January 5, 2006 P&Z Minutes
..,.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 67 of 93
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Wendell: There is quite a few of them and we are dealing with them, so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Wendell: -- quite aware of them.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like testify
before the Commission on this application? Okay.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close CUP 05-054.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close CUP 05-054. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve file No. CUP 05-054 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of January 5th, 2006, a site and landscape plan dated
November 14th, 2005. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the Council recommending
approval of CUP 05-054. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-052
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C-G zone for
Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group,
LLC - 3055 North Eagle Road:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-053
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33
acres in a proposed C-G zone and an approved C-G zone for Sadie
Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC -
3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road:
Item 16:
Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-049
Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 68 of 93
and office uses in a proposed C-G zone and an approved C-G zone for
Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group,
LLC ~ 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road:
Rohm: All right, folks. I didn't think we were going to do it, but I think we are going to
hear this last one that many of you are here for and the other, too, actually. And,
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think you're going to get a short night's sleep
tonight. That being said --
Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to hear them all.
Rohm: That being said, okay, before I open up any -- or either of these two, I want to
make a comment, that we are only going to open up Sadie Creek at this time, but the
staff report that we are to hear and comments ultimately affect both projects, but just
due to the process, I would prefer to just open up one project at a time. So, with that
being said at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and
CUP 05-049 and could we have the staff report?
Guenther: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. For some reason I'm missing one of my files
here. I believe there was a problem with the agenda today and it looks like our
assistant did not place the Sadie Creek file in the application. However, I have other
options, we just don't have a presentation up there.
Rohm: Well, it looks like we are going to have one.
Guenther: We are going to have a presentation. If these people waited this long and
I'm still here, we are going to have a presentation tonight. All right. To get started, the
Sadie Creek Promenade presentation is, essentially, going to be for 24 commercial lots
on 15.3 acres in the southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick. Obviously, we have had a
lot of discussion on this area in the last couple hours. This site is most -- one of the two.
Like I said, we are going to look at two of these tonight, Bienville and Sadie Creek, with
the Commission's direction from the last hearing that both these be looked at together,
so that we can take a look at how they interact with each other and some of the
problems that are arising, specifically for the -- which is why Bienville has made their
request tonight for a continuance, which is for -- the reason they stated was for the
cross-access issues and the lack of compatibility between the two projects. In this site
you can see that the Sadie Creek Promenade project is located in this intersection here.
This is from the Bienville. Mike, freeze that up and we are going to take a look at this.
Craig's going to load up the other project, so we get a better view of the Sadie Creek
site. But I'll bring up the main points that we are looking at here from staff and that is
that they have limited office uses proposed down closest to the Carol Subdivision. You
can see Leslie Way on that site. The L-O is -- or not L-O. This is a C-G district, but
they are proposing office uses for here. There would be a 25 foot landscape buffer and
a 35 foot landscape buffer on Ustick and Eagle. As well as they are proposing to put in
the additional landscape buffer to the residences, which would be in Carol Subdivision.
There is a lateral that runs through this site, which you can see in this project. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 69 of 93
applicant has designed their site in order to have an access point taken to Eagle Road.
Currently staff is receiving inclinations from ITD that no access points to Eagle would be
allowed. The applicant has submitted a variance with this application in order to make a
petition to the City Council for that -- for that access point right here, which would be a
right-in, right-out. With this application staff is with the understanding that City Council
would deny this application and that this portion of the site would be redesigned to have
a better facility to access Ustick Road. With the design on this, they are proposing large
store fronts that would be on their multi-tenant buildings in that location, as well as in the
center location. There would be a drive-thru facility with the project up in the
intersection of Ustick and Eagle. They are not proposing detailed conditional approval
at this time. The Conditional Use Permit that has been submitted is because this is a
mixed use regional project within 300 feet of a residence and there was also an
application from the development agreement that was presented. I want to go back to
this site plan that's kind of shown here. The two properties that were closest to Eagle
Road are, apparently, annexed into the City of Meridian as C-G district. The other
portion which starts here and runs all the way up to the edge of the Carol Subdivision is
the request for the annexation. We are presenting the entire site as one annexation, a
conditional use, a preliminary plat, a variance application, and I think that's all of them
for this one. The Bienville project is also requesting an Eagle access point, which would
-- try and flip back. This access point to Eagle would be in this location, as well this is
public street would be looped around here. The staff report for Sadie Creek Promenade
does show that we are looking for a cross-access on a commercial project in Sadie
Creek Promenade and, then, the proposed commercial C-G district, which would be in
the Bienville project. This private street here does not align with the proposed access
point in Sadie Creek Promenade as staff would like to see. This would be -- it would be
right in this location. This is one of the points of -- I guess the sticking points between
the two projects that needs to be resolved between the two projects prior to a final plat
condition being applied. Again, this is a public street in the Sadie Creek. I'm going to
try and stay more with the Sadie Creek than the Bienville. The proposed access point
to Bienville would be in this location and the private street that they are showing would
come into, essentially, the back of this building as shown. And, again, this would be in
its own individual lot and a lot of this is dependent on if the City Council does grant that
variance to this location. If this does go away, as staff is anticipating, then, this
connection as being a more thoroughfare private street designed access point between
this project and the Sadie Creek project becomes very essential for any type of
commercial access from this project to reach Ustick Road, especially considering the
portions that would be to the south in this location. This is proposed for R-8 single
family residential. This would be an alley-loaded product that are two private streets
that would connect these multi-family dwellings, which would be a future condominium
type of a design. Currently they are shown as townhouse design, because they have
several units on one lot, but, yet, they are -- these would be all individual lots in here in
an R-15, as well as the C-G district closest to Ustick or to Eagle. But, again, that is --
that is the reason why we are opening these both together, is because the designs don't
match up and we would -- and if this -- there is a lot of ifs with this project that are
addressed in the conditioning that the redesign of the front portion of Sadie Creek would
need to be done due to this access point being eliminated to Eagle. With that, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 70 of 93
overall concept plan from the development agreement is also what ties both of these
projects together. Currently, this area is -- you can see it says not a part, because this
is not a part of the current -- the original annexation and you're looking at general
commercial, a -- I think that was a multi-family residential designation here, as well as
RU would be residential transitional type of uses in this area and so this -- the project
that we are looking at tonight, Sadie Creek, would be consistent with what they are
looking at for this area, which would be more of the mixed use development for
nonresidential uses. I think I want to stand for questions. I'm pretty sure that several of
them are going to come up and I think I can better present this by fielding questions
from the Commission at this point, so at this point I'll stand for Commission questions.
