HomeMy WebLinkAboutMussell Corner Subdivision PFPApril 12, 2004 PFP 03-007
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004
APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continues Public Hearing from March 4, 2004 — Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Mussell Comer Subdivision -
northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
IDAHO TRANSP. DEPT.
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See previous item packet / minutes
See attached update / comments
Date: y.,l3-ov
Staff Initials:
Phone: g 7----771c n
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Keith Bird
William L.M. Nary
Sham, Wardle
Charles M. Rountree
i
'F
OF CITY OF
11 IDAHO
CITY BALL
(208) 888-4433 — Fax 8874813
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887.2211 —Fax 898-9551
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466.9272 — FAX 466-4405
MEMORANDUM: P & Z Hearing Date: April 15, 2004
To: Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor and City Council
From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner �y
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech ''r: $; •,
• Subject: Mussell Corner Subdivision Update
(AZ-03-038/PFP-03-007/CUP-03-071)
UPDATE:
At the March 4, 2004, public hearing, the Commission voted to continue the subject application
to give the applicant time to work out some of the concerns raised in the staff report for denial
(attached). Since the March 0 hearing, staff has been in contact with Ada County Code
Enforcement staff and the applicant's representative on a regular basis. Staff is pleased to report
that the applicant/owner has addressed some of the Ada County code infractions. However,
there continues to be several issued identified in the staff report that have not been resolved.
On April 7, 2004, staff received a new letter from Ada County stating that there are still four out
of the originakfive issues that the applicant/owner needs to address. The. County has given the
applicant/owner until April 20, 2004, to bring the property into compliance with Ada County
Code. As requested by the Commission, staff believes that the applicant/owner has begun to
show good -faith effort by removing the mercury-vapor light in the rock yard, as well as the
overhead power to the light (items 4 & 5 in the original letter from Ada County, dated 2-4-04 &
items 2 & 3 in the new letter). The applicant/owner has also removed the storage unit with the
illegal signage (item 2 in the original letter from Ada County). However, when staff did a site
inspection on April 9, 2004, the outdoor storage areas near Victory Road were not screened
(item 3 in the original letter from Ada County, and item 4 in the new letter). The applicant stated
on April 8th that screening was presently being installed, but as of the print deadline for this
memo it was not complete.
There are critical issues concerning the subject site and submitted site plan that are still
outstanding. Because the outcome of the unresolved issues may have significant impacts to what
the applicant is proposing to do on this site, staff believes that these issues should be resolved
prior to annexation and approval of a site plan. Staff recommends that the Commission continue
these items again so that the applicant can address the major outstanding issues (or deny the
applications, as originally recommended). For the reasons listed in the staff report (attached),
and reiterated below, staff still does not believe that annexation and zoning of this site is
currently in the best interest of the City.
NOTE: Because the applicant has not changed the circumstances surrounding this development
enough to make findings for approval, conditions are not included with this memo. However, to
give the applicant a better idea of what aspects of City Code need to be further addressed, staff
is including some recommended changes to the submitted site plan below.
STAFF ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the Ada County issues, there were several issues pertaining to the annexation,
zoning and development of this property that City staff outlined in the staff report. Staff believes
that the following are the most important design-related issues that need to be resolved prior to
the City approving a development site plan for this property:
Access to SH 69 (Kung-Meridian Road) - This remains to be probably the biggest issue of
concern for staff. The applicant continues to propose two access points onto a Type IV arterial
roadway; ITD has stated that access will be limited to SH 69 at the half-mile only. (Staff has
been generally supportive of this ITD policy on Type IV arterial roadways.) Staff has seen no
correspondence from ITD stating that this site will be allowed any access to SH 69. This site has
approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on Victory Road. Access to SH 69, an arterial with a
current speed limit of 55 MPH, is not warranted, nor is it in the best interest of the traveling
public.
Landscaping — The subject applications do not propose landscaping along Victory Road or SH
69 in compliance with the City's Landscape Ordinance (35-foot wide buffer on SH 69 / 20-foot
wide buffer on Victory Road). The applicant is proposing to defer construction of the required
landscaping adjacent to the existing nursery, until the property redevelops. Neither staff nor the
applicant know when the nursery will redevelop. Because this is not vacant ground and because
there are current businesses operating on the site, stall believes that the site should be
landscaped in accordance with Meridian City Code.
Building Setbacks and Lack of Additional Right-of-Way — The submitted plat/site plan do
not show the ultimate right-of-way on Victory Road (35-feet to centerline) or SH 69 (120-feet to
centerline). If/when the ultimate rights-of-way are obtained by the road entities, and the required
landscape buffers adjacent to roadways are installed, the proposed structures on SH 69 and the
existing home/office near Victory Road will encroach into the required landscape buffers. The
proposed structures adjacent to SH 69 should account for the future right-of-way and landscape
buffer requirements.
Open Space/Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided as part
of each Planned Development (PD). MCC 12-6 does not exempt non-residential PDs from
providing amenities. It does state that "other amenities appropriate to the size and uses of the
proposed development, as may be proposed by the applicant and approved by the Commission
and Council," can be approved. Landscaped open space of at least 10% may count as an
amenity (MCC 12-6-2.A.3.a). In the applicant's letter it is stated that one of the amenities is the
open space provided by the commercial nursery. Inherent to the landscape business, there is
considerably more than 10% of the site that is "open" space. However, the applicant is not
Proposing to designate any of the site as platted, permanent open space. Staff has concerns with
the redevelopment of this site and the provision of a certain percentage of open space. The
second proposed amenity is approximately 550 feet of a meandering sidewalk adjacent to SH
69. This site has over 1,200 feet of frontage on SH 69; the proposed sidewalk encompasses less
than half of the frontage of the site. Staff does not believe that the proposed sidewalk amenity is
appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development, as it does not even continue the
entire length of the site. Staff is not supportive of the proposed amenities.
Parking and Drive Aisles - The applicant is proposing to construct (pave, stripe, etc.) parking
for the gas/convenience/feed store in accordance with MCC. However, the submitted site does
not address parking for the existing uses on this site. The dimensions of the existing dirt
driveways, unimproved parking areas, screening/landscaping adjacent to the parking and
loading zones do not comply with MCC, and the applicant is not proposing to bring them into
compliance with the subject CUP/PD application. Because there are current businesses
operating on the "underdeveloped" portion of this site, and patrons of the existing and proposed
businesses will be sharing drive aisles and parking, all parking stalls and drive aisles shall be
constructed or reconstructed in accordance with Meridian City Code (MCC 11-13 outlines the
requirements for all off-street parking facilities).
Public Services - The Meridian Fire Department continues to have concerns with serviceability
of this site, as it is currently outside of their five-minute response zone. The Fire Department
does not know when a new station will be constructed in this area, south of the freeway. The
subject site is not readily serviceable by the City of Meridian's sanitary sewer and water
systems. Water mains would have to be extended in E. Victory Road from the Observation Point
Subdivision. (The original staff report stated that a temporary sanitary sewer lift station would
need to be installed near the northwest comer of the development, and a pressure main would
need to be extended approximately 1,400 -feet north on SH 69 to the existing sewer at the Elk
Run Subdivision. Since the preparation of the staff report the applicant has proposed to extend a
gravity sewer line in SH 69 from the Elk Run Subdivision.)
For the reasons listed in the original staff report (attached) and as reiterated in this memo,
staff does not believe that approval of the annexation/zoning (AZ -03-038),
preliminary/final plat (PFP-03-007) and conditional use permit (CUP -03-071) applications
on this site are currently in the best interest of the City. Staff recommends that the
Commission continue these items again so that the applicant can address the major
outstanding issues (or deny the applications, as originally recommended).
From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner Al
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech
Subject: Mussell Corner Subdivision
Annexation/Rezone (AZ) Approval of 21.38 Acres from C2 (Ada County) to
C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial), by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
(File No. AZ -03-038)
Preliminary/Final Plat (PFP) Approval of Four (4) Buildable Lots on 21.38
Acres in a Proposed C -G Zone, by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. (File No. PFP-03-
007)
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Approval for a Planned Development (PD) for
a Combination Feed Store and Gas/Convenience Station and to Allow the
Existing Commercial and Residential Uses to Remain on 21.38 Acres in a
Proposed C -G Zone, by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. (File No. CUP -03-071)
-k
The Applicant, Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., has applied for Annexation/Zoning (AZ),
Preliminary/Final Plat (PFP) and Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development (CUP/PD)
approval of four (4) buildable lots on 21.38 acres within the proposed C -G zone. The site is
located at the northeast comer of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69).
The subject development is eligible for a combined preliminary/final plat application because the
proposed subdivision does not exceed four lots, there are no new streets being dedicated or
widened, and this development is not located within a floodplain, hillside or the like (MCC 12-3-
3). One of the four buildable lots is for a new combination feed store and gas/convenience
station, located on the northeast corner of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road. Another one
of the proposed lots will be for a future stand alone commercial building. The remaining two
proposed lots will be utilized in their current capacity which includes: growing and storing
materials for the on-site commercial landscape nursery, a sprinkler/irrigation business, and a
single-family residence/landscape office. The Applicant is requesting detailed CUP/PD approval
of the proposed feed store/gas station on Lot 3, and of the existing structures on Lots 1 & 4. The
existing coffee kiosk located near the intersection of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road will
be removed if the application is approved.
A7A3-038. PPP -0-007. CUP -03471
Museatl Cwn¢RZ.PFP.CUP.dac
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
MAYOR
A Good Place to Live
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TaUNCIL
CITY
CITY OF MERIDIAN
(208)4669272 • Fax
MEM
COUNCIL MEMBERS
OR466-4405
PUBLIC WORKS
William L.M. Nary
33 EAST IDAHO
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Keith Bird
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 898-5500 Fax 887-1297
Shaun Wardle
(208) 888-4433 • FAX (208) 887-4813
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
PLANNING AND ZONING
Charles M. Rountree
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 - FAX 888-6854
STAFF REPORT:
Transmittal Date:
February 26, 2004
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner Al
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech
Subject: Mussell Corner Subdivision
Annexation/Rezone (AZ) Approval of 21.38 Acres from C2 (Ada County) to
C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial), by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
(File No. AZ -03-038)
Preliminary/Final Plat (PFP) Approval of Four (4) Buildable Lots on 21.38
Acres in a Proposed C -G Zone, by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. (File No. PFP-03-
007)
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Approval for a Planned Development (PD) for
a Combination Feed Store and Gas/Convenience Station and to Allow the
Existing Commercial and Residential Uses to Remain on 21.38 Acres in a
Proposed C -G Zone, by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. (File No. CUP -03-071)
-k
The Applicant, Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., has applied for Annexation/Zoning (AZ),
Preliminary/Final Plat (PFP) and Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development (CUP/PD)
approval of four (4) buildable lots on 21.38 acres within the proposed C -G zone. The site is
located at the northeast comer of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69).
The subject development is eligible for a combined preliminary/final plat application because the
proposed subdivision does not exceed four lots, there are no new streets being dedicated or
widened, and this development is not located within a floodplain, hillside or the like (MCC 12-3-
3). One of the four buildable lots is for a new combination feed store and gas/convenience
station, located on the northeast corner of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road. Another one
of the proposed lots will be for a future stand alone commercial building. The remaining two
proposed lots will be utilized in their current capacity which includes: growing and storing
materials for the on-site commercial landscape nursery, a sprinkler/irrigation business, and a
single-family residence/landscape office. The Applicant is requesting detailed CUP/PD approval
of the proposed feed store/gas station on Lot 3, and of the existing structures on Lots 1 & 4. The
existing coffee kiosk located near the intersection of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road will
be removed if the application is approved.
A7A3-038. PPP -0-007. CUP -03471
Museatl Cwn¢RZ.PFP.CUP.dac
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 2
This property is currently zoned C2 in Ada County and is designated in the City's
Comprehensive Plan as "Commercial". A CUP/PD application is required because there are
multiple buildings on a single parcel and because the existing residential use is prohibited in the
proposed C -G zone. The PD application requests that the existing single-family home be
approved in the C -G zone as a use exception as allowed in MCC 12-6-3. The Applicant has not
submitted detailed plans for Lot 2 and is requesting only conceptual approval at this time. All
future development within the boundaries of the preliminary plat, including the possible re-
development of Lots 1 & 4, will require a detailed conditional use permit.
The Applicant is not requesting any deviations from the standard dimensional standards (e.g. —
setback, frontage, height, etc.) with the PD. However, the Applicant is requesting that the
landscaping and other land use buffers adjacent to the existing nursery, home/office, and
sprinkler/irrigation building on Lots 1 & 4, be allowed to remain as -is until these lots redevelop.
The Applicant is proposing to utilize the open space provided by the commercial nursery as one
amenity and a meandering sidewalk adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road as the other. See the
Conditional Use/PD section of this report for further analysis of this request.
The Applicant is proposing two new access points onto Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69), a
principal arterial roadway, and three access points onto Victory Road, a collector roadway. A
common ingress/egress easement, shared by all four (4) buildable lots in the subdivision, which
provides access to both Kuna-Meridian Road and Victory Road is proposed. Kuna-Meridian
Road is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (TPD), and Victory Road
is under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). See the "Findings" in the
Annexation & Zoning section of this report, and thecorrespondences from ACRD and ITD for
detailed analysis of the proposed access points.
Ada County Development Services has submitted a letter to the City outlining the various code
infractions on this site (see letter from Ada County Development Services dated 2-4-04). The
letter explains that there are uses on this site that that have not obtained the County's approval
and are in violation of the approved site plan (File # 99 -27 -PDC). In addition to the illegal uses,
there are storage areas that have not been properly screened, signage that has not been permitted,
lighting that has been installed in violation of Ada County Code, and other landscaping
violations. See the "Findings" in the Annexation & Zoning section of this report for detailed
analysis.
Staff has provided a detailed analysis for the requested annexation and zoning, preliminary/final
plat, and conditional use permit applications below. Staff is recommending denial of the subject
annexation and zoning (217.03-038), prehininaryffinal plat (PP -03-007) and conditional use
permit (CUP -03-071). Because the staff recommendation is for denta4 no conditions of
approval are included in this report
LOCATION
A7,03-038, PPP43 007, CUP•03-071
MMWRCo RZPP.CUPAOC
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 3
The subject site is located on the northeast corner of Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69) and Victory
Road, within Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North — Single-family homes (Edmonds Subdivision), zoned RUT (Ada County) / Vacant,
currently used for storage, zoned RUT (Ada County)
South — 143 -acre parcel, currently used for agricultural purposes, zoned RUT (Ada County)
East — Single-family home (Observation Point Subdivision), zoned R-4
West — Single-family homes, zoned RUT (Ada County)
OWNER OF RECORD
The property owners of record are Tim & Carol Mussell, who have provided notarized consent
for Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., to submit the subject applications.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS
The legal description submitted with the application meets the requirements of the City of
Meridian and State Tax Commission. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning
Area.
Because there are existing commercial uses on this site, staff has combined the analysis of use
with the annexation and zoning findings.
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment."
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment;
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as
"Commercial". In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial' areas are
anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and
visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi -family
residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Staff finds that
the requested C -G zoning generally conforms to this stated purpose and intent of the
Commercial designation.
AZ03-038, Pi'P-03407, C[1P-03-071 HuWICana.RZPP.CUP.dm
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 4
Staff finds the following Goals, Objectives, and Action items contained in the 2002
Comprehensive Plan to be applicable to this application (staff analysis is in italics below
policy):
• "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII,
Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2)
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has submitted a letter to the City stating
that their policy for access to a Type IPPrincipal Arterial will be at intersections
only, and spaced at one-half mile intervals in urban areas ITD allows approaches
(other than intersections) in special cases and on a temporary basis. Stafffands that
the proposed access points to Kuna Meridian Road (SH 69) do not meet the location
requirements ofITD.
• "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback,
vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item
4)
The Applicant is specifically asking for a waiver of the requirement to install
landscaping adjacent to the existing uses that are to remain on-site. Further, in a
letter to the City, ITD has stated that its future right of way width on Kuna Meridian
Road will be 120 feet on each side of the centerline (240 feet total) for building
setbacks and to include a frontage road, or, 70 -feet each side of centerline (140 feet
total) 60he developer provides an internal frontage road type system to feeder roads.
The Applicant is proposing cross -access between the lots using the driveway/parkirrg
lots, but is not proposing a public frontage road Iffwhen the ultimate right-of-way is
obtained by ITD, and the required landscape bufer adjacent to Kuna Meridian Road
is installed, the proposed structures on Kuna Meridian Road will encroach into the
required landscape buffer. Stafffinds that the proposed building setbacks, landscape
waivers, and lack of a frontage road or accountingfor additional right-of-way on
Kuna-Meridian Road does not meet the above -listed Comprehensive Plan Action
item. (See more discussion in the Conditional Use/PD section below.)
"Permit new . . .commercial development only where urban services can be
reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to
the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action item 6)
The Meridian Fire Department has submitted comments and conditions for this site
(see comments at end of this report). One of the comments received from the Fire
Department states that the proposed project is outside the five-minute response zone
goal. Achievement of this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to
enhance the probability of a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support.
The budget constraints are typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are
located within 1. S miles from a given location and sufficient operational funis to staff
AUM38, PPP -03007, CUUM71 MWUCa .RZPP.CUPdM
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 5
the facilities Staff does not anticipate that at the time of final approval of the first
Phase of this development that the response time goals of the Fire Department will be
achieved
The subject site is not readily serviceable by City of Meridian's sanitary sewer and
water systems. Water mains would have to be extended in E. Victory Road from the
Observation Point Subdivision. A temporary sanitary sewer 1ift station would need to
be installed near the northwest corner of the development, and a pressure main would
need to be extended approximately 1, 400 -feet north on N. Kuna Meridian Road to the
existing sewer at the Elk Run Subdivision.
"Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential
areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII,
Goal I, Objective B, Action item 5)
The subject property has frontage on both an arterial roadway, Kuna Meridian Road
and a collector roadway, Victory Road The existing uses adjacent to this site have
not yet developed to the expected residential densities anticipated in the
Comprehensive Plan. Because the adjoining properties are still somewhat rural in
nature, the development of a supply store may complement the existing uses.
Depending on how the rest of the site builds -out, this development may or may not
compliment adjoining residential developments
• "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area."
(Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B)
The proposed and existing uses do provide a variety of commercial uses in this area,
as envisioned with the Comprehensive Plan.
• `Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V,
Goal IIl, Objective D, Action item 5)
The Applicant is specifically asking a waiver of the requirement to install landscaping
adjacent to the existing commercial uses that are to remain on-site. (See detailed
analysis in the Conditional Use/PD section below.)
• "On -street bikeways should be incorporated on all future Collector streets." (Chapter
VI, Figure VI -5)
Figure VI -5 on page 57 of the Comprehensive Plan designates a bikeway on both
Victory Road and Kuna Meridian Road adjacent to the site. The Applicant has not
addressed the issues of bikeways adjacent to the site. Staff is recommending that the
Applicant work with ACHD to provide a bike lane on Victory Roam but not Kuna-
Meridian Road Because the posted speed limit on KunaMeridian Road is 55 MPH,
staff ff does not believe that a bikeway should be required
AZ -03036, PPP -03007, CUP -63471
MW -Mo RLMCUP.dx
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 6
• "Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended
Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land use
decisions." (Chapter VI, Goal 11, Objective A, Action item 3)
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities
in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible
and convenient. The Applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement to
construct approximately 850 feet of sidewalk on Victory Road. This waiver request is
not pedestrian; friendly nor is it consistent with the literature listed above.
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Staff does not anticipate that the Applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the
future.
C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning — for example, a residential
area turning into commercial area by means of conditional use permits;
Nurseries are a permitted use in the proposed C -G zone. Service stations are also a
permitted use in the proposed C -G zone. Convenience stores require conditional use
permit approval in the C -G zone. Residential uses are prohibited in the C -G zone.
Irrigation/sprinkler businesses are not a listed use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control
(MCC 11-8-1). The existing inigation/sprinkler business that is to remain does have
outdoor storage, office space, and has functions similar to a contractors yard. Because the
irrigation/sprinkler business is not specifically listed as a permitted use in the C -G zone,
it has been determined that conditional use permit approval would be required (MCC 11-
6-4). The purpose of the C -G District is to provide for commercial uses, which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building (MCC 11-7-2.K). Staff
finds that the proposed gas/convenience/feed store, the existing home, and the existing
inigation/sprinkler business that is to remain, are not principally permitted uses in the C-
G zone. The gas/convenience/feed store and the existing inigation/sprinkler business
would require separate conditional use approval. The existing home that is to remain is
not eligible for permitting and does not conform to the proposed zoning (non -conforming
use).
