it's not on Eagle, because the build up
is totally to the north. You can't punch roads through that. The only other place you
have besides Victory Road is Brandys Jewel to the far west and, then, you need that
conductivity and that's not what we are here for tonight. We can plan for that. One last
thing that I might say is when Woodhaven was developed and came through this group,
back behind us to the north, that is R-4s. This is R-8s. And so you are transitioning into
this particular area in here. You have made your plans and it's planned well and I am in
support of this Comprehensive Plan adjustment -- amendment. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much. Questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 16 of 49
Moe: Next on the list is Teddy Hepper.
Hepper: Hi. I'm Teddy Hepper. I live at 3130 East Victory. I'm the comer closest to
the traffic and I was raise on the southeast comer, so I know that area really well. And I
bought that comer kind of for sentimental reasons, but I knew when I bought there I
would probably have ten or 15 good years and it would be commercial. I run a little
rescue ranch. I have sheep and cats and dogs and help with the Humane Society and
it's turned into a nightmare with the Fourth of July, the traffic, the neighbors, it's just not
a residential place anymore. It needs to be mixed use commercial, something. for them
to say -- to redesign it and make it residential. Someone needs to come spend a
Saturday night there, because the traffic from the races -- everybody thinks that's the
comer to take off, you know. My bedroom rumbles and things fall off the wall. I mean
it's really a commercial comer. So, I'm in favor of it getting changed to mixed use.
Moe: David Currier.
Currier: David Currier. I live at 3130 East Victory with Ms. Hepper. Basically,
everything I was going to say has just about been said, but I would like to reiterate
about the noise. The house is situated right there and that comer with the Harley
Davidson motorcycles, the construction vehicles, the semi diesels, everything going
through there, is just -- it is a nightmare and things do fall off the wall and it's just -- it's
very hard to sleep there. I can't understand how -- if you were to put houses in any of
this particular area right here, how anybody would get any sleep or even buy a house in
that area. You can tell about the amount of traffic that goes through there as evidenced
by the ruts in the road right here. They are about a foot deep, if you have ever been
through there. It's tapered in there, so you have got a lot of heavy, heavy construction
traffic going through there, which is actually going out Eagle Road to the -- you know, to
do construction on the subdivisions and stuff out there. But it gets to be very, very
noisy. It is a commercial comer. Let's see here. I think the reason why you're putting
the money into the intersection is because you realize that there is more traffic going to
be out there. I think that's your plan to make sure that that's a safe intersection.
Cloverdale and Victory is -- I'm thinking it's about what you're going to be doing right
there and I cross that intersection every morning and it is such a super intersection to
get through now. The traffic flows through it. It's ten times better than it was. I don't
know if you have ever sat at any of the Eagle or Victory stop signs at 5:00 o'clock at
night when all the traffic's going home, but it usually takes me about ten minutes to get
through that intersection, because of the stop signs and, you know, doing that
intersection is definitely going to free up an awful lot of traffic through there. It's going to
make it flow a lot better. I doubt very much putting a Walgreen's on the comer there is
going to create more traffic in that area that that intersection couldn't handle and that's
about all I have got to say.
Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you. Next on the list is Chantelle
Krusinski. How did I do?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 17 of 49
Krusinski: You did pretty good. My name is Chantelle Krusinski and I live at 3475 East
Falcon Drive. I don't abut the proposed area. I'm actually on the south side of Victory
over and I have five acre property and it's already been approved as to subdivisions all
around me. So, I understand the homeowners there and what they are saying. I don't
plan to move. I just got there five years ago and when I did get here and all this started
to happen, we went and looked at the Comprehensive Plan to see what was in store for
us and, you know, it seems like we are back here an awful lot with people trying to
amend that and, you know, it seems like sticking to the guns a little bit and actually
keeping the plan in place, because some of us moved out here thinking this was how
this area was going to develop, because that's what the city planners had come forth
with. But now every time we come back and somebody comes up and says, well, you
know, I want to sell my property, it's like, well, yes, you can sell your property.
Everybody when they are ready to move on would want to sell to commercial, they
make lots of money. But not everybody has to and not everybody needs that
opportunity. They can still sell. So, I just would like to say that, that, you know, it
doesn't have to be commercial on every corner. Not every property owner is going to
get to sell commercial. It just -- you know, it has to be -- it has to be a plan that is going
to be put forth going forward, so that people can know what to expect and it just seems
like every time we come here it's like, well, we are going to amend it, we are going to
amend it, we are going amend it and it's like why do we have to do that? You know,
let's just stick with the plan. That's all I have to say.
Moe: Thank you very much. Harold.
H.Krusinski: My name is Harold Krusinski, 3475 East Falcon. Again, that's east -- or,
yeah, southeast comer in what is Golden Eagle Estates. I guess what I would
respectfully encourage you to do is for any development on any of these comers, wait
until we actually have a preliminary plat and can actually put in place a developer's
agreement, which will insure what really happens. The south -- or not the south. The
northeast comer we saw very -- pretty nice looking business and mixed business and
residential a couple years ago, which didn't look like a bad idea until we found out that
we were sort of naive, we found out that was just a conceptual plan, which really had no
basis in reality and had no connection to what would have to go in there in the future
and now I'm hearing all these stories about big boxes. That had been a 15, 16 acre
connected property and I see the sign there now, it says eight acres are for sale, which
either means somebody's dropped out or someone bought part of it, and it is being
developed potentially piecemeal. This one here -- I guess it would just be -- I think it's
premature to come up with a change until we see something that you can actually hold
the future property owners to and say this is what you presented, this is a real plan, we
can have a developer's agreement, whether it's residential or whatever, a mile or so
down the road we have the comer, I believe it's called Sage or Sageland, which is a
small residential community on the comer of Locust Grove and Victory. The one to the
southeast -- or southwest, again, is four-plexes and single family homes on a similar
narrow strip. So, obviously, something is going to change in the future. I don't know
that I agree it has to be commercial, but I would certainly -- whether it's residential or
commercial, I would urge you to -- to just -- to look at something real, a real plan that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 18 of 49
you can actually hold, whoever the property owners or developers are, too. So, I would
just urge you to wait on this one until we have a better idea, if at all possible.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Well, that's all that has
signed up. If there is anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward,
you're more than welcome to come forward. I see no one in the audience. You have
already spoke, sir. Pardon me? No, you have already had your time. I'm sorry.
and, again, that's all that -- well, can I get the applicant to come back up?
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, for the record, Shawn
Nickel. A lot of great -- great testimony, so I will try to -- try to address some of the
things that came up real briefly. Vem did state -- he was the first one to get up and he
did speak of growth and change and that's exactly the reason we are in front of you
today. If you know what a Comprehensive Plan is, it's a guide to development -- future
development and it's somewhat of a moving target, because they are not -- they are not
all perfect and so that the need for the changes from time to time and as you all know in
this room, this area has experienced great change in the last five to ten years. Just a
year and a half ago we changed this comer right here. You're probably -- in six months
you're going to see some more changes -- well, maybe not, because it's a little bit slow
right now, but that slowness is not going to last, it's going to -- it's going to get busy
again, change is going to occur. This property right here is a product of that change.
The folks that lived there the last 15, 20, 30 years are a testament to that. You know,
they have talked about how this -- this area right here was all farmland and they were at
that time probably high density for the area with their -- with their small one acre and
two acre properties, but the area has changed. Had it not -- had it not changed and the
density not come, there would be no need for the service commercial that we are -- that
we are speaking of today. So, it is a product of its surroundings. Can't read my own
writing. Sorry. As far as the traffic, could you put back up the concept plan again,
Anna? And as far as the -- as far as the traffic, I'm not going to sit here and claim that
that is not a terrible terrible intersection and a temble strip up and down here. We had a
neighborhood meeting yesterday evening and -- where were we coming out of? This
property right here and I almost got tagged just coming out. There is -- there is mature
landscaping along here and all these access points and it's -- those are not safe uses.
Whatever we decide to change this property at, what it is currently now is not -- not safe
for that existing corridor and for what is planned when those -- when those
improvements go on. Again, that's a product of the change and the growth in the area.