Rohm: Sounds good to me.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Would you go to -- I think it was called dimensioned plan.
And what I'm trying to orient is what's happening across the street, a property that we
were talking about earlier tonight. Is this the driveway that would be the front of Kohl's?
Kohl's here and this would be the back?
Guenther: Yes, Mr. -- Commissioner Zaremba. This would be the signalized
intersection, which would have a private -- the public street access that you so diligently
redesigned an hour ago, with the landscape buffers. This would be the full access point
to Ustick and Eagle. This would be able to take a right access to Ustick, as well as a
westerly access point. The closest one to the intersection would be right-in, right-out.
The ACHD staff report for this site is exactly the same staff report as what was
submitted for the Kohl's project and the Winston Moore development immediately north
of this site. Ustick Road has been improved in this area and these access points are
already planned into that.
Zaremba: Okay. And, then, my comment along Eagle is that we do have in our packet
a letter from ITD saying that they don't want any access there, even right-in, right-out,
which agrees with what we anticipate the City Council will want is no access.
Guenther: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. This is a very unique site due to the fact that
ITD's policy says that access points to half mile only. We do have Leslie Way, which
comes in just south of the site, the proposal for a right-in, right-out access to the
Bienville development, then, a proposal for a right-in, right-out access to the Sadie
Creek development. If I could look into a crystal ball and know what the City Council is
going to do, then, I could better condition these in order to figure out how things are
going to be developed. The Winston Moore project did receive three access points all
the way down to the quarter mile, which were against ACHD's policy -- or ITD's policy.
However, the Winston Moore site had their access permits in long before we actually
had our UDC and I believe that was the direction that the City Council used in order to
grant their variance. However, each variance will be taken on a case-by-case basis and
so we are not entirely sure how this would eventually get an access point or if it would
get an access point, due to the fact that the Eagle Road corridor study says that the
only access point should be at River -- I think it's River View. Whatever it is at -- just by
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 71 of 93
the school site, which is the half mile. And so, obviously, none of these roads are
supposed to be here. However; due to the fact that the Carol Subdivision and existing
residences in there, there was no way for this side of the road to actually provide the
frontage road as what ITD's policy also states. So, there is no way for the policy to
actually be compliant. So, again, this is why staff is finding that the private street and
the facilitation of traffic to Ustick is most important for this site and that more of the uses
should be directed to Ustick than to Eagle.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I suspect I'm going to state the obvious, but it seems silly to me that
we would have these two projects going through the system at virtually the same time
and they could be no more coordinated than this when they get here.
Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, one point to keep -- Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: Huckabay.
Guenther: My accent sometimes gets in the way when I get tired. This is a conceptual
design with the preliminary plat. The platted lines in commercial development can
change without coming back to the Commissioner or Council and so when you grant
them -- or if you grant them the 22 commercial lots that they are proposing for the Sadie
Creek development, all of those lot lines can change. We are only seeing a conceptual
development, which is why we are still recommending approval of this site, because we
know that either the Sadie Creek developers or the Bienville developers in the
commercial lots can redesign those lots to meet our conditions for that access point.
How they do it, really, for the commercial type of developments -- and the user said they
can market to, staff just wants to insure that the goals and policies of the ordinance and
Comp Plan are met. So, I'm sorry, I didn't -- if I can't really answer that, but we --
Newton-Huckabay: But you are making a comment, then --
Guenther: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: I mean I understand that -- it just seems to me that we could have
been through this by now -- not by action by you, but I would have -- what I'm saying is I
would have liked to have seen the developers work a little closer, since they were
working in concert as far as the time line goes.
Moe: Are they going to Council in regards to the variance for the entry?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 72 of 93
Guenther: We won't schedule the variance until the bulk of the applications reach --
because the City Council wants to see developments proposed before they grant
variances. They want to know what they are granting a variance to. At least that's been
our understanding. So, this variance request -- or these two variance requests -- the
Sadie Creek variance request will go with the bulk of this application and this variance
request would go to City Council with the Bienville applications. If this one gets
scheduled to be heard on the same night, that's probably going happen, too, if these
projects are close enough to each other.