D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the
area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad
access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed in a fashion
similar to the proposed rezone area;
Observation Point Subdivision and Bear Creek Subdivision have recently been annexed
and developed with residential land uses in this area. There are not any developments in
the area that have developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area.
AZ03-038, P"43.007, CUP -03-071
MussellC UA LPP.CUP.do.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 7
Kuna-Meridian Road was recently widened in this area by ITD. Victory Road is not
scheduled by ACHD for any improvements in the current Five Year Work Program or
CIP. The intersection of Victory Road/Kuna-Meridian Road is ranked #2 on the highway
district's prioritization list and is anticipated to be a signalized intersection in the near
future. The Commission and Council should rely on the preceding facts and any public
testimony to determine whether the changes in the area dictate that this area should be
annexed into the City and zoned C -G at this time.
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of
the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed C -G zone/new uses, and any future uses, if designed,
constructed and operated in accordance with adopted city ordinances, should be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the intended character of the vicinity.
The site is intended to be utilized for commercial uses which, based on the
Comprehensive Plan description, will have such uses as retail, wholesale, service and
office uses, multi -family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as
government offices.
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
Accessory to the existing landscape business, there are chemicals, pesticides, and
fertilizers stored on this site. Further, the proposal to operate a gas station/feed store may
be disturbing to the neighborhood as it is an auto -oriented business. Appropriate buffers
should be required on the north and east boundaries of this development, as the abutting
uses are less -intense than the proposed and existing uses (see MCC 12-13-12-4). The
Commission and Council should rely on public testimony to determine whether the
proposed uses will be disturbing or hazardous to the neighboring uses.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning
amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services;
Staff finds that the recent roadway improvements to Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69) should
be adequate to serve this project for the short term. However, ITD has indicated that SH
69 is not constructed to its ultimate section and will need to be widened again in the
future. ITD needs additional right-of-way and/or a frontage road adjacent to/through this
property (see letter from ITD). Improvements to Victory Road in this area have not taken
place in the recent past, and except for the anticipated signalization at SH 69, none are
anticipated within the next 20 years. At full build out, staff believes that this site will add
a significant amount of traffic to the roadway system (see ACED staff report for further
details). This site has over 1,000 feet of frontage on Victory Road. Other than 150 feet of
A2-03-038, "P-03007, CUP -03471 Mussell Com9'.RURCCP.d.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 8
sidewalk near the proposed gas station/feed store, the Applicant is not proposing to make
any improvements (landscaping, sidewalk, bike lane, road widening, tum -lane, etc.) to
Victory Road. The ACHD is recommending, with site-specific and standards conditions,
approval of the subject development.
The subject site is not readily serviceable by City of Meridian's sanitary sewer and water
systems. Water mains would have to be extended in E. Victory Road from the
Observation Point Subdivision. A temporary sanitary sewer lift station would need to be
installed near the northwest comer of the development, and a pressure main would need
to be extended approximately 1,400 -feet north on N. Kuna-Meridian Road to the existing
sewer at the Elk Run Subdivision.
On January 23, 2004, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with
representatives of key service providers to this property. The Meridian Fire Department
has concerns with serviceability of this site, as it iscurrently outside of their five minute
response zone. Because the Fire Department does not know when a new station will be
constructed in this area, south of the freeway, all buildings within this development must
be sprinklered (all of the detailed conditions from the Fire Department and other
agencies/departments are at the end of this report).
The Applicant has not indicated, on the submitted site plan, where the refuse container(s)
will be located. The Applicant should coordinate the location and design of refuse
container(s) with Sanitary Services Company (SSC). Trash enclosures must be built in
the location and to the size approved by SSC. All dumpster(s) must be screened in
accordance with MCC 1I-12-I.C.
The Commission and Council should reference any written or verbal testimony submitted
by the Meridian Police Department, and any other agency not listed above, regarding
their ability to adequately service this project.
Staff finds that the property proposed for annexation cannot current be served
adequately by all essential public facilities and services.
H- Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
If this annexation/development is approved, the developer will be financing the extension
of sewer, water, local/imernal street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve
the project. The primary public costs to serve the future site will be fire and police
services. Staff finds that this development will not cause excessive additional
requirements at public cost.
L Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
A7.03-038, PFP-owo7, CUPAi.pn
Mu.a Co AZPP.CUPA=
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 9
Staff finds that the gas station/convenience/feed store uses may involve activities,
processes, materials, equipment or conditions that could produce excessive traffic, noise,
fumes and/or odors, as well as other negative public impacts. A kev questionthat should
be discussed at the public hearing is whether the impacts will be "excessive.' MCC 11-
12-2 and I1-12-3 are intended to mitigate impacts of special uses such as fire hazards,
bulk storage, noises. In the Applicant's letter, they do not address the hours of operation
for the proposed gas station/convenience/feed store. Conditions associated with a C
and/or Development Agreement con UP
ld establish use parameters that would prevent
detrimental effects. In order to eaFAmiah
�w+� �• i ci uc11vG1 aR
potential for refri
is te• gerated truck operation and a_ntWMW decibel levels generated at the
J. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed
as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
Staff finds that any future uses will impact the level and flow of traffic on the
surrounding roadways. ACHD estimates this site will generate 1,632 additional vehicle
trips per day (74 existing). Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City
should "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter
VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2).
ACRD has evaluated access to this site from Victory Road, while ITD has jurisdiction
over access to Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69). ACHD has approved two access points to
Victory Road. Please review the ACHD report for this project for additional information
regarding this portion of this finding.
ITD has submitted a letter to the City stating that their policy for access to a Type IV
Principal Arterial (SH 69) will be at intersections only, and spaced at one-half mile
intervals in urban areas. ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases
and on a temporary basis (see letter from ITD). 1TD's policy on approaches lessens the
ability of driveways to create interference on the roadways. The driveways proposed to
SH 69 for this site do not conform to ITD's policy listed above for approaches on a Type
IV roadway. Currently SH 69 has a posted speed limit of 55 MPH. Vehicles leaving this
site from the proposed access points will be attempting to merge with, or cross, traffic
that is going extremely fast. Staff finds that if the approaches to the site are constructed as
proposed, they will cause interference with the traffic flow on SH 69.
K Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
Staff is not aware of any natural or scenic feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or
destroyed by allowing this site to be annexed, zoned and developed with commercial
AZ -03.03k PFP-03007, CUP -03-071
MU8-&Co .RZPP.CUPdon
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 10
uses. Any existing trees larger than. 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per
the Landscape Ordinance.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord.
592,11-17-1992)"
Staff finds that at this time, the annexation and zoning of this property would not be
in the best interest of the City for the following reasons:
• the site lies outside the five-minute response zone goal of the Meridian Fire
Department;
• there are not any developments in the area that have developed in a fashion similar to
the proposed rezone area (commercial);
• the proposal to operate a gas station/convemence/feed store may be disturbing to the
neighborhood;
• municipal sanitary sewer and water systems are not readily available to provide
service;
• the proposed gas statlon/conventence store use may involve activities, processes,
materials, equipment and/or conditions that will produce additional traffic, noise,
fumes and/or odors, as well as other negative public impacts;
• a proposed use that is to remain (single family home) is not principally permitted in
the proposed zone;
• the Applicant is not proposing to bring the existing uses that are to remain, signage,
landscaping, public infrastructure (sidewalk bike lanes), screening, drive -aisles, or
parking, into compliance with current City Code;
• the proposed access points to Kuna Meridiem Road (SH 69) do not meet the location
requirements of HD or Action item 2 in Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, of the
Comprehensive Plan;
• the proposed building setbacks, landscape waivers, and lack of a frontage road or
accounting for additional right-of-way on Kuna Meridian Road does not meet
policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian City Code,
• Mr. Mussell has the following violations of Ada County Code, Title 8 existing on his
property.
1. Mr. Mussell hada site plan approval of File# 99 -27 -PDC in 1999. There are new
uses that are presently on the property, which requires that the approved site plan be
amended At the present time without having an approved amended site plan, the area
where the landscaping rocks are being displayed is in violation ofAda County Code.
2. Next a storage unit with a sign painted on each side of it has been placed on the
property along with numerous signs advertising product, without first obtaining the
Proper permits. It has been brought to the attention of this office thru Mr. Mussell 's
attorney that the sign on each side of the storage unit is not a sign, but a 3 -axle
trailer used for moving rock product. While conducting numerous site visits over the
past year it does not appear that the trailer has been moved from its current location.
AZ -03-03, PFP-03-007, CUP -0.3-071
MU—RC-M-RZPP.CUP.d.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 11
Therefore this use would meet the definition of a portable sign and would need a
permit.
3. The property also contains storage areas that are not properly screened per Ada
County Code.
4. A mercury vapor -light was installed that does not comply with Ada County Code.
Mercury vapor lights are prohibited in Ada County. Furthermore Condition #10 of
the Conditions of Approval, File #99 -27 -PDC, states if lighting is proposed the
applicant shall provide a detailed lighting plan prior to the intallation of the lighting.
Mr. Mussell believes that the light was installed through an approved permit with
Ada County by Fat Cat Fireworks. The permit, which was approved for Fat Cat
Fireworks, was a permit for selling fireworks only. There is no record of an approved
lighting permit in this office, nor has this office been provided with a detailed lighting
plan to allow for placement of lighting in the landscaping rock area.
S. It also appears that the overhead line, which was installed to provide power for
the light, has been installed in violation of Ada County Code, subsection 8-4A-21.
This section states that all utllittes for an approved use shall be installed
underground.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING CONDUIONS
Because the staff recommendation is for denial, no site specific conditions have been included.
PRELEWWARY/FINAr PLAT FINDINGS
Meridian City Code (MCC) 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the
acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of
this title and at least the following:
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
Please see the findings in section "A" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of this
report.
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Please see the findings in sections "G" and "H" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of
this report.
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Staff finds that the subdivision will not conflict with the capital improvement program
because the developer is required to install sewer, water, local street infrastructure,
utilities and irrigation, for the development at their cost.
A X03-038, PPP -03007, CUP -03-071 pfWWAComerUPP.CUP.dw
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 12
D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Please see the findings in sections "G" and "H" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of
this report. The Commission and Council consider the Meridian Police, Parks and Fire
Departments' comments with regard to their capability to serve the proposed
development.
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Please see the findings in sections "P' and "J" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of
this report. Staff finds the Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony
that may be presented to determine whether the proposed use may cause health, safety or
environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS
Because the staff recommendation is for denial, no site specific conditions have been included.
CONDITIONAL USLTD PERMIT FINDINGS
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. A CUP/PD application is required because there are
multiple buildings on a single parcel and because the existing residential use is prohibited
in the proposed C -G zone. The PD application requests that the existing single-family
home be approved in the C -G zone as a Use Exception (MCC 12-6-3). The Applicant
states that they are not requesting any reduced setbacks, reduced landscape buffers or
reduced development standards for the property that is to be developed along SH 69 and
Victory Road (see Applicant's letter). However, the Applicant is requesting that the
required landscaping, including land use and street buffers, adjacent to the existing
nursery, home/office, and commercial sprinkler/irrigation business lots be allowed to
remain as -is until redevelopment of the properties.
Landscaping/Required Yards (Setbacks)/Right-of-Way: The submitted preliminary
plat/site plan does not show the ultimate right-of-way on Victory Road (35 -feet to
centerline) or Kuna-Meridian Road (120 -feet to centerline). The submitted site plan does
show the required 35 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road, and a
AMM38,PPP-03-ao7,CUP-M-Pi Morsel Co A2Z.PP.CUP.d.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 13
20 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Victory Road (MCC 12-13-10-4). However,
except for the landscaping adjacent to the proposed gas/feed store on Lot 3, the Applicant
is requesting that the landscaping requirement be waived. If/when the ultimate rights-of-
way are obtained by the road entities, and the required landscape buffers adjacent to
roadways are installed, the proposed structures on Kuna-Meridian Road and the existing
home/office near Victory Road will encroach into the required landscape buffers.
Open Space/Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be provided
as part of each PD. MCC 12-6 does not exempt non-residential PDs from providing
amenities. It does state that "other amenities appropriate to the size and uses of the
proposed development, as may be proposed by the applicant and approved by the
Commission and Council," can be approved. Landscaped open space of at least 10% may
count as an amenity (MCC 12-6-2.A.3.a). In the Applicant's letter it is stated that one of
the amenities is the open space provided by the commercial nursery. Inherent to the
landscape business, there is considerably more than 10% of the site that is "open" space.
However, the Applicant is not proposing to designate any of the site for permanent open
space, Staff has concerns with the redevelopment of this site and there not being any
provision for keeping a certain percentage of open space. The second amenity is
approximately 550 feet of a meandering sidewalk adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road. This
site has over 1,200 feet of frontage; the proposed sidewalk encompasses less than half of
the frontage of the site. Staff does not believe that the proposed sidewalk amenity is
appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development, as it does not even continue
the entire length of the site. Staff is not supportive of the proposed amenities.
Parking: MCC 11-13 outlines the requirements for all off-street parking facilities (drive
aisles, stalls, striping, etc.). The Applicant is proposing to construct (pave, stripe, etc.)
parking for the gas/convenience/feed store in accordance with MCC. However, the
submitted site does not address parking for the existing uses on this site. The dimensions
of the existing dirt driveways, unimproved parking areas, screeningllandscaping adjacent
to the parking and loading zones do not comply with MCC, and the Applicant is not
proposing to bring them into compliance with the subject CUP/PD application.
Even though the site is large enough to accommodate all required yards (setbacks), open
space, parking, landscaping, right-of-way requirements, and other design features
required by Meridian City Code, the Applicant is not proposing to bring the site into
compliance with the City's adopted standards. Therefore, staff is not supportive of the
requested CUP/PD.
R. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
Please see the findings in section "A" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of this
report.
C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
AZ -03-038, PFA-0-DD7, CLT -OWI eHC�,RZPPCCp,dft
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 14
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area;
Please see the findings in section "E" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of this
report.
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff is Please see the findings in sections -r, and "T' of the Annexation and Zoning
portion of this report.
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and lure protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
Staff is Please see the findings in section "G" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of
this report.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community;
Please see the findings in sections "G", "H" and -r, of the Annexation and Zoning
portion of this report.
G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
Please see the findings in sections "P' and "T' of the Annexation and Zoning portion of
this report.
H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Please see the findings in section "T' of the Annexation and Zoning portion of this report.
L That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff is not aware of any natural or scenic feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or
destroyed by allowing this site to be annexed, zoned and developed with commercial
A MM58, PPP -03007, CUP-OM71
Mus.n roM.17PP.CUP.d.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 15
uses. Staff finds the Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony that
may be presented to determine whether the proposed use may result in the destruction,
loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of which staff is unaware. Any
existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the
Landscape Ordinance.
CONDITIONAL USE/PD REOUIItEMENTS
Because the staff recommendation is for denial, no site specific requirements have been
included.
OTHER AGENCY/DEPARTMENT COMMENTS/CONDITIONS
ME IAN FIRE DFPARTMTNT COMMONS (AZ -03-038 PEE -03-007, CUP -03-071)
1. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water
Department.
2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and
48' outside.
4. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation.
5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible constriction begins.
6, The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards and shall have a clear
driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29'
street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on
one side.
7. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature
landscaping.
8. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the Uniform
Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of
300' apart.
AZ -M38, FMOM07, CUP -03-071
MMMU Co MA7 PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 16
9. The proposed project lies outside the five-minute response zone goal. Achievement of
this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to enhance the probability of
a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support. The budget constraints are
typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are located within 1.5 miles from a
given location and sufficient operational funds to staff the facilities.
10. The fire department requests that
development of this project be eqany future signalization installed as the result of the
uipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and
efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this
installation is to be borne by the developer.
11. Any chemical storage on the site will require compliance with IFC and MCC 11-12-3.A
This includes agricultural fertilizers and chemicals.
12. Any activity involving the use or storage of flammable or explosive materials shall be
protected by adequate firefighting and fire -prevention equipment and by such safety
devises as are normally used in the handling of any such material. Such hazards shall be
kept removed from adjacent activities to a distance which is compatible with the potential
danger involved as specified in the UFC, Uniform Life Safety Code, MCC 11-12-3.C,
and the National Safety Foundation publications.
13. All buildings must be sprinklered.
Design the enclosure(s) per the standard recommendations of SSC for access, gates,
floor/pad, container stops/bumpers, and dimensions. Coordinate the design with SSC.
Approval of the trash enclosure design will be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Zoning Compliance for the project.
Due to the findings listed in this report, staff recommends denial of the annexation/zoning
(AZ -03-034 preliminary/final plat (PFP-03_007) and conditional use permit (CUP -03-071)
requests.
A" 038, PFP-M07, CUP•O3.On
NWOCa RZ.PP.CUPJ.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 2 of 76
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Before we go into the remainder of the agenda, we'd like to turn a few
minutes over to Mayor de Weerd.
De Weerd: Thank you. Do I need to give you my name and address? I just wanted to
welcome our two newest members of the Commission and restate, I guess, the
appreciation of the Mayor and Council to all of you. We know that this is a time
commitment and you add great value to our process and to the planning of our city and
we appreciate what you do and welcome Mr. Moe and Wendy, I have only known you
as Wendy, so I get caught u p with this N ewton-Huckabay -- H uckabay -- H uckabay.
But welcome. We do appreciate your commitment and your acceptance of this
appointment to the Commission. The six-year appointment.
Moe: Boy, I don't remember that.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me make those comments and, again,
welcome to the new members and just to again restate, we appreciate all you do and
the commitment you have to the city.
Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 03-038 Request for annexation and zoning of 21.38
acres from C-2 to C -G zones for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision
by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. — northeast corner of East Victory Road and
South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Item 5: Public Hearing: PFP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C -G zone for
proposed M ussell Corner Subdivision b y P innacle E ngineers, I nc. —
northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development to allow the construction of a combination feed
store and gas station / convenience store on one of the proposed lots and
to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain and the
property for Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -
northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Borup: Thank you, Mayor. Okay. The first item is concerning the Mussell Corner
Subdivision. We'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-038, the request for annexation
and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C -G zones for the proposed Mussell Corner
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. Also like to open Public Hearing PFP 03-007,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 3 of 76
request for preliminary final plat approval of four commercial building lots and we'd like
to open Public Hearing CUP 03-071, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned
development to allow construction of a combination feed store, gas station, convenience
store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential
uses to remain on the same property. Again, all three hearings are open at this time
and we'd like to start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant is
concurrently applying for annexation and zoning, preliminary/final plat and Conditional
Use Permit approval for a planned development that includes four build -able lot on
21.38 acres within the proposed C -G zone. The site is located on the northeast comer
of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road, also known as State Highway 69. This
property is currently zoned C-2 in Ada County and is designated on the city's
Comprehensive Plan as commercial. The site is currently being used to grow and store
materials for t he c ommercial I andscape n ursery. T here i s a Iso a s prinkler i rrigation
business. A drive-thru, expresso shop. And a single-family residence that also serves
as the landscape office. To the north of this site is Edmonds Subdivision, which is right
here. Large -- it's zoned RUT in the county. There is also a vacant big -- large vacant
parcel that's -- there is some storage going on on this site and it's vacant right now. To
the south is a 143 -acre here that's medium density residential in the city's
Comprehensive Plan. There is a single family home that's not on this screen here on
the site. Most of this is used as agriculture at this time. To the east is Observation
Point Subdivision. There is one single family home on this lot here. This is all one
large lot and, then, the rest of Observation Point. And to the west are some single-
family homes on large acreages as well. Also zoned RUT in Ada County. On one of
the four parcels proposed for building is a new combination feed store, gas and
convenience station. That is right on the corner -- the northeastern most -- well, the
southwestern most part of this site, but the northeast corner of the intersection.