It is no longer a rural little two lane highway -- or two lane road anymore, it's a -- it's
going to be a major thoroughfare. Nine access points is what we see out there today.
Service commercial is going to capture some of that. It's not going to capture all of it.
There is going to be people driving from a mile or two to -- to the service area, but they
are not going to have to drive two and three miles to get their basic services, because
we are -- it's servicing the immediate area. Staff has said they -- in their staff report that
they support high density, such as what we have -- what we did over here on Medford
Place with four-plexes and that's going to increase traffic, too. High density is going to
increase the impacts on the schools and -- I mean it's -- growth does -- does that. We
are anticipating that this intersection is going to move forward in 2011, hopefully, and be
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 19 of 49
approved -- be improved by the highway. They, obviously, like to bump things back as
they prioritize that five year work program, but they could -- if you start seeing some
approved uses in the area, they are going to make that a higher priority to get that - to
get that intersection improved and not bump it back, because there is nothing, really,
warranting that change. Right now there is not a whole lot of residential growth to the
south and so that -- that need is not -- you know, it's the same as it's been for a couple
years and the need's not there. I did indicate in my presentation that the three lanes
were only on the west side. I wasn't stating that they are, you know, anywhere else, but
the important thing is that immediately we have got three lanes in front of this property,
with a tum lane that is going to help if -- you know, if uses do develop in the future
before those improvements in the intersection that you -- you will have some safe
entrance into that -- into that -- into that property. Mr. Aldridge pointed out -- or stated
that what we are doing is piecemeal and that's what we are not doing, we are trying to --
if we would have come in originally with just this piece right there, small piece, that
would be one thing. We are finishing out this entire island. I mean there is nothing left
in this quarter section over here. It's all built out. So, we are -- we are doing the right
responsible thing by looking into the future. Yes, we only have a plan for this comer
right now, but what we are doing is we are setting up future development here by
providing those cross-access -- cross-access stubs and easements by providing those
pathways, so when these next properties come in front of you for annexation, you will
know what's there and staff will know to analyze what is approved, what ACHD is
looking at for the future build out and the access points on this roadway and that
development is going to -- is going to occur. If you look at this concept plan -- and I just
-- we just threw this together, everything that's in the brown right here, just to give you
an idea of what mixed use can be. So, we have thrown in an office building right here.
We have thrown a -- this is, actually, an assisted living facility that would utilize Mr.
Young's existing home with all his beautiful landscaping and trees back there. These
are some four-plex concepts right here and these are some neighborhood offices, like a
chiropractor or a dentist or something like that that could take access off of Brandys
Jewel. Again, we have no idea if those will occur, but that's what we envision with
multiple -- with multiple use. We don't envision this all being commercial, heavy
commercial. It might all be office. Walgreen's is looking at this comer as well. It's not
going to be -- and we know how Walgreen's is, they like to be real close to each other,
but, guarantee, there is not going to be a Walgreen's on each comer. So, you know,
this might not be a pharmacy here, but we are proposing the annexation at this time.
So, we are -- this is what is in front of your for the annexation concept plan is for the
whole thing. I think that's a responsible way to look at future growth and to justify the
need for the Comprehensive Plan. Again, ACHD has looked at this, they have
approved -- my client originally wanted that full -there was a full access. Then, the
right-in, right-out. ACHD said, no, this is too dangerous and we all agreed to the right-in
access only, so we are not going to -- we are not going to affect -- no one's going to be
able to get out here and tum left and go back up Eagle Road, they are going to have to
come out here and, eventually, they will come out to a -- to a better full access point in
the future. I will stand for any questions you have.
Moe: Any questions of the applicant?
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 20 of 49
O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: Shawn, so the area that you currently show Walgreen's, that is -- if you - if this
was approved, that would be the first build up area -- built out area that you would tackle
and you would have an access shown right there, but nothing else until later?
Nickel: This boundary right here is what is part of the annexation and development
agreement. So, again, if that's important, as you guys know, the development
agreement we can lock in specifics into that annexation as far as lighting, landscaping,
and all that. But, yes, that is the full access that was approved by ACRD --
O'Brien: Well, that's aright-in, right-out; right?
Nickel: No. Right now that's afull -- that's a full access.
O'Brien: Full access.
Nickel: Yes.
O'Brien: Not signalized.
Nickel: And originally we had proposed it over here further away from the intersection.
ACHD wanted us to move it back and align with this driveway across the street right
there. Again, they have approved that access.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. Well,
Commissioners, any comments?
Newton-Huckabay: These are tough.
Moe: Yes, they are.
Newton-Huckabay: These are very tough.
Rohm: I'll start, if you don't mind.
Moe: Mr. Rohm, please.
Rohm: Thank you all for your testimony and I know it was all heart felt and, believe me,
we listen to it with that same amount of intensity. The three things that - that I think that
this property currently has that we need to take a look at is the fact that it is an island.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 21 of 49
It's developed all around it. The second thing is that the proposed development will
actually reduce the accesses onto Victory Road. And the third thing is there is currently
a very good natural buffer to the north and those are the three things that I see related
to this proposal that compel me to be in support of the project and I think that the fact
that there are other mixed use designations down the road doesn't change the fact that
this particular parcel of ground to be developed any other way I think would be -- add
more congestion to the vicinity than the applicant's proposal. So, that's my position.
Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: While I am very sympathetic to the fact that it is an island and that there is a
number of accesses and those could be limited, I truly feel that our -- the ideal and the
efforts behind the Comprehensive Plan was to move the neighborhood retail to the
center of the section, to the half mile points, for a very good reason. A lot of thought
and effort went into that. We show that here. There is a spot for it, it's available, and if
we keep allowing retail to move out to the comers, because that's traditionally the way
it's been done, because that's the way it's always worked and that's -- you know, we
don't want to move to the center points, because, you know, it always works out on the
comer. We don't want to try anything new. Well, this works elsewhere and that's why a
lot of years of study effort went into it and that's why this was placed here and if we
keep approving it here it won't move here. And, personally, I am not in favor of allowing
commercial out on the comers of the sections, because it does create traffic issues. I
know -- I understood there are nine accesses, but there are only one family accessing
each one of those. When we start having two and three accesses off there, where you
have got people running in and out of Walgreen's and offices and four-plexes, you have
got significantly more traffic going over maybe a couple fewer accesses, but in that
same area that's going to cause more traffic issues. Even though there was fewer
accesses, there is going to be a lot more traffic using those accesses. So, that's where
I stand.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Mr. O'Brien, any comments?
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I agree with the two previous Commissioners on what
they say. There is a lot of credence to both ways and Ifeel -- also feel sympathetic to
the homeowners in that area. They are an island, as Commissioner Rohm had
mentioned, you know, and we just, what, approved an area to the northeast -- or
southeast area there where it has similar accesses to that particular area and I don't
understand the difference between that -- between that, this area here, and this. In fact,
I think it would be safer having one or two accesses along Victory than it would be with
eight or nine. So, again, caught in a quandary about the Comprehensive Plan and what
we need to see in the future is -- you're right, this is a neighborhood center, which
should draw in what we planned on doing -- should draw in businesses in the future.
But, dam, you know, this -- I don't know what to think about what to do for the property
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 22 of 49
owners here when Eagle Road gets -- or Victory Road gets built out to at least the three
lanes, which is not going to help the traffic much on Victory Road, because of all the
access -- I have seen Victory Road here go all the way across to Cloverdale, as well as
Eagle Road, even when it's built out with the full signalized intersection I think it's going
to be very very difficult traffic flow along this area. That said, I'm not going to say one
way or the other right now, because I'm really tom between both. I see it working one
way and I see it working another. Looking at the long term Comprehensive Plan, I'm
torn with that and I just think this is a unique situation that's really going to take some
thought and I'm not sure if we have to approve it tonight. Maybe six months or a year
downstream might be a better time to look at it, I'm not sure. I'm just going to leave it
like that and listen to what the rest of the Commissioners have to say. Thank you.
Moe: Well, I'll tell you what, if you'd like to go last, I'll go ahead. How is that?