Moe: Well, I just -- I question that, because I find it hard to believe that Council would
actually approve both. Possibly one, but both I rather doubt it and I guess if I was a
betting person I would anticipate the farther one south would be the one that might
possibly be approved and, basically, just looking at the plan as it is right now, I would
anticipate that the property to the north should be able to make some connectivity to the
south property, you know, as staff -- as you guys had requested to get out to Ustick
Road.
Guenther: We have put in conditions of approval that that be done.
Moe: Well, I guess we will listen to the applicant and we will get an understanding.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: I just would like to comment -- and I think this is along the lines of what
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was thinking about that coordinated effort. If I can, I'd
like to read a sentence from a letter that is actually in the public record for Bienville, but
not in this public record. This is from Redcliff Development, signed by Robert C.
Unger. His first sentence is: We have recently met with the developers of the proposed
Sadie Creek Promenade to coordinate street alignments and cross-access. It appears
that both projects will require changes to accomplish a coordinated development within
the combined properties. And, then, he goes on to say that's the reason he is
requesting a 30 day continuance and not hearing Bienville tonight. But I wanted to
comment that those two sentences give me a great deal of hope that some coordination
can come out of this and I just wanted that to be part of this record as well.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba.
Borup: Mr. Chairman? I still have another -- or one more question for Joe and I think
that was on the slide labeled the concept plan. This was -- was this part of when the
annexation took place? Isn't that what you said?
Guenther: That's correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 73 of 93
Borup: So, what are -- at that time I mean were any of these zone designations
approved or were they required or what's the status of that concept as far as -- as far as
what was approved and what would be expected to be followed.
Guenther: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Borup. This concept plan was developed without
zoning codes in mind. Everything that was annexed was annexed as C-G. There is no
other zoning designations on any of these properties. This was one of the first
annexations that City Council tied to a development agreement to a concept plan. The
history of it I guess goes very deep and I guess they were really tentative in accepting
these, which caused some of these -- some of these other applicants to back out of this
development and, essentially, that's why we have holes in this development. Some of
the original land owners did not -- they did not want to sign into this type of a
development concept plan. Again, this is also a portion which is on the southeast
portion of Ustick and Eagle, but the CO and the multi-family that were projected in there
are consistent with the Bienville site that is tied to this development agreement, as well
as the more intense commercial at the corner. With this application, though, you will
note that we are requiring a development agreement, which will overwrite this
development agreement and that would be for both projects as individual projects, so
that they would no longer be tied to the same development agreement.
Borup: One of the reasons I bring that up -- I don't know that this came before this
Commission. Is this something that came out in -- so this was before City Council?
Guenther: This was only before City Council.
Borup: That's why I didn't recognize it.
Guenther: Yeah. Back in -- I believe it was 2003.
Borup: Yeah. I mean I remember when the annexation first came forth, but I don't
believe we had a concept plan. So, this was brought out at a Public Hearing that the
multi-family was proposed for this area?
Guenther: Yes. This was brought before the City Council as what could happen to this
site. Since then concept plans have gotten much more detailed, obviously.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, at the time that we forwarded it to City Council our request was that the
concept plan would show the accesses to both Ustick and Eagle and internally, either
backage or frontage roads and, again, I say this is the project is the example we use as
a bad example of how this Commission was burned by forwarding something that we
didn't see the final issue on. This is not, to me, a complete concept plan.
Borup: And what is this designation right here. I can't quite make that out. Can
anybody read that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 74 of 93
Guenther: TU. Transitional use.
Borup: Okay. Transitional use. That's a new zoning term in our ordinance.
Rohm: Maybe at this time it's best to just ask the applicant to come forward and maybe
she can shed some light on the subject.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara
Thompson, I'm with Landmark Development Group, and, I'm sorry, my address is 1882
Tobic Way in Boise. As you know the site is located at the southwest corner of Eagle
and Ustick and we are proposing to develop approximately 15 acres with three different
-- three different parcels and just so you know our history on this. We have -- my client
purchased the 11 acres from Mr. Egee, the one that did not get annexed with the
development agreement in 2004. They purchased that this last summer and they
haven't quite closed on the corner yet, but that's going to happen this month in January.