Another one of the proposed lots is for a future stand-alone commercial building, which
is just to the north of that lot there here on the second lot. The remaining two lots and
the majority of the site are the existing commercial landscape business. There are the
existing structures. This is -- the home office is in this location here. The sprinkler
irrigation business and some other buildings that are on site -- there is a large pond in
this general location. A CUP PD application is required, because there are multiple
buildings proposed on a single parcel and because the existing residential use is
prohibited in a proposed C -G zone. The subject development is eligible for a combined
preliminary/final plat application, which you see here, because the proposed subdivision
does not exceed four lots. There are no new streets being dedicated or widened and
this development is not located within a flood plain or hillside, or the like. The planned
development application requests that the existing single family home be approved in a
C -G zone as a use exception, as allowed by city code. The applicant has not
submitted detail plans for Lot 2 and is requesting only conceptual approval at this time.
The submitted site plan and landscape plan do depict the required 35 -foot wide
landscape buffer adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road and a 20 foot wide landscape buffer
adjacent to Victory Road. However, except for the landscaping adjacent to the
proposed gas feed store in Lot 3, the applicant is requesting that the landscaping
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 4 of 76
requirement be waived until these lots redevelop. The applicant is proposing to utilize
the open space provided by the commercial nursery as one amenity and a meandering
sidewalk a djacent K una-Meridian Road a s the other. T here is the elevation for the
Proposed feed, convenience -- or feed store on that lot on the southwest side of the
property. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed annexation and zoning and
development of this property at this time for these main reasons: The site lies outside sanitary
the five-minute response zone goal of the Meridian fire department. Municipal
sewer and water systems are not readily available to provide service. The applicant isscaping, public current city code.
not proposing to bring the existing uses that are to remain, signage, land
infrastructure, screening, drive aisles or parking into compliance with
The proposed access points to Kuna -Meridian Road do not meet the location
requirements of ITD or action item two in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed building setbacks, landscape waivers, and lack of a frontage road or
accounting for additional right of way on State Highway 69 does not meet the policies
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian city code. The applicant did submit a
response letter a couple days ago, I believe, and I believe all of you should have a copy
of that. I did want to touch on a couple of those, answer a couple of questions that the
-- respond to a couple of the questions and, then, also ask a couple of questions of the
applicant or have a couple of responses anyways. I also did want to make sure that
everyone got a copy of the letter from Cloyd and Bonnie Nelson, dated the 23rd of
February. They had some concerns with an alteration of a drainpipe. They are on the
west side of the state highway -- just on the other side of the state highway from this site
and did have some concerns there. They have contacted, to my understanding, ITD
and I TD was supposed to send a n e ngineer out t here to look and see what type o f
alterations has been done, but I did want to make sure you all received a copy of that.
Sorry about that. Get back to the site plan here. In the applicant's response letter
there is -- they stated that they will be eliminating the middle curb cut on Victory Road
per the highway district's requirements. 1 can't exactly see it. It's somewhere in this
location here, though. And that they will also be installing curb, gutter, sidewalk and full
roadway improvements along the frontage. This is a good step, I guess, and I do
support them in reducing the curb cuts. That is something that's encouraging. I
wanted the applicant, maybe, to clarify what type of improvements, because in the
submittal they stated that they weren't going to do any roadway improvements adjacent
to the existing landscape business. So, I wasn't sure if that included landscape -- a
landscape buffer adjacent to that lot and irrigation business or not, so I just wanted to
kind of find out a little bit more from the applicant on that and the applicant also states
that they are willing to correct the past issues and uses on the site and I didn't know
how that was going to be done, what they are proposing in the development agreement
may not be some past actions in the county doesn't really seem to be seem to be
applicable -- may or may not be applicable to the city and removing buildings or signs or
lighting that's been installed without county approval. Some of the uses on the site
haven't been approved by the county, so I just didn't -- wasn't sure what type of
improvements they are willing to do, if we decided that this is in the best interest of the
city to annex and it's developed. I did want to point out a couple of things to you that --
even if ITD decides to approve access points, that doesn't necessarily mean that the
city has to allow the development to utilize those access points and they have certain
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 5 of 76
criteria -- they do have jurisdiction over those roadways, the same with ACHD
roadways. And we also have policies that we can restrict points and if we don't think
it's in the interest of the city to utilize those access points, we can restrict that
development, so that's something that I wanted to point out and a couple of times in the
letter the applicant stated that ACHD's recommending approval of access points to the
state highway and, really, that's not stating what ACHD policy is, if this were an ACHD
roadway. Now, ACHD does not have jurisdiction over any roadways that are 55 miles
an hour, so I would doubt that if this were an ACHD roadway that they would approve
access points, you know, consistent with their locations, they are looking at, you know,
roadways that are usually 35 miles an hour, thereabouts. Another thing that the
applicant asks if a gas station doesn't make sense on arterials, where do they. And I
guess staff doesn't necessarily -- I'm not necessarily opposed to a gas station in this
location. Again, it's more kind of the access point and the design thereof. I think if
access were taken from Victory Road, which is a collector roadway, I think that a gas
station does make sense in this location. It's more the design of kind of what's going
on there. So, some of those concerns could go away with better -- a better site plan.
It wouldn't have as negative an impact, I don't believe, if it were on a roadway with
lesser speeds. The applicant also asks why it's not in the city's best interest to annex
the home office and because the applicant was not proposing to bring that site up to
current city standards, I didn't think it was in the best interest and this site has had some
history and just -- if it were a vacant piece of ground, the city does often allow phases to
go in and you install landscaping when that phase goes in. This is an existing
commercial business that will continue to be utilized and we don't know when it's going
to and I doubt the applicant or his representative knows when it's going to redevelop.
So, if we don't get some of these improvements at this time, that landscape business
could be there for 20, 30 -- however many years. I mean we don't know that. So, that
was an issue that I wanted to just point out. And, then, also the vacant parcel, 143
acres there to the south and there is a neighborhood commercial designation also on
the Comprehensive Plan. There will be -- there aren't a lot of people around here now
and the applicant's correct in that. It is county ground pretty much all the way around
this parcel, but in the future there will be people here, so we just -- I was just making
sure that these uses are the uses that the city wants to see, if that's the way that the city
decides to go, there will be people around here when you look at when it's fully
developed, not just existing residences in this neighborhood, but future residences as
well. And, in conclusion, I'm encouraged by some of the things that were stated in the
rebuttal letter and especially about the developer's willingness to develop this project in
line with the city's requirements, but for the reasons listed in the staff report, annexation
of this site does not seem to be in the city's best interest at this time. So, that will
conclude my report and I will sit for any questions you may have.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Powell: Chairman Borup, if I could add some testimony just on a staffing -- it's not
zoning related, but I did want to provide testimony. This site doesn't -- this property
owner, as documented in your staff report, doesn't have just a short history of
noncompliance with Ada County, they have a longstanding history of noncompliance
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 6 of 76
with Ada County. It takes their code enforcement officer quite a bit of time dealing with
this property, as well as the prosecuting attorney's office. I would encourage you tc
consider whether it's in the best interest of the city for this reason also, because I mean
the City of Meridian prides itself on being kind of lean and mean as far as staffing goes.
Or staffing is stretched to the limit. Is this really an area where we want to have to
focus a lot of our attention as far as code enforcement and the attorneys. I mean there
have been -- I heard today -- and I don't know all the particulars, but I heard that there
was even an issue regarding the irrigation district that went all the way up to the
Supreme Court on this property. So, you're talking about somebody -- and the county
standards aren't even -- aren't that great -- you know, they are not that onerous to begin
with and I really fear that this will become a staffing concern in the future and that it -- I
strongly believe it's not in the interest of the city at this time to accept the property until
we have a full development plan where everything is going through all at the same time
and we can get this site developed as it should be. I question the -- just the timing of
annexation and zoning.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Dave
McKinnon. I'm representing the applicant tonight. My address is 12552 West
Executive Drive. I'm representing Pinnacle Engineers, but on behalf of the applicant
tonight, which is Double D Feed and Seed and not Tim Mussell, the owner of the
property. I guess I better just start off with where Anna left off there talking about some
of the issues that the owner of the property has had with the county and just address
those really quick, so that we can talk about that. You should have all received in your
packet a letter from the county stating five different violations that have been on site and
the ongoing issues that they have had with Ada County and in my rebuttal letter I
responded that we have talked with the owner of the property about this and he said --
he has stated that he will take care of those problems before we get to the point where
we do building permits and in my rebuttal letter I recommended that prior to the
annexation or prior to the signature of the city on this project or for -- or prior to the
issuance of a building permit, that all five of those issues be resolved prior to the city
signature. So, there is a way that you can do this and some of the questions that Craig
brought up about whether it's appropriate for the city to be able to handle it that way -- I
can answer that in the affirmative that, yes, the city can handle it this way, because an
annexation itself is a legislative function of the city, you have to determine whether or
not this is something that the city wants and if the city wants it, under what conditions
does the city want this. If the city wants all of the conditions completed by Tim Mussell
prior to annexation that is something that the city can require prior to the annexation.
So, there is a way for you guys to take care of the issues with the county for the county
and for the city before this property is brought in. The issues that Anna addressed
earlier about the issue of the irrigation district going all the way to the Supreme Court,
Tim Mussell did settle with the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation Company -- I heard the long
story and to make a long story short, Tim had to pay a lot money and it's mostly going to
be handled through insurance money to correct the problem that was there and it was a
tiling of the ditch and they went ahead and piped it and Tim fought the payment and so
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 7 of 76
that's why it went to the Supreme Court, but it's, actually, been settled now. So, there
is a way for the city to be able to control what happens on this site through the
legislative process of annexation. I'm going to jump just right to -- in talking a littler
earlier tonight, I talked a little bit with Mike Rohm and he told me how much time he
wanted to spend on this tonight and I'll keep my comments brief. I'll just start with the
staff report that Craig Hood had right from the beginning. His major reasons that he
stated for the denial of this project was, number one, that there was a — that we are
outside the five minute response zone for the fire department and, Craig, if you can go
back to the overhead. All right. That's great. Let me show you all the projects that are
outside of the Meridian five-minute response areas that have already been approved by
your board and the City Council. Observation Point, which is actually further away.
Meridian Greens. Bear Creek. Still outside of the five-minute response zone for the
Meridian fire department is Kentucky Ridge, the adjacent subdivision to the site. When
the Wal-Mart, S hopKo, a nd C rossroads P laza was a pproved that was o utside of t he
five- minute response area. The northern Meridian -- north Meridian -- the majority of
north Meridian was outside of the five-minute response area. There is a lot of projects
that have been approved outside of the five-minute response area and while I believe
that that's a very good goal to have to have everybody within five minutes of the fire
station, based on limited resources and the amount of growth that has happened in the
City of Meridian, it's not always possible. I have had a chance to talk with Joe Silva
about that and Joe Silva has stated that -- one, that if it was all to be a fire sprinkled
building he wouldn't have as much of a problem with it and we are intending on fire
sprinkling this entire building. So, the fact that the response time can go down, if the
building is sprinkled is something that he said he could live with. So, there has been a
precedent set by the city of Meridian to take pieces of property and approve properties
outside of the five-minute response area. To take a stand at this point to say that
nothing outside of the five-minute response area could be approved, there is a number
of final plats that should not be approved until additional fire stations as well are
approved in the City of Meridian. S o, its a great goal to have, but it's not one that
continues to allow for growth in the City of Meridian. The second issue was dealing with
sewer and water and the availability of --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. David, before you go on, I would only comment that none of
the ones that you mentioned are gas stations.
McKinnon: They are not gas stations.
Zaremba: That may make a difference.
McKinnon: Okay. Well, the gas station response is typically the automatic shutoff and
there is a requirement to meet all the Uniform Fire Code requirements for the gas
station. Those are all things that have to be done with the fire station. I could probably
-- I didn't get all of the fire -- all of the gas stations that are outside of the one and a half
mile radius of the fire department, but the fire department's itself area is much greater
than the City of Meridian itself and there is a number of fire stations — a number of gas
stations in the Meridian fire district's response area that are outside of the five minute
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 8 of 76
response area as well. So, one of the major concerns that they have in the five minute
response area is typically tied to life safety in regards to if someone was to have a heart
attack, they need to get to that person in that amount of time. It's not typically
associated with the fire, especially for a sprinkled building. Back onto the sewer and
water i ssue b eing t he s econd reason for t he recommendation for d enial, t hat i is n of
located conveniently with this site. Just to point out where the water is at and the fact
this would be developed or borne and it's also in accommodation with the city's master
plan for water. The city plans on having water brought from Observation Point along
Victory to State Highway 69 -- actually, across State Highway 69 and continue over. In
talking with the Public Works Department originally with this project, they asked us if we
would provide an easement for the water and sewer at this location, so water and sewer
can be brought to this site and across the front of that site. We are annexing --
requesting annexation of this entire site. Water is less than a quarter mile away from
this site to be brought to this site. It's not as though we are dragging the water miles to
this site. There is several projects that have had to have water brought to them and the
developer is paying for the expense to drag the water to the side, in accordance with
Meridian's requirements. The sewer is a little bit tougher and I spent quite a bit of time
with Brad -- Brad Watson and Bruce Freckleton concerning the location of the sewer
and how sewer can be handled. In your staff report you received from staff there is a
recommendation for a four inch lift station, essentially, to pump this sewage all the way
up to a gravity sewer location -- I'm indicating approximately a half mile north.
Currently under the City of Meridian's master plan for the sewer system there is plans to
bring a sewer in line down along State Highway 69 with a diversion structure someplace
in this location; is that correct? More or less. Bruce is nodding. A diversion structure in
this location. Then, continue down and provide another structure at this location for
sewer. The sewer from this site would be able to accommodate -- it would be able to go
into this site, but prior to tonight's meeting, in talking with Brad Watson, they haven't
been able to do the modeling yet to determine what would be the most appropriate
location and whether or not the four inch is better than bringing the whole thing down.
The applicant would prefer to wait -- in talking with Brad Watson he said probably about
a m onth's t !me h e c ould h ave b etter m odeling t hat would s how w here i t w ould b e --
where the sewer should come from down through here to the site. The applicant would
rather do it once the right way, rather than construct a pressure main for a half a mile,
then, to be able to hook onto gravity within several years. The developer is willing to
bear the expense of this, with late -comers fees, obviously, but to bring sewer down that
location in accordance with Meridian's requirements. So, the idea that we will continue
to work with the Public Works Department, we may need some extra time for that, so at
the end of tonight's meeting we will probably ask for a continuance in order work this
issue out. The third issue that Craig brought up that said that we are not bringing the
existing uses into compliance. This is something that's an interesting item to discuss.
We are dealing with an existing site -- existing commercial uses and there is no intent
right now of the commercial nursery to change what they are doing. They have been
there for a number of years and, then, to automatically require a landscape nursery to
provide landscaping and curb, gutter, and sidewalk a full quarter mile, essentially, north
of this site -- it's a little less than a quarter mile, but we will call it an eighth of a mile
north of this site and landscape that when they are not planning on doing any
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 9 of 76
redevelopment to the site, seems this is not the appropriate time to do that, but, rather,
when this site redevelops. I happen to know that Tim is working with other people for
future sites along this property and, to be quite honest, he probably will not be the
owner of this property for many years to come, he will probably continue his use until
the land becomes valuable enough that he can redevelop. The issues along Victory
Road, as Craig pointed out our letter, we are actually going to build the full length of
Victory in accordance with ACHD requirements. You all should have received a copy of
ACHD's report with ACHD's requirements for all of the improvements, which include a
sidewalk, in addition to a bicycle path lane, and the striping. Craig, if you can go to the
site plan that's just below this one, the next one. ACHD has previously acquired right of
way for the signalization of this intersection. Within the next two years this intersection
will be signalized. The right of way has already been secured at this location for -- the
right of way for the widening for the right turn lane at this location. Craig, if you can go
back to the next -- to the previous picture again. There was some discussion about
which driveway we are eliminating and Craig wanted us to point that out. There is
currently a driveway right where this red line is and that's the driveway we will be
keeping and that driveway goes directly into the gas station off of Victory Road,
approximately 185 feet from the near edge of the existing pavement back to the gas
station. So, there is an access to this site off of Victory. The existing access, for those
of you that have ever visited the Victory Greens, there is an existing access point right
here that's right next to the house between an outbuilding. That's the access that we
will be closing and so there won't be any access to the existing office house off of
Victory. We will have to come in from this curb cut further down Victory that's in
accordance with ACHD or this curb cut that's 185 feet off of State Highway 69. So,
those are the -- that's the curb cut we are closing. It's the middle one in this location.
The issues dealing with ITD, we are still in discussions with ITD. I have spoken at
length with Matt Ward and Dean Golden and Dan Kuntz and, basically, what we have
boiled this down to at this point is we have received a deed that states -- from ITD back
in 1987 that we have three deeded accesses to State Highway 69 from this parcel.
You should have all received a copy of that deed with the accesses in my letter. So,
there is three accesses that have been deeded to this property owner from Idaho
Transportation Department. We are working with them to try to get those accesses.
Just to address the final comment that was made by Craig concerning ITD, that even if
ITD grants these to us and ACHD recommends approval of this, the fact that you don't
have to grant these to us is absolutely true. This is an annexation. It's a legislative
function. However, bear in mind that just a half mile north of this site you have recently
approved a project with two curb cuts just south of Overland Road off of State Highway
69, which is a more congested intersection. The application for that was approved by
the City of Meridian. However, Idaho Transportation Department did not approve those
accesses and they are currently in litigation with ITD to be granted those accesses that
were approved by the City of Meridian. This is not as congested a site as that and we
would ask that we be granted the ability to continue working with ITD in the future.
And, again, we will p robably a sk for a continuance of the h earing tonight i n order to
continue working with ITD to gain access. The fifth item that Craig had had to deal with
the right of way and the building. He just wanted some clarification. I think I have
addressed some of those issues already. I'll just move down through a few other things.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 10 of 76
In response to Cloyd and Bonnie Nelson's letter, I spent a couple of phone calls with
Cloyd — in fact, I'm the one that put Cloyd in contact with the Idaho Transportation
Department to find out about the ditch that runs underneath 1-84 and just in accordance
with state law, we will continue to allow the water to flow from his property through this
property and we will work with him on that. Design issues regarding that ditch haven't
been addressed. It's typically addressed with the final plat construction drawings, which
have not yet been constructed in our office. It's along reportand there is a lot of issues
that have been brought up. Just to wrap things up -- I know I will have a chance for
rebuttal and I know there is some other issues that need to be addressed with this
tonight, but you might have some questions. Just to wrap things up, we are really
looking at -- Craig, could you go to the picture of the gas station. This -- essentially,
what we are looking at having approved tonight. The annexation of the property is in
the interest of the city for a number of reasons. One is that we are trying to do it in
accordance with the City of Meridian's master plan for utilities. It's a developer -borne
cost, rather than a city -borne cost. You will be annexing a large piece of property into
the City of Meridian, which will increase the commercial tax base of the City of Meridian,
rather than keeping it in Ada County. You will see this corner improved fully with
landscaping and curb -- or sidewalk and you will see Victory Road completely improved
all with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. And you will see an increased viability in this area,
because other developments will be able to spring up if the sewer system is brought
through. So, it is in the interest of the city to see this area developed, rather than to let
it remain as is. It's been mentioned that this has had problems with Ada County. This
is going to clean up some of the problems that are with Ada County. If it's not annexed
into the city and not allowed to develop, it will sit and remain as is with no improvements
for a number years to come, possibly. So, it is in the interest of the city to annex the
piece of property, to gain the tax base, and to gain the improvements for this area and
to gain the infrastructure improvements for the area. The major area that we are
looking at developing through the Conditional Use Permit alone is what you see on the
overhead right now. We are looking for approval of a gas station. We know that we
have some issues that are still outstanding with the Idaho Transportation Department
concerning gaining access and we'd ask that you continue this meeting tonight to allow
us to have the additional time to work with ITD to gain those access points and
determine where the access points are best left. Ada County Highway District had
mentioned that they recommended approval. Craig had some concerns about the
recommendations for approval. One thing that needs to be pointed out that with
ACHD's recommendation for approval that included acceleration and deceleration
lanes, it wasn't just coming off a 55 mile an hour road onto this site, it was to include
acceleration and d eclaration zones f or t he a ccesses. We know that t his access will
have to be removed. It doesn't even meet Ada County Highway District's request for a
right -in, right -out. Their request was a 220 -foot offset from Victory. We know that that
right -in, right -out would possibly be moved and we believe that we can live with it to be
eliminated if we would have shared access in this location. This is what we'd like to see
approved tonight. The annexation is the only way to get this to this point. The
preliminary plat separates this lot from the remainder of the lots, so that the owner can
sell this property. We have worked with the different agencies to try to get to a point
where we can approve this project and I'd ask if you have any questions at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 11 of 76
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Could you elaborate on the acceleration,
deceleration lanes, where they were planned for?