Newton-Huckabay: Either way is fine with me. Go right ahead.
Moe: Well, I, too, am very tom on this one here. Quite frankly, I could see this basically
staying the way the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated. I, quite frankly, am probably
leaning more towards that than I am looking at the change. Again I was involved in a lot
of the Comprehensive Plan changes and whatnot and the neighborhood centers, I will
tell you I am one of the folks that have spoken long and hard that I wanted to see the
neighborhood concept looked at, you know, in the center areas and whatnot and I do
believe we still need to give this a chance. You know, we have just a couple that we are
doing and it seems that we keep making these changes on the map to go back to
comers, so we are already defeating the plan. So, I'm a little bit concemed with that.
Having said that, though, the fact that this is mixed use community, I would anticipate
on the annexation that is along with this, I could almost anticipate that that would be the
only commercial that I could see that I could approve if this thing went forward for the
rest of the property to be something other than commercial, you know, and, basically,
what the applicant brought forward, you know, tonight in explanation of what they
thought it may be able to happen with it, that would be very favorable to me. But, here
again, that's a concept, we don't know what happens there. And, Mr. O'Brien, I don't
know that -- you may have said the smartest thing of all and that is we maybe wait six
months to a year to see how things are going before we do make a decision, you know,
make a change on this property. I don't know. I'm a little bit tom both ways, too.
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple comments. You all -- at least most of the staff
know that I actually grew up in this area and who was it -- I think Mr. Jeffries talked
about the accidents on Victory Road and Eagle. I was one of those about 30 years ago
when I was kid. So, this is an area that this is very hard for me to see the changes and I
have seen a lot of you in here -- I'm still confused, I don't even know where Mr. Aldridge
owns property, obviously, anymore. I'm a little concemed that that is the low density on
the map, I don't think that low density residential on that is the appropriate designation
for that comer. I'm not -- you know, I'm looking at the transition and someone made the
comment that we go from R-4 to R-8 and, then, I'm looking at Bedford Place below it
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 23 of 49
and the fact that it is - if we ever actually develop that, a neighborhood center in the
academic nature that they are presented. I could see that in my mind I think residential
in that area and those people who live in Thousand Springs and Woodhaven are
probably going to cringe when they hear me say this, but I think this is a great place for
four-plexes, similar to Bedford Place. I think it would be an excellent place for multi-
family development on this comer. I think it's close to schools. It's close to .employment
centers. It has -- it will be, if it develops out, close to a neighborhood center. So, I am
going to lean towards moving with it -- with residential, with the -- that's my opinion and
-- I mean I'm not a professional planner and I'm not a planning academic, but I think that
maybe transitioning to an R-8 to an R-15 in that area would -- might be the best use -
best use of that property and it might give us some -- some additional multi-family in that
part of town to serve those employment centers. So, for that reason I think I'm going to
stick with the recommendation of the city and tell all the homeowners out there I -- I do
appreciate and I empathize, because it is very difficult live in a rural area and be
surrounded and feel like you have no control over what goes around you. And Idon't --
there is nothing that I can or do that can fix that, but I do think that -- that your property
and residential -- my second choice would be mixed use community, but I do think a
higher density residential would be -- would be a great addition to that part of the city, so
-- but I thank all of you for coming out tonight and I -- again, I apologize for that,
because it's a tough situation.
Moe: Thank you, Commissioners. Can I get someone to make a motion to close the
public hearing?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on -- find it here. Thank
you. CPA 08-002 and AZ 8-010.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-002 and AZ
08-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: And, Commissioners, as we discussed earlier, we move this one to the end of the
agenda, so that we can get through the -item number six and, then, we would, then,
start acting on all others.
Rohm: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to make a motion to that?
Marshall: Is there any way we could move it to after number six?
Newton-Huckabay: So that we could wrap up for those who are in the audience for this
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 24 of 49
Moe: Well, that's -- whoever is going to make the motion, put it where you want. How is
that?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue Items No. 4 and 5, CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010,
continue them to after the hearing of No. 6, which is CPA 08-008.
O'Brien: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: Continue AZ -- excuse me. CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010 to the -- after the
Hearing No. 6 on our agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Because this next hearing is going to be awhile as well, we are going to go ahead
and take a ten minute break.
(Recess.)
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-008 Request
for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map
by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to
Mixed Use -Community for approximately 5 acres for Postal Annex by
Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan Road:
Moe: Well, at this time we will be back in session and at this time I would like to open
the continued public hearing on CPA 08-008 for the Postal Annex and start with the staff
report, please.
Canning: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. Nice to see you all again. This
is -- as you know, Caleb did the project, but I am -- he has prepared me -- give me
notes, so if it doesn't sound like me, it's because it's Caleb. But I will be presenting this
application tonight and forgive me if I call you Madam Mayor, Mr. Moe, so I will try not to
do that. The project before you tonight is the Postal Annex comp plan amendment and,
please, note there is an associated annexation application, but that one has been re-
noticed for September 4th. But, again, because the two are integrally tied, as you saw
on the previous one, I will be talking about the annexation and the associated site plan
with that annexation. The property is located on the southwest comer of McMillan Road
and Meridian Road. This five acre property contains two parcels. One parcel contains
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 25 of 49
a home and the other is vacant. The adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north it is
vacant and zoned C-G as part of the Paramount development. To the east is rural
residential and approved Solitude Place Subdivision, which is zoned RUT. And to the
south is single family homes in Amber Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8. There is also
Amber Creek to the east, which is zoned R-8. And to the west is future single family
homes in Amber Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8. So, the applicant is requesting
approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map by changing the land
use designation on approximately five acres of land for medium density residential to
mixed use community. The applicant states in their application letter that if approved
they intend to develop a portion of the property with the United States Postal Service
carrier annex. The other uses on the property would include future office space and
retention of the existing single family dwelling. Approval of the subject map amendment
and annexation would allow the applicant to construct, at least in concept, a 7,154
square foot mail sorting center, two 12,000 square foot office buildings, and, again,
retention of the existing home on the site. That's the conceptual site plan. Please note
that the applicant concurrently submitted a Comp Plan amendment and the annexation,
as I noted before. The application material submitted only mentioned the L-O zoning
district and not an R-8 district for the home. Therefore, the city sent out notices only
referencing the light office district. However, the applicant is seeking both zoning of
1.14 acres for R-8 and 4.4 acres L-O. The staff report reflects this request, but the city's
legal department has advised staff that the associated annexation request will need to
be re-noticed and acted on at a later date. So, the clerk's department is re-noticing that
annexation request for September 4th. With regard to the current Comprehensive Plan,
this property is designated as medium density residential. The site is located adjacent
to land that is developing with medium density residential uses. Because the area is
primarily developing with single family uses and the site is not deep enough to provide a
transitional use to the proposed USPS sorting center, staff believes the site is better
suited for residential uses as currently envisioned in the plan and I did want to point out
also that unlike the previous application where there was no stub streets to the property,
we were able to get two key stub streets for this property, one on the northern end of it
and, then, one on the south end and the -- as Amber Creek was going through -- I think
one's Amber. Yeah. As this was go through we checked the lot distances and it is well
situated to have that stub street come in and, then, go directly south with a lot of rows
on each side and, then, the street buffer. So, it does accommodate future medium
density residential development well. So, staff believes that the proposed mixed use
community designation and office zoning on the property, as proposed on the concept
plan, would not be compatible with the existing and planned residential uses in the area.
Staff has encouraged the applicant to look to other areas in north Meridian that would
be better suited for the types of land use proposed, primarily the sorting center. Staff
believes that the map currently depicts appropriate future land use for the site, medium
density residential. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan
showing how the site may develop in the future. The site currently contains two parcels.
Three parcels are shown on the concept plan, each with different land uses. The
existing home and outbuilding on the south side of the property. Parcel one is proposed
to remain. Access to the house lot is not shown, but it should be provided from Lava
Falls Drive to the south and not the existing driveway to Meridian Road. North of the
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 26 of 49
house is the 7,000 square foot USPS sorting center and that's proposed on parcel two.