So, they are still acquiring the property. Currently we are processing applications for an
annex and rezone of approximately 7.7 acres, a preliminary -- or a preliminary parcel
map for the entire 15 acres and Conditional Use Permit, which is required of the original
development agreement of April 2004, and because we are adjacent to residential --
existing residential uses. We have read the staff report and we agree with all the
conditions as they relate to the agenda items tonight. We are still processing a
variance, though, with the -- with City Council for the accesses. I want to -- I will just
shed some light on -- as far as -- can you go back to the site plan that shows the two
properties? We have met several times with the Bienville folks and, in fact, originally,
we wanted to submit these together and, then, they kind of went back and forth. If you
notice right here, that is a very very close connection. I mean it's off by just a little bit
and it has a lot to do with these are conceptual drawings. But that is -- that is a location
that could connect. And, then, we also have another location down there. With our
discussions with ACHD, they do not want it to be another situation where it's a road
coming through, because they do not want to promote, necessarily, traffic going to that
access, because it is a right-in, right-out and it's so close to the intersection. So, they
want the access points that we have between the two properties to be convenient for
customers -- you know, commercial customers going in this area, but not necessarily for
a thoroughfare for this road just to come all the way through and connect to Ustick. So,
they want us to make that purposely so you meander through the parking lot, so it's not
this thoroughfare. So, I guess it does look a little bad, because it doesn't line up exactly,
but the intent is that it does line up. And we have worked closely with Bienville that --
and we will comply with the condition that we will have cross-accesses. But, again, as
Joe said, this is a conceptual plan. It could end up where this building is here, it could
end up at more of these small retail build -- I'm sorry, office buildings. We plan on
developing this project as the tenant interest comes. So, with the way development is
right now, you can't get tenants to look at a site until you, actually, have it titled and
ready to pull building permits, because there is just so much activity going on that
tenants don't have the resources to -- to give their real estate committee to get out here
to look at things, to have their attorneys put together leases and purchase agreements
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 75 of 93
and stuff like that until we actually have a viable site, they don't -- they don't commit the
resources to that. So, today I can't tell you what the tenants would be, so that's why it is
conceptual in nature and for a tentative map we are asking for a certain number of lots,
but those could move around slightly and -- but we will comply with the conditions for
cross-access. You all look more confused now than you did before. A little bit onto the
neighbors. We met twice with the neighbors and due to the sensitivity of the neighbors
down here to our west -- I'm sorry -- yeah, to our west, we have agreed to limit these
two buildings to single story. So, anything between the property line and where this
road is coming in, that those buildings be single story. They will have their entrances
oriented away from the west -- or east property line. I'm sorry. Our west property line,
their east property line. So, they will be looking more south and east, instead of west,
as far as the front building -- the front facades of the buildings. And the neighbors have
asked us -- and on the staff report it states that we didn't have anything in there yet
about fencing and the neighbors have asked us for a six foot concrete block fence and
we have committed to them that that's what we will put in on our property line. I forgot
to mention I have our civil engineer with me tonight if you guys have specific questions
about how different things work and I did want to point out also -- if you will go to the
dimension plan. I think it's -- yeah. Can't read those -- the red writing very well, but we
have complied with all the landscape setbacks. We have a 35-foot buffer all along here
and I believe Joe said this was only required to be a 25-foot buffer, but we have -- on
our plan right now we have a 35-foot buffer shown. And, then, adjacent to the
residential uses is -- by code it's only 25 feet and we have put 30 feet here. And, then,
again, this is a public right of way. This will be dedicated as a public street coming
through and, then, again, we have several cross-access points that we can do in these
areas, but ACHD asked us specifically not to have a thoroughfare straight through. I
guess in conclusion I'd just like to reiterate that the proposed development is consistent
with the development agreement that was approved in April 2004, which was -- we are
inheriting that development agreement, but we have complied with it. But, you know,
can we go to that? I'm sorry. The concept plan. The concept plan does show the
accesses -- if you could read this down here, A note there says ACHD approved
accesses. And, then, B has ITD approved accesses. And this is a B and that is a B
and, then, we have A's here and here. So, with our site plan, it had that that was an
approved access with ITD, so that's why we were showing the access on our site plan.
But we will -- we have applied for a right of way permit with ITD and we will comply with
-- you know, if they come back with a no, then, we will comply with that. So, anyway, in
conclusion, our proposed development is consistent with the development agreement,
the City of Meridian development code, and the Comprehensive Plan, including
complying with all of the landscape setbacks and easements. So, I thank you for your
time and consideration and for staying extra late to hear us, because I really didn't want
to come back again.
Rohm: You might be.
Thompson: So, I would respectfully request a recommend from you, so we can get onto
Council. Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 76 of 93
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant before she sits down?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Probably for you. And I don't know if I'm
clear, but I'm anticipating a lot of the testimony is probably going to be pertaining to the
Bienville project. How do you want to handle that?
Rohm: Well--
Borup: Take testimony without opening that?
Rohm: Actually, I think that I'm just going to go ahead and take the names in order on
this application and, then, see how that testimony goes and, then, I will try and figure
something out from there. But I'm going to take testimony on the open application at
this time.
Borup: Sadie Creek only?
Rohm: At this time I have got a list of names and all of this may come much clearer to
us after hearing testimony on the application that's before us. So, with that being said,
at this time I'd like to ask Betty Rosso if she'd like to come forward. Okay. Sam
Chambers. We'll get through this list pretty quickly.
Baird: Mr. Chair? I'd recommend that you reiterate the comments that you have heard
for the record, since they are not near the microphone. Just for the record, Mrs. Rosso
did submit a letter for AZ 05-057, which we have not opened yet. And the gentleman
that spoke indicated that he just wanted to let people know he was here.
Rohm: Okay. All right. And thank you. I appreciate that. Ady Chambers. From the
audience she said she didn't intend to speak. Candy Seeley. Candy does not intend to
speak. Jeannine Helms. Does not intend to speak. Bill Knorpp.
Knorpp: My name is Billy Knorpp, I own one of the lots on Leslie Way. Actually, I
border onto the --
Rohm: Need an address, too, please, sir.
Knorpp: 2972 Leslie Drive.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 77 of 93
Knorpp: My only comment about the one that's open is that I don't think you have
jurisdiction over it, but I would prefer that they not have access to Eagle Road. The
reason being is that it -- well, if they do, if will funnel traffic right down our road. So,
most of my comments are about what's in back of me, which you don't have open yet.