McKinnon: Sure. Craig, could you go back to the aerial again? Typically, on a 55 mile
an hour road, Idaho Transportation Department requests a 250 foot long deceleration
lane and that's typically one lane wide, which would be 12 feet wide, where a vehicle
could pull off of the main areas of travel, it's a five lane road, so that the external lane,
the lane that's closest to the property, will have 250 feet to slow down out of traffic
before making a right-hand turn into the site. In addition to that, an acceleration lane is
the same thing, but just on acceleration, then, where they have a period of time to
speed up and catch up with the existing traffic. The acceleration -deceleration lane is
something that we would need to workout with ITD, but one thing to keep in mind is we
are dealing with a controlled intersection in the near future and we will be putting a stop
light in this intersection in the near future. The best guess -- the best guess that ITD
had for this area for this traffic light was two years -- within two years and they have got
it scheduled -- well, two years ago they had it scheduled for two years, so it could
happen anytime between six months and two years from now. So, there is the intent to
control this intersection, as well as the intent on our part to work with ITD for
acceleration and deceleration lanes for this project.
Zaremba: Clarify for me the same subject, if you would, that would be in addition to the
current lanes and this, actually, would add to the right of way coming out of your
property?
McKinnon: It would come out of our property. Craig, could you go back to the site
plan? Next one. That one. What we would do is create a little bit of reconfiguration of
this site, where we would have to drag the deceleration lane -- this is the edge of the
right of way right here. We'd have to drag that onto our property, basically 12 feet in,
with a curb and asphalt, to bring that in to be able to pull off and come in on our site, but
that 12 feet would be basically an additional lane of traffic that would be striped to go
into this site.
Zaremba: Then, your 35 feet of landscaping would be inside of that?
McKinnon: Inside of that. That's correct:
Borup: That is on Highway 69?
McKinnon: That would just be on Highway 69. Victory Road, there was no requirement
for acceleration or deceleration lanes at this time from Ada County Highway District.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: I understood as far as developer cost for the water, you went into the sewer -- I
understand that should be developer borne as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 12 of 76
McKinnon: Correct.
Moe: But what are you anticipating doing early on on that sewer?
McKinnon: Early on on that sewer? If you could go back to the site plan that showed --
one more up. There we go. The sewer is currently at this location at the end of Elk Run
Subdivision. It would be to bring it -- I believe it's across the street, isn't it, Bruce?
Bringing it to the east side of State Highway 69 and, then, bringing -- I think it's a 22-
inch pipe down to this location. It would be a diversion structure, so that in the future
when the Black Cat Trunk comes through they would be able to access this diversion
structure. That 22 inch pipe after that diversion structure would continue down to
Victory and at that point I'm not sure where it goes and Bruce could better answer that,
but that's something that we are willing to work with on the site and, actually, to put that
in order to develop this site. And so it hasn't been completely worked out with Public
Works. They have been very busy, as you well know. You have had a lot of site plans
in front of you and a lot of projects that have been moving on and they have been
working with that a nd they haven't had a chance to m odel that, b ut they have been
working with their consultant and their consultant's best guess at the time of the writing
of the staff report was that a four inch pressure main would be the most appropriate at
that time, but we'd rather do it right the first time and we can wait a little bit of time to
make it done right, rather than do it wrong and have to connect to gravity within a year
or two.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: I need to have you run something by me again.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: The existing conditions that don't currently comply with county ordinances
and in their current condition wouldn't comply with city ordinances either, the logic to me
is they should be fixed before we even recommend annexation. Run your argument by
me again for why we should move ahead.
McKinnon: O kay. T he w ay you c ould m ove a head w ith t his i s t hrough t he u se o f a
development agreement. The development agreement says these are the certain
conditions that have to be done prior to the city doing what need's to be -- prior to taking
any further action the city wants a development agreement that can limit our client or
myself to do certain things before the city will allow certain things to happen. And Jill
could probably go into it a little bit more. It's a legal document between the applicant
and the owner and the city saying we will do these things, as long as the city allows us
to do these things and so you could set up a development agreement that would say
these are the issues that need to be resolved prior to signature on the final plat or prior
to Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law being done. Typically, a development
agreement is done after those issues have taken place, but -- after the Findings of Facts
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 13 of 76
and Conclusions of Law have been adopted, because those are usually inserted into
the development agreement, the conditions of approval. So, what you do is make a
legal document that says these are the things that need to be done prior to us issuing a
building p ermit for this s ite a nd i f you do t hat, t hen, the o my way t hat we c an g et a
building permit is to make all of those conditions be made.
Zaremba: But wouldn't it even be better faith to complete all those things before we
even apply for annexation? It certainly would show good faith to have them done.
McKinnon: It would show good faith to have them done. I think it would also show good
faith on the city that if we were to do those things that the city would annex it and the
recommendation wouldn't be for denial based on those issues that are outstanding. If -
- I know that Mr. Mussell has been working with the county for years and I guess they
have had some of their battles and I haven't been at the county when those battles have
happened, but I have heard stories and there is some things that need to be done that
haven't been done on this site and he's assured that -- our applicant tonight, Double D
Feed and Seed, that those things will be taken care of and we can have that limited by
the city doing a development agreement. If this isn't approved and there is no
development agreement, he may choose to continue fighting with the county. This may
be the way to get these things corrected, rather than allow it to continue in the future.
Borup: I'd like to discuss that a little bit more, too. It looks to me like there is -- the
issues are the storage trailer with the sign on it.
McKinnon: Right
Borup: S torage areas without screening, mercury vapor light, and an overhead line.
Those look like things that could be handled in a couple of weeks if someone diligently
worked at it, couldn't they?
McKinnon: They could.
Borup: So, I mean that could be taken care of by the time that you worked out the
details with ITD. I think that would -- that would address Commissioner Zaremba's
question. I mean that looked to me like the issues, unless there is some others that
weren't listed here. Is that your understanding of those items?
McKinnon: That's my understanding. There are a few things in here that, you know,
although they are out of compliance with Ada County, that doesn't necessarily mean
they are out of compliance with the City of Meridian.
Borup: Well, those are -- I mean, you know, taking care of lighting and overhead line
and -- you know.
McKinnon: Those are things that can be taken care of.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 14 of 76
Borup: I would think the nursery could find some screening pretty easy.
McKinnon: Uh-huh. And number four and five -- in fact, if you take the mercury vapor
light and, number five, which is the power line for that mercury vapor light, that's really
one thing. Take out the overhead line and the mercury vapor light is no longer good.
Those are things that can be done and taken care of and those are things that can be
taken care of within the time frame of us working with ITD and working with the Public
Works Department to come to an agreement on the issues of access and utilities.
Borup: So, does that sound like a reasonable solution, to just go ahead and get those
items taken care of?
McKinnon: I think so.
Borup: Other questions from the Commissioners? Anything else you think we ought to
discuss while Mr. McKinnon is up here?
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Yes. Mr. Hood.
Hood: I had a question, I guess, on the first one that the county has listed there and how
the city -- what the city would like to see good faith, if you will, how we are going to
move -- if anything, with number one, how -- the illegal uses that are presently on the
site, how would we like that cleaned up?
Borup: The illegal use being the rock storage?
Hood: Well, there is some landscaping -- my understanding there is some landscaping,
some rocks, that are not put on the site in compliance with the county's code and also
the expresso stand, I believe, was never approved as part of the master site plan for
this site and maybe the irrigation sprinkler business, too. Dave may be able to clarify
that, but I think there are a couple of illegal uses that are also on this site that have
never been approved by the county, so --
Borup: You mean the other business --
Hood: Yeah.
McKinnon: Well, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Craig, you bring up a
couple good points. Let me address those. The coffee kiosk, actually, was approved
by the county and Ada County Highway District. In fact, that's why this third curb cut
was approved originally, the one that we are going to be utilizing. It was approved
through the use of that coffee kiosk when it came through ACHD, that's when that
access was actually created. The existing --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 15 of 76
Borup: And that will be abandoned --
McKinnon: It will be abandoned when it's gone. Yeah. That's -- you all know Jesepe, if
You have been in the city for a while. He's here quite a bit. Poor Jesepe will be looking
for a new place for his coffee kiosk that -- the sprinkler system and the nursery, both of
those are permitted uses in that zone and they have been approved in that zone. The
issue is dealing with the rock storage and that was the one use that they are saying was
not a permitted use by the county. I think Craig makes a really good point there saying
what would you like us to do with the rock storage. This is a landscaping nursery
business, part of the landscape nursery typically includes landscape rock and I believe
the landscape rock is mostly located along State Highway 69 in this location. I'm not
sure as to how you would like us to address that. That is a portion of his business that
goes along with the remainder of his business as well.
Borup: Mr. Hood, is it the city's feeling that the landscape rocks would not be in
compliance with -- with Meridian ordinance?
Hood: Well, the rocks may not be in violation, but the landscaping there adjacent to the
highway would not be in compliance with the city code for the landscape buffer adjacent
to the highway and that's something else that the applicant is not proposing to do is not
proposing to bring any of -- I mean as you can see, two-thirds of that frontage into
compliance with current city code and it is an existing business, but it's an existing
business in the county and the city didn't come to the applicant's door and knock and
say, hey, bring this up to code, they are coming to us saying let us in the city and if you
want to come into the city these are our requirements, so you meet those requirements
as stated in the letter and that's -- you know, maybe some of those rocks could be
worked into a landscape plan, but they are not proposing to do any additional
landscaping along that frontage.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, do you know about how far that acceleration lane would — I
mean I realize you said it's preliminary, but is there an estimate on how far that
acceleration lane is going to go?
McKinnon: It's typically 250 feet on a 55
Borup: Two hundred fifty beyond the entrance there?
McKinnon: Yeah. So, if we have an entrance at 440 feet, which would probably put us
about this location, basically 250 feet up, 250 feet back to have your acceleration and
deceleration lanes. We won't be --
Borup: So, you're saying 440 plus 250?
McKinnon: Yeah. That's typically how it works, but --
Borup: And what's the length of the entire property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 16 of 76
McKinnon: The length of the entire property is approximately a quarter mile.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I need a clarification on the coffee kiosk. When you were talking about that,
I thought you said that the access that was granted for the coffee kiosk is the one you
will be closing?
McKinnon: That's the one we will be keeping open.
Zaremba: Okay,
McKinnon: It was created when the coffee kiosk was approved. And, again,
Commissioners, we realize that we are bringing in an existing business, but, you know,
typically, you see development happen in phases. You don't see it happen all at once.
The idea that it's coming into the city doesn't automatically mean that there is a lot more
money for the development of this site. There is a lot more money for the development
of this site, because as this develops there is going to be more money to be gained from
that. By bringing this into the city, there is not a great deal of money to be put into this,
because it's not being redeveloped. The use is staying the same. With a preliminary
plat you approve a project for a single phase, each final plat as it comes in, you don't
require all of the improvements from the entire preliminary plat to be completed prior to
the first phase being done. Essentially, what we are looking for is phase development.
We are asking for this portion to be allowed now and the remainder as it redevelops to
be brought into compliance.
Moe: But you have also stated that the landscape business has planned to be there for
quite sometime, so, therefore, the improvements on the highway side probably would
not be done.
McKinnon: Well, let me correct that. This portion here is the more expensive portion,
because of the frontage and the owner is currently trying to locate people to move to
this location for commercial uses. But the landscape business could remain for some
time, just like you see many businesses in the City of Meridian that don't meet code, but
out of code, and they remain out of code until such time as they redevelop.
Redevelopment is usually what kicks in the requirement for the additional properties, not
annexation.
Zaremba: That brings up another issue, partially, which staff has mentioned. This is a
nice, large piece of property and in a perfect world we would see a plan for the whole
piece of property, rather than do little pieces here and there and leave some the way
they were and nonconforming and create some new ones that may not be exactly what
we wanted if we saw the whole project. I know you have already resisted saying when
the landscape business would change, but the development along the frontage, is there
a push for that to happen soon? Any concept of what might be there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 17 of 76
McKinnon: Sure. Craig, can you go ahead and go up to the next -- right there. You
can see what we have got in the conceptual layout for this is actual two commercial
building p ads. Well, there is one commercial building pad north of this site already.
That remains just the -- you know, this section to be developed and I have talked with
the representative of this piece of property here and they'd like to develop in a
residential manner, they'd like to take access from State Highway 69 in some manner to
get back to this project and so there is a push for redevelopment in this area. In talking
with the City of Meridian Public Works, that they have received other requests for
development in this area, so there is a push for that. As to whether or not -- there hasn't
been resistance to say when this is going to move, it's not that I know and I'm not telling
you, I really don't know. But I have had discussions with people concerning the
development of that property, but I don't know the time frame for it to redevelop. And,
like you said, Commissioner Zaremba, if it was a perfect world I would have a
wonderful, complete site plan for the entire project, but this project is not ready to
happen at this time. The owner is not willing to redevelop his entire site at this time, but
he is willing to work with Double D Feed and Seed to put a portion of his property into --
bring the whole project into the City of Meridian, but to develop a portion of it at this time
and without this project we would see no improvements in this area.
Borup: And that aspect is not very much different as -- than what we see with a small
parcel being annexed into the city and, you know, the adjoining parcel is un -annexed.
Still county property and undeveloped. I mean I realize that's -- I don't know if that's a
good example, but --because this is all under one ownership. And this is one parcel; is
that correct?
McKinnon: They are the same parcel right now. There was a record of survey that was
performed, but it was never recorded to split the property, so it still remains as one
piece.
Borup: Okay. I don't know if we have discussed everything we need to, but if there is
nothing else --
McKinnon: I think there is somebody else that has come tonight to testify. I saw a
name back there, so --
Borup: And that's what I meant, are we ready to move on for other testimony?
McKinnon: Okay. Thanks for your time.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have someone that would like to testify on this
application? Come forward.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tim Hepper, I reside at 448 West
Victory, which is immediately -- well, not immediately, it would be the second parcel to
the west of this property across the street and the next one over. Approximately two or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 18 of 76
three hundred yards to the west. I don't believe I necessarily have any opposition to
this, but I do have a couple questions. I thought I heard the representative from
Pinnacle say something about bringing in the sewer line, maybe a possibility of a four
inch pressurized thing that maybe they'd put a lift station at the north end of the property
as an option that maybe there could be either a 22 inch mainline brought in or I thought
maybe he said a four inch pressurized line or something. I just wanted to make sure
that that would be a 22 inch main, so that the other properties -- the original master plan
for the city to bring the sewer is to bring it down the Meridian-Kuna Road and, then, turn
west on Victory Road and so that those parcels on Victory Road could later tap into that
main line and be able to develop those properties.
Borup: We will get some clarification. I believe that he said if they went -- one option
would be to put in a pressurized line up to here. They were talking about bringing it --
the main trunk line down as per the master plan, which you were talking about. Is that
your understanding, Bruce?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the temporary solution is what we
are talking about, Tim, with the -- dead laser pointer. The lift station at their north
boundary. That was just a temporary solution until we get figured out how we want to
serve that south end. If you remember the -- our facility plan showed sewer kind of
going out through Kentucky Ridge and out that way. Our consultants JUB that did the
original master plan for us is right in the middle of reevaluating about a four or five
square mile area right here as to which would be the best way to route the main trunk
lines through here. So, when Dave talks about things kind of being up in the air, that's
why they are up in the air, is because we are trying to figure out the best way to serve
these properties. So, the ultimate build out is to still take the trunk down through there
to provide that service, but the temporary solution would be a lift station.
Hepper: With a four -inch line to this property?
Freckleton: Well, the pressure line would go -- have you got a pointer? See if we can
make this work. The lift station would be located somewhere up in this area and, then,
the pressure line would pump back north on Kuna-Meridian Road to the existing gravity
sewer that comes out of Elk Run Subdivision. So, it's just the force main that pushes it
north.
west if they -- whatever developer, that's just a temporary solution for the --
Hepper: Okay. And that would have the capacity to pick up the other properties to the
Freckleton: Temporary solution for this project.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon said they want to wait and do it right by bringing the sewer line
down h ere. I w asn't -- I d on't k now i f I understood w hat s ize s ewer I ine t hey w ere
Proposing at that point.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 19 of 76
Freckleton: Well, that's what our consultant is going to be telling us, too, as part of their
study that they are conducting for us right now is what size and where it runs.
Borup: That would be --
Freckleton: And that's the ultimate.
Borup: That would be the trunk line.
Freckleton: Yes. Correct.
Borup: Which is, I think, Mr. Hepper's question, so if that's -- if they wait and bring that
in, then, it would be the permanent trunk line that would be going in.
Hepper: Speaking of the findings of the study, we really don't know where the mains
are going to be located in the future.
Freckleton: Well -- and it's our concern as well as we want to do it once and we want it
to b e right, so -- t hings h ave c hanged q uite a b it out i n this area a nd that's w by we
wanted to reevaluate it.
Borup: But right now this applicant would like to wait and find out what needs to be for
the permanent and, then, work with that.
Hepper: Yeah. Okay. And, then, my only other concerns would be maybe a --
Borup: Is this your property here?
Hepper: No. It would be right -- right here.
Borup: Oh. West. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Hepper: And the only other concerns would be lighting, make sure the lighting is
shielded. There is other gas stations around Meridian,.particulady one across the road
from the hospital, that has just extremely bright lights. I know the city has lots of
complaints about the amount of light that's emitted from that and I'd like to make sure
that we don't have something like that sitting on that corner. And also the sinage be --
that's all commercial property on that corner. I don't think we need a big neon flashing
sign that says Pepsi $1.99. 1 think just a regular sign --lighted sign would be fine, but it
doesn't need to be -- I'm not really sure what the city ordinance is on signage, but I
know that we have got q uite a few of the flashing light signs a nd I don't think that's
necessary there. That would be my only other concern. So, thank you.
Borup: Yeah. And the city's got the same concern on that. I think maybe one of the
signs you're talking I don't believe would meet current sign ordinance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 20 of 76
Hepper: All right. Any questions?
Borup: Questions of Mr. Hepper?
Hepper: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I do -- I'll just share one thing.
I do live across kind of up on a knoll on the opposite side of that large Texaco sign and
while I don't like it, it is somewhat comforting at night to see how much Dr. Pepper is,
SO --just a couple things to wrap things up. We want to do this right and we want to do
it right the first time, but we are going to need a little bit of time and so we want to work
with the staff and we want to work with ITD to make this work. There is a demand for
this type of use in the area. There is a lot of vehicles that are traveling between Kuna
and Meridian every day and those vehicles are stopping for gas at different locations
throughout the area and we think this is a great location for that and we'd like to have
the opportunity to do that and request that you approve this project tonight and thanks
for your time.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, I think this probably warrants some
discussion. Anything else -- comments from staff?
Powell: Just that you don't have findings for approval for tonight, so -- and conditions.
Borup: We understand that. And the applicant has requested a continuance.
Powell: Well, now, he just asked you to approve them tonight, so I just wanted to clarify
it if you can.
McKinnon: We'd request that you approve it at some point, but a continuation tonight.
Zaremba: Well, I do agree, I certainly don't think it's ready to be approved tonight and
I'm not totally convinced that it's ready to be denied tonight either. So, I would steer
towards continuing. There are a number of things I need to see fixed.
Borup: And that's what I was going to suggest. I think we --
Zaremba: I would stick to the applicant doing the good faith of fixing the things that the
county says need to be fixed and the city says need to be fixed, I would like to see
those done before we recommend annexation, not to recommend annexation first and
say, okay, there is some other carrot farther down the line to getting these done. I
would rather see the good faith of them being done before we annex. The amount of
time that that would mean continuing this would also give the applicant time to get some
final resolution from ITD. I would still like to see a bigger part of the project come to us
all at once, but I suspect that's not going to happen. I guess my question for staff is if
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 21 of 76
we continued this, could there be some conditions worked up, if we were to approve it,
and the conditions would be -- I mean at sometime in the future, conditions for approval,
and the conditions would assume that the current deficiencies are already fixed,
because my personal opinion is I would not annex it, they are not fixed.