There are two driveways shown on this parcel to Meridian Road. The northern drive
has recently been constructed as part of the Meridian-McMillan intersection
improvements. I believe it's there. No. It's there. Sony. Cross-access is proposed
from this parcel to the parcel to the north, which is parcel three, but not to the home
parcel to the south. The USPS building has a loading dock that faces west. You can
see that there. And is used to sort mail for distribution in the general vicinity. On parcel
three, two 12,000 square foot office pads are shown. The buildings are shown next to
Meridian Road with the parking to the west and south. Access to this parcel is shown
from a proposed right-in, right-out driveway to McMillan Road located at the west
property line and to the extension of Havasu Falls Drive in Amber Creek Subdivision to
the west. And that's one of those stub streets I was talking about earlier is right there.
Second one is down here. There is also a driveway connection from this parcel to
parcel three located near Meridian Road. Eighty-one parking stalls are proposed.
These parking stalls will be used by employees and to house fleet vehicles that are kept
on site when they are not. out delivering the mail. With regard to access, ACHD and
planning staff are supportive of allowing only one access point to Meridian Road for this
site. When the Meridian Road -McMillan Road intersection improvements were
completed recently, a curb cut driveway was provided in the middle of the site. This
driveway should be the only access to Meridian Road. Except for the access for the
imgation district, no access to McMillan Road currently exists into the site and none
should be approved. This site only has about 250 feet of frontage and staff does not
believe that an access to McMillan should be allowed. Regardless of land uses, access
should be provided to the site via the Havasu Falls Drive and Lava Falls Drive in Amber
Creek Subdivision to the west and south. These stubs were provided to the property, so
that direct access to the adjacent arterials would not be necessary. Staff believes that if
this property develops with residential, as envisioned with the Comprehensive Plan, the
additional access points to McMillan Road and Meridian Road shown by the applicant
would not even be needed or proposed. Staff believes there are sufficient means of
residential access through the stub streets and the one access to Meridian Road that
currently exists in the middle of the property. All mixed use projects are required to be
directly accessible to neighborhoods within this section by both vehicles and
pedestrians. ACRD has made special recommendation to the city that cross-access not
only be provided between parcels two and three, but also between parcels one and two.
Staff will evaluate this recommendation in the future and with all development
applications on this site. When the applicant originally contacted staff about
constructing the United States Postal Serving Center on this site, staff had concerns
with the use and its proximity to residential uses. Because the proposed use is not
appropriate in an area planned for residential, the applicant was required to submit the
CPA is they wanted the city to process the request and that's what led us to that. The
proposed use was -- the proposed use is more industrial than office or public/quasi-
public and meets the definition of a freight terminal, as freight is brought to the site by
truck and, then, transferred. And as you know, we always base uses on an industrial
classification system and for quasi-public and public we need to look at the closest
similar use and that was of a freight terminal. The proposed USPS building will be used
to sort mail that is brought to the site by truck and, then, transferred. The semi comes in
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 27 of 49
-- sorry. It's brought in by semi and to the delivery trucks that go to the nearby
neighborhoods. So, a USPS representative has communicated that a 40 to 50 foot long
truck would make deliveries to the site at 2:30 a.m., 5:30 a.m., 7:00 a.m., and again at
4:30 p.m. Having a dock facing the residential neighborhood and having employees
and fleet vehicles operate in the early morning hours on this site does not seem
appropriate. Even if a land use buffer and fencing is constructed, staff does not believe
the USPS building fits into the abutting neighborhood. We do have some building
elevations and the applicant submitted -- originally submitted these building elevations
and a floor plan for the proposed buildings. Building is single story and has a
warehouse look; the building has an overhead door facing west and very little glazing
area on the four sides. There is no front door facing Meridian Road, but there are man
doors on the sides. The floor plan mainly depicts a work room where the mail sorting
occurs at multiple stations. There is a platform where freight is off-loaded, a bathroom
and mechanical room and a storage room. There is one 8 by 15 office in the building.
Staff does not believe that the proposed building will fit in with the residential character
of the area. Staff believes the proposed elevations and floor plan do not represent an
office as stated in the narrative and on the concept plan, but, instead, look and feel like
an industrial use and are more appropriate in an area that is not on a highly visible
intersection next to residences. Please note the applicant recently submitted three
additional sample elevations for the building. These buildings are more attractive than
the one submitted with the application, but they still look and feel industrial. They are
fully enclosed with fencing. They have no public access and there is not a home to be
seen on the renderings and photos. Staff assumes these are in more commercial
industrial settings in the rest of the county. Meridian, Idaho, should be no different.
Elevations or floor plans for the other two office buildings have not been submitted. Due
to the land use, elevations proposed, and access proposed, staff does not believe that
the conceptual site plan is compatible with the approved land uses surrounding the
property. Therefore, staff is not supportive of the proposed mixed use community
designation for this site and does not believe that the envisioned uses are appropriate,
because of the adjacent residential land uses, the elevations, and the access vehicle
network planned for this area, staff is recommending denial of the requested
Comprehensive Plan amendment application as it is not in the best interest of the city.
And with that I will answer any questions you may have.
Moe: Any questions of staff? Thank you very much. Would the applicant come
forward, please.
Nickel: Thought you were done with me, uh? Mr. Chairman and Commission, again,
for the record Shawn Nickel, 6223 North Discovery Way, Suite 220 Boise. Here tonight
representing the applicant. Staff did a good job at hitting and touching on the issues
and that the reasons for denial -- recommendation of denial. So, I want to go through a
few things. Understanding -- and, again, staff has explained this. Understanding the
location of this property, it is adjacent to residential -- the south side of the building,
keep mind there is an existing school, there is a C-G zoned commercial property on the
northwest comer, and there is R-40 zoned property surrounding that. So, you have
several different uses at this intersection. Why this location? The main reason -- and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meetlng
August 14, 2008
Page 28 of 49
we do have someone here from the postal service that can -- is going to get up and kind
of explain the functionality of how that all works. I'm not going to claim to be a postal
expert. But the main reason to have it in the north Meridian area is that's where the
service is needed. This facility is going to service north -- the residences and the -- I
guess everybody within the north Meridian area. The problem is there are no other
places in the north Meridian area that we can find that suit this -- that suit this use. Staff
has mentioned the area to the west over by the treatment facility and while that is
probably the only industrial area on the north side of town, it is substantially further west
and there is more development that is existing over in this area, which was what the
postal service was looking for, a northern facility to decrease the workload that's
currently in the downtown facility off of -- off of Main Street. Could you put on -- Anna,
could you put the staff -- the site plan, please. Thank you. This is a site that the
concept plan that we submitted with the annexation and zoning application, which you're
not hearing tonight, but for purpose of the site plan, we are going to reference it. Staff
has indicated concems within their staff report and their presentation about access
points both on McMillan, off of Meridian Road. A future access to the existing house.
When we designed -- when I designed Amber Creek, we did put that stub. street here
not knowing what the uses were going to be on this comer. All those site issues, I
believe, were -- the majority of the concems that staff had about this site, we are in
favor of changing. In other words, we could live without this access point on Meridian
Road. We could eliminate one of the access points on Meridian. We are providing and
showing cross-access to the property to the north and it would be easy to show cross-
connection to the south. It is our intention to abandon that residential access that
currently exists on Meridian Road and put it on the Lava -- can't think of the name of
that -- that street, but put it right there where it was envisioned when we did do Amber
Creek. Those are not really the issues. I believe we are willing to work with staff on the
site plan, including buffering, landscaping, a wall if necessary, lighting, noise, all that
can be -- can be worked out. I think the real issue is -- is the location and 1 think that's
what we probably will focus on mostly tonight. Without the Comprehensive Plan
designation we are not going to need to go into the annexation and the plan. So, again,
it's our contention that if -- Anna, could you back up to the aerial, please? Go forward,
that will work for right now. Again, the designations in this area -- this is the one area
that staff suggests locating this -- this use, but it's -- really, the only area that is
designated as industrial in the whole north Meridian area. So, if staffs conclusion of
that -- it's not apublic/quasi-public use, which we will really think it is, because it's -- if
you look at the definition of public/quasi-public, those are public uses. They include the
post office, which -- or retail use, but they also include fire stations, which are not
necessarily open to the public, but they are servicing the public. So, we are kind of at
odds with staff determination. This is not public/quasi-public and is more of a freight
and -- and a freight use, but with that there is no other places in the north Meridian area
that we can get that use where it's needed, which is where all the a where all the growth
is. So, I will stand for any questions on that. And, again, the postal people are here and
they can address specifics about why -- why they need to expand their facility.