But that one comment is that I would prefer that we -- that they not have access to
Eagle Road. Either one of the two have access to Eagle Road for that reason, because
it will funnel traffic. Anybody who is trying to go north, come out, go around through our
subdivision and go out left, north, at Eagle and Ustick.
Borup: It would be quicker going to Ustick.
Knorpp: You look puzzled, like you didn't understand what I just said.
Newton-Huckabay:
envisioning here?
Could you use a pointer and show the traffic flow that you're
Knorpp: Yes. I can try. If the pointer works. So, if they go out of this side here, if they
go out here, if they want to go left, but they can't, so what are they going to do? They
are going to come out here, go over to our road, go down our road, go out this way.
come out here, and turn left.
Newton-Huckabay: You don't think they will just exit to the north of the property?
Borup: Wouldn't it be easier just to go out here?
Knorpp: Well, it would if they are -- if they are there and they can do it, but it's more
probably a comment from this side over here, but these people here would probably just
go north, because they will have access there. The ones that are most likely to do it are
the ones over here.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: I think for me -- one of the hard things for me to imagine is the maps turned 90
degrees from what you typically view and so I have to adjust my thinking. But thank you
for your comments tonight. Okay. Next Jim Hatmaker. From the audience he said that
Billy has spoken to the same issues. Jim Lott. Okay. And Joan Lott as well. Joann.
Joann Lott. Presumably she's gone home, too. Steve Grant.
Grant: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie
Way and my property is on the western boundary of this proposed development and I
just want to make a couple comments. First of all, we appreciate the developer's effort
to communicate with the homeowners. They have done a nice job with getting us
together and explaining things in their proposals. I think that the planned development
will be attractive and a plus for the area. I'd like the Commission to note that the
developer committed, has she's already stated, to making the buildings on that western
boundary single story and not facing west. I think the staff report also noted that, that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 78 of 93
they also committed to a masonry fence that's also been mentioned. And in previous
applications for the zoning development of these parcels, the Commission supported
the residents request for a transition development from our residential to be some kind
of a light office commercial and this plan addresses that concern for at least their
portion. Bienville, of course, is a different issue. The -- a couple items to keep in mind,
as Billy Knorpp has mentioned, that the residents of our subdivision are very concerned
about the traffic issues with regard to -- and I think they have been outlined. The
question remains as to how much traffic would actually go down Leslie Way. I think it's
reasonable to assume that there would be an increase. How much of an increase is --
would be determined by what's built there. But I also would like to call your attention to
a letter I received and I made a comment to the ITD after this Sadie Creek, the one that
we dealt with last year, and they sent me a letter saying that they would grant temporary
access to Eagle Road, but when access was established to Ustick that that access
should be closed. I have that letter if you'd like to make a copy. Maybe you already
have the information, I don't know. And I recognize that those variances are still
pending and the outcome of those is undetermined, but we certainly -- as Billy Knorpp
has suggested, do not support either one of those accesses, because of the traffic
issue.
Rohm: To Eagle Road.
Grant: To Eagle Road. Yes.
Moe: Sir, if I could ask one question?
Grant: Sure.
Moe: Based on his testimony earlier, he was concerned about people wanting to go
north. But if you had people traveling Eagle Road and wanted to get into this end of this
development and the closest access point, turning right, then, is onto Leslie to go all the
way around, you guys aren't that concerned about traffic going that route, as opposed
to --
Newton-Huckabay: Or turning west off Eagle Road.
Grant: Turning west off of Eagle Road. Well, the same issue. It's right-in and right-out.
Those wanting to go north are going to go through there. Some of them are. And those
that are traveling south -- I guess I have said that backwards, but you have -- you know,
if you're leaving, you're fine. If you wanted to go south on Eagle Road and you leave
there, you're right-in and right-out, you're fine. If you -- when you're coming home,
you're going to do the exact opposite, you're going to go all the way to Ustick, take a
left, go back through, and, then, come back to that way, because there is no other way
to get there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 79 of 93
Moe: Just hadn't heard anyone discuss that. I just -- I just foresee people driving south
on Eagle and wanting to get in there, already passing Ustick and the closest access
point to try and get back around to it is going to be right through your subdivision.
Grant: And that's also, you know, a concern.
Borup: So, you're saying maybe less traffic through there for people heading south if
there is at least one access is what you're trying to say?
Grant: I mean that's problematic. Again, no one really knows, but --
Moe: Only time will tell.
Grant: Only time will tell and those are -- but, again, it underscores our concern as
residents what's going on. We would like to -- one of the issues we have is that
whatever is decided with this development in terms of fencing and landscaping, we want
to have that be consistent with the Bienville project. So, if the masonry wall is
anticipated, that only carries -- or covers a couple of lots and wouldn't be the greatest
idea to have a masonry wall for about 300 feet and, then, chain link the rest of the way.
And so we hope that you will consider that whatever one does it would be -- you know,
with berms and landscaping, et cetera, would be done with the others. I would like to
request that we increase the density of normal landscaping 50 percent, so that that's
adequately taken care of. In the early stages when plant vegetation is always pretty
sparse and ten years later you got to cut it way back, it's just too much. But we'd like
you to consider that as another transitional issue. The street lights in that subdivision in
that development, we hope it would have the residential shields on them, so that light
would be directed towards the ground and I believe those are the issues that I have
concerns about, so unless there are any questions, I would conclude my remarks.