Borup: And I would -- the only thing I would add to that is -- at least on the copy of the
letter from the county, items two through five, it looked like were fairly simple solutions,
other than number three we don't have any detailed information on what areas need to
be screened better than they are now. Item number one is probably the one that
maybe I'd like -- I mean I asked Mr. Hood that a little bit, but what the city would like to
see and I'm not sure how other Commissioners feel. I mean there is a lot of material
out there. To me it's not unsightly, it's -- if it's any type of hazard is because it's
interesting to look at and maybe people have a tendency to slow down. I don't know.
But I guess it depends on what -- what interests people. So maybe --
Zaremba: Well, it is a rock yard and when you drive by it appears to be a rock yard,
which out in the country is somewhat appropriate, but if it continued in its present state
for another five years it probably wouldn't irritate anybody. If it continued that way for
another 20 years, the area is going to be pretty well developed around it and it's going
to be an eye sore. I mean once the -- once the surrounding properties don't look just
like it, which they currently do, then, it becomes a problem. But right now they all look
the same and whether it's a rock pile or whether it's an unimproved parcel next to it that
looks like a rock pile doesn't make much difference today, but if there is no target for
changing it, then, I definitely would lean towards screening it and I agree with staff, the
rules are the whole frontage needs to be landscaped.
Borup: Maybe something -- some type of time frame, which is hard to enforce, maybe.
I don't know.
Moe: Well, but the biggest point that I would make there is a time limit would probably
be the way to go for the simple fact the applicant already made the statement that they
are looking to sell off that portion to do something other than the rock area there.
Zaremba: Which could be suggested in the development agreement, right? That we
could put a time frame in a development agreement? That's a question.
Powell: Sure, you can put time frames in the development agreement. I did want to
get -- I have been thinking about the first question you posed, if I might get back to that,
Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You asked if staff could come back with
conditions of approval. Basically, you would be asking us to write a recommendation --
a new staff report recommending approval on this any appropriate conditions for
approval attached to that. We generally don't have two do reports. It -- we typically just
do one. If new information comes into the public record, such that you feel comfortable
recommending approval of the project, then, we come back to you with your
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 22 of 76
recommendation for approval and the attached conditions of approval. So, I'm reluctant
to have staff write a new staff report for approval until you make a decision for approval.
Zaremba: Well, I would agree that under the current conditions denial is appropriate.
The applicant, I think, has indicated that the owner can be prevailed upon to fix many of
the reasons for which it would currently be denied.
Powell: Well, just as a reminder, the applicant has agreed to several conditions of
approval for -- since 1995 and agreeing to conditions of approval is a lot different than
meeting conditions of approval.
Zaremba: And that's why I'm saying, we'd have to see that they had actually been
completed before we would vote --
Powell: And that would be new information in the public record and, then, that would go
toward your recommendation. But I think the staff reports are just based on the
information before the public hearing and I think it's best for now just to keep -- there is
-- there gets to be some confusion if there is multiple staff reports in the file as to which
one — you know, what was going on and I think the history has been we do one and
only one staff report for each project and we can add memos and things like that and if
you'd like -- I guess we could do a clarification memo or a position statement, that might
be a possibility. But he's going to have to come back after you make the decision to
approve it with the conditions of approval. We could provide a listing of those
conditions of approval, but we are going to need to come back with your findings after
you make your decision.
Borup: I think that would be appropriate. I'm wondering if we could discuss maybe
some of the — they are numbered, but -- the bullet points under the reasons for denial.
And I made notes on most of them. The one I'm down to -- and I feel most of the others
have been addressed, at least to my satisfaction, I don't know about other
Commissioners -- I'm down to the one on the single family home not a permitted use.
Thoughts from staff on that item? Is that something that could be handled under the
conditional use or --
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Yeah. With a planned
development you can actually ask for use exceptions and that single family home also
serves as an office, so wether the office is accessory to the single family or a single
family accessory to the office use, I really don't know. It does a fairly good business,
the landscape nursery does, so, you know, for a commercial zone it is a single family
home with an office. So, I'm not so concerned about an office, but it is a single family
home in a commercial zone, so -- but, like I said, with a planned development use
exceptions may be allowed. And with redevelopment -- potentially redevelopment of the
site I will concede that it won't be a single family home forever.
Moe: Was that not noted to be a caretaker living in the house now?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 23 of 76
Hood: I believe so. The owner actually occupies that home and runs the office out of
that as well.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: Okay. The next item was -- mentioned is a -- not proposed bringing existing
uses into compliance. But I thought maybe that got answered to as far as sidewalks
and bike lanes, at least on Victory. On Highway 69 is still to be determined. So, is
there a ny specific t hings there that are still a concern? Is signage maybe the o ne?
And, then, landscaping on the north end would be the other?
Hood: Mr. Chair, those are two good ones. I guess the main ones -- I'm still unable to
make -- you know, none of those findings -- the bullet points above are not changed.
You know, those are facts that really don't change much. And some of them were just -
- you know, may or may not be, but they are -- you know, the proposed development,
there are some -- the big ones, I guess, that would still be outstanding is ITD and their
access points and what they are going to approve. I mean that's going to have a
significant impact on what we look at and if it's just a lot developing at this time, where is
that access point going to be? It may only be -- and we have a letter from ITD, we don't
have anything else. I don't doubt that the applicant's talked with ITD, but we have two
letters from ITD saying, you know, access to -- type four access to type four roadways
are at half miles. So, I -- and they have -- before we granted those, you know, at other
locations, but they do try to limit them and so where their access points end up playing
out -- it's almost like ACHD -- I know this body oftentimes defers action until ACHD has
a chance to act on an item just to see what their requirements are going to be or maybe
it's denied, maybe just stick with the original letter and they say, no, only at the half mile.
We see you have three deeded access points, but you're not getting them. I don't know
how that's going to play out.
Borup: I think the Commission -- I mean assuming we are all in agreement that that is
something we need to see is -- is their report and what they approved or recommend.
Hood: And it's just -- the other big thing -- and you touched on some of the landscaping
things. I guess the bullet — the letter from the county, I don't know their code, and so
maybe something from the county saying he has done -- you know, he's now in
compliance with item two, three, four and five, something like that. Or, you know, these
are still the outstanding things, but they have cleaned up this or that. You know,
something like I guess I would feel a little bit more comfortable and that would change at
least that part of the staff report, that part of the finding, you know, if we had something
in our record from the county saying, you know, now they have done this to --
Borup: In my mind, the only thing of those items that you couldn't tell just by driving to
the property would be their screen — screening requirements and -- because that wasn't
specified what that was referring to. In the county letter I'm talking about. The only
other question I saw was the next to the last bullet point and that was proposed building
setbacks -- your reference to a frontage road, which, again, that would be addressed by
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 24 of 76
ITD, I'm assuming. And you're talking about not meeting Comprehensive Plan policies,
but I didn't see any elaboration on that. Well, maybe there was, but -- is there anything
there that would be pertinent to mention at this point?
Hood: Not necessarily. I mean it's just kind of going along with ITD's action.
Borup: Okay. Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Do we know is the north end of this property at the half mile point or is it
somewhat south of that?
Borup: He said it was about a quarter mile
Zaremba: Oh, yeah. Okay.
Borup: I looked on the plat and it looks like there is, what 12 or 13 hundred feet. I don't
know that Mr. McKinnon m entioned h ow much time I TD is going to n eed. Can you
clarify that? Or how much time you're going to need in talking with ITD.
McKinnon: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. In response to that
we, have -- in order to get access onto ITD, you have to make application with ITD.
Part of the application requirement is a traffic study. The traffic study is not complete
yet. We wanted to find out a little bit more about this project before we went ahead with
the traffic study. We have a quote and a time frame from the traffic study from the time
we say go to having that complete will be two weeks. That's when the application can
be made to ITD. In talking with ITD, they have stated that once they receive that,
because they h ave a Iready i ssued t hose I etters, they will m ore t han I ikely reject t hat
and, then, it becomes an appeal process and goes to headquarters and that can be
handled rather rapidly or it can take a number of months to take care of. One thing that
we have going for us on this, its just a very similar situation just to the north of this
project. They are dealing with the exact same issues on the exact same stretch of State
Highway 69 on the Ross and Mitchner property that was recently approved by I think
the Land Group. Dave Koga brought that to you. I can't remember the name of it. Do
you remember the name of that?
Hood: Southern Springs.
McKinnon: Southern Springs. Thank you. And so once a precedence is set, it may
actually, go much quicker and that's nearing the end of their appeal process and it looks
very favorable that they will be granted access as was approved by the city. So, as far
as a direct number, the only direct number I can give you is it will take two weeks for us
to get the application in and, then, from there it's in ITD's hands.
Borup: The reason I asked, if we are going to be looking at a continuation, we need to
also figure out a date. Do you think a month and a half?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 25 of 76
McKinnon: If we could go for -- we'd love to have two weeks and have it all resolved by
then, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen, unfortunately. If we had a month
and, then, if we needed to continue it from that, I think that would be preferable,
because, then, we'd have a chance to have the issues worked out with Public Works
within that month time. That's what we'd like to see happen. As short a process as
possible, but if we need to go further --
Borup: You're saying there is a chance that it could happen in a month?
McKinnon: It could. If the precedence is set and they already have made the same
determination on one site, they could just say we have already made a ruling that this is
the way we will determine this on these types of accesses and we can move forward
with it. It just depends on how quick ITD moves, but there is a possibility that that could
happen.
Moe: And, then, within that same period all items that the county is wanting to be taken
care of would be taken care of as well?
McKinnon: Correct.
Zaremba: My comment on the access would be that the City of Meridian, as well as
ITD, wants to limit the number of accesses and, if I remember correctly, the project that
You're referring to -- I felt our recommendation of approval was based on prior approval
of ITD. I thought they had already approved it before we recommended approval. We
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba and Members of the Commission, similar situation.
There were t wo d eeded a ccesses. Those two d eeded a ccesses w ere t here. When
they finally made application to ITD to do work in the right of way, they were rejected.
It's the same process that we are going through now, rather than going through the city
and getting approval, it would be the same process that we are going through. We will
make application to ITD to create those curb cuts and, then, we deal with whether or not
they will give us the access for those three deeded accesses that we have. So, the
same process is being done, it's just being done in a different place. There was a letter
from ITD -- from ACHD in the file for Southern Springs that says they had checked with
ITD about those accesses and it was in their statement from ACHID that, yes, there
were two deeded accesses. So, there was just some confusion in place. Those were
not approved accesses, rather just deeded accesses.
Zaremba: Well, the precedent that it would start has impacts for Meridian all up and
down Eagle Road, as well as Meridian and Meridian-Kuna Road. If I TD is going to
establish a new precedent of reversing themselves and allowing extra driveway on the
high speed, I don't see that as in the best of interest of Meridian. I think Meridian
agrees with ITD to limit or refuse accesses.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 26 of 76
McKinnon: Members of the Commission, Commissioner Z aremba, j ust t wo t hings in
response to that. One, the city determined in their Comprehensive Plan that this should
be a commercial piece of property and if the only access for a commercial
property that is a quarter mile can only be taken off of Victopiece of
ryasking for a
, we are not ask
full three curb cut for this sight, we are looking to restrict the accesses of well, but to
allow one access at least on this site. It's a quarter mile long in length with an
acceleration -deceleration area for that. We are not asking for all three curb cuts or
additional curb cuts. There is a restriction on that. ACHD on a 50 mile an hour road will
allow you to do a curb cut 250 feet back from the intersection on an arterial, which is
what this is determined as -- by the City of Meridian as a major arterial. So, we agree
with the limiting, but, at the same time, the city has already said this should be a
commercial piece of property and to limit it to the half mile that we don't have access to
a half mile makes it impossible for this property to develop commercially, which is what
the City of Meridian has designated this to develop as.
Zaremba: And the mitigating fact of that is you've offered to do acceleration and
deceleration.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: And just one other thing of clarification. We are dealing with a precedent
setting. These are legal issues and if ITD is granted these accesses unrestricted, then,
ITD has to honor that. They can't come behind that and say, oh, sorry, we were just
kidding, it's a recorded document, but we are not going to let you have it. It's something
that has to be litigated out and so it's not precedent setting in itself, but those are
deeded accesses that have to be worked through. Its not as though we are asking for
something that we don't have.
Borup: April 1st we have six projects. Actually, one subdivision and the others are all
smaller projects, but it's a fairly full schedule. I mean there is 13 items, but there is six -
- six projects. One of those is a city Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, do we have to continue to a specific date?
Borup: Yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Otherwise, it has to be re -noticed. This is a noticed hearing.
Rohm: I see. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we run the risk of having to continue again if we don't resolve
these four issues here? Would it not be better to -- or these five issues. Ask for these
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 27 of 76
five issues to be resolved and, then -- I may be out of line here, but ask the process to --
to apply again?
Zaremba: Well, the mechanism for that would be to deny it tonight.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I'm saying, you know, in the interest of not having to go
through this exercise three or four more times, if we are going to next time ask them to
-- make sure all these five -- you know, rather than risking denying it again a second
time. Am I --
Zaremba: Well, that's the choice that we are discussing
Newton-Huckabay: Right. That's my--
Zaremba: -- deny it tonight or put it off a month and saying at that point either
everything is fixed or it's likely to be denied, then. The question is do we want to give
them the opportunity to try and remedy some of the --
Borup: Historically, if the Commission has felt something could be corrected and
remedied, then, it's been to continue it. I mean the application process is fairly
extensive and expensive. Commissioner Rohm, it looks like you --
Rohm: Well, I just have two comments. The first one being, obviously, we have to have
the time on the agenda to add it, number one, and we can't take something that's
already proposed for that meeting and put it off. So, if, in fact, we have time, we should
make that offer to the developer. But, secondly, if, in fact, they would prefer to continue
it say six weeks, as opposed to the four, then, it would be something we could settle on
based upon those two conditions and if, in fact, all of the issues from the staff report --
and, as a matter of fact, you did a very good job on this, it lines out the issues that need
to be resolved very well, and I think that as long as in that four week period or six week,
depending upon the developer's position, we will hear it at that time. That seems
appropriate.
Borup: Our agenda on the 15th is -- well, it's still filling up, but at this point it's -- well,
there is two items.
Rohm: I guess that's my point is we have to make sure that we don't over fill our
agenda, but at the same time, if, in fact, the applicant is willing to continue for the six
weeks, then, we have an unfilled agenda and that gives them ample time to respond
and that seems to address both sides of the equation.
Borup: Okay. The only thing I'd add to that, I think we need -- if that's what we are
going to ask for, I think we n eed some clear intention of what it is that needs to be
corrected. In my mind, that items two, three, four and five is probably easy enough to
understand, other than I'm not sure what they are referring to on this screening. It's the
first one on the rock storage that maybe we need some direction.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 28 of 76
Rohm: And it's my belief that the applicant and staff can work through that issue over
the course of the next six weeks and come to some resolve that addresses the point in
this staff report with an appropriate response from the applicant.
Zaremba: Or I think the suggestion was made that the response that we are seeking
from the applicant is a letter from the county that says they have complied.
Borup: Well, see, the county -- at least the way I read this, the county wants them to
have the whole site — site plan amended and approved. I don't know how much sense
that makes on something you're ready to annex into the city. We should be more
concerned about what's going to -- what the city would want it to comply with than what
the county wants it to do.
Rohm: Just a comment on that. I think we have approved for annexation other parcels
that have not been fully defined as to how they will be developed, so I can understand
the applicant's position on that as well.
Zaremba: You mean not have an entire site plan? Yeah. I don't think we have
accepted things that were in material noncompliance with ordinance.
Rohm: Good point.
Zaremba: We didn't have a full site plan
Rohm: Exactly.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we can work within that six
week time frame. I happen to know Mike Williams, the code enforcement officer from
Ada County, and I can work with him to see if we can secure a letter from him for items
two through five. I think, Chairman Borup, you make a good point that that first item is
requesting that the items that were brought in were not a part of the approved site plan
and it should be amended for that. I think that we can work with staff to try to figure out
a way to figure out what Ada County's requirements would have been for the screening
of that rock area and to address that as part of the conditions of approval for this
project, rather than have this brought back through Ada County. And that could be
something that could be addressed through the conditions of approval as recommended
by staff.
Borup: That was my problem. Maybe there could be some screening along that area
without doing the full curb, gutter, sidewalk landscaping berm on something that was not
developed yet, but there could maybe be something -- an interim type of thing.
Zaremba: Even if they took a row of trees that's officially for sale and lined them up
along the property line? Is that what you're saying? Line them up along the street?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 29 of 76
Borup: Well, yeah, that or go ahead and plant them and remove them later or -- that
wouldn't be up to us to determine.
McKinnon: A solid sight obscuring fence, something that would meet ACHD's needs
and something that would meet the needs of the City of Meridian. That's something that
we could work out as soon as we get approval.
Borup: To me a site obscuring fence is -- I don't know, maybe that's -- I'm different.
That's not an improvement.
Zaremba: I'd rather see trees.
McKinnon: Okay.
Borup: I mean I don't see -- it's that objectionable to be right now the way it is.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Other than maybe cleaning up a little bit.
McKinnon: I would be happy to work with --
Borup: Is that enough direction?
McKinnon: That's enough direction. If we can — the sooner we can get together with
staff and get a memo kind of detailing the conditions of approval, then, we'd have a
better go at it, too, just so we can see what the staff would like, too, so -- within that time
frame it would be nice to get that. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing --
Borup: Well, no --
Rohm: Continue the Public Hearing --
Borup: Well, maybe I shouldn't speak too soon. I guess it depends on what your
motion is going to be, whether you want to close it or not.
Rohm: Well, I want to continue it. Excuse me.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. Then we need to keep it open.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to continue the Public Hearing on AZ 03-038 and
continue that to -- what was the date? It would be —
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 30 of 76
Borup: The 15th. April 15th.
Rohm: April 15th.
Zaremba: Fine day.
Rohm: And -- can we do all three of them at the same time?
Zaremba: All three hearings are open.
Rohm: All three hearings be continued to the April 15th Planning -- regular scheduled
Planning and Zoning meeting. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 04-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 24.45
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 3615 South Locust Grove Road:
Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98
single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 24.45 acres in
a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC — 3615 South Locust Grove Road:
Borup: I think we are ready to move on to our next item. The next item is Public
Hearing AZ 04-002. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and also Public Hearing PP
03-001. And that is it. I'd like to open both these hearings at this time and start with
the staff report.
Hawkins -Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Brad
Hawkins -Clark with the planning department. These two applications -- the first one,
annexation and zoning and the second one preliminary plat for 98 building lots. I'll just
quickly touch on this first item. The general location is on the west side of South Locust
Grove Road. Victory Road is about a quarter mile to the north. Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision is here to the east. Phase one is -- the final plat is shown here. They
have come in with a couple of other phases in addition to this one, since this map was
done. It's zoned R-4. Tuscany Village is not shown on this map. I think we did include
-- just go down to the -- yeah. Here is a plat of Tuscany Village, which is immediately
to the north. So, the subject property we are talking about tonight is this parcel to the
south. This does not reflect the exact final plat approval for Tuscany Village. This
short stub, as I will touch on in just a minute, is not -- was not final platted. But,
RECErV-EiD
APR 15 2004
CITY OF iERII)II�
April 7, 2004
Tim Mussell
Victory Greens
110 E Victory Rd.
Meridian ID 83642-6984
Re: Meeting regarding compliance issues at Victory Greens
Dear Mr. Mussell:
Thank you for meeting with Carla Olson, Richard Cook and myself yesterday regarding
the compliance issues at Victory Greens. This letter is to follow-up on what we agreed to
in the meeting so that you can bring your property into compliance with Ada County
Code. Listed below are the items, which need to be addressed.
1. You will need to submit anew application for a One Time Division (OTD) with a
Record of Survey so that we can clear up the parcel that has been split from the
SW corner of your property.
2. The mercury -vapor light in the rock yard area needs to be removed.
3. The overhead power to the mercury vapor light needs to be removed.
4. The storage area next to the pipe supply company needs to be screened by a
site -obscuring fence.
The date in which we agreed to have the four items completed by is 04/20/04. 1 will be
conducting a site inspection on 04/19/04 to confirm that the tasks have been completed.
If you should complete them before 04/19/04 please contact me and I will conduct an
inspection sooner.