Moe: Do you have any questions at this time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 29 of 49
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Ihave a --
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: -- question. I have a problem with your argument of quasi-public.
I'm going to venture a wild guess that the post office's main competition would be a
freight company. They are not going to compete with the fire department. I mean how
is it aquasi-public use? I mean they deliver packages and letters and if you don't get
them from them, then, you send through Fed-Ex or UPS or DHL or --
Nickel: Right. But a post office is a defined public/quasi-public use.
Newton-Huckabay: But this isn't a post office.
Nickel: And, again, it's open to interpretation. We believe that it's -- that it's close
enough -- if you look at those definitions, they include, but not limited to. So, your staff
has made that interpretation and that's -- you know, that's fine. We just feel that it's --
you know, there was more flexibility in that -- in that definition to allow this use.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then, one other comment I had is -- you know, all of the
semi traffic that would be sending down Meridian Road, for that reason alone and the
impending Ten Mile interchange, I would think that an industrial location a mile and a
half from an interchange would be much preferred than going down through the center
of town to get to a facility. So, for whatever it's worth, I suppose that would be my
unsolicited opinion. Ihave no other comments until we finish testimony.
Moe: Are there any questions of the applicant?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Shawn, were any other sites considered? I mean there is other commercial
sites along here. There is other sites along here, along Chinden. I -- you know, Eagle
-- I'm just wondering what other sites were considered?
Nickel: I don't have that information. Probably can defer that to the postal people.
Marshall: Okay.
O'Brien: One question, Mr. Chairman.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: Shawn, so these trucks that are delivering these packages for sorting, where
are they picking up their mail from? Do you know that answer?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 30 of 49
Nickel: I'll defer that also to the postal people.
O'Brien: Okay. I was just wondering about the location of this myself and it seems like
it's so close to the other one that there is more areas to the west that --
Nickel: There is about two and a half miles from the other facility.
O'Brien: So, you're saying it's better to be closer to the other --
Nickel: What they are determining is that those fleet cars are going to be servicing that
immediate area for mail service.
O'Brien: Okay.
Nickel: And to bring -- to bring the packages to a central location for sorting and, then,
have them go out is the reason they want to do that. To cut the cost of fuel, traffic --
O'Brien: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: On the delivery side of things.
Nickel: On the delivery side. Now, the --
Newton-Huckabay: Vehicles are stored?
Nickel: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: And/or walking routes go out of, is that what the definition of it is?
Nickel: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Moe: Shawn, were you anticipating that Mr. Gish was going to be along with your 15
minutes of time in regards to the applicant's time or -- I see he's signed up to speak.
Nickel: I don't even know if he's going to speak. I guess you can ask him that.
Moe: Oh. Then we will find out. So, any other questions? Okay.
Nickel: Is that a compliment that I was quicker this time than the last time?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes, it was.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 31 of 49
Moe: Yes, it was. Thank you very much. Okay. The first person signed up, I believe,
is Kay Krueger. Whoever signed up first. You have to come up here if you want to
speak. Okay. From the audience she's not going to speak. I guess the next one would
be Walt. From the audience he is not going to speak.
Newton-Huckabay: Did it say whether they were for or against?
Moe: They were both for the annex. Next on the list is Alice -- is that Aires? From the
audience she's not going to speak and she was also for. Next would be Wayne
Hunsucker. Okay. In that case Jack Gish. You need to come to the microphone.
Gish: Jack Gish. 2227 Longmont, Boise, Idaho. I'm representing the family that owns
the five acre parcel, which is also the two girls back here that didn't want to speak. It's
-- excuse me. Let me just first off say thank you for listening and taking my testimony. I
want to express that this piece of ground has been in the Gish family since 1918. It was
purchased by my grandfather, who lived and worked it as farmland and died on this
piece of ground and my father was bom and -- both bom and died on this piece of
ground and my mother died on this piece of ground. My grandmother was a grand
marshal for the centennial parade in Meridian. We have a long family history on this
piece of ground. Part of what is riding -- what we want to do is to retain the home site in
the family. We don't see the possibility of that happening unless we can make this or
some similar deal, you know, to deal with the rest of the ground that's there and we see
the post office as being a very strong community service and that's where we come into
the public/quasi-public service. Everybody's going to get their mail. That is a public
service. I know that there are competitors in this industry, but the post office is the long-
term provider for this service for our country and I assume that will continue to be so.
And the only way it will continue to be is if, you know, we are providing spaces for them
to do what they need to do and the process of delivering the mail and everything in a
more efficient manner with less traffic -- actually, less traffic on the road from the
delivery persons and stuff, because they will be traveling shorter distances and that sort
of thing, is a very big benefit. We are -- the reason that the comer lot was presented as
commercial, basically, was to promote the postal service thing there and we are not
locked into maintaining either the comer or the home site as R-8. The only reason that
that was actually suggested was because that's what the Comprehensive Plan calls for
and in our family attitude the home site would stay as R-1 and just that one home site
on it and whatever happens to the comer is totally under negotiation and we do have a
customer that wants to purchase the middle portion to put the postal service -- you
know, the postal annex in there and that's what's driving the family. I'm open to any
questions.
Moe: Okay. Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 32 of 49
Gish: Thank you.
Moe: Stan Young. He left. Okay. Last name Rory. Is that John Walters? Okay. So,
you're one, two, and, then, three.
Nary: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and before the folks
from the post office speak, I know you folks know this, but for their benefit and the
public, all that's in front of you tonight is the Comp Plan amendment to change this to an
industrial property. This is not about the particular project, the annexation, the direction
of the building. This is probably as extreme of a discussion about that part of this
application that the Commission needs to be considering. All they are weighing is
whether or not this parcel should go from residential to industrial as proposed on a
future land use map. So, I would suggest you confine your comments to that purpose of
it and not the specifics of the neighborhood and all the things that are noticed for the
later hearing, because all they can consider is that, the change in land use
designations. So, I want to make that clear on the record before you hear that. I think
we have gotten a little far afield and I don't want to get any further afield with the record,
that is this all we are dealing with for the Comp Plan. Thank you.
Walters: Okay. I'm John Walters. 160 Inverness, West Inglewood, Colorado. Just a
little background. I'm a real estate specialist for the postal service. The district in
Spokane takes care of this territory and I was assigned a project to acquire a piece of
property for the postal carrier annex and I advertised for sites. I didn't get any sites in
the referred area. The district and the planning department of the postal service kind of
decided on where the preferred area was going to be. It was based on travel and
transportation costs, basically. We looked at several sites and we ran into the same
issues that this site has, about residential and different access problems and,
consequently, we had a site review meeting and we all agreed that this was the best
that was offered in the -- within the preferred area. We are asking for the
Comprehensive change -- Comprehensive Plan to change to allow the postal service to
construct this building. It would be more effective and economically for the postal
service to operate out of a new facility and put our carriers in the new facility and that
would allow the postal service to free up new space -- more additional space to expand
our retail in the main post office in its present location. We understand we have some,
you know, lines forming there and this would allow more possibly retail windows and/or
more P.O. box sections. The postal service does feel that this facility does serve the
public by getting the carriers closer to the customers, less travel time, and to be in
proximity to the customers would be -- to serve would cut down on, again, transportation
costs and pollution and reduce the carbon footprint that the postal service -- it would
minimize the driving of these carvers. Every -- every time the gasoline goes up a
penny, the postal service incurs about eight million dollars cost and, consequently, this
year we have spent about a billion dollars in fuel over and above what we spent last
year. So, this is very important to us to get closer to our customers and that's why we
were trying to put it closer to the -- to the customers and the neighbors that we deliver
to. So far the postal service has spent about 70,000 dollars on the design of this
building and our due diligence, meaning our survey costs, title work, soil borings, and
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 33 of 49
those kind of things. So, we have put a lot of effort and time and money into this
project.