Moe: Just one question regarding -- let's go back to the landscape. Can you go back
over that one more time? You're already going to have a CMU wall that's between your
property line -- you know, in this development. Are you speaking in general of the
landscaping along Ustick?
Grant: No. I'm speaking of the land -- it's anticipated there would be a wall and, then,
there would be in that 3D-foot buffer that there be a berm, that that berm would be
landscaped with trees, evergreens, deciduous trees, et cetera. Just asking to consider
increasing the density to create an additional barrier. Also, it's anticipated, as you can
see, that the -- there would be residential properties, if any of those are second story,
we would like to request that none of them have windows facing west.
Newton-Huckabay: Those are offices.
Grant: Not as you see there. I mean on the Bienville.
Newton-Huckabay: We are not talking -- okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 80 of 93
Grant: I'm trying to handle all at once.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. We can't do that, though.
Grant: Well, I'm just saying if they were residential, we ought to consider that and we
can -- when that comes forward we will come back and make the same comment but
,
just so you're aware.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Yes.
Grant: Be thinking about that. Anything else?
Rohm: Thank you.
Grant: Thank you for your time.
Rohm: That's the end of the list of people that have signed up for this, but at this time --
come forward.
Thurston: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is David Thurston. I live at 1470
North Leslie Way. My house is bordering the planned development here on the west
side. The list was gone when I came here, so that's why my name is not there. I
wanted to testify and get my name in the record, so it's known that I'm here and I'm very
much interested in this. I'd like to just reiterate what already has been said about the
concerns for the traffic. I think Billy Knorpp and Steve Grant have already talked about
it to an extent and I think that's one of the major concerns. The other one is the barrier
around the west part of the property, that the barrier starts in this Sadie Creek
Promenade, that barrier needs to continue on, the fence, the berm, the distance that
barrier needs to carry all the way through not only on the west, but also on the south.
So, it wraps around so it's consistent and it's esthetic to everybody that sees it. So,
that's, basically, all I'm saying. I think the developer has done a good job on this. It's
more consistent I think what Planning and Zoning was looking for initially when this was
first annexed and the development plan was approved, they were looking for something
light office and I think this meets that requirement. So, I'll close that and thank you for
the time.
Rohm: Thank you. Does any other Commissioner have any questions of either staff or
the applicant at this time? Doesn't appear that there are any questions, so at this time I
would request a motion to --
Baird: Mr. Chair, it might be appropriate at this time to see if the applicant has some
specific rebuttal.
Rohm: Oh. Good. I apologize. Would the applicant like to come back up?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5. 2005
Page 81 of 93
Thompson: Tamara Thompson again. Just a couple of things to Mr. Grant's later
request. As far as the streetlights, I'm not sure if the city has a requirement for
residential shields or not, but that's not a problem. Anything adjacent to the residential
uses we can definitely put residential shields on. I'd have to look at denser landscape.
I'm not sure what -- it seems like all that would do is block the wall and kind of what I'm
envisioning is a nice, integral color, split faced block wall that kind of has some texture
to it. So, I'm thinking -- you know, I'll talk to Mr. Grant, but maybe we can work on
maybe some height of trees, if we can get some taller trees in there or something that
will help block the view over the six feet, instead of just making it really dense to where
you can't see the wall, but, you know, I think I know what his concerns are and I'll talk to
him and we will see if we can work something out there. I could go into a lot of things
on the traffic, but I know that this -- it's going before City Council for the variance, so I
will just leave it for that time if that's okay with you guys.
Rohm: Works for me.
Moe: I do have one question. I guess I'm just curious. Have you had conversations
with the other developer as of late in regards to their project and yours, based on the
letter that Mr. Zaremba spoke of earlier?
Thompson: I just found out today that they were asking for a continuance on theirs. But
we -- we were in discussions prior, but I think with the holidays we kind of -- you know,
you kind of lose track of a couple of weeks and all of a sudden today was here. So, we
did talk earlier today and we are discussing some other issues and we have made plans
to get together early next week.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Thompson, I do have a question. Actually, a couple. Do
you -- let me back up and -- the generic general concept plan that you showed and you
had approved access, actually showed it almost right at the property line, not in the
middle of the property.
Thompson: If you will go to that plan, please, Joe. This is where it has it and right here
is the property line.
Zaremba: I see. On the --
Thompson: Yeah. So that's the -- it's confusing.
Zaremba: I appreciate that. And the other question is if your variance request is
denied, what other -- what's plan B?
Thompson: Well, we have three accesses onto -- onto Ustick. The problem is that
tenants in their real estate committees, their -- one of the main things that they look at is
access and so that could be a hindrance for us for obtaining approval for, you know,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 82 of 93
some desirable tenants. We are hoping -- Redcliff and us are working closely with ITD
and, you know, if we can't have the two, then, you know, we are hoping for a combined
one. But the issue there is timing for both projects really have to go at around the same
time for that to work and, you know, I don't know their timing and I, actually, don't know
our timing, because once we have this approval, then, you know, we will really have the
tenants starting to look at the project. So, we are really hoping that by next summer we
will be able to start construction on this. But I can't tell you that for sure. But it will be
problematic as far as obtaining quality tenants for here without access. And, you know,
that does look relatively close, but to put it in perspective, that's longer than a football
field right there. It's close to 400 feet. Thank you. Since it was bowl week last week.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: I guess my only comment to the cross-access agreement between the two
parcels is at this point in time it's still conceptual, so even though it -- there is not a
known specific cross-access point, it's known that it's desirous to have that cross-
access.