Ada County requests that copies of the annexation, subdivision, development
agreement and conditional use applications which you submit to the City of Meridian be
submitted to us so we may review them and comment regarding the issues, which were
addressed in the correspondence sent to you on 03/31/04.
If you should have any questions you may contact Michael Williams at 287-7917.
Sincerely;
Gerry Armstrong, Director
Ada County Development Services
By: Michael Williams, Code Enforcement Specialist
Ada County Development Services
cc: Carla Olson, Development Services
Richard Cook, Planner 11
Craig Hood, Associate City Planner, City of Meridian
Ax Yewer, Deputy Prosecutor, Ada County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Dave McKinnon, Land Use Planner, Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
File
March 1, 2004 PFP 03-007
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 4, 2004
APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. ITEM NO. Jr
REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building
lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Mussell Comer Subdivision - northeast comer of
East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
IDAHO TRANSP. DEPT.
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
See attached Staff Comments
No Comment
No Comment
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
letter from Clovd and Bonnie Nelson
OFfIL/ 1,6VANN
Staff Initials:
Matedols presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
MAYOR
A Good Place to Live
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Tammy de Weerd
CITY OF MERIDIAN
(208) 466-9272 • Fax 466-4405
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
PUBLIC WORKS
William L.M. Nary
33 EAST IDAHO
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Keith Bird
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 898-5500 Fax 887-1297
Shaun Wardle
(208) 8884433 - FAX (208) 887-4813
PLANNING AND ZONING
Charles M. Rountree
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533 - FAX 888-6854
STAFF REPORT: Transmittal Date: February 26, 2004
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
To: Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission -
. � E -D
From: Craig Hood, Associate City Planner L411 FEB 2 6 2004
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech
%:ity Of 14YeridiarL
Subject: Mussell Corner Subdivision City Clerk Office
• Annexation/Rezone (AZ) Approval of 21.38 Acres from C2 (Ada County) to
C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial), by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
(File No. AZ -03-038)
Preliminary/Final P lat (PFP) Approval o f F our (4) B uildable Lots o n 2 1.3 8
Acres in a Proposed C -G Zone, by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. (File No. PFP-03-
007)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Approval for a Planned Development (PD) for
a Combination Feed Store and Gas/Convenience Station and to Allow the
Existing Commercial and Residential Uses to Remain on 21.38 Acres in a
Proposed C -G Zone, by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. (File No. CUP -03-071)
APPLICATIONS SUMMARY
The Applicant, Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., has applied for Annexation/Zoning (AZ),
Preliminary/Final Plat (PFP) and Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development (CUP/PD)
approval of four (4) buildable lots on 21.38 acres within the proposed C -G zone. The site is
located at the northeast corner of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69).
The subject development is eligible for a combined preliminary/final plat application because
the proposed subdivision does not exceed four lots, there are no new streets being dedicated or
widened, and this development is not located within a floodplain, hillside or the like (MCC 12-
3-3). One of the four buildable lots is for a new combination feed store and gas/convenience
station, located on the northeast corner of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road. Another
one of the proposed lots will be for a future stand alone commercial building. The remaining
two proposed lots will be utilized in their current capacity which includes: growing and storing
materials for the on-site commercial landscape nursery, a sprinkler/irrigation business, and a
single-family residence/landscape office. The Applicant is requesting detailed CUP/PD
approval of the proposed feed store/gas station on Lot 3, and of the existing structures on Lots
A 03-038, PFP-03.007, CUM3-071 Musses C0..s ..FFP.C7P.d.s
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 2
1 & 4. The existing coffee kiosk located near the intersection of Victory Road and Kuna-
Meridian Road will be removed if the application is approved.
This property is currently zoned C2 in Ada County and is designated in the City' s
Comprehensive Plan as "Commercial". A CUP/PD application is required because there are
multiple buildings on a single parcel and because the existing residential use is prohibited in the
proposed C -G zone. The PD application requests that the existing single-family home be
approved in the C -G zone as a use exception as allowed in MCC 12-6-3. The Applicant has not
submitted detailed plans for Lot 2 and is requesting only conceptual approval at this time. All
future development within the boundaries of the preliminary plat, including the possible re-
development of Lots 1 & 4, will require a detailed conditional use permit.
The Applicant is not requesting any deviations from the standard dimensional standards (e.g. -
setback, frontage, height, etc.) with the PD. However, the Applicant is requesting that the
landscaping and other land use buffers adjacent to the existing nursery, home/office, and
sprinkler/irrigation building on Lots 1 & 4, be allowed to remain as -is until these lots
redevelop. The Applicant is proposing to utilize the open space provided by the commercial
nursery as one amenity and a meandering sidewalk adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road as the
other. See the Conditional Use/PD section of this report for further analysis of this request.
The Applicant is proposing two new access points onto Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69), a
principal arterial roadway, and three access points onto Victory Road, a collector roadway. A
common ingress/egress easement, shared by all four (4) buildable lots in the subdivision, which
provides access to both Kuna-Meridian Road and Victory Road is proposed. Kuna-Meridian
Road is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), and Victory Road
is under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District (ACRD). See the "Findings" in the
Annexation & Zoning section of this report, and the correspondences from ACHD and ITD for
detailed analysis of the proposed access points.
Ada County Development Services has submitted a letter to the City outlining the various code
infractions on this site (see letter from Ada County Development Services dated 2-4-04). The
letter explains that there are uses on this site that that have not obtained the County's approval
and are in violation of the approved site plan (File # 99 -27 -PDC). In addition to the illegal uses,
there are storage areas that have not been properly screened, signage that has not been permitted,
lighting that has been installed in violation of Ada County Code, and other landscaping
violations. S ee the "Findings" i n the Annexation & Zoning s ection o f t his report f or d etailed
analysis.
Staff has provided a detailed analysis for the requested annexation and zoning,
preliminary/final plat, and conditional use permit applications below. Staff is recommending
denial of the subject annexation and zoning (AZ -03-038), preliminary/final plat (PP -03-007)
and conditional use permit (CUP -03-071). Because the staff recommendation is for denial,
no conditions of approval are included in this report.
A 43-030, PFM3-007, CUP -03-07I Mussell C..RZ.PP.CU A..
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 3
LOCATION
The subject site is located on the northeast corner of Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69) and Victory
Road, within Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North — Single-family homes (Edmonds Subdivision), zoned RUT (Ada County) / Vacant,
currently used for storage, zoned RUT (Ada County)
South —143 -acre parcel, currently used for agricultural purposes, zoned RUT (Ada County)
East — Single-family home (Observation Point Subdivision), zoned R-4
West — Single-family homes, zoned RUT (Ada County)
OWNER OF RECORD
The property owners of record are Tim & Carol Mussell, who have provided notarized consent
for Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., to submit the subject applications.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING FINDINGS
The legal description submitted with the application meets the requirements of the City of
Meridian and State Tax Commission. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning
Area.
Because there are existing commercial uses on this site, staff has combined the analysis of use
with the annexation and zoning findings.
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment."
The following is the list of standards found in 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment;
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as
"Commercial". In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial' areas are
anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and
visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi -family
residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Staff finds that
the requested C -G zoning generally conforms to this stated purpose and intent of the
Commercial designation.
AZ -03-039, PPP43-007, CUP -03471 Mussell Comer RZ.PP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 4
Staff finds the following Goals, Objectives, and Action items contained in the 2002
Comprehensive Plan to be applicable to this application (staff analysis is in italics below
policy):
• "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII,
Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2)
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has submitted a letter to the City stating
that their policy for access to a Type IV Principal Arterial will be at intersections
only, and spaced at one-halfmile intervals in urban areas. ITD allows approaches
(other than intersections) in special cases and on a temporary basis. Staff finds that
the proposed access points to Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69) do not meet the location
requirements of IT0.
"Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback,
vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item
4)
The Applicant is specifically asking for a waiver of the requirement to install
landscaping adjacent to the existing uses that are to remain on-site. Further, in a
letter to the City, ITD has stated that its future right of way width on Kuna-Meridian
Road will be 120 feet on each side of the centerline (240 feet total) for building
setbacks and to include h frontage road; or, 70 feet each side of centerline (140 feet
total) if the developer provides an internal frontage road type system to feeder roads.
The Applicant is proposing cross -access between the lots using the driveway/parking
lots, but is not proposing a public frontage road. If/when the ultimate right-of-way is
obtained by ITD, and the required landscape buffer adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road
is installed, the proposed structures on Kuna-Meridian Road will encroach into the
required landscape buffer. Staff finds that the proposed building setbacks, landscape
waivers, and lack of a frontage road or accounting for additional right-of-way on
Kuna-Meridian Road does not meet the above -listed Comprehensive Plan Action
item. (See more discussion in the Conditional Use/PD section below)
"Permit new . . .commercial development only where urban services can be
reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to
the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action item 6)
The Meridian Fire Department has submitted comments and conditions for this site
(see comments ate nd of this report). One of the comments received from the Fire
Department states that the proposed project is outside the five-minute response zone
goal. Achievement of this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to
enhance the probability of a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support.
The budget constraints are typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are
A 03-038, M—OMD], CUP -03471 Mwscll Co .RZPP.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 5
located within 1.5 miles from a given location and sufficient operational funds to staff
the facilities. Staff does not anticipate that at the time of final approval of the first
phase of this development that the response time goals of the Fire Department will be
achieved.
The subject site is not readily serviceable by City of Meridian's sanitary sewer and
water systems. Water mains would have to be extended in E. Victory Road from the
Observation Point Subdivision. A temporary sanitary sewer lift station would need to
be installed near the northwest corner of the development, and a pressure main would
need to be extended approximately 1,400 feet north on N. Kuna-Meridian Road to the
existing sewer at the Elk Run Subdivision.
• "Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential
areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII,
Goal I, Objective B, Action item 5)
The subject property has frontage on both an arterial roadway, Kuna-Meridian Road,
and a collector roadway, Victory Road. The existing uses adjacent to this site have
not yet developed to the expected residential densities anticipated in the
Comprehensive P Ian. B ecause t he a djoining p roperties a re s till s omewhat r ural i n
nature, the development of a supply store may complement the existing uses.
Depending on how the rest of the site builds -out, this development may or may not
compliment adjoining residential developments.
• "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area.
(Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B)
The proposed and existing uses do provide a variety of commercial uses in this area,
as envisioned with the Comprehensive Plan.
• "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V,
Goal III, Objective D, Action item 5)
The Applicant is specifically asking a waiver of the requirement to install landscaping
adjacent to the existing commercial uses that are to remain on-site. (See detailed
analysis in the Conditional Use/PD section below.)
• "On -street bikeways should be incorporated on all future Collector streets." (Chapter
VI, Figure VI -5)
Figure VI -5 o n p age 5 7 of the Comprehensive P Ian designates a b ikeway o n b oth
Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road adjacent to the site. The Applicant has not
addressed the issues of bikeways adjacent to the site. Staff is recommending that the
Applicant work with ACHD to provide a bike lane on Victory Road, but not Kuna-
A 3-039, PPP -03407, CUP -03-071 Mu ell Co .RZ.PRCUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 6
Meridian Road. Because the posted speed limit on Kuna-Meridian Road is 55 MPH,
staff does not believe that a bikeway should be required.
• "Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended
Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land use
decisions." (Chapter VI, Goal H, Objective A, Action item 3)
This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities
in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible
and convenient. The Applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement to
construct approximately 850 feet of sidewalk on Victory Road. This waiver request is
not pedestrian friendly nor is it consistent with the literature listed above.
B. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the future;
Staff does not anticipate that the Applicant intends to rezone the subject property in the
future.
C. Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning — for example, a residential
area turning into commercial area by means of conditional use permits;
Nurseries are a permitted use in the proposed C -G zone. Service stations are also a
permitted use in the proposed C -G zone. Convenience stores require conditional use
permit approval in the C -G zone. Residential uses are prohibited in the C -G zone.
Irrigation/sprinkler businesses are not a listed use in the Zoning Schedule of Use Control
(MCC 11-8-1). The existing irrigation/sprinkler business that is to remain does have
outdoor storage, office space, and has functions similar to a contractors yard. Because the
irrigation/sprinkler business is not specifically listed as a permitted use in the C -G zone,
it has been determined that conditional use permit approval would be required (MCC 1I-
6-4). The purpose of the C -G District is to provide for commercial uses, which are
customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building (MCC 11-7-2.K). Staff
finds that the proposed gas/convenience/feed store, the existing home, and the existing
irrigation/sprinkler business that is to remain, are not principally permitted uses in the C-
G zone. The gas/convenience/feed store and the existing irrigation/sprinkler business
would require separate conditional use approval. The existing home that is to remain is
not eligible for permitting and does not conform to the proposed zoning (non -conforming
use).
D. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that the
area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new railroad
access b een d eveloped o r planned o r adjacent a rea b eing developed in a f ashion
similar to the proposed rezone area;
AZ03-038, PPP -03407, CUP -03-0]1 M..11 C..RZ.PP.CUP.&,
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 7
Observation Point Subdivision and Bear Creek Subdivision have recently been annexed
and developed with residential land uses in this area. There are not any developments in
the area that have developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area.
Kuna-Meridian Road was recently widened in this area by ITD. Victory Road is not
scheduled by ACHD for any improvements in the current Five Year Work Program or
CIP. The intersection of Victory Road/Kuna-Meridian Road is ranked #2 on the highway
district's prioritization list and is anticipated to be a signalized intersection in the near
future. The Commission and Council should rely on the preceding facts and any public
testimony to determine whether the changes in the area dictate that this area should be
annexed into the City and zoned C -G at this time.
E. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of
the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed C -G zone/new uses, and any future uses, if designed,
constructed and operated in accordance with adopted city ordinances, should be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the intended character of the vicinity.
The site is intended to be utilized for commercial uses which, based on the
Comprehensive Plan description, will have such uses as retail, wholesale, service and
office uses, multi -family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as
government offices.
F. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
Accessory to the existing landscape business, there are chemicals, pesticides, and
fertilizers stored on this site. Further, the proposal to operate a gas station/feed store may
be disturbing to the neighborhood as it is an auto -oriented business. Appropriate buffers
should be required on the north and east boundaries of this development, as the abutting
uses are less -intense than the proposed and existing uses (see MCC 12-13-12-4). The
Commission and Council should rely on public testimony to determine whether the
proposed uses will be disturbing or hazardous to the neighboring uses.
G. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning
amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services;
Staff finds that the recent roadway improvements to Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69) should
be adequate to serve this project for the short term. However, ITD has indicated that SH
69 i s n of c onstructed t o i is u ltimate s ection a nd w ill n eed t o b e w idened a gain i n t he
future. ITD needs additional right-of-way and/or a frontage road adjacent to/through this
property (see letter from ITD). Improvements to Victory Road in this area have not taken
AZ -03438, PPP -0M07, CUP -0471 M ..[LC..RZ.PP.C[ .d.c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 8
place in the recent past, and except for the anticipated signalization at SH 69, none are
anticipated within the next 20 years. At full build out, staff believes that this site will add
a significant amount of traffic to the roadway system (see ACHD staff report for further
details). This site has over 1,000 feet of frontage on Victory Road. Other than 150 feet of
sidewalk near the proposed gas station/feed store, the Applicant is not proposing to make
any improvements (landscaping, sidewalk, bike I ane, road widening, turn -lane, etc.) to
Victory Road. The ACRD is recommending, with site-specific and standards conditions,
approval of the subject development.
The subject site is not readily serviceable by City of Meridian's sanitary sewer and water
systems. Water mains would have to be extended in E. Victory Road from the
Observation Point Subdivision. A temporary sanitary sewer lift station would need to be
installed near the northwest corner of the development, and a pressure main would need
to be extended approximately 1,400 -feet north on N. Kuna-Meridian Road to the existing
sewer at the Elk Run Subdivision.
On January 23, 2004, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with
representatives of key service providers to this property. The Meridian Fire Department
has concerns with serviceability of this site, as it is currently outside of their five-minute
response zone. Because the Fire Department does not know when a new station will be
constructed in this area, south of the freeway, all buildings within this development must
be sprinklered (all of the detailed conditions from the Fire Department and other
agencies/departments are at the end of this report).
The Applicant has not indicated, on the submitted site plan, where the refuse container(s)
will be located. The Applicant should coordinate the location and design of refuse
container(s) with Sanitary Services Company (SSC). Trash enclosures must be built in
the location and to the size approved by SSC. All dumpster(s) must be screened in
accordance with MCC 11-12-1.C.
The Commission and Council should reference any written or verbal testimony submitted
by the Meridian Police Department, and any other agency not listed above, regarding
their ability to adequately service this project.
Staff finds that the property proposed for annexation cannot currently be served
adequately by all essential public facilities and services.
H. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
If this annexation/development is approved, the developer will be financing the extension
of sewer, water, local/intemal street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve
the project. The primary public costs to serve the future site will be fire and police
services. Staff finds that this development will not cause excessive additional
requirements at public cost.
A 3.038, P"43,007, CUR03-07I Mw,.IIC..RZ.PP.CUP.d.c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 9
I. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
Staff finds that the gas station/convenience/feed store uses may involve activities,
processes, materials, equipment or conditions that could produce excessive traffic, noise,
fumes and/or odors, as well as other negative public impacts. A key question that should
be discussed at the public hearing is whether the impacts will be "excessive." MCC 11-
12-2 and 11-12-3 are intended to mitigate impacts of special uses such as fire hazards,
bulk storage, noises. In the Applicant's letter, they do not address the hours of operation
for the proposed gas station/convenience/feed store. Conditions associated with a CUP
and/or Development Agreement could establish use parameters that would prevent
detrimental effects. In order to establish some guidelines to mitigate the detrimental
aspects of the proposed use, the existing uses and all future uses on-site the Applicant
should clarify during the public hearing the hours of operation hours of fuel delivery, any
potential for refrigerated truck operation and anticipated decibel levels generated at the
site.
I Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed
as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets;
Staff finds that any future uses will impact the level and flow of traffic on the
surrounding roadways. ACHD estimates this site will generate 1,632 additional vehicle
trips per day (74 existing). Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City
should "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter
VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2).
ACHD has evaluated access to this site from Victory Road, while ITD has jurisdiction
over access to Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69). ACHD has approved two access points to
Victory Road. Please review the ACHD report for this project for additional information
regarding this portion of this finding.
ITD has submitted a letter to the City stating that their policy for access to a Type IV
Principal Arterial (SH 69) will be at intersections only, and spaced at one-half mile
intervals in urban areas. ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases
and on a temporary basis (see letter from ITD). ITD's policy on approaches lessens the
ability of driveways to create interference on the roadways. The driveways proposed to
SH 69 for this site do not conform to ITD's policy listed above for approaches on a Type
IV roadway. Currently SH 69 has a posted speed limit of 55 MPH. Vehicles leaving this
site from the proposed access points will be attempting to merge with, or cross, traffic
that is going extremely fast. Staff finds that if the approaches to the site are constructed as
proposed, they will cause interference with the traffic flow on SH 69.
K Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of
major importance; and
AZ M38, PPP -03-W, CUP -0J 71 Mused) C..er@ZPF=d.c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 10
Staff is not aware of any natural or scenic feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or
destroyed by allowing this site to be annexed, zoned and developed with commercial
uses. Any existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per
the Landscape Ordinance.
L. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. (Ord.
592,11-17-1992)"
Staff finds that at this time, the annexation and zoning of this property would not be
in the best interest of the City for the following reasons:
• the site lies outside the five-minute response zone goal of the Meridian Fire
Department;
• there are not any developments in the area that have developed in a fashion similar
to the proposed rezone area (commercial);
• the proposal to operate a gas station/convenience/feed store may be disturbing to
the neighborhood;
• municipal sanitary sewer and water systems are not readily available to provide
service;
• the proposed gas station/convenience store use may involve activities, processes,
materials, equipment and/or conditions that will produce additional traffic, noise,
fumes and/or odors, as well as other negative public impacts;
• a proposed use that is to remain (single-family home) is not principally permitted in
the proposed zone;
• the Applicant is not proposing to bring the existing uses that are to remain, signage,
landscaping, public infrastructure (sidewalk, bike lanes), screening, drive -aisles,
or parking, into compliance with current City Code;
• the proposed access points to Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69) do not meet the location
requirements of I7D or Action item 2 in Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, of the
Comprehensive Plan;
• the proposed building setbacks, landscape waivers, and lack of a frontage road or
accounting for additional right-of-way on Kuna-Meridian Road does not meet
policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian City Code;
• Mr. Mussell has the following violations of Ada County Code, Title 8 existing on his
property:
1. Mr. Mussell had a site plan approval of File # 99 -27 -PDC in 1999. There are new
uses that are presently on the property, which requires that the approved site plan be
amended. At the present time without having an approved amended site plan, the area
where the landscaping rocks are being displayed is in violation ofAda County Code.