Moe: You need to wrap, please.
Walters: Okay. If we did locate ten miles out, you can imagine what that would cost us
for 40 carriers, 20 miles a day, times 200 days a year, times four dollars a gallon. I just
kind of want to just remind you that we are trying to cut down pollution and minimize the
carbon footprint.
Moe: I think the ten miles was Ten Mile Road, which would be about a mile and a half
away from this site.
Walters: Okay. That's better.
Moe: Any questions?
Marshall: I do have questions.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Mrs. Canning, can we go back to the overall map -- the land use map?
There. Thank you. Okay. So, were you mentioning the preferred area. This site, then,
is -- is adding to the existing facility, so what is the preferred area?
Walters: Well, it's like Cherry, Ten Mile, Ibelieve --
Marshall: So, right in -
Walters: Right.
Moe: There should be a pointer right there where you're at.
Marshall: And there is a -- there should be a laser pointer right there.
Walters: It was basically Cherry to I believe it's Ten Mile across the top. Cherry to -- I
think Ten Mile is the northern --
Moe: You mean Chinden. Correct?
Walters: Chinden. I'm sorry. And, then, it goes out to -- not quite to Eagle. I think it
was -- I think it was Locust Grove was the boundary here and it goes --Ibelieve it went
as far south as --
Marshall: This is the preferred area?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 34 of 49
Walters: Preferred area. So, it was mostly within the residential area.
Marshall: Okay. So, this area in here would be pretty close to the preferred area, then?
Walters: That's correct.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Rory.
Rory: Steve Rory at 707 West Main Avenue, Suite 600, Spokane, Washington. I work
for the distlrict office of the postal service. Mr. Nary has told us that our focus is narrow,
so I would like to have this opportunity -- any questions that you have operationally
about what we are doing, to answer those questions for you. Preferred area.
Moe: Any questions, Commissioners?
Rory: Could I elaborate just a little bit on what that is? Thank you. You know,
basically, when we look at expanding our operations -- this project has been in the
works for almost six years. We knew a long time ago that Meridian was growing. You
-- we split the zip codes and those are internal automation numbers and when we run
out of what we have, because they are limited, then, we add another one. So, we
added that we realized that our carrier annex at the existing facility here wasn't going to
be able to handle the volume that we have and the new routes that were created,
because of the new residential area up here and the new commercial growth south of
the freeway. We, actually, at the existing facility were sorting mail in the back parking
lot underneath a tent. Right? We had no parking. And so we knew that we had an
emergency situation that we had to address. So, if we are going to look to expand,
where is it that we are going to go? We want to go to the spot where most of the growth
is happening in the residential areas. The reason being that the businesses, when you
sort, there are fewer stops, but more mail. Residential areas there are more stops, but
fewer, you know, pieces of mail. So, what we wanted to do was -- in thinking green and
thinking about the future for your constituents, our customers, was to locate a facility as
close as we could to the -- to the growth area where we could have the shortest space
of, you know, travel from the site where they sort the mail to where they deliver. This
allows us to save man hours. Allows us to save gas. And it allows our customers to get
their mail in a quicker manner. In other words, if we are closer to where they are, then,
the travel times to get to those customers are shorter. So, the preferred area is about a
lot of different operational reasons and the growth area for this was happening all up in
the northeast. That's where most of the residential growth was happening. So, I hope
that clarifies what we mean when we talk about the preferred area where we wanted to
relocate and, actually, this site that we chose was good, because it was on cross streets
that allowed us to access that whole area up there. That was another reason. There it
is.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Speaal Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 35 of 49
Rory: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Hunsucker:
Hunsucker: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Wayne Hunsucker, I'm the architect
for the post office. Have been doing post office -- oh, live at 150 Cow Creek Road,
Lucile, Idaho. Been doing these post offices for about 12 years. Just -- I know it's kind
of off the topic of the property, but just wanted to assure you that we do design to make
fit buildings into the site and what you saw was an out-of-the-box design. The photos
and the Idaho City project are ones that we have done, you know, to accommodate.
So, I guess I don't have a lot to add to the thing, except I was involved at looking at
some of the sites. Honestly, the sites that were proposed all have exactly the same
problem, they are all within the same boundary area. The industrial and the commercial
people did not offer sites to the post office to buy, so they were stuck. That's the crux of
the whole thing, so --
Moe: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. That was all that was
signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to
come up. Okay. There are none. Would the applicant like to come back forward?
Although, everyone was for the project. Do you have any questions of the applicant? I
see none from the Commissioners. No. We are okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Are we ready to close the hearing, then?
Moe: Yes.
Canning: Chairman Moe? Before you close the hearing, I wanted to clarify something
that Mr. Nary said. They are not proposing an industrial classification. It's mixed use
community, as I believe. Yes. I just wanted to make that clarification before you close
the record. Thank you.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA 08-
008, request for Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Postal Annex.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-008. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 36 of 49
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I think my -- where I stand on this -- Mr. Chair, may I speak?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes, you may.
Newton-Huckabay: I honestly think this is not a good location for this. I think this is
trying to make a location where there wasn't one and in envisioning what that would
look like when it was complete right next to Amber Creek Subdivision, Ijust -- I just don't
see it and I don't see running six semis a day down Meridian Road next to -- you know,
you have a middle school there and -- and it isn't -- that is not what we had in mind in
that area and so I am not in favor of changing the current land use designations.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien, do you have any comments?
O'Brien: Yeah. Just to add onto what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had to say. I
agree with her. You know, I look at -- I look at the way other organizations plan their
land use and one good example is the school district. They plan way ahead. Years and
years and years in advance and obtain property and including parks and recreation, to
put their -- their schools and parks in place and I don't see that happening here. You
say six years, but I haven't seen anything -- no action on it before that -- before this
time. So, again, I have to agree, too, that that's an awful lot of traffic for that comer, that
intersection, more than it already is and it's not going to get any better. So, I don't
know. I don't know what the answer is to -- I just can't -- I just think there has got to be
some other solution, but I don't think this is one of them. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Marshall, any comments?
Marshall: Again, I think it's inappropriate for that location. With trucks coming and
going all night, right up against residential, the times and hours -- it's needed. It's
necessary. And I would argue it is public/quasi-public. I mean U.S. government
controls the price of the stamps and things like that, but in all the same, no matter how
we -- no matter how we look at it, it doesn't appear to me to be appropriate up against
residences and I think that looking at the preferred area, there is a pretty large preferred
area and I think there is going to be plenty of land that is going to be up for sale right
now, because residential isn't moving and people want to move some land and I think
there is a lot of land out there and Idon't -- and I don't think the planning department's
suggestion of the industrial area here by the wastewater treatment plant is a bad one. I
think that's a good suggestion. Appropriate area for it. It's only two miles away. And
it's right here next to all the growth and all this area is growing. I have to agree. And
you have got the southeast covered, the existing facility, and that would place one up in
the northeast -- or the northwest. Yeah. It would be nice to be right in the middle of the
subdivisions to save money and to save gasoline and air quality and things like that, but
at the same time those people living din the subdivisions need a nice quiet night's sleep
and right now with our infrastructure and those roads right now, when they are built out,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 37 of 49
they are not set up to hold a whole lot of trafFc right now until we get those improved. I
don't think it's an appropriate location for it.
Moe: Mr. Rohm, any comments?
Rohm: I think it's light industrial. Plain and simple. It's -- I think that there are acreages
within the north area that are already designated with the proper zoning to put this type
of facility in and -- and that's where you should be looking. But it doesn't look like mixed
use to me, so I wouldn't be in favor of it at all.
Moe: Okay. Well, I won't belabor the point. I would say that I'm in agreement with all
the other Commissioners on this. I don't -- I am not in favor of this site whatsoever.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, may I make a motion?
Moe: Yes, you may, sir.