Thompson: And we both want that, too.
Rohm: And I think that -- that is the meat of the issue, is that as long as both parcels
are acknowledged that cross-access is desirous and this project moves forward tonight
and gains approval, at such point in time that you actually develop that relationship
between you and the property to the south, it has to cement it, you have to come up
with something that will work for both.
Thompson: Right. Right. And we are both very -- well, I don't want to speak for Mr.
Unger, but I'm definitely aware of that and I would like cross-access.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Rohm: Any additional questions of the Commission of either applicant or staff?
Comments?
Zaremba: I would ask staff -- and probably I need to see a larger area plan. The one
that was sideways would work. That one. Again, it's the access issue and realize we
are not talking about the neighboring property, but the logic to me is since this is
signalized, they are not proposing that it go anywhere. It would make sense to me that
there be a total back-age road that comes out approximately here and I think ITD could
be talked into making that a full access signalized. It would be probably a third of a mile
from the Ustick interchange, that an internal road would loop like this to connect to it.
To me, that would get everybody pretty much all the access they need, without all of the
extra driveways and now my question to staff is what's the likelihood that the City
Council is going to approve the variance for this access?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5. 2005
Page 83 of 93
Guenther: I got my crystal ball at Wal-Mart, so let me see what it says. It's fairly likely
that one access point to Ustick will be -- or not Ustick -- Eagle will be approved by City
Council. Most likely the access point here will also be tied in with the project across the
street. There is commercial development that has been applied for this location. Due to
constraints on the property, other issues, this one most likely could be the most
probable for the south, but at this time I believe Mr. Unger has an ITD application for
access in -- that was in prior to our ordinance being adopted and so he -- from staff's
standpoint he has a good case for having that access. That would be up to lTD.
Rohm: Really, all that speaks to, though, is the -- the need for that cross-access
between the two parcels, is if, in fact, ITD or ACHD, either one, only grant one single
access out onto Eagle Road from the combined developments of both parcels, that just
says that you got to have that cross-access between the two for either of them to be
totally viable. So, anyway, that's as I see it.
Borup: Question on Eagle Road. Is ITD still talking about a raised landscape median?
Guenther: That's the long-term plan.
Borup: Okay.
Guenther: Which is why this access point in the Bienville project, even though it
appears to be a full road section, is still only a right-in, right-out.
Borup: Right. That's why I was wondering why it was coordinated with the one across
the street. If it's a raised median there it really doesn't make any difference, does it?
Rohm: Unless it's signalized.
Newton-Huckabay: Can we move on?
Rohm: I was going to say, let's --
Newton-Huckabay: I asked if we could move on.
Rohm: I think that's a good idea. Let's -- I think that we have kicked this around quite a
bit. Let's close the Public Hearing and go from there.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: My comments would be to make this decision after we have seen Bienville
and given them a chance to talk to each other and do any realignments they need to do.
My preference would be to continue this.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 84 of 93
Rohm: I'm not opposed to that either, so -- if that's the motion you want to make.
Newton-Huckabay: That isn't my preference. Could we see what everybody else's is?
Borup: That was my original one, but --
Rohm: Let's do that. Let's get the Public Hearing closed and, then, we --
Baird: I'd recommend you take that poll before you close the Public Hearing, in case
you decide to continue it.
Zaremba: Let's do it this way: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 05-052, PP
05-053, and CUP 05-049 to align with Bienville, which I believe we will probably
continue to February 2nd for the purpose of coordinating the two projects and allowing
both applicants to work out some of the issues together. End of motion.
Rohm: Do we have a second?
Zaremba: The answer would be that the motion dies for lack of a second.
Guenther: May I make a suggestion that if you want to make a decision tonight, it would
be easiest to just move this item to the end of the agenda, hear the Bienville, ask your
questions of the applicant, and that one, since it is -- there is no conditions for anything
in there, that that would be continued on and, then, you would have more information on
the coordination and cooperation between the two projects before coming back to Sadie
Creek Promenade.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chair? Wasn't the point that was made at
the beginning of this, is this is a conceptual plan, so the actual location of the cross-
access, which is the only real point we are talking to, is irrelevant to Bienville project and
we could make a decision now and -- there is no new information that we are going to
get, other than -- is that the only outstanding issue was the cross-access? Whether
they get their access to Eagle Road is independent of the other project, is it not?
Guenther: That is correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Borup: Before the hearing I was of the same feeling as Commissioner Zaremba. I was
not feeling to continue this on without having a cross-access decided, but I do feel
different. I don't think -- it's, one, likely not going to stay where it's talked about anyway.
They are going to have to work the design out, as long as it's not that straight
thoroughfare. The preliminary design they have now kind of handled that. They have
got buildings blocking the straight access anyway. I think that is something that can be
worked out later.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 85 of 93
Rohm: The point being is that cross-access has to --
Borup: Well, it's probably more important to Sadie than it is to Bienville.
Rohm: Well, but at the end of the day cross-access has to take place and whether or
not this conceptual layout changes or remains as it is -- and the adjacent property layout
changes, the point is is that cross-access is going to be part of a motion to forward this
onto City Council recommending approval. So, with that being said, I would be willing to
entertain a motion to that effect.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, If that's the direction this is going, the first thing would be to
close the Public Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-
052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-052,
PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign?
Rohm: Okay. Four close and one against. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: Okay. Now, before we move forward with a motion, I would -- any
commissioner that has final thoughts on where this all washed out, this is the best
opportunity to speak your -- speak your position.
Borup: Just one clarification. I don't know if it makes any difference on the file number.
We have a discrepancy on whether it's 52 or 53.
Rohm: It's 41.
Borup: No. No. No. On the file number.
Rohm: Oh. Oh. Excuse me.
Borup: Your agenda says 52. The application says 53.
Rohm: Boy, you got me.
Baird: Mr. Chair, for the record, we would default to the one that's on the staff report.
It's likely that the agenda is a misprint.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 86 of 93
Borup: The motion was in correct, too, then, if that's the case.
Baird: And we could just clear the record now by saying that number as stated on the
staff report would be the correct number. Is that correct, staff?
Guenther: Can I ask Commissioner Borup. Which application? Is it the annexation or
the preliminary plat that's got the wrong numbering on it?
Borup: The preliminary plat.
Newton-Huckabay: No. No. It was the annexation.
Borup: Oh, then, they are all wrong. Two of them.
Guenther: The annexation is 52 and the preliminary plat is 53.
Borup: Okay. So, the annexation is 50 on the staff report?
Newton-Huckabay: On this staff report.
Guenther: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, the staff report is wrong.
Guenther: I'll have to verify that, since my assistant didn't leave me the file.
Baird: We need to clear that up right now, that--
Guenther: The application on the staff report should be correct and that's the way it was
advertised. We need some new numbers here and I'll --
Newton-Huckabay:
continuance.
Well, it's been AZ 05-050 on all of the old reports from the
Guenther: I believe it's 50. Oh five oh.
Newton-Huckabay: I'll look on the original transmittal.
Green: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the current plat is 05-028, stated
in the application.
Rohm: Okay. What is the --
Newton-Huckabay: The annexation.
Rohm: The annexation. So got one right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 87 of 93
Newton-Huckabay: No. It's just the annexation that's wrong.
Borup: Oh, this one says 52.
Zaremba: The staff report is pretty consistent throughout in using 050.
Rohm: Except for on the cover sheet.
Green: The annexation is 052.
Baird: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, for the record, these are the only
files that we have for Sadie Creek Promenade. If there is any further discrepancy, we
can correct that through a ministerial action to correct any further errors, but I think it's
clear the actions that you're taking and the property that you're taking it on, if there is
further discrepancies, the numbers will clear it up. But, like I say, your actions will, in
fact, be on the record and will be forwarded to Council.
Borup: I shouldn't have brought it up, then.
Rohm: I had forgotten that we voted. Okay. We are going to do this again. All right.
It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council -- okay.
Newton-Huckabay: No. We just closed the Public Hearing.
Rohm: Do we want to go ahead and close it again?
Borup: No. It's closed.
Rohm: Okay. It's closed. Okay. At this point, then, I'd entertain a motion for --
Newton-Huckabay: There were no changes to the staff report that we -- is that correct?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton Huckabay, you have got the mike.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move to recommend approval of File Nos. PP 05-053,
AZ 05-050 or 52, to be clarified later, CUP 05-049 as presented in staff report for the
original hearing date of November 17th -- do I amend that to today's date or yesterday's
date?
Borup: Just say the final hearing day of January.
Newton-Huckabay: For final hearing of January 5th, 2006, with the site plan dated
September 15th, 2005, with no modifications.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 5, 2005
Page 88 of 93
Newton-Huckabay: End of motion.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending approval of AZ 05-052, PP 05-053, and CUP 05-049. All three of these
applications pertaining to Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision. All those in favor say
aye. All those opposed?
Zaremba: No. And I would like to state for the record that my objection focuses mainly
on the access to Eagle Road. Most of the rest of the project is what you would expect,
but if the access to Eagle Road goes away, then, there would need to be some
redesign. That's the whole purpose of my objection.
Rohm: Okay. Motion carries and objection noted. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 25:
Item 26:
Item 27:
Item 28:
Public Hearing: AZ 05~057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25
acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square
Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-
G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red
Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: PP 05-059 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54
single family residential lots, 22 multi-family residential lots, 14 common
lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit for
Mixed Use Regional project within 300 feet of a residence for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle
Road:
Rohm: Because everybody has taken the time and effort to stick it out with us until this
hour, I would not be opposed to opening the last item on our agenda and at least
hearing it out and given the people that have taken the time to come before us to speak
to that. Does anybody on the Commission have a significant objection to it?
Borup: I don't. I think -- Mr. Chairman, I would be in favor of that. I don't know that we,
necessarily, vote on it tonight, but I think in my mind it's important to get the testimony
from those here, in case it would require any redesign, it would be important to have
that tonight, rather to continue it on any longer. I don't know that it necessarily would,
but --