2. Next a storage unit with a sign painted on each side of it has been placed on the
property along with numerous signs advertising product, without first obtaining the
proper permits. It has been brought to the attention of this office thru Mr. Mussell's
A 3-038, PFP-03-007, CUP -03-071 M.wU C..R .PP.CUP,d.c
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 11
attorney that the sign on each side of the storage unit is not a sign, but a 3 -axle
trailer used for moving rock product. While conducting numerous site visits over the
past year it does not appear that the trailer has been moved from its current location.
Therefore this use would meet the definition of a portable sign and would need a
permit.
3. The property also contains storage areas that are not properly screened per Ada
County Code.
4. A mercury vapor -light was installed that does not comply with Ada County Code.
Mercury vapor lights are prohibited in Ada County. Furthermore Condition #10 of
the Conditions of Approval, File #99 -27 -PDC, states if lighting is proposed the
applicant shall provide a detailed lighting plan prior to the intallation of the lighting.
Mr. Mussell believes that the light was installed through an approved permit with
Ada County by Fat Cat Fireworks. The permit, which was approved for Fat Cat
Fireworks, was a permit for selling fireworks only. There is no record of an approved
lighting permit in this office, nor has this office been provided with a detailed lighting
plan to allow for placement of lighting in the landscaping rock area.
5. It also appears that the overhead line, which was installed to provide power for
the light, has been installed in violation ofAda County Code, subsection 8-4A-21.
This section states that all utilities for an approved use shall be installed
underground.
ANNEXATION AND ZONING CONDITIONS
Because the staff recommendation is for denial, no site specific conditions have been included.
PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FINDINGS
Meridian City Code (MCC) 12-3-3 J.2 and 12-3-5 D read as follows: "In determining the
acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission/Council shall consider the objectives of
this title and at least the following:
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
Please see the findings in section "A" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of this
report.
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
Please see the findings in sections "G" and "H" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of
this report.
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
A DM38, PFP-0 -M, CUP43 1 MwwII Cama RZ.PP,CURdoc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 12
Staff finds that the subdivision will not conflict with the capital improvement program
because the developer is required to install sewer, water, local street infrastructure,
utilities and irrigation, for the development at their cost.
D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Please see the findings in sections "G" and "H " of the Annexation and Zoning portion
of this report. The Commission and Council consider the Meridian Police, Parks and
Fire Departments' comments with regard to their capability to serve the proposed
development.
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the
Commission's attention.
Please see the findings in sections "I" and "J" of the Annexation and Zoning portion
of this report. Staff finds the Commission and Council should rely on any public
testimony that may be presented to determine whether the proposed use may cause
health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS
Because the staff recommendation is for denial, no site specific conditions have been included.
CONDITIONAL USE/PD PERMIT FINDINGS
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish (11-17-3):
A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open
spaces, parking, landscaping and other features as may be required by this
ordinance;
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the requested use
and all other required features. A CUP/PD application is required because there are
multiple buildings on a single parcel and because the existing residential use is prohibited
in the proposed C -G zone. The PD application requests that the existing single-family
home be approved in the C -G zone as a Use Exception (MCC 12-6-3). The Applicant
states that they are not requesting any reduced setbacks, reduced landscape buffers or
reduced development standards for the property that is to be developed along SH 69 and
Victory Road (see Applicant's letter). However, the Applicant is requesting that the
required landscaping, including land use and street buffers, adjacent to the existing
nursery, home/office, and commercial sprinkler/irrigation business lots be allowed to
remain as -is until redevelopment of the properties.
AZ03-039, PPP -03-007, CUP -0 I Mwae [[Cwnv.UTFCOP,du
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 13
Landscaping/Required Yards (Setbacks)/Right-of-Way: The submitted preliminary
plat/site plan does not show the ultimate right-of-way on Victory Road (35 -feet to
centerline) or Kuna-Meridian Road (120 -feet to centerline). The submitted site plan does
show the required 35 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road, and a
20 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Victory Road (MCC 12-13-10-4). However,
except for the landscaping adjacent to the proposed gas/feed store on Lot 3, the Applicant
is requesting that the landscaping requirement be waived. If/when the ultimate rights-of-
way are obtained by the road entities, and the required landscape buffers adjacent to
roadways are installed, the proposed structures on Kuna-Meridian Road and the existing
home/office near Victory Road will encroach into the required landscape buffers.
Open Space/Amenities: MCC 12-6-2.A.3 requires two or more amenities to be
provided as part of each PD. MCC 12-6 does not exempt non-residential PDs from
providing amenities. It does state that `other amenities appropriate to the size and uses
of the proposed development, as may be proposed by the applicant and approved by the
Commission and Council," can be approved. Landscaped open space of at least 10%
may count as an amenity (MCC 12-6-2.A.3.a). In the Applicant' s letter it is stated that
one of the amenities is the open space provided by the commercial nursery. Inherent to
the landscape business, there is considerably more than 10% of the site that is "open"
space. However, the Applicant is not proposing to designate any of the site for
permanent open space. Staff has concerns with the redevelopment of this site and there
not being any provision for keeping a certain percentage of open space. The second
amenity is approximately 550 feet of a meandering sidewalk adjacent to Kuna-Meridian
Road. This site has over 1,200 feet of frontage; the proposed sidewalk encompasses
less than half of the frontage of the site. Staff does not believe that the proposed
sidewalk amenity is appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development, as it
does not even continue the entire length of the site. Staff is not supportive of the
proposed amenities.
Parking: MCC 11-13 outlines the requirements for all off-street parking facilities (drive
aisles, stalls, striping, etc.). The Applicant is proposing to construct (pave, stripe, etc.)
parking for the gas/convenience/feed store in accordance with MCC. However, the
submitted site does not address parking for the existing uses on this site. The dimensions
of the existing dirt driveways, unimproved parking areas, screening/landscaping adjacent
to the parking and loading zones do not comply with MCC, and the Applicant is not
proposing to bring them into compliance with the subject CUP/PD application.
Even though the site is large enough to accommodate all required yards (setbacks), open
space, parking, landscaping, right-of-way requirements, and other design features
required by Meridian City Code, the Applicant is not proposing to bring the site into
compliance with the City's adopted standards. Therefore, staff is not supportive of the
requested CUP/PD.
B. That the proposed use and development plan will be harmonious with the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and in accordance with the requirements of this Ordinance;
A OM38, PFP-0 7, CUP -03-071 Mussell ComerF PRCU A.d
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 14
Please see the findings in section "A" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of this
report.
C. That the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with
other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential
character of the same area;
Please see the findings in section "E" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of this
report.
D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity;
Staff is Please see the findings in sections "I" and "J" of the Annexation and Zoning
portion of this report.
E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, street, police, and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of
proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
Staff is Please see the findings in section "G" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of
this report.
F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public
cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community;
Please see the findings in sections "G", "H" and "I" of the Annexation and Zoning
portion of this report.
G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment,
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare or odors;
Please see the findings in sections 'T' and "J" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of
this report.
H. That the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be
so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Please see the findings in section "J" of the Annexation and Zoning portion of this report.
AZ 39, P"P M07. CUP -0. 71 M.11 Cama.HZ.PP C 1 0.
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 15
I. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff is not aware of any natural or scenic feature(s) that would be lost, damaged or
destroyed by allowing this site to be annexed, zoned and developed with commercial
uses. Staff finds the Commission and Council should rely on any public testimony that
may be presented to determine whether the proposed use may result in the destruction,
loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of which staff is unaware. Any
existing trees larger than 4" caliper that are removed shall be mitigated for, per the
Landscape Ordinance.
CONDITIONAL USE/PD REQUIREMENTS
Because the staff recommendation is for denial, no site specific requirements have been
included.
OTHER AGENCY/DEPARTMENT COMMENTS/CONDITIONS
MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS (A7,03-038, PFP 03 007 CUP -03-0711
1. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Water
Department.
2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire
Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %:" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
C. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works spec.
d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the
hydrant location.
e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners.
f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
3. All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and
48' outs ide.
4. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation.
5. Operational fire hydrants and temporary or permanent street signs are required before
combustible construction begins.
6. The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards and shall have a clear
driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29'
street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on
one side.
AZ -03-038, PPP -03407, CUP -03471 MueseO Co.ver.RZ.Pp.CUP.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
P&Z Hearing Date: March 4, 2004
Page 16
7. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature
landscaping.
8. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -flow consistent with the Uniform
Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of
300' apart.
9. The proposed project lies outside the five-minute response zone goal. Achievement of
this goal is subject to budgetary constraints and is intended to enhance the probability of
a favorable outcome on a request for Basic Life Support. The budget constraints are
typically defined as capital outlay for facilities that are located within 1.5 miles from a
given location and sufficient operational funds to staff the facilities.
10. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the
development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and
efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this
installation is to be borne by the developer.
11. Any chemical storage on the site will require compliance with IFC and MCC 11-12-3.A.
This includes agricultural fertilizers and chemicals.
12. Any activity involving the use or storage of flammable or explosive materials shall be
protected by adequate firefighting and fire -prevention equipment and by such safety
devises as are normally used in the handling of any such material. Such hazards shall be
kept removed from adjacent activities to a distance which is compatible with the potential
danger involved as specified in the UFC, Uniform Life Safety Code, MCC 11-12-3.C,
and the National Safety Foundation publications.
13. All buildings must be sprinklered.
SANITARY SERVICE CO. CONDITIONS (PFP-03-007 CUP -03-071)
Design the enclosure(s) per the standard recommendations of SSC for access, gates,
floor/pad, container stops/bumpers, and dimensions. Coordinate the design with SSC.
Approval of the trash enclosure design will be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Zoning Compliance for the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the findings listed in this report, staff recommends denial of the annexation/zoning
(AZ -03-038), preliminary/final plat (PFP-03-007) and conditional use permit (CUP -03-071)
requests.
AZZ03-038, F"P M07, CUP.03-071 Mussell C..n.RZ.PP.CUP.doc
.rA't'f�a#sem
' Ad ----]I
a County Highway District
Right -of -Way & Development Deparhnent
Planning Review Division
This application does not require Commission action and is approved at the staff level on Tuesday January
27, 2004. Tech Review for this item was held with the applicant on Friday January 23, 2004. Please refer
to the attachment for appeal guidelines. Staff contact: Andrea N. Tuning, 208 -387 -6177 -phone, 208 -387-
6393 -fax, atunino(Machd.ada.id.us
File Numbers: Mussell Comer/ MAZ03-038 / MCUP03-071 / MPFP03-07
Site address: NEC of Victory Road and Meridian Road (SH 69)
Applicant/Representative: Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
12552 West Executive Drive, Suite B�� -�i1
Boise, Idaho 83713
Owner:FEB 1 -' 20004Tim Mussell
100 East Victory Road L,ity 0fAleritiiac+
Meridian, Idaho 83642 +..1ity Olerk.Office
Application Information:
The applicant has submitted an application to the City of Meridian requesting annexation, rezone, conditional
use, preliminary plat and final plat approval to construct a 4 -lot commercial subdivision on 21.38 -acre site.
The site is currently zoned C-2 and is proposed to be zoned C -G. The site is located on the northeast comer
of Victory Road and Meridian Road.
Acreage: 21.38 -acres
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C -G
Buildable Lots: 4 -lots
Common Lots: None
Vicinity Map
A. Findings of Fact
1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate a total of 1,632 vehicle trips per day (74
existing) based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.
2. Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of a building
permit. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that
time.
3. Traffic Impact Study: A traffic impact study was not required with this application.
4. Site Information: The site currently functions as a nursery and a drive-thru coffee but
5. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
a. North: 11.63 -acres that is currently undeveloped
b. South: Victory Road and 143.70 -acres that is currently undeveloped
c. East: Observation Point Subdivision
d. West Meridian Road and 24.20 -acres that is currently undeveloped
6. Impacted Roadways
Victory Road:
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
Level of Service:
Speed limit:
State Hinhwav 69 (Meridian Road):
Frontage:
Functional Street Classification:
Traffic count:
Level of Service:
Speed limit:
1,070 -feet
Collector
East of Meridian Road (SH 69) was 4,009 on 5-15-02.
West of Meridian Road (SH 69) was 2,097 on 5-16-02.
Better than "C"
50 MPH
1,290 -feet
Principal Arterial
North of Victory Road was 22,266 on 5-15-02.
South of Victory Road was 20,698 on 5-16-02.
Better than "C"
55 MPH
Currently the Victory Road / SH 69 intersection is a stop controlled intersection. This intersection is
ranked #2 on the District's prioritization list and is anticipated to be a signalized intersection in the
near future.
7. Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
Victory Road is currently improved with 2 -traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the
site. Victory Road widens to 3 -traffic lanes at the intersection of Meridian Road.
Meridian Road is currently improved with 5 -traffic lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the
site.
8. Existing Right -of -Way
Meridian Road currently has a total of 126 -feet of right-of-way (60 -feet from centeriine).
Victory Road currently has a total of 70 -feet of right-of-way (35 -feet from centerline).
2
9. Existing Access to the Site
The site has a number of existing driveways that intersect Meridian Road (SH 69) and Victory Road.
10. Site History
The District has reviewed a number of development applications on this site.
On August 16, 1995, the District reviewed a rezone and planned unit development for a nursery and
a pump supply business. With this application, the applicant was required to dedicate right-of-way on
Victory Road, utilize one driveway (located on Victory road approximately 315 -feet east of SH69),
and close all other driveways on Victory Road
On April 14, 1999, the District reviewed a conditional use permit for a drive-thru espresso stand. With
this applicant, the applicant was required to dedicate right-of-way on Victory Road, utilize the existing
driveway (located on Victory road approximately 315 -feet east of SH69), and construct a 5 -foot
concrete sidewalk on Victory Road. • Sidewalk was not constructed.
On July 7, 1999, the District reviewed a planned unit development to allow the applicant to expand
the services allowed on this site. The applicant added a drive-thru espresso stand and a feed and
tack business to the site. With this application, the applicant was required to dedicate right-of-way on
Victory Road, construct a 5 -foot concrete sidewalk on Victory Road, utilize the existing driveway
(located on Victory road approximately 315 -feet east of SH69), utilize the existing driveway (located
on Victory road approximately 700 -feet east of SH69), and construct a tempora ry drive-thru for the
espresso stand (that is to be removed when the site redevelops). ' Sidewalk was not constructed.
11. Capital Improvements Plan/Five Year Work Program
This segment of Victory Road is not included in the District's Five Year Work Program or Capital
Improvements Plan.
12. Schedule
The item was scheduled to be heard by the Commission on February 4, 2004. The item was deferred
by the applicant and staff to determine if a resolution could be obtained at the staff level. On Monday
February 9, 2004, staff met with the applicant and the proposed buyers. Staff and the applicant
agreed to the terms of the report on February 9, 2004.
B. Findings for Consideration
1. Right -of -Way and Improvements
Victory Road
District policy 72-F1 B requires collector roadways to be constructed as a 46 -foot street section with
vertical curb, gutter and 5 -foot detached (or 7 -foot attached) concrete sidewalk within 70 -feet of right-
of-way with parking prohibited on both sides.
The applicant should construct Victory Road with one-half of a 46 -foot street section with curb, gutter,
a 5 -foot (or 7 -foot attached) detached concrete sidewalk and pavement widening abutting the entire
site.
Meridian Road (SH 69)
Meridian Road (SH 69 is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department. The
application should contact ITD to determine if any improvements and/or additional right-of-way will be
required as a part of this application.
'District policy would require the applicant to construct a 54bot concrete sidewalk abutting the site on
SH 69.
2. Driveways
Victory Road
Driveways Near a Signalized Intersection
District policy 72-F4 (1) requires driveways located on collector roadways near a signalized
intersection to be located a minimum of 175 -feet from the signalized intersection for a full -access
driveway and a minimum of 85 -feet from the signalized intersection for a right-in/right-out only
driveway.
District policy 72-F4 (1) requires driveways located on arterial roadways near a signalized intersection
to be located a minimum of 440 -feet from the signalized intersection for a full -access driveway and a
minimum of 220 -feet from the signalized intersection for a right-in/right-out only driveway.
Driveways from a Stop Controlled Intersection
District policy 72-174 (2) requires driveways located on collector roadways near a stop controlled
intersection to be located a minimum of 150 -feet from the intersection for a full -access driveway and a
minimum of 110 -feet from the intersection for a right-in/right-out only driveway.
Driveway Spacing Between Successive Driveways
District policy 72-F5, requires driveways located on collector or arterial roadways with a speed limit of
50 to align or offset a minimum of 255 -feet from any existing or proposed driveway.
All Driveways
Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked
onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7207.9.1, the applicant should be required to
pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the
roadway and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
District policy 7207.9.3 restricts commercial driveways with daily traffic volumes over 1,000 vehicles
to a maximum width of 35 -feet. Most commercial driveways will be constructed as curb -cut type
facilities if located on local streets. Curb return type driveways with 15 -foot radii will be required for
driveways accessing collector and arterial roadways.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 30 -foot wide driveway that intersects Victory Road
approximately 185 -feet east of Meridian Road (SH 69) to be utilized by the proposed convenience
store. This driveway is proposed to be located approximately 120 -feet west of an existing driveway
that is utilized by the existing nursery. Although the proposed driveway for the convenience store
meets the minimum offsets from Meridian Road (SH 69), the driveway does not meet District policy in
regard to minimum offsets between driveways on Victory Road. The applicant should choose which
driveway that they would like to have. The applicant may construct a new driveway that intersects
Victory Road approximately 185 -feet east of Meridian Road (69) OR the applicant may utilize the
existing driveway that is located approximately 345 -feet east of Meridian Road (SH 69). The
applicant may not have both driveways. No matter which driveway the applicant chooses, the
applicant should pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of
pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway
edge.
The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing 20 -foot wide driveway that is located approximately
345 -feet east of Meridian Road (SH 69). This driveway is located approximately 120 -feet east of the
0
proposed driveway for the proposed convenience store. The existing nursery currently utilizes this
driveway. This driveway currently meets District policy, but will not meet District policy once the
proposed driveway for the convenience store is constructed to the west. The applicant should
choose which driveway that they would like to have. The applicant may construct a new driveway
that intersects Victory Road approximately 185 -feet east of Meridian Road (69) OR the applicant may
utilize the existing driveway that is located approximately 345 -feet east of Meridian Road (SH 69).
The applicant may not have both driveways. No matter which driveway the applicant chooses, the
applicant should pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -feet into the site beyond the edge of
pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15 -foot radii abutting the existing roadway
edge.
The applicant is proposing to utilize an existing 40 -foot wide driveway that is located approximately
670 -feet east of Meridian Road (SH 69). This driveway is located approximately 310 -feet east of the
existing driveway that is utilized by the nursery. This driveway exceeds the minimum offsets to
surrounding driveway and should be approved with this application.
Meridian Road (SH 69)
The applicant is proposing to construct three driveways that intersect Meridian Road.
The applicant is proposing to construct a right-in/right-out driveway that intersects Meridian Road
approximately 180 -feet north of Victory Road.
The applicant is proposing to construct a full access driveway that intersects Meridian Road
approximately 630 -feet north of Victory Road.
The applicant is proposing to construct a full access driveway that intersects Meridian Road at the
north property line.
Meridian Road (SH 69) is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department. The
application should contact ITD to determine driveway locations and access restrictions on Meridian
Road (SH 69).
*District policy requires driveways on arterial roadways to be located a minimum of 220 -feet from a
signalized intersection for a right-in/right-out ONLY driveway and 440 -feet from a signalized
intersection for a full access driveway. Typically, the District requires applicant's to restrict driveways
by installing a 6 -inch raised median to ensure that the driveway functions as a right-in/right-out
driveway. ITD should also consider requiring an acceleration lane and/or a deceleration lane for the
driveways on SH 69 due to the speed and volume of traffic on SH 69.