Rohm: Go ahead if you're ready.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number CPA
08-008 -- and I skip the AZ -- as presented during the hearing on August 7th, 2008, for
the following reasons: The Planning and Zoning Commission does not feel that mixed
use community is the appropriate use for the southwest comer of this intersection, given
the size of the property and the access to the property and the intensity of the potential
proposed uses. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: And you would note that that was also continued to the August 14th --
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to deny CPA 08-008 as stated. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries for denial.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-002 Request
for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map
by changing the land use designation for approximately 10 acres from Low
Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and Victory by
Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: AZ 08-010 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 3.75 acres from RUT and R1 to C-N zoning
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 38 of 49
district for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory
Road and S. Eagle Road:
Moe: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the public hearings -- well, excuse me. I'd
like to open the hearing on CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010, for Eagle and Victory, for
deliberations and decisions. Commission, I would like to make one point known. If, in
fact, the maker of the motion is going for an approval of the CPA, we have discussed
with staff a little bit, they -- as far as the rezone, there are still some conditions that they
want to be able to review and put on that application, so they have requested that that
be -- that would come back before them. So, we'd want to continue that until, basically,
probably, the 4th of September also. Just the annexation.
Newton-Huckabay: We would act on the Comp Plan and --
Moe: You will act on the CPA tonight and, then, you would continue the annexation.
Rohm: That works forme.
Moe: So, having said that, any other comments from the Commissioners or any
motions here?
Newton-Huckabay: Ready for a motion myself.
Rohm: I think -- yeah, I'm ready, too, but I'm not going to make the motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Move to recommend denial to City Council of file number CPA 08-
002 and AZ 08-010, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 14th,
2008, for the following reason: That mixed use community is not the most appropriate
use for this property at this time and that the residential designation would be more --
continued to be appropriate.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010 with
the conditions as noted. All those in favor of denial say aye. Opposed?
Rohm: Aye.
Moe: That's one. That motion has carved for denial of CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-005 Request
to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the
land use designation on 33.59 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial
for Kennedy Commercial Center /Western Electronics by DBSI
Meridian Planning & Zoning SpeGal Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 39 of 49
Meridian 184 LLC and Herman-Treasure Valley Business Park ILLC -
1250 W. Overland Road:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: RZ 08-003 Request
for Rezone of 27.17 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Kennedy Commercial
Center by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC -1250 W. Overland Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to reopen the continued public hearing on CPA 08-005 and AZ
08-003 for the Kennedy Commercial Center for the purpose of deliberations. Any other
comments, Commissioners, on this project? This was an application that staff was
requesting approval on both items.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, if I remember correctly, there was some consideration
related to the number of potential retail buildings that the applicant was proposing on
the site. It seemed like there was a rather high number.
Moe: That's correct. Yes. They were looking for 35 I do believe it was .
Newton-Huckabay: And I have a note here that it appeared at the time of the hearing
that we were -- I was proposing that we make that change -- proposal of 35 buildings,
reduce to 25 buildings and that the applicant had -- was in agreement with all the other
-- the applicant and the city were in agreement on all the other changes discussed in the
hearing.
Moe: That is exactly what I remember as well.
Newton-Huckabay: So, I guess -- what I did not make note of and maybe another
Commissioner made note of, is what -- specifically if there was any verbiage that
needed to be included in the motion to change the staff report beyond this 35 to 20.
Didn't they -- because the applicant had recommended a couple changes, if I remember
correctly, that the city wasn't agreed with. Bill, was that -- that was your -- right? Oh,
no, that was Sonya.
Canning: Commissioner Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Caleb did speak to
me about this. The only issue he mentioned was the number of the buildings. So, you
could make a motion that just said -- and any items that were discussed and agreed to
by the city and the applicant in the previous hearing. We can go back and research
that.
Moe: Basically, what I do know is that I think within the report it talked about anywhere
from 18 to 14 buildings and the applicant was looking for 35. So, all we -- in a motion, if
you're going with that route, you could just make the change from the 18 -- eight to 14,
just go to eight to 25.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 40 of 49
Marshall: That's part ofthe --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it was the total square footage of the -- that the -- no single
building shall -- the applicant was proposing that no single building shall exceed 8,000
square feet without developer obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. Furthermore, no
building shall exceed three stories in height. I was looking at the total square footage
over the whole of the site, rather than any individual building. Is this ringing a bell with
anybody?
Moe: No, it's not.
Marshall: Yes.
Rohm: I think, though, that the Conditional Use Permit will cover that, if, in fact, they
come in with a proposal for a larger building. It's just noted that they have to make an
application for a CUP. So, we can still act on this application and deal with the CUP if,
in fact, it becomes necessary at a later date.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, then, I will go ahead and make a motion, unless
someone else is ready.
Rohm: No. Go ahead. You're on a role.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA
08-005 and RZ 08-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August
7th -- do I have to reference we reopened it today?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: And the 14th -- August 7th and 14th, with the modification that the
maximum number of buildings allowed on the site would be 20, without -- without a
Conditional Use Permit or -- okay. Be limited to 20 buildings to be constructed on this
site. Scratch the CUP reference on there. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approving CPA 08-005
and RZ 08-003 for the Kennedy Commercial Center and -- all those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-006 Request
to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the
future land use designation on 11 acres of land from Mixed Use -Waste
Water Treatment Plan to Office (2+/- acres) and Low Density Residential
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 41 of 49
(9+/- acres) for Kartchner by Richard Kartchner - 4325 and 4315 N. Ten
Mile Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to reopen the public -- the hearing for CPA 08-006 for
Kartchner for the purposes of deliberation. Any other comments, Commissioners?
Commissioner Rohm, any comments?
Rohm: No. Well, I think we have all stated our positions previously and the staff did a
very good job of pointing out the air quality and the sound issues are reasons that they
are recommending denial and my only comments to any and all of that is at such time
that we end up in a fully developed wastewater treatment facility, I believe that the city
will be compelled to ultimately address the sound and odor issues via whatever
avenues are available to the city, as in building walls to keep the sound in and I think
that ultimately it will come to that and it may not be for ten or 15 years, I don't know, but
at some point in time I think that the city will be compelled to address those issues and it
will change the decibels on the Kartchner property. But the fact of the matter is is they
are not in that position today and so I think that's kind of dancing around the issue a little
bit, but the fact of the matter is is right now that property falls within the area that the city
is not in support of additional development. So, until the city has made those changes, I
don't know that I could support changing the land use map at this time.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to point out on the record that this -- that Richard
Kartchner did submit a letter on 8/11 for the 8/14 hearing and with signatures. It's in our
records here.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: And, again, stating his position regarding odor and noise that exists
on the property now.
Moe: Okay. Any other comments, Commissioners? If not, can I get a motion?
Newton-Huckabay: I would say lack of odor and noise that exists on the property now.
Moe: Okay.
Marshall: Okay. Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 42 of 49
Marshall: I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number CPA 08-006
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 14th, 2008, for the
reasons as stated in the staff report.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to deny CPA 08-006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-001 Request
to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the
land use designation of 15.46 acres of land from Medium Density
Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Janicek Ten Mile /Chinden
Property by Janicek Properties, LLC - SWC of N. Ten Mile Road and W.
Chinden Boulevard:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the hearing for CPA 08-001, for the Janicek Ten Mile -
Chinden properties for deliberation. Everyone remember where this one's at and the
conditions and such?
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. This was Chinden and --
Marshall: And Ten Mile.
Moe: Chinden and Ten Mile Road.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. This is one where I have that -- made note that -- I got the
impression that most of us were in disagreement with the city staff recommendation.
That the majority of the Commission felt like a mixed use community was an appropriate
use in this area.
Rohm: Would it be appropriate to ask staff to kind of give us a recap of the application,
real quick like. Is that possible?
Parsons: For tonight, no. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if you recall this
property, the applicant did a fine job of kind of giving you the history of this site when
they -- when they sold the property to David Turnbull, it was the impression that this
person could have this property and come in and have commercial on the site. I think
staffs contention is that -- and the applicant did a good job of, basically, referencing that
this is just a Comp Plan amendment and the concept plan that they submitted was only
a conceptual plan. When they come in and choose to annex into the city, they will
definitely have something more substantial. If you recall in that concept plan they were
showing accesses onto Chinden, which staff had -- didn't support and, then, they didn't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 43 of 49
feel it was appropriate to the surrounding uses in the area at this time. That's what I
recall from that 8/7 hearing. Any questions?
Rohm: Thank you.
Parson: You're welcome.
Moe: I think you did a good job of explaining there, Bill.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number
CPA 08-001 as presented during the hearing date on August 7th and 14th, for the
reasons that the Commission feels that mixed use community is an appropriate use for
this property. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to send onto City Council approval of CPA 08-001
for Janicek Ten Mile / Chinden Properties. All those in favor say eye. Opposed?
Marshall: Aye.
Moe: That's four to one. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-003 Request
for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map
by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to
Mixed Use-Community for approximately 94 acres for Volterra
Commercial by Primeland Investment Group, LLC -west of North Ten
Mile Road and north of West McMillan Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the hearing for CPA 08-003 for Volterra Commercial
for deliberations. Again, Commission, this is another one that -- that staff has
recommended approvals on. Anyone need some additional information or can I get
someone to give me a motion?
Rohm: This one the staff is in support of?
Moe: Yes, they were.
Newton-Huckabay: I have notes here that the balance of the Commission was also in
support of this. They felt like it was an appropriate change of designation.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 44 of 49
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: From medium density residential to mixed use community.
Because it created a more appropriate buffer surrounding the area.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA 08-003 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 7th, 2008, and reopened for
today's hearing of the 14th. End of motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approval of CPA 08-003
for Volterra. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-004 Request
for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map
by changing the land use designation of approximately 40.5 acres from
Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional for Meridian and
Amity by Hawkins Companies -Northwest Comer of West Amity Road
and South Meridian Road:
Moe: I'd like to open the hearing for CPA 08-004 for Meridian and Amity, again, for
deliberations. This hearing staff was recommending approval of the CPA request. I
think the last hearing we also -- they were looking for annexation and recommending
denial of the annexation at that time, but it's not showing up within our agenda this
evening. So, it's just the CPA that we are dealing with.
Newton-Huckabay: Continue the annexation to 9/4.
Moe: Or at some other time. Yes. We don't need to deal with that, because it's not
noted.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I think we did that last time.
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: And I have in my notes that we were leaning towards an approval
of the mixed use regional --
Moe: Yes, we were.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 45 of 49 '
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 08-004
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 7th, 2008, and continued
to today's date. End of motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council approval of CPA 08-
004 for Meridian and Amity. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-009 Request
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use
Map by changing the designation of approximately 9 acres from Medium
Density Residential to High Density Residential for Biskay by Greg
Johnson -south side of Hams Street, west of S. Meridian Road (SH 69)
and north of W. Amity Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the hearing for CPA 08-009 for Biskay for
deliberations.
O'Brien: I just had down that it's too dense next to a mixed use area in my notes. High
density is -- the density is too high and that I think my notes were that I was not in favor
of that as written. I think that was the one that the city wanted to make a commercial
park out of that -- or a regional park. A community park I mean.
Newton-Huckabay: There was some questions on a park -- on a community park. I
made the argument that -- or based my decision on the argument that the mixed use
regional would create the transition to the currently -- current medium density residential
designation and that going to high density would be going the other direction. I move to
recommend denial to City Council of file number CPA 08-009 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of August 7, 2008, for the following reasons: That the
designation of high density residential is deemed inappropriate in that area and that the
afore proposed mixed use regional would create an appropriate transition to the
currently designated medium density residential.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to forward on denial of CPA 08-009 for Biskay. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion for denial is approved.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 46 of 49
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2008: CPA 08-007 Request
for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map
by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to
Mixed Use -Community for approximately 10 acres for Zamzows
Chinden by JR, LLC -south side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately'/
mile east of Meridian Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the hearing for CPA 08-007 for Zamzows on Chinden
for deliberations.
Marshall: I was pretty tom -- Mr. Chair, I was pretty tom over this. I mean I can see the
-- it's kind of landlocked there, would like to see that area developed, but to be honest,
seeing traffic left-ins and right-ins, right-outs, and there will be a lot of traffic coming in,
left-in off of Chinden into that, I just can't support due to the access.
Rohm: And I feel quite the opposite. I think that it is currently being used as a
commercial property, even though it's not within the city, and to deny the use that it's
currently being used for, just because it's becoming -- would be coming into the city, just
is -- doesn't not make any sense to me. So, I think that it should be allowed to have the
designation the application's been made for.
Marshall: May I respond to that --
Moe: Yes, Mr. Marshall. Yes, you may.
Marshall: -- just very quickly? My issue was that if it continued being used as it is, I
would not have a problem. My problem is they want to add additional retail and
significant amount of multi-family and residential that would add very significant traffic
volumes to that access. Therein lies my problem.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: May I respond to that? I believe they made some mention of other access
points coming in off of Meridian Road to that residential area a stub street or something
that was going to go to the backside of that for access residents that was proposed.
Newton-Huckabay: That was --
O'Brien: I remember --
Newton-Huckabay: That was the city's proposal that it -- when this property
redeveloped in the future that access would come up through Arcadia or Meridianna.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 47 of 49
Moe: I'm not sure --
O'Brien: The street on the other side.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The street on the west. But that's -- or up through Saguaro
Canyon or something like that or currently it --
O'Brien: So, the issue, I guess, is access getting into the property from Chinden
Boulevard going across the road across traffic to get into this. So, it would have to be a
right-in on Chinden --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's currently a full access.
Marshall: Full access. People coming home from work would tum in there.
O'Brien: Is that kind of close to the intersection for that kind of traffic? I don't know. I'm
for the thing. I agree with Commissioner Rohm on it, but I'm just concerned about that
--that access for that amount of people.
Rohm: Can we ask staff just for amoment -- can they take access from the residential -
-- residentially development property to the south to the multi-family portion of this
development and take access from Chinden for the commercially developed portion of
this proposal? Can it be stipulated as such?
Canning: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Rohm, generally we like to see an integration
of the commercial and residential from the staff standpoint and we actively argue for
that, but we have seen developments where just the commercial portion takes access to
the arterial and the residential takes a different access, yes. The City Council has
approved those types of situations.
Rohm: In this particular situation it just seems like that's a good fit, because I don't
disagree with the -- that the back portion of it being multi-family is what's being
proposed and the front half being commercial, it just -- it seems like that would make it
work for all parties. And I don't know if you have to make a motion to the effect that the
residential portion has to take access from -- or cannot take access from Chinden or
how would you do that?
Marshall: Except for we are not even acting on the --
Newton-Huckabay: We are just acting on the Comp Plan amendment.
Rohm: Just on the Comp --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 48 of 49
Canning: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Rohm, if I might add one more comment that
-- please recall that this is a mixed use designation, so the mixed use designation does
specifically speak to integrating the uses.
Rohm: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA
08-007 as presented during the hearing on August 7th and 14th, with the reasons that
the Commission feels like mixed use regional, given the long-term historic use of this
property and conceptual plan or -- I'm sorry. What?
Marshall: This is just community --
Newton-Huckabay: Didn't I say mixed use community?
Moe: No. You said regional.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. My mistake. Mixed use community, .given that the current
long-term use on this is appropriate and the proposed conceptual site plan -- or plan as
well. I have lost my train of thought. Did I get it -- you threw me off. Okay. Let me start
over.
Moe: That would be best.
Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA
08-007 as presented during the hearing on August 7th and 14th with the reasons that
the Commission feels like mixed use community is an appropriate land use designation
for this property given the current and long-term use and based on the conceptual site
plan submitted.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approving CPA 08-007
for Zamzows on Chinden as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Marshall: Aye.
Moe: That motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Special Meeting
August 14, 2008
Page 49 of 49
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
O'Brien: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
That motion carries.
Moe: Special meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
DAVID MOE - C
ATTEST:
g I ~ I~
DATE APPROVED
9
p_ ~T13S•
:, ~9
''%,,Y .
''~~,,~,ii nn~N