3. Other Access
Victory Road is classified as a collector Roadway. Other than the access points that have specifically
been approved with this application, direct lot access to Victory Road is prohibited. Notes of the
access restrictions should be noted on the final plat.
C. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
Construct Victory Road with one-half of a 46 -foot street section with curb, gutter, a 5 -foot (or 7 -foot
attached) detached concrete sidewalk and pavement widening abutting the entire site.
2. Construct a new driveway that intersects Victory Road approximately 185 -feet east of Meridian Road
(69) OR the applicant may utilize the existing driveway that is located approximately 345 -feet east of
Meridian Road (SH 69). The applicant may not have both driveways. No matter which driveway the
applicant chooses, the applicant will be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30 -
feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15 -
foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
3. Utilize an existing 40 -foot wide driveway that is located approximately 670 -feet east of Meridian Road
(SH 69), as proposed.
4. Other than the access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot
access to Victory Road is prohibited. Notes of the access restrictions shall be noted on the final plat.
5. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D. Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
2. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
3. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
4. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by
the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details.
5. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State
of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
6. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or
other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
7. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements
of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
8. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with
Ordinance #198, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
9. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant The applicant
shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking
ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in
the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
10. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative
6
of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written
confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
11. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other
regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises
the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiver/vadance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant -to the law in effect at the
time the change in use is sought.
E. Conclusions of Law
1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are
satisfied.
2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Appeal Guidelines
7
Request for Appeal of Staff Decision
Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the
final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not
properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error
of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or
enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual.
a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged
the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs.
b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary
of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the
decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision
being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state
the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions
of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a
written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of
appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection.
c. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of
the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such
time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify
the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply, and any modifications to the
decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing
on the appeal.
d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal
will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held
within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS Manager's
reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal
and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the
hearing.
e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or
reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being
appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at
the hearing.
0
CR
CENTRAL
DISTRICT CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
HEALTH Environmental Health DivisionRECEMD
DEPARTMENT
Rezone #
Conditional Use #
Preliminary / Final / Short Plat
Red
JAM ? 7 :)Golf
Return to:
❑ Boise
❑ Eagle
❑ Garden City
AMeridian
❑ Kuna
- ❑ ACZ
- ❑ Star
❑ 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
❑ 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
❑ 3. Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this Proposal.
❑ 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
❑ 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
❑ high seasonal ground water ❑ waste flow characteristics
❑ or bedrock from original grade ❑ other
❑ 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
❑ 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
A.
After writte approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
ventral sewage
❑ community sewage system ❑ community water well
❑ interim sewage
Z[Gentral water
❑ individual sewage
❑ individual water
The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of vironmental Quality:
A;oeMral sewage
❑ community sewage system ❑ community water
❑ sewage dry lines
ce tral water
Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
❑ 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
❑ 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
❑ 13. We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
❑ food establishment ❑ swimming pools or spas
❑ beverage establishment ❑ grocery store
. Please see attached stormwater management recommendatations
❑ 15.
❑ child care center
Date: / k�20 /0
Reviewed By:
Review Sheet
DDHD NO Ike
CENTRAL
• DISTRICT
csTHEALTH
DEPARTMENT MAIN OFFICE • 707 N. ARMSTRONG PL. • BOISE, ID 63704-0825 • (208) 375.5211 • FAX 327-8500
To prevent and treat disease and disability; to promote heaUhy lifestyles; and to protect and promote the health and quality of our envirarmgnt.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that storm water be pre-treated prior to discharge to the
subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The
engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain
current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a
storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface
water degradation. Manuals that could be used for guidance are:
U„ dare. mm
State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices For
Idaho Cities and Counties.
Prepared by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, July
1997.
Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook.
Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000.
Adz / Boise County Office
707 N. Armstrono PI.
Boise, ID 83704
Enmro. Health: 327.7495
Family Planning: 327-7400
Immunizations: 327-7450
Senior Nutrition: 327-7460
WIC: 327-748E
F?J:: S,7 -85X
Servinp Pallev, Elaore. Bone, and Ada Counties
Elmore Coue1.1 unit:
520 E. 8th St. North
Mourdain Home, IC 83647
Endro. Health: 587-9225
Family Health: 567-x407
WIC 567-4405
FV- 587-3S21
.zhes County fi`,uct
70-s N. 1st 4.
P.C. Box 144E
McCall, ID 8363E
Ph. 634-7154
FAX: 634-2174
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L. M. Nary
Charles M. Rountree
n
eCITY OF "
YlG�IG�n
it IDAHO
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 466-9272 - FAX 4664405
PARKS & RECREATION
(208) 888-3579 - Fax 898-5501
PUBLIC WORKS
(208) 898-5500 - Fax 887-1297
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297
Keith Bird TRensuaeV ,swce
PLANNING & ZONING
soa
(208) 884-5533 - Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: February
Transmittal Date: January 7, 2004
File No,: PFP 03-067—
Request: Preliminary Final Plat awrov
in a proposed C -G zone for
2, 2004
Hearing Date: Februa
of 4 commercial buildi
posed Mussell Comer
2004
lots on 21.38 acres
By: Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
Location of Property or Project: northeast comer of East Victory Rd. and South Meridian Kuna Highway
David Zaremba, PIZ (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Vacant, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Leslie Mathes, P/Z (No vAR, vac, FP)
Michael Rohm, PIZ (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Keith Borup, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Tammy de Weetd, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Charlie Rountree, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
Shaun Wardle, C/C
Water Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attorney
City_Engineer
Ity Planner
Parks Department
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FP/PPonly)
Ada County Highway District
Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho Power Co. (FPrPPonly)
U.S. West (FP/PPo*)
Intermountain Gas (FP/PPonty)
Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PPonly)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County (Annexation only)
Ada County Land Records (FP/PP only)
Meridian Development Corporation
Historical Preservation Commission
RECET7F P
City of Meridian
33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE - MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 - (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Office
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 - Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 - Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813
MAYOR
Tammy de Weerd
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Shaun Wardle
William L. M. Nary
Charles M. Rountree
y�9 -
CITY OF
eri�tcn
t� IDAHO
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208) 4669272 - FAX 466-4405
PARKS & RECREATION
(208) 888-3579 - Fax 898-5501
PUBLIC WORKS
(208)898-5500 - Fax 887-1297
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 887-2211 - Fax 887-1297
Keith Bird PLANNING &ZONING
19 a (208) 884-5533 - Fax 888-6854
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: February
Transmittal Date: January 7, 2004
File No.: PFP 03-007
Request: Preliminary Final Plat aDDrov
12, 2004
Hearing Date:
of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres
in a proposed C -G zone for Dronosed Mussell Cnmrar cith.it.aainn
By: Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
Location of Property or Project: northeast corner of East Victory Rd. and South Meridian Kuna Highway
David Zaremba, P/Z (No vAR, vAc, FP)
Vacant, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Leslie Mathes, P/Z (No VAR, vac, FP)
Michael Rohm, P/Z (No VAR, vac, FP)
Keith Borup, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Charlie Rountree, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
Shaun Wardle, C/C
ter Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No VAR, vAc, FP)
Building Department
Fire Department
Police Department
City Attorney
City Engineer
City Planner
FJAN'C 8 2004
CITY OF MERIDIAN
WASTEWATER DEPT.
Concise Remarks:
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FP/PPonly)
Ada County Highway District
Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho Power Co. (FP/PP only)
U.S. West (FP/PPoMy)
Intermountain Gas (FP/PPo*)
Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PPonly)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County (Annexation only)
Ada County Land Records (FPrPP only)
Meridian Developme�nTr Corporation
Historical Preseryafid215 mission
33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE - MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 - (208) 888-4433
City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 - Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 - Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
IS
DTRICT 3 • P.O. BOX 8028 BOISE, ID • 83707.2028 • (208) 334-8300
February 13, 2004
Will Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: SH 69, PFP 03-007 and CUP 03-071 — Mussell Corner Subdivision
Dear Mr. Berg:
RECEIVED
FEB 112004
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
This letter is to provide comments in addition to PTD letter dated January 29, 2004 regarding the above development.
TTD would like to express that a variance to our policy for access will not be considered unless the property has no
other means of access except the highway. This property fronts Victory Road and has access to Victory Road.
Also, if a lot split has occurred since the approval of ITD's Access Control Policy then a cross access agreement
should be required as direct access to the highway will not be allowed.
An access exists at the Northwest comer of this property. Further review of this access will determine whether or not
this access was previously approved as well as the use of the access. This addition may exceed the access
requirements for the initial development therefore, TPD will require a Traffic Impact Study and Safety Analysis.
With receipt and review of the study and analysis, TTI) will conclude whether or not the access will require
modification to accommodate the new traffic conditions.
An application for a permit must be submitted to this Department for consideration of any new accesses or changes
of use to any existing accesses to the highway. Please have the applicant contact Matt Ward at our office located at
8150 Chinden Blvd. in Boise or call (208) 334-8341 for an application. Along with other conditions required for the
proposed permit, TTI) will need a Traffic Impact Study and Safety Analysis for the development.
If you have any questions please call me at 334-8340.
Sincerely, I
.; ' IeA
JOHN D. GOLDEN, P.E.
District Assistant Traffic Engineer
Attachment
cc: Craig Hood, City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Dave McKinnon. — Pinnacle Engineers, Inc.
- An Equal Opportunity Employer -
RECEIVED
FEB 17 2004
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
DISTRICT 3 • P.O. BOX 8028 • BOISE, ID • 83707-2028 • (208) 334-8300
January 29, 2004
Will Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: PFP 03-007 and CUP 03-071, Mussell Corner Subdivision
Dear Mr. Berg:
SH 69 has been designated a Principal Arterial. IM would like Ada County and the City of
Meridian to help us preserve this corridor by recognizing the following conditions. Future right
of way widths will be, A: 120 feet each side of centerline (240 feet total) for building setbacks
and to include a frontage road, or B: 70 feet each side of centerline (140 feet total) if the
developer provides an internal frontage road type system to feeder roads.
Access to a Principal Arterial Type IV will be intersections only, and spaced at one mile intervals
in rural areas and one-half mile intervals in urban areas. Approaches (other than intersections)
may be permitted in special cases and on a temporary basis as follows:
(1) Allowed until state highway system is improved by a construction project at which
time an access will be provided to the property, which may not directly access the
state highway system, but may be via a frontage or backage road.
(2) Shall be recorded at the County Recorders Office.
(3) Temporary access restrictions will be noted on the permit.
Noise abatement will be the responsibility of the developer and, will be constructed off of the
State Right of Way, see enclosed Noise Abatement Measures.
If you have any questions please call me at 334-8340.
Sinter
DAN COONCE, P.E.
District Traffic Engineer
Attachment
- An Equal Opportunity Employer -
RECEIVED
PLANNING & ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS FEB 17 2004
NOISE EVALUATION/MITIGATION
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
For Development Applications or Zone Change Requests for property adjacent to state or federal highways,
the Idaho Transportation Department (IM) requests the local Planning & Zoning authority to require the
applicant to evaluate and mitigate (if necessary) for noise impacts as follows:
The applicant shall perform a Traffic Noise Screen in accordance with the Environmental Process
Manual (EPM) Section 1350.02.
a. The design year shall be the date of the proposed development plus 20 years.
b. The traffic volume considered for 20 year future build -out shall be: Z7/oo ADT (Average
Daily Traffic).
c. The highway configuration considered for 20 year future build -out shall be per the attached
typical section.
Use the -existing Yti_gh_w_ay centes_lirte for -the 20.y a�ture_build-aut—_ ---__------ __--- —
2. If the results of the Traffic Noise Screen so warrant, then the applicant shall perform a Traffic Noise
Impact Analysis in accordance'dviCfi")3PM Section 1350.-03.
3. The applicant shall submit a noise report to the Planning & Zoning authority with a copy to PTD.
This report shall include:
a. Results of the Traffic Noise Screen, including supporting assumptions, documentation, and
conclusion as to whether a Traffic Noise Impact Analysis is warranted.
b. Results of Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (if warranted), including supporting assumptions,
documentation, and discussion of different types of abatement considered.
c. A recommendation of the type of abatement to be used for the proposed development.
4. The Planning & Zoning authority will review the noise report, solicit and consider comments from
PTD, and determine which (if any) abatement methods will be made as a condition of the proposed
development.
Notes:
The Environmental Process Manual (EPM) is available on line at
htto•//www2:soZ d us/i bNL fclev/MftnualsBnviornmentaU.
All noise analysis and report preparation shall be done by industry recognized professionals with
experience in highway traffic noise modeling.
ITD point -of -contact for general questions on Development Applications or Zone Change Requests is
District 3 Traffic Engineer, Dan Coonce at 334-8340.
PTD point -of -contact for specific questions on noise evaluation/mitigation is District 3 Environmental
Manager, Greg Vitley at 334-8952.
TRANSPORTATION ISDEPARTMENT
-O. -
OTRlCT 3 P.BOX 8028 BO1SE, !D 83707-2028 - (20H) 334-8300
January 29, 2004
Will Berg, City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: PFP 03-007 and CUP 03-071, Mussell Corner Subdivision
Dear Mr. Berg:
RECEIVED
FEB - 4 2004
City of Meridian.
City Clerk Office
SH 69 has been designated a Principal Arterial. 1TD would like Ada County and the City of
Meridian to help us preserve this corridor by recognizing the following conditions. Future right
of way widths will be, A: 120 feet each side of centerline (240 feet total) for building setbacks
and to include a frontage road, or B: 70 feet each side of centerline (140 feet total) if the
developer provides an internal frontage road type system to feeder roads.
Access to a Principal Arterial Type rV will be intersections only, and spaced at one mile intervals
in rural areas and one-half mile intervals in urban areas. Approaches (other than intersections)
may be permitted in special cases and on a temporary basis as follows:
(1) Allowed until state highway system is improved by a construction project at which
time an access will be provided to the property, which may not directly access the
state highway system, but may be via a frontage or backage road.
(2) Shall be recorded at the County Recorders Office.
(3) Temporary access restrictions will be noted on the permit.
Noise abatement will be the responsibility of the developer and will be constructed off of the
State Right of Way, see enclosed Noise Abatement Measures.
If you have any questions please call me at 334-8340.
Sincer
DAN COONCE, P.E.
District Traffic Engineer
Attachment
- An Equal Opportunity Employer -
PLANNING & ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS
NOISE EVALUATION/MITIGATION
For Development Applications or Zone Change Requests for property adjacent to state or federal highways,
the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) requests the local Planning & Zoning authority to require the
applicant to evaluate and mitigate (if necessary) for noise impacts as follows:
The applicant shall perform a Traffic Noise Screen in accordance with the Environmental Process
Manual (EPM) Section 1350.02.
a. The design year shall be the date of the proposed development plus 20 years.
b. The traffic volume considered for 20 year future build -out shall be: Z % io o ADT (Average
Daily Traffic).
c. The highway configuration considered for 20 year future build -out shall be per the attached
typical section.
d. Use the existing highway centerline for the 20 year future build -out.
— -- -- 2. - If the results of the Traffic -Noise -Screen so warrant, -then the -applicant shall perform a Traffic Noise
Impact Analysis in accordance with EPM Section 1350.03.
The applicant shall submit a noise report to the Planning & Zoning authority with a copy to ITD.
This report shall include:
a. Results of the Traffic Noise Screen, including supporting assumptions, documentation, and
conclusion as to whether a Traffic Noise Impact Analysis is warranted.
b. Results of Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (if warranted), including supporting assumptions,
documentation, and discussion of different types of abatement considered.
c. A recommendation of the type of abatement to be used for the proposed development.
4. The Planning & Zoning authority will review the noise report, solicit and consider comments from
ITD, and determine which (if any) abatement methods will be made as a condition of the proposed
development.
Notes:
The Environmental Process Manual (EPM) is available on line at
hU://www2.state.id.us/itd/highways/dev/Manuals/Enviormuental/.
All noise analysis and report preparation shall be done by industry recognized professionals with
experience in highway traffic noise modeling.
ITD point -of -contact for general questions on Development Applications or Zone Change Requests is
District 3 Traffic Engineer, Dan Coonce at 334-8340.
ITD point -of -contact for specific questions on noise evaluation/mitigation is District 3 Environmental
Manager, Greg Vitley at 334-8952.
21 January, 2004
William G. Berg Jr.
City Clerk
City of Meridian
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, ID 83642
RErrTVFp
City of Meridian,
City rk Offiee
RE: PFP 03-007, CUP 03-071 & AZ 03.038
Mussell Corner Subdivision
Dear Will:
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above referenced
application for Annexation and Zoning for the proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision.
However, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District does require a Land Use Change
Application be filed for review prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-
7861 for further information. .
All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Kennedy Lateral courses
along the east and northern boundary of this proposed project. All laterals and waste
ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained on-site. If any
surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review
drainage plans. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information.
The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation
water be made available to all developments within the N6mpa & Meridian Irrigation
District.
Thank you,
Bill Henson
Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: Water Superintendent
Dave McKinnon/Pinnacle Eng. Inc.
Rider 5
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
gr4" uVED
� AY? X;,
City of Meridian COPY
Dy City ClerknOffice
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Phones: Area Cade 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
Pinnacle Engineers SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
12552 W. Executive Drive, Suite B
Boise, ID 83713
RE: Land Use Change Application — Mussell Corner Subdivision
Dear Pinnacle Engineers:
Enclosed please find a Land Use Change Application for your use to file with the Irrigation
District for its review on the above -referenced development. If this development is under a
"rush" to be finalized, I would recommend that you submit a cashier's check, money order or
cash as payment of the fees in order to speed the process up. If you submit a company or
personal check, it must clear the bank before processing the application.
Should this development be planning a pressure urban irrigation system that will be owned,
operated and maintained by the Irrigation District, I strongly urge you to coordinate with John P.
Anderson, Water Superintendent for the Irrigation District, concerning the installation of the
pressure system. Enclosed is a questionnaire that you must fill out and return in order to initiate
the process of contractual agreements between the owner or developer and the Irrigation
District for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the pressure urban irrigation system.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to call on me at the District's
office, or John P. Anderson, at the District's shop.
Sincerely,
i4l — �y �4�
Donna N. Moore, Asst. Secretary/Treasurer
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
cc: File
Water Superintendent
Will Berg, City Clerk, Meridian City
Tim Mussell, 100 E. Victory, Meridian, ID 83642
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RNER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
City of Meridian
Planning 83 Zoning Dept.
660 E Watertower St. Suite #201
Meridian, ID 83642
Attn: Anna Powell, Planning Director
Dear Ms. Powell,
Concerning the Mussell Corner Subdivision:
Public hearing date, March 4, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
3015 S. Meridian Road
Meridian, ID 83642
February 23, 2004
CErvE
?? FEB 2 4 2004
-LG
;y Clerk O icr
CITY OFMUN
PLANNING & ZONING
We are Cloyd W. and Bonnie M. Nelson, owning property at 3015 S. Meridian Road,
Meridian ID 83642. This property is the northwest corner of Meridian/Victory Road.
The Mussell property is the northeast corner of Meridian/Victory Road.
There is one important issue that should be addressed prior to implementing these
plans.
There is a drainage pipe that crosses under Meridian Road from our property to the
Mussell property. The pipe was installed by the Idaho Transportation Department to
prevent any standing water, (irrigation or other water), along the roadside. There have
been some alterations to said pipe and drain system. All parties concerned need to be
aware of this system including the alterations to insure the system works as originally
intended by the Idaho Department of Transportation.
We have contacted Matt Ward, Engineer at Idaho Department of Transportation.
They plan to review the drainpipe and it's alterations to assure that it has been altered
in a manner that follows code according to the State of Idaho.
We have also spoken to Dave McKinnon with Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. as a matter
of communicating our concern. Prior to that conversation, Mr. McKinnon had not
been aware of the presence of the drain system. He advised us to write this letter
expressing our concern to you.
Yours truly,
Cloyd W. & Bonnie M. Nelson
PFP 03-007
MERIDIAN PLANNING 11, ZONING MEETING February 19, 2004
APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. ITEM NO. 1
REQUEST Public Hearing — Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building
lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Mussell Comer Subdivision - northeast comer of
East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway - Re -noticed due to Improper noticing
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE February 19, 2004 ITEM # 12
PROJECT NUMBER PFP 03-007
PROJECT NAME Mussell Corner Subdivision
NAME PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL