HomeMy WebLinkAboutGateway Marketplace PP
PP 06-002
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
March 16, 2006
APPLICANT landmark Development
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006 - Preliminary Plat approval
for 23 commercia/lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zonefor Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision - southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road
ITEM NO.
6
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
See Previous Item Packet / Minutes
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See attached Staff Comments
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
),!
/~
~~ -I!:
&
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:
.'RECEIVED
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 311r.tÁ~O6
STAFF REPORT Planning & Zoning Commission r".-P /" "","' .~~;
Hearing Date: Fehn"ny 16, 2006 I...../VltJri¡;/¡~1 ~
C . d M h 6 20 6 I II).\HO }
onunue to; . arc 1, 0 "i,~¡. ,/J-
TO: P&Z CommISSIon »",~,¡>""",-,"->"'Í/¡¡
FROM: Joseph Guenther, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Gateway Marketplace
PP-06-002 - Preliminary plat for 18 lots on 22.85 acres for Gateway Marketplace
by Landmark Development Group, LLC.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Landmark Development Group, LLC, is requesting approval of an amended Preliminary
Plat for 18 commercial lots to construct up to 250,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses on
approximately 22.85 acres within the Gateway Marketplace development at the Southeast corner of
Ustick Road and Eagle Road/SH-55 with a Variance to Chapter 3 Article H ofUDC for access to Eagle
Road. This is the second application and would be the second commercial project constructed within the
Kissler annexation project AZ-03-018. The 36.33-acre site was approved for annexation with a
Development Agreement (DA) in April 2004 under the name Kissler Annexation (see File No. AZ-03~
018). The DA (Instrument No.1 04107406) requires that any future use be consistent with the approved
plans for the annexation. A concept plan for the overall site was submitted with the preliminary plat
application showing building layouts and drive aisles.
The Commission should note that a variance application, submitted concurrently with this preliminary
plat application will be before the City Council at a date to be detennined, the variance request proposes
two new approaches to N. Eagle Road/State Highway 55, one for right-inlright-out access driveway and
one planned for a full access point. The Idaho Transportation Department (lTD) has not approved any
approach pennits on this site and has made comment that this site does not qualifY for access by standard
district policy. The overall design of the site is paramount on the approval of the Eagle Road approaches.
If the City Council denies the approaches, Staff feels the design of the plat would not adequately provide
a frontage connection trom Ustick Road, the future collector road west of the site, and south to the future
signalized intersection with River Valley Drive. The Development Agreement for the 22.85 acres does
require a trontage type of road. Staff feels that the future collector road east of the site sufficiently
addresses the interconnectivity of the site as a public street access to Ustick Road and in conjunction with
the three points of cross access and potential future public street south of the site to interconnect the entire
comer.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
History: The Planning Commission heard the item on February 16,2006. On February 16,2006 the
Planning Commission detailed their concerns on landscaping, interconnectivity, building layout and
parking lot configuration. The main point of discussion was on the potential future public road which
would provide connection from the site to the east and connect with Ally's Way. The commission made
a recommendation to see a redesign citing staffs concerns. The commission made a second motion to
direct staff to work with ITD and ACHD and forward a recommendation to have a signalized intersection
with public street connection at the Y4 mile point south of the Eagle/Ustick intersection to facilitate an
intersection bypass. The Planning Director wiIJ be presenting this recommendation to the city council,
assuming a favorable recommendation by the Commission on the Gateway Marketplace Preliminary Plat
redesigned March 10, 2006.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
Staff is recommending approval of the subject application (PP-06~002) with the conditions contained in
Exhibt B of this report.
PROPOSED MOTIONS (to be considered after the public hearing)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the
City Council of File Number(s) PP-06-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
March 16, 2006, and the preliminary plat labeled PP-I, REVISED March 10, 2006 with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications).
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Number(s) PP-06-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
March 16, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the
annexation or plat and you must state specific reason(s) for denial of the conditional use permit.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number(s) PP-
06-002 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s):
(you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
SE comer of Us tick Road and Eagle RoadlSH55
Township 3N, Range IE, Section 4
b. Owner
James Kissler
1125 W. Amity
Boise Id 83705
c. Applicant:
Landmark Development Group, LLC
Tamara Thompson
1882 Toluka Way
Boise ill 83702
d. Representative: Tamara Thompson, Landmark
e. Present Zoning: General Retail and Commercial (C-G) (AZ~03~018)
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Mixed Use-Regional- 2002 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map
g. Description of Applicant's Request:
1. See Exhibit A (prepared by Landmark Development Group LLC) for a copy of the
detailed site plan which depicts the lot layout, building, parking and access locations.
Exhibit B shows the proposed landscape plan.
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The application notes that the mixed use regional
designation provides for the overall site to be developed with a mixture of RetaillRestaurant
/Drive thru and other Commercial and office uses oriented around automobile traffic. The
applicant notes that the site is an ideal location for a retail complex and will provide the
additional landscaping along drive aisles, the design review for structures along the gateway
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/J6/2006
corridor.
4. PROCESS FACTS
a.
The subject applications will in fact constitute preliminary plats as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11
Chapter 6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
Newspaper notifications published on: 13th of February and 30th of January, 2006 (for
Planning & Zoning Commission)
Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 20, 2006 (for Planning &
Zoning Commission)
Applicant posted notice on site by: February 6, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning
Commission).
b.
c.
d.
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Bare land, single family residence
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Large lot residential, highway-oriented
services, rapidly urbanizing.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Future pad sites within Sclunitchger Subdivision, Lowe's site zoned C-G.
2. West: Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision, Bienville Subdivision proposals, zoned
C-G, Rl, and RUT
3. South: undeveloped parcels zoned C-G with Redfeather Annexation.
4. East: Una Mas conceptual project and ACHD future right of way, zoned RUT-
proposed zone C-G
d. History of Previous Actions: In April 2004, the owners and City entered into a Development
Agreement for various High Density Commercial, MuIti.family Residential, transitional, and
office uses under File AZ-03-0 18. Some property was annexed and zoned to General Retail
and Commercial (C-G) with a Development Agreement while other portions ofthe property
(on the west side of Eagle Road) were not included in the annexation leaving out parcels
which were addressed with the original conceptual plan.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer:
Location of water:
Extension of mains in Ustick Road
Extension of mains in Ustick Road
Issues or concerns:
2. Vegetation:
Agricul turaVIrrigated
Water main connection in Eagle Road is required.
3. Flood plain: N/A
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Milk Lateral bisects the property
5. Hazards: None identified
6. Size of Property: 22.85 acres
7. Description of Use: Up to 250,000 square feet of Retail, Commercial, and
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3!l6/2006
Restaurant uses and associated parking and landscape improvements.
f. Subdivision Plat Information -
The submitted plat contains 23 lots in a C-G proposed zone with commercial uses.
Commercial uses are shown to be a mix of restaurant/retail spaces with six approximate
30,000 square foot buildings and 8 approximate 3,000 to 6,000 square foot buildings and
8 approximate 2,000 square foot attached buildings, and one approximate 40,000 square
foot office/retail building.
g. Landscaping -
1. Width of street buffer(s): Per the Future Land Use Map, both Ustick Road and Eagle
Road are designated as "Entryway Corridors." As such, the UDC (Table 11-2B-3)
requires a 35-foot wide street buffer adjacent to both roadways. The landscape plan
(Sheet L1.1) proposes a 35~foot wide buffer along both Ustick and Eagle Roads. Ifthe
applicant proposes to construct the "Entryway Corridor" buffers in easements they
must meet the landscaping standards required in the UDC.
2. Percentage of site as open space; The ODC does not require open space or site
amenities for commercial uses.
4. Other landscaping standards: The landscape buffer along Ustick Road should be
constructed in accordance with UDC Chapter 3, Article B.
h. Planned Development Characteristics - N/ A
i. Conditional Use Information:
1. Non~residential square footage: 250,000
2. Proposed building height: 65 feet
3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: 25%
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: Not defined
5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: Not defmed
6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: N/ A
7. Number of Residential units: N/A
j. Amenities - The applicant is not required to provide an amenity
k. Off-Street Parking (residential uses) - N/A
1. Proposed and Required Residential Standards - N/ A
ill. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Parking - One off-street parking space required for
every 500 square feet of gross floor area. This may be addressed during detailed CUP review,
CZC review, and/or building design review but the design appears to meet the minimum
standards of the UDC parking requirements.
n. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.):
. The applicant is proposing two new access points to Eagle RoadlSH55 to serve
the Gateway Marketplace proj ect at approximately 700 feet and 1200 feet south
of the UstickiEagle Intersection.
As noted above, ITD must issue a right-inlright-out permit and a full access permit for
this site, and the access is further contingent on the Meridian City Council granting a
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
variance to UDC 11 ~3H. At this time the policy in place would be for frontage roads to
serve this site and provide connection to the Y2 mile and the collector road systems. ITD
has submitted a letter indicating that they will not make a decision on approving access to
Eagle Road until such a time as the Meridian City Council has formally acted on the
Variance request. City staff does not support any access to Eagle Road in this location.
In addition, the applicant is proposing two new access points to Ustick Road at the
following locations:
. Driveway #1 - 350 feet east of Eagle (right~inlright-out with center median)
. Driveway #2 - 700 feet east of Eagle (full access)
Ustick Road, from Leslie Drive to Ally Street (on the east side of Eagle Road), including
the Eagle Road intersection, has just been widened and improved to five lanes. The
intersection was widened to include dualleft turn lanes.
In addition, the recorded DA between the applicant and the City requires either a public
or private street be constructed parallel to Eagle RoadlSH55 that may connect to the north
boundary and may also connect to Eagle Road, if allowed by ITD at a point to be
determined by ACHD. ACHD has stated that the applicant shall provide cross access
south and east to connect to the future collector roadway east of the site and the
connection to the signalized access proposed south of the site at River Valley Drive.
This project along with the Una Mas Project east of the site will connect with Ally Street,
a proposed public street serving as a collector roadway to the entire area. The design
received March 10, 2006 lines up at three points to the east as requested. The area plan
(Una Mas Annexation) shows private, internal driveways connecting to the future public
street; such driveways run mostly east/west connecting the Kissler site to Ally Street and
ultimately Ustick Road.
For a detailed report on both ITD's and ACHD's actions and comments, please see the
letters/reports submitted with the application.
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On December 28th 2005, staff held an agency comments
meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian
Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff will included all
comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval if the Meridian Planning
Commission requests approval of the design as presented. If the Meridian Planning Commission
agrees with the staff analysis that a redraw of the plat will be required of the site then staff will
provide comments at such time as a new proposal is ready for Commission review.
7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated 'Mixed
Use-Regional' on the Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation
is deEmed in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where
innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The MU~R has no upper limit on the square
footage of non-residential uses and is intended to allow a broad range of uses.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the
proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy):
.
Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services.
(Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1)
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner:
. The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
.
.
.
.
.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B: Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities
within the Impact Area.
Staff finds that the site is designated for MU-R on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map. Although strictly commercial uses have not been specifically planned for this property
on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map the Development Agreement from the
annexation shows this portion as commercial and consistent with the overall site plan when
combined with the proposed Bienville Subdivision, and Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision
which are all bound by the same development agreement. The bulk proposal of uses would
also meet the general classifications for mixed use regional.
.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, Action 5: Locate new community commercial areas on
arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining
residential areas.
Ustick Road is classified as an arterial roadway. The applicant is not proposing access from
the acý'oining commercial areas by way of cross access, sidewalks or shared streets which
will provide future connection to residential areas east of the site along Ustick Road. Staff
believes that the commercial areas proposed compliment the existing and planned residential
areas in the vicinity.
.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D: Encourage appropriate land uses along transportation
corridors.
Staff believes that the proposed land uses are appropriate along the adjoining transportation
corridors (Ustick Road and Eagle Road). Staff supports the proposed uses at this site as they
are consistent with the Mixed use regional district and the approved development agreement.
.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on
collectors and arterial streets.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-06-002
page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
The ACHD evaluates access points in their analysis; no direct lot access is allowed to any of
the arteriallcollector roadways. The proposed access points to the arterial streets generally
comply with ACHD '.'I standards as detailed in the staff report. Please see the ACHD staff
report contained in the file.
ITD has indicated that they will not act on the proposed access points to Eagle Road until
such a time as the Meridian City Council acts on the variance requests.
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has a policy for access to a Type IV Principal
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.
The Eagle Road access shall be eliminated from this project.
.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers
along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.).
The applicant is proposing to construct appropriate buffers along all of the adjacent arterial
streets. By Ordinance, a minimum 35-foot wide landscape buffer to Gateway Corridors. The
landscape plan shows the appropriate landscape buffers.
Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this
application:
.
"Require all new parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands." (Chapter V, Goal
III, Obj. D, #3, page 43)
"Eagle Road is the major north-south arterial in Ada County. The capacity of this arterial
should be protected by minimizing the number and location of private driveway access
connections to this important roadway. The City should recognize, adopt, and help implement
the Eagle Road Access Control Study, prepared by ACHD in 1997." (Chapter VI, page 71)
"The capacity of arterial. . .roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway
connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimize access
points on arterial. . .roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page
72)
"Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of
existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79).
"Identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as
offices and other low intensity uses." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #7, page 102)
"Restrict curb cuts and access points on. . . arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D,
#5, page 107)
.
.
.
.
.
8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists retail
store/restaurant/drive thrul office/ financial institute uses as permitted uses in the C-G zoning
district.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The pwpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide
for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures
accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location
ofthe district in proximity to streets and highways. C-G General Retail And Service
Commercial District: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which
are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located
in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related
services as well as retail sales for the transient and pennanent motoring public. All such
districts shall be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city, and shall not
constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial
development.
c. General Off-Street Parking Standards (from UDC 11-3C-5):
The following standards shall apply for off-street vehicle parking for nonresidential uses: In all
Commercial Districts the requirement shall be one (1) space for every five hundred (500) square
feet of grOSS floor area.
d. Structures Subject to Design Standards (I1-3A-19B5): All structures on property adjacent to
an entryway corridor (UstickiEagle Roads) are subject to the design standards listed in this
section.
e. Outdoor storage/refuse areas (I1-3A-12): Outdoor utility meters, HV AC equipment, trash
dumpsters, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall
design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are
fully contained and out of view trom adjacent properties and public streets.
f. Development along State and Federal Highways (I1-3H-4B2): If an applicant proposes a change
or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other
than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be
abandoned and removed.
a. No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed.
b. Public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at:
1.
the section line road; and
ii. the half-mile mark between section line roads. These half-mile connecting streets shall be
collector roads.
Section 11-3H-3: The applicant shall construct a street, generally paralleling the state highway,
be designed to accommodate future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state
highway that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or half
mile collector road. The intent is to provide for future connectivity and access to all properties
fronting the state highway that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line
road and/or half-mile collector road. The street shall be designed to collect and distribute traffic
(emphasis added).
9. ANALYSIS
9a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
The revised PP application substantially complies with the Unified Development Code. Below
are several special considerations for the P&Z Commission to review at the public hearing:
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-00Z
page 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
PP Application (PP-06-002): The REVISED preliminary plat can be conditioned to comply
with the Unified Development Code.
Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance
of the proposed development with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that this is a
good location for the proposed development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the
required facts and findings for a Zoning Amendment.
Non-Residential Buildil1llS: The applicant has requested a maximum of 250,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant/office spaces. Staff does not propose to limit the applicant to their request as this
area is designated as commercial, is surrounded by other commercial uses and is a prime location
for intense commercial uses designed in a clustered fashion.
Drive Thru Separation: The applicant has requested several lots to be drive thru retail uses which
have a spacing requirement of 300'. Since the site plan is conceptual in nature staff feels that the
applicant shall design the site to meet the 300' standard separation for drive thru uses with this
application. If a drive-thru use is proposed within 300' of another drive thru then, a conditional
use application must be approved.
Access to SR 55/ Eagle Road: The applicant has requested an access point to Eagle Road.
According to ITD records, the applicant has submitted a request for access permit but is not
vested with an access point for this location as the change in use is the deciding factor as to when
an access point be granted. Currently the site has no access to Eagle Road and the use is
agricultural/residential where the plat will change the use to commercial and is subject to the
design requirements ofUDC 11-3R. UDC requires that all access for Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision shall be taken from Ustick Road at points determined by ACHD.
Uses: All other lots shall be limited to Office/RetaillRestaurantiDrive thru uses and General
Commercial uses listed as permitted in UDC Table 11 ~2B-2. Any uses (excepting Drive thru)
not listed as permitted shall be subject to conditional approval.
Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing to construct internal sidewalks on the major tenant
entryways of the internal streets/drive aisles. The design shows the incorporation of the eight-foot
walkway which is directed to the main access to the commercial building. When and if the plat is
resubmitted as recommended, the applicant shall provide a consistent pedestrian access corridors
as shown on the revised site plan dated March 10, 2006.
Commercial Amenities: _The applicant is showing additional landscaping/patio/seating outside
along lots 1, 17, and 18. Staff supports the elimination of additional parking along Eagle Road
and when the detailed approvals are submitted for each building the applicant shall ensure these
features are included as amenities in the intersections of the gateway corridors.
Landscape Street Buffers:
Arterials: UDC 11-2B requires a 35-foot wide street buffer along classified arterial roadways
and entryway corridors. Eagle Road and Ustick Road are classified as Arterial Roads. On the
submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a 35-foot wide street buffer
along Ustick Road and Eagle Road. The applicant should be required to depict the required
street buffers on the face of the final plat in an easement or place the required buffers in
common lots as per UDC 11-3B. See Exhibit B below.
Commercial Streets: UDC 1I-2B requires a lO-foot wide street buffer along commercial
roadways. The submitted plat does not include commercial cross access east and south. Staff
feels that a designed commercial cross access street shall be provided and subj ect to the
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-06-002
page 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
landscape standards for commercial street buffers.
detached sidewalk shall be provided.
Ditches. Laterals. and Canals; There are several irrigation laterals that bisect this parcel. Per ODC
11-3A-6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled. The
applicant is proposing to tile all of the iITigation facilities located on site. See Exhibit B below.
Pressure IrrÜmtion; The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied
by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-15). The applicant should be required to utilize any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,
a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point
connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the
common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground,
pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved
specifications and in accordance with City Code. See Site Exhibit B below.
Fencine: The applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. A detailed
fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat (UDC 11-3A- 7). If permanent
fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around
the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance
with City Code. See Exhibit B below.
Within the 10-foot street buffer, a
Cross-access Internal; There are some commercial lots that do not have frontage on a public
street. Instead the applicant is proposing to provide cross-access easements to the lots that do not
have public street frontage. Because several of the proposed lots do not have frontage on a public
street, the applicant should provide a cross parking/cross access agreement for all of the lots
within the retail and other commercial portions of the subdivision to use the driveways and
parking aisles. The site should be redesigned to provide a backage road on Eagle Road. Access to
Eagle road shall be determined by the Meridian City Council and at least the non-signalized
access point to Ustick Road shall be designed to serve as a commercial collector for
interconnectivity to the south and vehicular movement in the north/south direction in cooperation
with the parcel east of the site. Maintenance of the drive aisles and parking areas should be
provided for in a note on the face of the [mal plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCRs. See
Exhibit B below.
Cross-access South: The applicant shall be required to provide cross access to the parcels south
of the site. The proj ect is a portion of a larger site proj ect (Kissler Annexation) and the sites shall
maintain consistent traffic flow for the entire site.
Eaele Road Access: The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has a policy for access to a
Type IV Principal 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. The access points shown at approximately 700 feet south and 1,200 feet south of the
Ustick Eagle Road intersection shall be eliminated as it does not meet criteria of either ITD or the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Loadine SDace Parking: UDC 11-3C-8 requires off-street loading spaces for commercial uses.
The Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application shall clearly demonstrate that both a
Type A and Type B space are available on site, located near the refuse/service area behind the
building.
Elevations: The applicant has not submitted building elevations ofthe proposed structures. The
application lists the proposed building materials, including stone, brick, stucco and timber to be
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3!l6/2006
accented with chrome, aluminum and gloss painted trims. UDC 11 ~3A-19 requires all structures
on property adjacent to an entryway corridor to comply with the design standards listed in this
section, Staff s interpretation of the UDC is that the applicant may choose to place the "primary
entrance" on an elevation other than the public street side, However, the public street elevations
(Ustick Road and Eagle Road) must still meet the other standards listed in 11~3A-19 (except for
the primary entrance standards).
The elevations will need to be reviewed prior to issuance of CZC to comply with the following
ordinance standards:
a) Facades: Facades visible fÌ'om a public street shall incorporate modulations in the façade,
roofline recesses, and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the
length of the facade.
b) Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging
eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e)
cormces,
c) Mechanical equipment: All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
screened to the height of the unit as viewed fÌ'om the property line.
d) Color and Materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high-
quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Smooth~faced concrete
block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent
materials.
Refuse/Service Area Screen: Neither the Site Plan or Landscape Plan call-out how or if the
refuse/service area on the east side of the buildings will be screened, UDC 11-3 A -12 requires the
visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent
properties and public streets. The applicant's CZC application must clearly demonstrate how this
standard is met.
Cross Access: The property to the south is dependent on access for interconnectivity and is
directly tied with the existing Development Agreement for providing a frontage road to Ustick
Road. The applicant has provided a design not showing any points of access within the
immediate vicinity. These points of access are paramount on the success of the general area and
staff feels a minimum of three points of cross access shall be provided to the east and one point of
access to the south, which shall all be designed to private street standards for pedestrian and
vehicular traffic circulation,
Strip Development: The purpose statement ofthe General Commercial District specifically
reads, "shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of
commercial development." The comprehensive plan policies further reads, "Use the
comprehensive plan, subdivision regulations, and zoning to discourage strip development, and
encourage clustered, landscaped business or residential development on entryway corridors."
The applicant has revised the plans to address this concern. Changes to the original design
include moving access points away fÌ'om Ustick to allow for better stacking, this also eliminated
the small lots along the ustick frontage and replaced them with more retail/restaurant uses on
larger pad style uses. These pad uses also incorporated additionallandscapeing screening and
redirection of traffic/pedestrian movement along Ustick The applicant also removed one large
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3116/2006
box user pad and moved it to a pad in a centrallocation, shown on the redesign as lot 11. The
applicant has revised the landscape plan and has included six landscape strips with internal
sidewalks to break the parking lot into smaller sections. Staff would find that the redesign of the
project would not constitute strip development as shown on the design revised March 10, 2006.
9b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the revised Preliminary
Plat applications conforms to the adopted DA, Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards.
As noted under staff analysis we recommend the building elevations be submitted in compliance
with the entryway corridor standards, the access point to Eagle Road be eliminated and
redesigned. We recommend approval of the application subject to the conditions of approval
shown in Exhibit B.
10. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (by The Land Group, Revised March 10, 2006)
2. Landscape Plan (by The Land Group, dated March 7, 2006)
B. Legal Description
C. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Services
7. ACHD
D. Required Findings from UDC
1. Preliminary Plat-Pending
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
.- ..--...-.-.-..
Exhibit AI: Preliminary Plat PP-l(The Land Group) Revised March 10,2006
11111°1
Ifllii!!
U;llä,
I!!!
.
I
J
:1"jUi'j~
If p. s
I I ~
~
..
'.1.. ....~
~~~~~ ~~~~~
¡;¡
~~II
~i!1 0
11m, it J ~
~:, ~ ~
. lIP J
~f'
i
j
.....m i
Hili III ~
fill I II!
1111111,
. <;,
: j
~
9.
..
S 0
:f~jj ~
~j~n -< ~
h~,~ ~.~ ~
~~~ ~ -<
~~~ ~ ~
f¡'¡ tIJ
.1
Hilil .~Ü,.
'11.,lltl".
'ii i¡'I
I i J IE' ~ ! i ß ,,1-"
. III- a ~ ) I, .. ~ ~. ,<' \
, ' ~, fi ft ! :1 ¿'~\""- \ ~
I II II ~II I B fJ~~ <1. ~ 0'
f I -I ",' I ~~~,'
I J. H ~ ! I ¡ ~r-- ,,'
, ,,~~: I' \).'"
. Pi:i:;q
":iJi~~.
II.... I
GA TEWA Y MARKETPLACE SUBDIVISION
Preliminary Plat
Meridian, Idaho
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit A Page I
mn~81
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
Exhibit A2: Landscape Plan L1.1(The Land Group) Dated March 7, 2006
,n .
II<
Irs,
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit A Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3116/2006
Exhibit B: Legal Description
claiborn... waite consultingJ..Jk
engineers 8, surveyors
120 N. Curtis Rd~
Boise, Idaho 83706
(208) 376-8555
Fax (208) 429-9862
P.N. 2279
October 20, 2005
PARCEL "A"
VSTlCK PROPERlY
REMAINDER PARCEL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land lying in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, T.3N., RIB., H.M., Ada
County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Section 4, thence S 89 49'08" E along the
North boundary of said Section 4 and the centerline of Us tick Road for a distance of
97.62' feet;
thence leaving said North boundary and centerline S or 50'52" W for a distance of 77.96
feet to a point on the South right-of-way line ofUstick Road, being the REAL POINT
OF BEGINNING;
thence along said South right-of-way line for the following 13 courses:
N 44" 02'14" E for a distance of47.06 feet;
thence S 89 49'08" E for a distance of262.81 feet;
thence S 47 51'21" E for a distance of41.18 feet;
thence N 87 17'10" E for a distance of29.03 feet;
thence N 47 43'35" E for a distance of 40.57 feet;
:kill,,::Q,:; :;5'~5--I:iv¡..¡j;"1¡.. ",,(J¡ j),¿JICta,
thence N 89' 13'34" E for a distance of 179.28 feet (formerly described as 179,20 feet);
thence S 89 49'08" E for a distance of 10,00 feet;
'I~n(""r':iil' ;"":- r" ¡"¡:ÜIS¡¡;',u:ut¡~.4i eel.
C:\PmjCl:tsIUstickLLA (2279)lDocumcnts\Parce1 A.de» I -
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit B Page I
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
claiborn'" waite consu'ting~
engineers & surveyors
120 N, Curtis Rd,
Boise. Idaho 83706
(208) 376-8555
Fax (208) 429-9862
P.N. 2279
October 20, 2005
PARCEL "8"
USTICK PROPERTY
5.51 ACRE SPLIT
A parcel of land lying in the Northwest )/4 of Section 4, T.3N., RlE" B.M" Ada
County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Section 4, thence S 89' 49'08" E along the
North boundaJy of said Section 4 and the centerline ofUsûck Road for a distance of
97,62' feet;
thence leaving said North boundary and centerline S or 50'52" W for a distance 0£17.96
feet to a point on the East righto()f~way line of Eagle Road:
thence along said East ri8ht-of~way line S or 50'52" W for a distance of JO38.43 feet to
the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence continuing along said East right*Of-way line S 0 r SO' 52" W for a distance of
154.90 feet;
thence S OCT 36' 13" W along said East right-of~way line for a distance of 114.17 feet;
thence leaving said East right-of-way line S 89' 51 '00" E for a distance of 700.02 feet;
thence N 00' 36' 13" E for a distance of 93.77 feet to the South boundary of Government
Lot 4 of said Section 4;
thence S 89 5) '00" E along said South boundary for a distance of 6) .35 feet;
th~ry"f' "'!"-'h'W ;~¡~ ~,"'t:.I; 1;;)¡';jr!::r:'l" ON ""1'1')('," r f",' c' ,L¡¡,¡a\.. L';-~-'.-i '-.:¡ ft:.:t,
thence N 89' 5) '00" W for 8 distance of363,OO feet;
tl,'IL;, .: (1(1 "!"no' IV ;:;t " ..:Ii,c,¡¡¡,.. ( lIf C (¡(I h:,'1.
C:\ProjecJs\UslickLLA (2279)\Documents\Parccl B.doc- 1 .
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit B Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
thence N Sg 5 1'00" W for a distance of 17'1.00 feet;
thence S 0(1 09'00" W for a distance of 34.50 feet;
thence N 89" 51 '00" W for a distance of2JS.67 feet to the REAL POINT OF
BEGINNING;
containing 5.51 acres of land, more or less.
Prepared by: Todd R Waite PL.S.
C:\Projects\UstickLLA (2279)\Documents\ParceIA.doc- 2 -
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3116/2006
C. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS- (Gateway Marketplace)
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
1.1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
The preliminary plat labeled as PP-l prepared by The Land Group, Revised March 10, 2006, shall
is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying
Annexation and Zoning (AZ-03-018) Development Agreement shall also be considered
conditions of the Preliminary Plat.
UDC 11-3C~8 requires off~street loading spaces for commercial uses. The Certificate of Zoning
Compliance (CZC) application for this project shall clearly demonstrate that adequate parking is
available on site, located near the refuse/service area designed at the building.
Graphically depict on the face of the plat, the required 35-foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick
Road and Eagle Road.
The applicant shall consider the landscape plan approved as submitted with the following
Individual lot landscaping considerations, the final plans shall significantly confonn to the
submitted plan which shows:
. Pad spaces with landscaping, patio, and cooperative outdoor user space. Lots 1, 3, 4, 5,
17, and 18
. Perimeter landscaping- 20' along the eastern perimeter
. Roadway landscaping- 20' with an internal sidewalk along the southern perimeter and a
minimum of Y:z of a 42' road section.
. Internal sidewalks/landscaping planters- these planters shall have a minimum of one tree
per 35' and an 8' wide sidewalk.
No direct lot access to Ustick Road or Eagle Road will be allowed. The existing driveways to
Eagle Road may be for construction purposes if approved by lTD. At such time, access to Eagle
Road shall be prohibited unless specifically granted through variance.
That prior to signature of the city engineer cross access to parcels east and south of the site be
granted.
The applicant shall provide commercial cross access drives to the properties east of the site as
shown on the revised plans. These access roadways shall be designed according to private street
standards as listed in UDC 11.3F, with a minimum of 24' travel way, no parking or backing on to
the service drive, a one side five foot detached sidewalk with a 5' landscape buffer. The
commercial cross access drive is to provide connection from the future Public Roadway (Ally
Street) east of the site, through the Una Mas Annexation site, and provide the most direct
vehicular traffic flow to a public road system.
The applicant shall work with ACHD to detennine if a public frontage road shall be provided at
the southern boundary of the site. One half of a 42' public roadway design for a frontagelbackage
road shall be reserved at this site until such a time as ACHD staff provides a written statement
refusing the reserved area.
Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision Business' Owners Association(s)
The applicant shall submit from the County Surveyors Office the appropriate documentation
showing that usage of Gateway Marketplace as an approved subdivision name.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 1
1.1.19
1.1.20
1.1.21
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
1.1.11 Any roof~mounted mechanical equipment will be screened from view from any public right-of-
way. The applicant shall submit drawings at the time of CZC submission that demonstrate this
condition is complied with.
1.1.12
1.1.13
The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A~II.
All structures within Gateway Marketplace Subdivision shall submit a design review application
at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
Comply with UDC 11-3A-12 regarding a screen for the refuse/service area.
No irrigation pump station or facility is shown on the Site Plan. However, if one is proposed for
the site, it must be located outside of any required street buffer. Impervious surfaces are
prohibited in said buffers.
Prior to the City Engineer's signature of the final plat, all existing structures shall be removed
from the site.
1.1.14
1.1.15
1.1.16
1.1.17
Provide internal cross access/cross parking agreement(s) for all lots in Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision. All cross access drive aisles shall only approach the ACHD approved points of
access to the public street system. Maintenance of the aisle and parking areas shall be provided
for in a note on the face of the final plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCR's.
Other than the points of access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to Ustick Road and Eagle
Road is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to Eagle Road and
Ustick Road.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
1.1.18
1.1.1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.1.2
1.1.3
Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision
pursuant to City Code.
All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All
stOmlwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC ll~
3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non~vegetated
surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted underUDC 11-3A-
18. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed
such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as
proposed by staff. If the stOmlwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved
open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the
facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of
the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at
the time of final construction.
The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the
subdivision. If pemlanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain
debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing
should be installed in accordance with City Code.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 2
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
1.1.4
Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing
additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed.
Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to
be mitigated.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11 ~3A-6,
unless otherwise approved by the Irrigation District(s). Plans will need to be approved by the
appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written
approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association
approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to final plat signature.
Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved Preliminary Plat does
not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A.
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
2. Public Works Department
2.1
Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in Ustick
Road. The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate
main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of
easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains
is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials
shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Ustick Road. The applicant
shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size
and routing with Public Works.
Due to the commercial uses on this project, a connection to the water main in Eagle Road shall be
required to guarantee adequate fire flow. Coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works
Department.
The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat
but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an
executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area
of the easement (marked EXHffiIT A) and an 81/2" xII" map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIDIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document.
The applicant has indicated the pressure irrigation system in this development is to be maintained
as a private system, therefore plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works
Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and
maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required
prior to final plat signature on the last phase ofthis project.
The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 3
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
2.7
2.8
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the [mal plat by the City Engineer.
All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from
domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1 ~4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-
domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6.
Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association
(ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall
be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557,10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water
treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental
Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities
and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is
prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written
authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all
necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow
Injection Wells.
Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be
recorded, prior to applying for building pennits.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
2.9
2.10
2.11
All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy.
Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as detennined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat
per Resolution 02-374.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Pennitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Pennitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3~feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3116/2006
3. Meridian Fire Department
3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water
quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
3.2
Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' 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 specifications.
d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing pennits.
e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing
buildings within 1,000 feet of the project.
3.3
All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
3.4
Provide a 20-foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in
accordance with Appendix D Section D1O3.6 Signs.
Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather
surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
Commercial and office occupancies will require a fIfe-flow consistent with the International Fire
Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D.
The 23 oillcelcommerciallots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an
unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has
experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency
Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and
3800 by the year 2010.
Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy.
The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan
and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required
intersection(s ).
The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible
from the street which the project is addressed off of Please contact Vicki Heugly at 898-5500 to
address this concern prior to the public hearing.
All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall
be required to comply with the International Fire Code.
Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
3.14
\ Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout
with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
i. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m).
ii. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183
m).
3.15
There shall be a fIre hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections.
3.16
Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with Appendix D
Section D1O5.
3.17
Side yard fences shall not be allowed.
3.18
Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m2) shall
be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having
a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 m2) that have a single approved fIfe
apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler
systems. (Remoteness Required)
4. Police Department
4.1 The police department supports the requirement for a frontage road as the length and bulk of the
proposed buildings impedes serviceability to all sides of the project.
5. Parks Department
5.1 Standard for Mitigation oftrees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance 11-3B will be followed.
5.2
5.3
6.
6.1
7.
Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance
Tree Grate and Tree Box standard: The proposed tree grate shall be a 6 foot by 6 foot, cast iron,
French pattern tree grate. This grate shall be placed in a 6 foot by 6 foot inside diameter tree box
with a steel grate frame set in concrete. Prior to CZC approval, contact Meridian Parks and
Recreation Department for specifications and tree box construction drawings.
Sanitary Service Company
Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888.3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit
stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application.
Ada County Highway District
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 6
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAff REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3116/2006
7.1
Re-construct the northern driveway, on the adjacent flag lot, as a curb return driveway with
minimum 15-foot curb radii. This driveway shall be no wider than 30-feet.
7.2
Construct one new curb return driveway with minimum 15-foot curb radii located approximately
120-feet north of the south property line as proposed on the revised site plan. This driveway shall
be no wider than 30-feet.
7.3
Close the existing curb cut driveway located approximately 96-feet south of the north property
line with curb, gutter, and sidewalk to match existing improvements.
7.4
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Approval
7.5
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
7.6
Private sewer or water systems are prohibited ftom being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
7.7
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street ftontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.8
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.
7.9
Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
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.
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 ofIdaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
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.
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.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road hnpact Fee Ordinance.
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
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
7.16
No change in the tenus 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 of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confinuation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
7.17
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/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect
at the time the change in use is sought.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAff REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3/16/2006
Exhibit D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Preliminary Plat Findings (UDC 11-6B-6):
In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Conunission and Council shall consider the
objectives of this Title and at least the following:
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
In Chapter vn of the Comprehensive Plan, 'Mixed Use Regional' is defined as areas including
commercial and residential development consistent with auto and service oriented uses. Staff fmds
that the requested General Commercial (C-G) zoning designation is in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map, which delineates the subject property as "Mixed Use-
Regional". The purpose of the C-G district is "to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major
highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the
transient and permanent motoring public."
Staff fmds that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please
see Section 7 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that
apply to this development).
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
The site is intended for commercial uses which, based on the Comprehensive Plan description, will
have such uses as retail, wholesale, service and office uses, as well as appropriate public uses such as
government offices. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of all utilities necessary to
serve this proposed development. Permanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be
provided by the extension of sewer in Ustick Road and extended south through the site to be looped
with extensions in Eagle Road. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of utilities to and
through this proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the Public Works
Department.
Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend
such services to the site.
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees.
ACHD has submitted a staff report with site specific and standard conditions which will is attached as
Exhibit C. On December 28, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with
representatives of key service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department
meeting and other comments received from agencies/departments, staff fmds that except for sanitary
sewer, the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development. The Conunission and Council should reference any written and/or verbal testimony
submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service this project.
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure,
utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future
residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Staff finds there will not be excessive
additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed zoning and subsequent development will
not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit F Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 3116/2006
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, the
subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds.
D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Please see Exhibit B for comments and conditions from other agencies and departments.
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's
attention.
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or general welfare problems associated with the development
of this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor Commission's attention. ACHD considers
road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any
public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may
cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is not aware of any natural, scenic or historic features which require preservation. The applicant
will be required to maintain, fence, and improve the waterways which are existing on this site.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit F Page 2
"""""""""..TI.""-,....",,,. .,...~ ~~c......"
0"'" ,~,,-,,~., """,,'n"'~'rl,"~"""""""'"
.. "'::~-"'1'=;'u.~:.:'U:"'.". .
:,'
')
em At:t.
.'1
r-
~
~I ~. WI( In~lj 1 Mlt} I;...
~ ~. UBI Uli, II'in¡ ![.
Gateway Marketplace
PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
.....
,
r 1111 ~~'~I
I Uli ;; ~
, ~.
, "
( """M/O""""""'"
:::.. ~ .
:;."';:,=:,
=..-: ::"
~~
""""-
~
..........._,
-.....-
~ ~Œ~~~
~.._,
_~_-r
....
--.......
m~_'"
--
..............
~
~~œu"
--
NcrTES:
~ ~~~~~
. ::EE;~.=z'"~='='~--
CDCONIFEROUS TREE PlANTIN~~-
~
ð
.
~
~
@SHRUB PLANTING -»-
a-:~.:;:"'-=Œ
....-m e_-
"'---
~~----,
--~=
NOTES:
:: ::=::...-::::=.-:"-=-
~
~
r
i
;;
~PERENNIAL & GROUNDCOVER
PLANTING -~-
( ~---
="'--=="
~~";'"....
_'M"""'~"
="-~"".
r«JJES;
: ~æf:..::":::""..=:-==~==
. :-"_ø._-_ø~--_..-.~-';""
: ~~;:€f:~~==..==--
@DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING_»-
0PLANTER BED CUT EDGE ~~
LV
;~
"..'
,,~.
w..c
::~
~..
::~
-""
...."'"
æ-
NOTE:
=:....-=:.=---:.:'"
@TYPICAL PLANT SPACING "':ro-
. ...............
.(t)
:.~"'.U:T~.:
-.....
~
...,.. -
, .
MATERIAL LEGEND
z
~
a..
w
a..
«
~()
men
Q.CO
-Z::I:
~~~
::::i!:!-'-Z
»« ~.
m...J-
3:a..D::
Q) W
<ûii:=:æ:
C>«
Z
~
...J
W
0:::
a..
- -..--
PROJECT CALCULATIONS
, =-~-:æ::.~.!.:.:--
'=~
. =~~~---
._-
.'ff-
.-------
..-
lANDSCAPE & IRRIGATION NOTES:
, ------------~---
-----
. ---------
. ----____'_œ~ ---~--
-~------..---
. _____MU .
. ~---_._---~----_.-
-..-.---- .
. ---~-_._...-..--- ---
,. ----~-_._--_._--~-
--------.--------
. :::"::::::"------.---;""-
. ,.------,,'-'-.___._ð__-
--.--- -----.--- .
c _._------~~
~ --___._.œ.____-._.~-
-------.----------.
---"...-___T__- .
~ _____œ______--
-------.--------
------___.._0- .-
-----~-----
------------
---------...--
------
-----.---------
----...------....--
---.-.--------
._-------~_.__. ~
-- --..------.--
.-:_--~------
----_._-----~
--------~_.._--
A ="----=-------.
- ..
K ----------
-------------
A ---------
. ----.----.--------
". --~.-.._--------_.
----.--
A =------~---~.
----
--------
~-----
------- . .
---------------
---.--
. __4______---
a ----------------
---
ft ---~_._---_._-
---
A --.....--.-..-- -..--
--
II.
.-::;."
1BB !:'.!!t... GIDŒ'
._-
~'='
::::. ~
-,-
...---
_":..--
---
...--
-
--
=
-~
-
--
-
-
-;¡¡-
..
...
~.
"""-"'_-II' II
.- L
LANDSCAPE PlAN !
L1.011
DEVEWPMENT CONTAcrs
"""""""
........... DE\ÐŒoENr -. LC~
,... 1W/I(I, ..y
""'" ~..",
PH"""--.
""'..cr,r-LTHOIPSON
""'-"
THE lNO"""'. ""
"'L_"'.IIIIIE'"
L<ŒE. ...... .,."
=",¡"Pm. ':.ü.'""
.......,..,
"""""""-_L1.C
..., ....... A'L
.......... ""'" .....
:;::?h~":;;,.-
PROPOSED ZONING SETBACKS
"""" 'FT.
.....
""""""""
...... .....
....,. L<IÐOtAP[ ......
0"'.
O"
OR
UICAL
auEcrtIO
"""""
~y ........
""'!kIIO .....,.
10FT.
.."
.. FT.
.. FT.
.. n.
"
.
1
[
.
¡
k
!
r
1
II
J
f
i
~
!
i
i
i
DEVELOPMENT DATA
lOr"- """"""....... ...... AC "'""" ~
lOr"- LO11t ,."""
-LOr""'........
-LOr""'..._..
..... """"" ""!D1O/AC
=-""""'<>-<>
""""'IIIIE 0-0
PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR
GA TEW A Y MARKETPLACE
A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED WITIllN A PORTION OF
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 3 NORm. RANGE] EAST BOISE MERIDIAN,
ADA COUNTY, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
\/'~""'~
\
of
.'"
Hi
/).
',<;,
_NARY
ø
. °, ...
........"..
'-"',,"'"
_~.œ-
-~-==-
....,.....
z
0
(f)
5>
ëi
aJ
::J
(f)-
W~O
Ua...r:::
:S ~~
a.~¿
I- .- œ
W E:a
~ .-'-
a::~~
«a.
~
~
s:
W
I-
«
C>
~ '#'2
..
.-.::::;"
>DB LIND <II<U
,--
'-=.':C:'
-.~
--
-,-
----
.... ":.."'i..
----,
10_-
--
--
=0-
~
=0,
=
~
""'-"T'.'"
P..';minary -
~"'j. c~..p '\ ..
rO.,/ '('~.
~~. (f>
?~:t..' rá. ~
~~~ %. V
~~
~
NOTES:
~ s ""'"'" TO ~ """..... """ """'" >HOOII.........,......- USE.
. "" ~ "'... ""'SHAIJ. """y~... NPUCI&E....., 1lEQM1\ON!IOO """" AT"'-
aFÐ.III:N!IIIN.
~ -- £IIIAØO! """-- TO ""........... IOINC"""""" a... 1m <1"""""" "....
,... """"""" OF'- ÆIUJ.
~ JL!. LOll ...... ... """""" OI!.L BE ......... ~ - ""'" """"'" ... ... aN a.......... -
......... "110 ..... SHAIJ. BE """"""" TO ........ mY '" """"" .."" -- '" """"'" SEINΠ'"
--
. AU. LOll ..... ... .......... .... .. - ~ """"'" ...... ........ BY - 1m '" """""'- ....
......... ...... ..... ....... .. OC>NCJEI> .. "'""'" mY Of """"" IEJOR ..... TO -- EIMΠTO
!>E-
o AU. ...... ...... - .."" ..... ....... .. .....,.. TAl .........,. AS ........ BY THE my '" """""'-
7, "'-LOII"""""-"'""""""",,- """""""'......... """"".........-
- .....1111 ... 1IIE ...... ....... --
0 ..... .."" ....... .... .. CIIWCIID - IIEWED ..........
0 JL!.LØJ!i.'" ŒV!lØ'IÐIJ """"""AN -"""'- AIOEEIIE>/7.
SYMBOL LEGEND
---?-.
----
-.........
-- .... ....
-- - ......
-- .... .......
--"'..
----
---.......
.
e
..
.
VICINITY MAP
iiã
PP-1
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 1 G, 200G
Page 53 of95
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that the Public Hearing on CUP 06-001 be
closed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we -- let's see. I should look at it. It's not a
recommendation. This is actual. Okay. I move to approve file number CUP 06-001 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, and the site
landscape plan dated August 8, 2005, with no modifications and ask staff to prepare the
findings with one change to those. Page two of the findings, paragraph B, paragraph
one, third sentence for conditions, the word should be conditional. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-001. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23
commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision by Landmark Development - southeast corner of Ustick
Road and Eagle Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 06-002. This request is
related to Gateway Marketplace Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request
for a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is tied down to this site as a portion of a
development agreement. The plat is on the 22.85 acres in the southeast corner of
Ustick and Eagle Road. We have already had some discussion on this area. This also
-- this outline should include this slight piece right there, which would be next to where --
this is the Una Mas and the ACHD property that were recommended for approval for the
annexation earlier tonight. With this site currently there is the lateral that crosses I
believe it's the Milk Lateral, which will be relocated on site, as well as the site is
presently vacant. There are a couple of field drive access points to Eagle Road, which
staff anticipates changing significantly. The development agreement that is tied in with
this site is primarily commercial. The higher the density, the higher intensity of the use
for commercial is -- was encouraged at the time. As you can see, it's high intensity
commercial in the corner, commercial office, as well as a transitional use, which would
be the north-south type of a collector system. But this was done prior to the ACHD
roadway system collector being proposed between Ustick and Fairview. With this the
applicant's use request for a plat for commercial is consistent, but there is several things
outlined in the staff report that staff would like to see changed. One of those would be --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 54 of95
I'll start at the southern portion. Cross-access to the south needs to be issued with this
plat. With that, the other recommendations on the development agreement for ACHD
and Una Mas were to provide from the southerly portions of these properties to
approximately where this property turns south, this little jog out would reserved for
ACHD to propose a future public street. That public street would be either a jog to the
south to access this property and provide multiple points for public access to property or
to also facilitate large vehicular traffic to the light, which would be at Allys Way and
Ustick. As you can see this site is proposing some larger boxes, larger box products,
with loading docks in the rear. Right now this design does not facilitate east-west traffic,
which is the main concern with the design of this plat, as well as it overloads the access
points on Ustick. ACHD has met and this is a right-in, right-out access point
approximately -- I believe it was 400 feet from the Ustick-Eagle Road intersection, as
well as there is another access point at approximately -- I want to say 750 feet, but it's
getting late and my memory is failing me. This would also -- this one here, the full
access point, staff wishes to see a design that would not accommodate large truck
traffic making a left onto Ustick across what is going to be a turning lane and two lanes
of eastbound traffic, which is why the public road section in this location -- at least
designed to public road standards would be something that would be most desirable, as
well as to allow the large truck traffic to access the point in this location and be able to
exit in a different location. Having that traffic not as a signalized intersection is not in
the city's best interest. This application is proposing two access points to Eagle Road.
One access point would be a right-in, right-out -- I'm out of light. In approximately this
location and the second one would be a full access point at the southern boundary of
this location. This access would be a full access, but currently the Eagle Road corridor
study does have a median in the middle of Eagle Road, which is also the same thing we
had discussion on with the Bienville project to the west of this site across Eagle Road.
With this staff is looking for a redesign mainly to address two issues. This application
would not meet the standards of the Unified Development Code as more than 70
percent of the Eagle Road frontage would be parking lot, as well as the Ustick Road
frontage would be looking at over 1,350 feet of the 1,380 feet of the site as being a
parking lot, which staff can site as same issues as what Meridian Crossroads has. The
recommendation is to bring back a redesign. I think the applicant has already submitted
to us late today a redesign that is already a proposal, but I think that this Commission
needs to give the applicant better direction as to what you would foresee in relation to
staff's comments in the report. There are not findings for approval. Everything would
need to come back to you, as well as this design just does not work with the
development agreement requirement for the access frontage road to facilitate that
traffic. I know that in the past -- I was not here when this was annexed, but there was
significant discussion about the large vehicular traffic accessing Ustick Road and the
frontage road being essential to that success of not having the large trucks cross many
lanes of traffic without a signal. With that the staff report does outline many changes
that we would like to see to reflect some of the concerns that we have had with this
design. With that the Una Mas annexation report does have the two points of cross-
access. One would be approximately at the center of the project and the other one at
the southern portion, as well as they would get their immediate cross-access into the
front lot of their site. And, again, this site -- or this access point to Ustick Road is off site
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 55 of95
from their project and so cross-access in this location would be essential. Also talking
about the cross-access here, the -- ACHD has made comment that they need additional
right of way here for stacking lanes that they would anticipate with this size of a
development. The design that I have seen already indicates that there will be a drive
aisle of approximately 300 feet in this location and a redesign in order to facilitate traffic
accessing that stacking lane, essentially, going both to the east and west, which is
something we also need to see in a better scale and more format in order to bring back
a better recommendation to this Commission. But, again, tonight staff is recommending
continuance of this, so that the applicant can address the design of the plat in relation to
the comments and concerns of staff, but I also encourage this Commission to give as
much direction to the redesign as possible. Or there is the other option which has the
findings for denial already incorporated into the staff report. Staff does not foresee that
a denial would be conducive to this application, but a redesign would definitely -- is
definitely a practical option. And at that I will stand.
Rohm: Thank you, Joe. Any questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come
forward?
Borup: Just one, Mr. Chairman. You made reference to the frontage road, but I don't
know if there was a lot of staff comments on that. Are you anticipating that there would
be a frontage road along Eagle? I think that was part of the Eagle Road corridor study.
Guenther: Yes.
Borup: And it was discussed at the time of annexation.
Guenther: Yes. The discussion on the frontage road has also shifted significantly with
the incorporation of the ACHD collector road east of this site.
Borup: That's that I was wondering.
Guenther: Which is why the -- and, originally, the development agreement indicated
that this transitional use would be, essentially, the frontage road for the entire area, but
that was -- this was done prior to ACHD making any type of condemnation or purchase
of that property east of the site, as they anticipated the collector road system to be at
approximately the quarter mile and that's a third of a mile. So, what staff has taken the
liberties of is to ask for a redesign in order to accommodate north-south vehicular traffic
as a commercial collector, which wouldn't have parking on it in this type of a location,
which would not be a public road system or, essentially, a backage road and to provide
the east-west connection to what the ACHD collector road system would provide, which
would be that backage road and the light to Ustick Road.
Borup: So, you're saying with that design you would not require a frontage road?
Guenther: With the conditions outlined as for redesign, we feel that the backage-
frontage road can be accommodated.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 56 of 95
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Would you -- let's see. For a visual -- yes, that one is fine. The aerial.
Perfect. A couple of questions. Orient for me the -- Una Mas property is not as long
north and south as this property? Is it shorter?
Guenther: Yes. The Una Mas property comes right to that point, as well as the ACHD
property. This one incorporates -- it appears to be about 80 feet more to the south,
which is why staff would foresee that a public street in that area could cul-de-sac or
come into some sort of approved ACHD turn around, because of that type of
development, and the discrepancies in the property descriptions. As well as we don't
foresee public road access to Eagle Road. So, if off of ACHD's new collector, as we
have asked Una Mas to leave a right of way space at their southern portion, the
continuation of that would not, actually, be along the southern portion of this one, right?
It would be up just a little bit?
Guenther: It would be -- and, again, this portion is missing a piece, which would be this
long skinny one, which would be a portion of their southern border and, then, this jog to
the south. I would -- keep in mind that the conditions listed in the report are
recommendations -- they are not conditions, they are recommendations for redesign.
They are listed as conditions, but they are not -- typically they are conditions of
approval. This is conditions for redesign or denial. So, they are still very much open for
conditions or revision.
Zaremba: What you just said about the narrow strip -- clarify for me again -- does Una
Mas and this property share a common border or is there a little strip in between.
Guenther: Yes. There is a common border.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: And it would be, again, this little strip right here.
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Newton.Huckabay: Are you just trying to determine if a road can go through to Eagle?
Zaremba: Well, you're anticipating where I'm going. It makes sense to me if Bienville
has a road that comes out there, that this road from ACHD's collector ought to tome out
and there should be a signalized full access intersection there that serves all properties
on both sides. It completes my bypass idea. We already have the bypass up here. I'm
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 57 of95
sure we will have a bypass there. This isn't as neat, but it's somewhat of a bypass.
This would make a bypass on this side. And it would be signalized here and here. I
would like to see it signalized there. And it requires this one to focus their traffic there
as well to meet that warrant, I would believe. Both sides have to be feeding into it. But
it appears that what staff is asking for could lead to that, as long as it wasn't cul-de-
sac'd.
Guenther: Well, typically, ACHO is going to look for a full road section. The Bienville
section is not a full road section, that is, actually, only a commercial drive access to
Eagle Road, which isn't going to facilitate a light, even if it has the vehicular traffic.
ACHO has specifically said on both of these sides they don't want any public roads
within a quarter mile of Eagle Road. And this is approximately a quarter mile and when
it was talking about the ACHO representative, he says absolutely no closer to Eagle
Road than that. And again --
Zaremba: But it would be right on the margin of the quarter mile; right?
Guenther: It would be -- no. No. No. I'm talking quarter east-west of Eagle Road, not
a quarter mile south of Ustick.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: They want to maintain no public roads within a quarter mile of Eagle Road,
which means that when Sadie Creek came through here, their public road ends about in
the middle of their project, where this one the public road would end in the middle of the
project. It would not approach Eagle Road. The Eagle Road access points would be
commercial access points. Apparently Eagle Road is planned for a full median at the
quarter mile, with an allowance for a u-turn design. When I met with Wade Christensen
from ITO, their district engineer, on Tuesday, that was the design he was
recommending at a minimum -- or at a maximum in these two locations they may get
right-in, right-out, but they would not foresee ITO giving access permits for full access
points, as well as it would be a miracle if ITO gave a light and it would have to have a
very strong recommendation from our City Council to have that light, as well as ACHO
would have to accommodate a public street to that point and ACHO specifically has said
they will not. So, I'm sorry, I've gone off of track here again.
Newton-Huckabay: With that said, that it validates, basically, statements that were
made on the other one. I think that we -- if we move forward, our recommendation
should be just as we have done on the west side of Eagle Road, on the east of Eagle
Road that we push for a full access to Eagle Road, because the properties to the north
on the corner have got it already. If I remember right, you can get -- or you will have it
eventually. Yeah. Because you can go back behind Lowe's and out beside the church
and out and if I remember right from our hearing on the Kohl's, you're going to go up
behind Kohl's and meander around and out to the street and if I remember right there
was talk of a light.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 58 of 95
Moe: I don't remember the light discussion.
Newton-Huckabay: It seems to me like there was -- there was no commitment there,
but I think there was a desire.
Rohm: Yeah. I think at this time it's appropriate to have the applicant come forward,
please.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Joe, if I could have you cue
up my presentation. My name is Tamara Thompson, I'm with landmark Development
Group, 1882 Taluka Way in Boise, Idaho. The site is located at the southeast corner of
Ustick and Eagle, which --
Guenther: Is this your development?
Thompson: No.
Guenther: Which disk did your have? I haven't seen a disk. Did you hand it to
somebody else?
Thompson: No, I handed it to you.
Guenther: You didn't give it to me.
Thompson: Maybe I thought I did.
Guenther: Is it this blue disk?
Thompson: No. It's this one. These later hours you get all rummy. Anyway, we can go
forward. We have 23 acres on the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle and we are
proposing to develop a commercial, retail, restaurant, and office development. The
exact mix will depend on the conditions at the time of development. With our site
plan --
Guenther: We got a new computer and it doesn't appear to be the fastest one in the
building.
Thompson: We have complied with all of the necessary landscaping easements and
setbacks, so we have the 35 feet along Ustick and Eagle Road. The property was
annexed and rezoned in early 2004, I believe it was April of 2004 that everything was
finalized, so we are just coming back for the preliminary plat at this point. At that time of
the annexation and rezone a development agreement was entered into with the city and
the property owners have relied on its content, including the concept plan, which I
understand you didn't necessarily get to see before City Council approved it. So, this is
the site plan as we submitted it and from what -- the aerial that we were looking at just a
few minutes ago, it, actually had the notch coming out like this and it, actually, cuts into
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 59 of95
the property, instead of out of the property. So, this line right here is where the Una
Mas southern property line lines up. Back in October of 'OS we held a neighborhood
meeting and the Una Mas folks to our east were pretty much the only ones that had any
comments at that time and due to the sensitivity of the new office uses that they are
proposing, we have worked with them to come up with some mitigations for their
concerns. Along our truck docks, which -- let me -- can you go to the next one, please?
This is the revised site plan that we just submitted today based on our meeting that we
had with ACHD and Una Mas yesterday. It shows some -- ACHD wanted a longer
throat here on our -- the last one we -- basically, you came in and you could go east or
west. This one they wanted a longer throat of at least 200 feet. It worked best with the
Una Mas site plan, if we can get that back to 350 feet, and that's from center line to
center line. So, we have pulled that down and we got rid of the large mass in here and
put a cluster of pad buildings at that point. In order to mitigate their concerns with the
truck dock areas, we have agreed that along the edges of -- if these, in fact, are
recessed truck docks, we don't have -- we are currently marketing to high quality
national tenants that some do have recessed truck docks, some don't. Some just -- you
know, somebody like Pier One, for instance, just has a roll up door at grade level and
they don't get the big tractor trailer trucks. But somebody like Michael's, for instance,
does the recessed truck dock. So, we are showing worst case here where every single
one does, but depending on how the tenant mix comes out, they mayor may not have
them. So, anyway, for the ones that do have the -- have the truck docks, we have -- we
have agreed to a solid wing wall that comes out to help mitigate the sound and the
visual, you know, so you're not hearing the backup buzzers from the little forklifts and
that kind of stuff. We have also talked to them about the -- the backs of the buildings,
making sure that those have some sort of architectural elements on them, as well as
color bands or a split face block band or something like that, so that they are not just a
plain back of the building, but they are -- the people that are in there, those office
complexes, actually, are looking at something other than just a plain back of the
building. Although, it will be a back of a building where we are not proposing carrying
rock and towers and that kind of stuff along the back, but definitely giving them some
interest with color. The landscaping along the property line -- we have put two cross-
accesses that work for both their site plan and our site plan across here. City staff is
asking for a third one down here, which is not a problem. That one can be added also.
As far as the landscaping along here, we have talked to them about putting a three foot
berm with some ten foot trees at the time of planting on that, so that there is some
height there, so that they can -- to give some blockage. Let's see what else we had.
And, then, the other one is in the staff report already, where we have to -- any
dumpsters have to be confined to trash enclosures. We did meet and so I think we
have accomplished what staff wanted for the cross-access. Like I said, we have got --
we have got two here, we can add this third one here, and, then, we have another one
to the south at this location. The report still has in it the frontage and backage road,
which at the time -- well, from the first time we talked to ACHD they asked us to .. to use
their road, instead of adding another road at this location. Also, with that concept plan --
I was not involved in it at that point, but I have talked to the -- to the team members that
were and they don't remember that being basically a road that went through there. The
north-south access could meander through parking lots, which this one definitely did,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 60 of 95
where you can meander through the parking lot to get -- to get down here. That
transitional use, as people remember it, was, basically, because this was residential up
until earlier tonight and so that transitional use was meant for a buffer against -- against
that use. But, in any event, that staff report as it references frontage or a backage road,
I believe that both ACHO and city staff now have confirmed for us that that is to move to
the Allys Way, so that the reference to that in the staff report should be eliminated or
changed. That was one of the big issues. I think the second big issue is the language
in the staff report where it calls out the clustered retail. With national retail tenants that
we are -- that we are looking for, the high quality tenants that we are looking for here,
we have looked -- we have looked at how we could -- I mean what staff is
recommending is, basically, pulling these buildings folWard to here where you would
have parking on both the front and the back side have access on the back side and the
front side. Essentially, what that does is it eliminates these pads and you still have all
that parking along here, but you don't have -- have the break that the pads allow and -- I
mean retail tenants right now are -- are being extremely picky. They have a 25 page list
of what their site criteria is and I can tell you we are not going to get the quality tenants
that we would like to get if -- if we have got to go to something outside the box, if you
will. There is issues with loading, how you load those types of buildings. Basically,
what -~ how I envision it is it would, basically, be something like the Boise Town Square
Mall where you have got loading areas on different sides of it, but we don't have the
sides that accommodates that, so I don't know how you have loading areas anywhere
and, then, you know, trying to get pedestrian customers through there, just isn't a safe
situation. I don't know how well this shows up, but this is our vision for how the front of
those major tenants would look, where we have got some -- some nice pedestrian areas
with some outdoor seating areas and, you know, with different facades and tower
elements and, you know, you can make that so -- in my opinion this isn't a strip retail.
Strip retail to me is something that looks all the same across and, then, you have got
different tenants that go in it, but you can't necessarily tell where one building starts and
stops, where these look like little townhouses, if you will, where they are all different
colors and architectural styles and architectural elements where they flow together, but
they are not necessarily the exact same. So, anyway, this is -- this is what we have put
together as an architectural vision and we have always added architectural guidelines to
our application -- or we submitted that at the time, so that there is clear materials and
that type of stuff that we would like to be used. So, I believe we have addressed staff's
concerns. We can revise the preliminary plat and landscaping plan according to -- to
the new plan that we have. Mr. Kissler, who is going to -- he owns all of the property at
this point and my client is looking at buying the northern 17 acres from him that -- Mr.
Kissler is ready to go. He's outgrown his Norco building on Fairview and needs to build
another one here and he's -- he's ready to go. So, he's in a little bit of a hurry. So, we
would -- we would like to just add conditions, basically, to take care of any concerns that
you have and be sent onto City Council with your recommendation. But if we can't do
that, then, being continued is the next best thing. So, with that I'll conclude. Actually,
can I see one more slide? Here is -- this is the staff report and I'm sure we are going to
get into traffic, so maybe I'll just talk about it real quick. Back in 2004 -- and you
probably can't read this -- but the B -- or the A down here -- it says ACHD approved
accesses. The B says ITO approved accesses. And so we have got A's here and here
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 61 of95
and we have got B's here and here. And the property owners always thought that this
was approved and so, you know, come -- now that we have the new ordinance and
everything -- and Mr. Kissler actually does have letters from ITO that -- back in 2004 --
October of 2004 granting him the two accesses at the locations that we are showing on
the site plan. We have formally submitted to them for right of way application and I
should know tomorrow. They had their executive permits committee today. So, I
should know tomorrow how that all went. One more. And this one you really can't see,
but this is -- I had our traffic engineer do half -- this is Eagle Road and I had him go a
half mile in each direction to show what currently is approved on the north side and
what's being proposed on the south side and from the intersection going north at 700
there is right-in, right-outs for both the east and west sides. At the quarter mile mark
there is a full access point for both east and west and, then, at the 1,700 feet, which
approximately is 400 feet from that one, another right-in, right-out was given to the west
side. And, then, eventually, where this new light is going right here, which your memory
does serve you correctly, it does connect down through here, which, hopefully,
eventually, will come through. This -- this road -- Mr. Moore is -- I think his property only
goes to about here at this point, so he can't make that full connection, but he will be
building that road. And, then, on the south side, at approximately 700 feet, which is
consistent with here, is a right-in, right-out. This one on this side has been pulled back
a little bit further to 860 feet, just because there is -- just to accommodate for the extra
stacking here, so that it, actually, wouldn't just completely stack up. And, then, this and
the -- what Bienville is proposing do line up at the quarter mile mark. And, then, like you
said, you can't get to the half mile point on the east -- I'm sorry, the west side here.
And, then, this is the new Allys Way, which I believe is scheduled to hook up to the half
mile point here and, then, eventually, they like to get it down to Fairview. So, just to
kind of show you how the entire system should work. With that I will be quiet and
answer any questions that you'd like.
Rohm: I think you have made a very nice presentation and I think that everything that
you have said is in line with working with staff to move forward with a project that could
gain approval by the Commission or a recommendation for approval, but the bottom line
is we don't have a staff report to support things that have been presented tonight and I
don't think that we want to write a staff report tonight.
Thompson: And that's fine. But we would like some solid direction, if that's --
Rohm: And I think that maybe after having heard your testimony we might be able to
have discussion amongst the Commission and provide some kickback to staff in terms
of some of your comments and give the staff some direction, but I really think that -- that
before we can act on this, it will have to go back to the staff level and be given due
consideration with a staff report that we can hang our teeth on. And so I seriously -- I
think you did a great job, but, I'll tell you, without having polled the balance of the
Commission, I think that we are going to have to at least kick it back to them for a
complete staff report and if there is some comments from the Commission to help direct
that, they will be coming. But thank you for your testimony.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 62 of95
Moe: Mr. Chairman -- don't go anywhere yet.
Thompson: Okay.
Moe: It's now question time.
Thompson: Okay.
Moe: In regards to the -- the roadway on the south side. Go back to the --
Thompson: You want the aerial or the site plan?
Borup: That's good enough.
Moe: Right there. I just kind of want to make sure in regards to the roadway on the
south, would it be your intent, then, it will line up with Una Mas, even though they are a
little farther to the north and, then, just on the boundary would you be doing the sweep
up and into their property?
Thompson: Well, what staff has explained to me is they are looking for half of a 42-foot
right of way. So, on this bottom portion they are looking for 22 feet that just trims this
corner, basically, and that's it.
Borup: Where is the other 21 feet coming from?
Guenther: The Red Feather future -- the future Red Feather Estates development.
Thompson: Yeah. There is another third party in this that --
Guenther: Yes. That is true. There is -- the portion that is south of this property -- get
back to my staff report. This property right here is all zoned C-G, but we don't anticipate
that all coming in for general commercial or office and, therefore, multiple access points
for residential developments would be preferred. So, if they are proposing some sort of
residential development here, they would need access not to a collector road system in
only one location, but multiple locations to facilitate north and south direction -- directed
traffic, as well as into their commercial projects.
Borup: So, Una Mas was also a 21-foot--
Guenther: Yes. It was half of a 42-foot wide --
Borup: But going right down that line there.
Guenther: Right. And right into that -- that kind of angle that she showed you just now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 63 of95
Thompson: Yeah. And, like I said, that doesn't bump out, it comes in this way. It's not
exactly --
Borup: No. It comes out over here and right down this property line, I believe.
Thompson: Right. But I'm saying that that corner isn't part of our property. Ours has a
little notch out of it, not added to it.
Borup: I think it does. Your property comes clear to here.
Thompson: Oh. Yeah.
Zaremba: That is not in the right place.
Thompson: Yeah.
here.
You're right. This line isn't in the right place. It is, actually, over
Borup: Yes.
Thompson: Sorry for that confusion.
Zaremba: Well, staff's last explanation about Red Feather -- is that what it is?
Guenther: It was annexed as Red Feather.
Zaremba: It's even stronger that this ought to be a real road that comes across there.
Borup: Your point was that it needed to be residential access --
Guenther: Yes.
Borup: -- coming from a non-public road, then, according to ACHD.
Guenther: It would be a residential collector accessing a public road.
Borup: But you said they didn't want a public road accessing Eagle.
Guenther: They don't want a public road accessing Eagle anywhere within a quarter
mile. The quarter mile would start here and move to the east as a public road.
Borup: Okay. Just traffic to Allys or whatever it's going to be called.
Guenther: Yes. Yes. Facilitating public road access to Allys Way or Allys Street or
whatever ACHD is calling that.
Newton-Huckabay: So, if they turn left, they are turning into the parking lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 64 of 95
Guenther: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: They need to have a road there. Because they are going to use it
as a road.
Borup: It's already been approved two years ago as a road.
Guenther: I know. If I may --
Borup: On the other three corners.
Guenther: The problem with it is that ACHO had brought to us a recommendation that
we could do a public street. The applicant is showing here correctly that Mr. Moore, his
development here, has -- this is a public road. ACHO allowed this access point and
light to be a public road. If this Commission so chooses to have another quarter mile
public road, they should petition ACHO to have them connect that road. Currently, as
staff we are getting everything from ACHO saying they don't want any public road
connection to Eagle Road. And ITO keeps telling us they don't want any -- any access
to Eagle Road in that location either. So, we are, as staff, very much torn between what
we are getting from other agencies and what the Commission is telling us, which is why
I would really like more direction from the Commission as to what they want to forward
onto the Council, who is also getting ITO and ACHO--
Zaremba: My comment would be that I agree with both of them everywhere except
here. I don't want to say I'm generally in favor of accesses all over the place, I agree
with them that there should be a median down the middle of Eagle and that there should
be very limited accesses. This one intersection has the potential to be far more heavily
used than even Fairview and Eagle is right now and I think the need to have some kind
of a bypass system -- and I appreciate this drawing, because it's an illustration of what I
was trying to say in words before. There is a way around here. This is going to be
signalized.
Newton-Huckabay: It is signalized.
Zaremba: This is -- yeah, it is now, as a matter of fact. This is going to be signalized.
And I agree, I think Winston Moore is going to connect across here and that justifies this
being signalized. I would, actually, have rather seen this be a continuous connection
and a public road, but I think the same thing needs to happen on this side. There needs
to be -- it's not circular, but there needs to be this whole bypass concept in that area
around this intersection and in spite of what ACHO and ITO are saying about this one
spot -- I have to say, I design transportation systems -- I have done so in every major
city and run transportation systems and managed transportation systems, I work with
their infrastructures, I have seen good ones and bad ones. I have been doing it for 30
years. I do not have a professional engineering degree, but it's a side line of what I
have to do to get transportation systems going and this intersection needs a complete
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 65 of95
bypass all the way around it. That's my personal opinion based on 30 years of doing
that kind of work as a necessary component of my real work.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I think the other important point is if this -- when this annexation took place and
access points were approved by ITO -- and I don't know if ACHO was involved in the
same -- well, they were for Ustick. That was in 2004 and I think the owner of this
property had the expectation that what was approved then is what was going to be
approved now and went ahead with the design with that expectation. I don't know how
they can do a complete turn around in that length of time. It just doesn't seem fair to the
property owners to me.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may just real quick. I remember this
project when I was at ACHO on staff and ACHO does not comment on annexation
applications as there is no development associated with them. So, the access points to
Ustick Road were never reviewed or approved by ACHO when this came through for
just annexation. So, when a development comes that's when they will approve access
points. The other point is they can only comment on ITO roadway. They aren't going to
say that a public street can or can't enter Eagle Road at a certain distance, because it's
not their roadway. If someone constructs a roadway to meet their standards, that's all
they can do, and ITO is the one that actually gives the permit to access the highway.
So, it truly is up to ITO and respecting Commissioner Zaremba's take on this, also
respecting our code, newly adopted code, but the spacing of that, just getting a signal
and working with ITO for several years myself -- not 30, but just that quarter mile and,
then, the speed limit of that, the spacing and the timing of those lights on a highway
where they are trying to keep the speed limit 50 miles an hour or thereabouts, I just
know they are not real keen on that. Now, that's different than -- being a full access is
one thing. Being a signalized access is something different. But I just wanted to clarify
that ACHO has not approved any access points for this project when it was annexed
back a couple of years ago anyways.
Borup: And I may have misspoke. I think the applicant said ITO's approval, but -- and
I'd like to see that letter.
Guenther: In 2003 the applicant made -- Mr. Kissler, actually, was the person who
signed the application to ITO for all three access points. The report that I have received
on Tuesday from ITO's district engineer was that they did not approve them at that time
and the letter you have dated February 6 from ITO also indicates that any desired
access still requires a permit. That has not been issued. So, every indication from ITO
that I have says that even though they have put it on their site plan to the City of
Meridian, that it was not approved at the time of the annexation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 66 of95
Borup: So, that approval letter would have been a good thing to submit with the
application.
Guenther: Well, they should have had -- there should be an access permit with their
application.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Even with that -- excuse me. Even with that being said, I think that it's this
Commission's position that there be access to complete that loop, regardless of what
the applicant's existing rights are anyway and so, if fact, this Commission wants to make
recommendation to ITO or ACHO to have access, that's what we are here for. So, that,
notwithstanding, I think we can make those kind of recommendations and see where it
goes from there. So, that's just my thoughts on the roadway. So, with that being said,
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I was just going to recommend that we just wrap up this
conversation and to make those decisions --
Rohm: That's kind of where I was going with that.
Newton-Huckabay: Clarify what the applicant needs to bring back and --
Rohm: I want to go to another subject for a moment here.
Newton-Huckabay:
conversation.
But that's not in line with my suggestion to wrap up the
Rohm: Well -- and you're not running this.
Newton-Huckabay: I will be.
Rohm: Not for awhile. Okay. With that being said --
Moe: When did we go to a dictatorship?
Rohm: The applicant has asked that we consider their proposal to have their
commercial building pushed back away from the roadway and indicated that staff report
had asked that they be pulled out more into the middle. Just to find out where we settle
on that, how do you feel about the applicant's comments about reasoning for pushing it
back? Is that something that you can live with?
Guenther: I still don't believe that it addresses the gateway corridor standards of the
ordinance, which says that no more than certain portions of that area must -- may be
allowed as parking lot, essentially. It's not the City Council's intention when they
adopted those standards to have nothing but a few trees and, then, see parking lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 67 of95
again. And that's where they were going when they adopted those gateway corridor
standards.
Rohm: And I agree with what you're saying and I'm kind of thinking that these pads that
are out along the roadway break that up somewhat and that kind of mitigates the
concerns about the main building being pushed back to the back lot line. And I only
throw that out as a comment, not as a conclusion. How do you feel about that?
Guenther: Again, until I see some calculations that show how that actually relates to
our ordinance, I have to speculate that it -- this is what I see. Their new site design
appears to have better accommodated that, but, again, I haven't fully reviewed it, I
haven't even seen it in a large scale format.
Rohm: And that's exactly why we are going to continue this, so that the applicant can
make their changes to accommodate the gateway concerns in the UDC and work with
staff to something that is acceptable or can be forwarded onto the Commission with
recommendations for approval and I think that that's enough said about that.
Borup: Aren't we looking for recommendations?
Rohm: I think that --
Borup: Do the rest of us get to make them, too?
Rohm: Oh, absolutely.
Borup: Okay.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Do we have public testimony?
Baird: That's exactly where I was going.
Rohm: We can go there next. At this point in time -- let's see.
Newton-Huckabay: Where would we be without Mr. Baird?
Rohm: Jon Rosin.
Rosin: Jon Rosin with Hansen Rice representing Una Mas. 1717 Chisholm Drive in
Nampa. It's getting late. Commissioner and Commission, we'd like to just make a
couple of brief comments. We have been working with the applicant on this and we
agree with pretty much everything that they have said, as far as the larger trees in the
landscape buffer between the two, kind of giving us a visual barrier between the back of
their building and our office space. The screen wall hiding the trucks, we are in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Cormnission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 68 of95
agreement with that. They have said that they were going to have -- you know, carry
the -- you know, some type of an architectural element or the colors, mosaic block,
whatever it might be, to come around again to kind of dress up the back of the building.
The only other thing that we would like to see or have as part of their development
application is some type of CC&Rs or something that addresses that if the back of the
building is a truck dock, if any of you have ever driven behind the back of truck docks,
they are not sightly, typically, trash, cardboard, and whatever stacked on the back. We
realize that there is code enforcement in place that can be -- you know, can help with
that, but we'd like to see something more formalized between our -- between their
development and our development, so that we have something a little bit more stringent
for us as a mechanism to keep that looking as nice as possible. And those are the only
comments that we have at this time. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in this application?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise,
Idaho. First of all, thank you very much for taking the time here. As you probably know,
we were the culprit that developed the original annexation plan and concept plan. I
spoke to Mr. Kissler today and, obviously, he has concerns with moving ahead. We are
presently working on his office retail section on the southerly five acres that he would
retain after the sale. I'd like to make a point to Mr. Zaremba. And I think it was an
excellent one. It kind of draws me back to Bridgetower and the way that they circulated
their roads around the backside of the Bridgetower and it's exactly the same situation
here. If we are able to pick up this southerly portion -- and, once again, I think only
having seen this tonight, I think the dynamics have changed dramatically based on what
you have approved tonight west of this site and east of this site. In my mind, if we could
all get together here -- and it sounds like Mr. Zaremba is on track -- certainly I feel the
same way and be able to take a connected road off of Eagle -- which, incidentally, Mr.
Kissler believes is deeded and I'm trusting I can find that letter, because I know that
Commissioner Borup was here at that time. Having said that, if we could continue that
to the east, tie that into that road that's going to go north, I think it's case closed. What I
think should happen tonight -- and I think the chairman has made it rather apparent --
that this be deferred. However, in doing so, can you defer this with a condition that
perhaps we pursue a potential loop road, if you will, or whatever semantics you'd like to
use and give us some direction in that respect, and, then, they, in turn, can sit down
with the adjacent neighbors to the east and I think come up with a plan that would
satisfy everybody. And that's alii have.
Rohm: Any questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Strite?
Strite: Yes, sir.
Borup: I assume you're talking about this is the building you're working with?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February] 6, 2006
Page 69 of95
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that is absolutely correct. That's a Kissler
building. It's a five and a half acre site.
Borup: Now, the road -- the proposed roadway, then, would parallel this line right here.
Straddle it I mean. Straddle this line here and, then, out to Eagle, Are you looking at a
new site design to accommodate that of some type?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, yeah, I think that -- and that's the reasoning for
the deferral. I think we might want to go back to the drawing board, reconsider the
configuration of his building that would still allow that access. In the development
agreement you probably will recall that the backage road system was designated either
private and/or public. So, I'm not all that certain that the road that's going to be
eastbound, if you will, that would connect to that connecting road, would necessarily
have to be an ACHD approved right of way, at least as I remember the development
agreement. If I would have been asked to show up here tonight at 5:00 o'clock tonight, I
would have that development agreement with me, but I'm almost certain that the
verbiage was private or public.
Borup: I think that's probably correct. But now we have got that road kind of into three -
- three properties, four if you count the ACHD.
Strite: Well, I'm not certain that we are concerned so much with -- with the right of way,
quite frankly, and I'm not all that certain we couldn't live with a public road there. I'm just
suggesting that my recollection of that development agreement gave us the option to be
either private or public.
Borup: Yeah. That makes sense.
Strite: And if you would just allow us that opportunity to really explore that, I'm sure that
Tamara, as the representative with Mr. Kissler's, could come back, along with the
neighbors to the east, with a plan that I think would be acceptable,
Zaremba: Well, I certainly -- Mr. Chairman -- certainly would say that I think the ACHD
proposed new collector on the east end satisfies the backage road requirement.
Strite: Absolutely.
Zaremba: I felt that that was an important requirement, but I think here we have a step
up from that. We have a collector proposed, which would be on the back end of these
collective properties, I just want to see a connection east and west.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I -- again, I think the total dynamics have
changed from what we have seen tonight. I'm even including the west side, since we
are able to align this with Bienville.
Zaremba: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 70 of95
Strite: And would ask that that be thrown on the table.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: In regards to the Una Mas property and some of their concerns tonight when we
discussed it, if we do continue this, are there materials that you will be bringing forward
as far as what will be the screening and whatnot around the back side of the other
buildings?
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that's not from me. I'm not involved in this
project, only as representing Mr. Kissler.
Moe: Okay.
Strite: But I would suspect that Tamara would, absolutely.
Rohm: What a guy.
Moe: Thank you.
Strite: Thank you.
Mae: Mr. Chairman. Tamara, if you would, please.
Newton-Huckabay: Is there anybody else?
Moe: Pardon me?
Newton-Huckabay: Is there any other public testimony?
Rohm: Before we ask you to come forward, is there anybody else that would like to
testify on this application? Okay.
Mae: I knew I was right.
Rohm: Okay. You're on.
Moe: Again, same question as far as either materials or basically are there going to be
any renderings or anything that -- to look at at all, other than what you propose tonight
on the front side, I mean as far as type of materials and whatnot you're going to put on
the back with the screen walls and whatnot in the truck dock areas?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 71 of95
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Mae, we haven't designed
the buildings at this point, because the site plan is conceptual in nature. I could bring
back something for you as far as what we think, you know, will happen on the buildings,
but, typically, major tenants are block buildings with stucco and different types of brick
and that kind of stuff and so on the back what I would propose is that it be a -- an
integral color, split face block, that -- I don't know how high we would need to go. It
depends on if it's recessed or not, but is it -- yeah, 12, 15 feet. Yeah. Probably an
integral color, just because if they get tagged at all, you want to be able to sandblast
them and not have to keep painting them and that kind of stuff.
Moe: Well, you had made a comment earlier in your presentation that you were going
to be doing something to the back side of those to take care of the office area --
Thompson: We definitely are.
Moe: -- along with the landscaping changes for the larger trees and whatnot back there.
I just want to make sure that, indeed, the office project would not be just looking at the
back side of ordinary buildings and trash.
Thompson: Yeah. That's our intent. But, you know, at this time we have not designed
the buildings and -- but they probably will be some sort of block building with stucco and
brick added. I did want to add I do have the development agreement and it does say
private or -- it says a private -- public or private backage street is what it calls for.
Moe: Again, you said that they are meeting tomorrow, so I would anticipate --
Thompson: No. They met today. And I tried to no end to get ahold of them, but they
did tell me they thought that they would go into the evening hours and so I should know
tomorrow. But I will get you the 2004 letter.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment to Ms. Thompson, if I may. The drawing or
sketch or -- not really true elevations, but the front of the big boxes, I very much liked
the village look to it is what I would probably call it, where it's not all the same thing all
across. I thought that was great. I probably would suggest, if it were to work out, that
what's displayed up there is not your newest one, I don't think, but --
Thompson: No, it's not.
Zaremba: But you did have -- let's say these five are probably fairly similar.
Thompson: He's going to cue it up.
Zaremba: What I would suggest -- are you changing it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 72 of95
Thompson: Yeah. He's going to get that up there for us.
Zaremba: Back one. There. That perhaps another 20 feet be added, so that -- you
would lose a few parking spaces, so that this roadway is not absolutely straight, it
comes out a little bit, goes back a little bit, but that this center space sticks out like
another 20 feet. I mean in some of --
Thompson: And add more hardscape out there? Is that what you're looking at?
Zaremba: Well, just make the building a few square feet bigger.
Borup: Or the plaza effect like you were showing --
Thompson: Yes.
Borup: -- would do the same thing.
Thompson: Yeah. That's what I was thinking, that you add more sidewalk--
Zaremba: Oh, yeah, more sidewalk with tables and stuff.
Thompson: -- so you can have more plaza area. Okay.
Zaremba: Just something so that it's not -- I think the fear of the strip mall is that it --
from one end it looks like it's straight across and I would just show some variation to
that.
Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, like I say, most of the site design considerations in the
staff report are reflective of the old design. What I was anticipating incorporating into
this one would be more -- of a future staff report would be more of the design criteria of
the buildings that you haven't seen yet, which would be mostly reflective of the same
thing as you saw off the Kohl's site development. So, you will most likely see more of
those conditions in a future staff report from staff. So, I think maybe this discussion
would be a little more premature and best saved for the next time we hear the
application.
Zaremba: That's fine with me. We are just trying to focus on what needs to change
between now and then.
Guenther: And I think that mostly we are looking at the site instead of building design at
this time.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Wouldn't it -- can I just make one comment that if there was less
parking spaces against the street. I think that's visually unappealing to me is if you have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 73 of95
a pad with a bunch of parking places and that kind of what -- I think that's what I think
the parking could be more internal to the project.
Zaremba: Let me visualize on that same subject. The northern boundary of
Crossroads Center, I think it is -- in other words, the Fairview side, as I drive along there
I'm not aware of as much parking as there really is against Fairview, because I think
there is a pretty good line of screening shrubbery. I'm more aware of it as I drive north
on Eagle, that there isn't as much screening. And I am aware of the parking that's
there, But I suspect that along Fairview there is the same amount of parking, but it's
screened somehow in a different manner. Either that or I'm just forgetting what I see,
but --
Thompson: Well, along Eagle on the Crossroads, they have used their 35 feet as a big
detention-retention area.
Zaremba: Oh, yeah.
Thompson: You know, so -- and we are not -- we are not proposing that. We are
proposing underground kind of French drain type thing. So, we are not going to have
areas -- you know, so we can actually have landscaping in that area instead. I think
what you're seeing is they just -- they do have kind of a blank area where they just kind
of have a swale in there without -- without a lot of landscaping in there. Ours shouldn't
look like that.
Zaremba: Yeah. That's--
Thompson: Especially when you have a big 35-foot landscape area.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I did have one design comment. I think it's been addressed a little bit, but that's,
again, Eagle Road, to get -- I think to get aways -- the parking lot and the percentage
that staff was talking about in the report, I'd like to see another building along there.
Perhaps make these buildings not as deep and a little bit wider, just spread them out
this way and maybe get another building in there and I think that would -- that would
serve a lot of the purpose, I think, with -- I assume that's what Joe was talking about, to
get --
Guenther: That is correct. If not, some sort of a corner L-shaped building in here in the
intersection that would be possibly multi-tenant or something along that line. Something
that could provide an intersection type of screening to the commercial development.
Borup: I mean -- and they have done -- they have accomplished that up here --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 74 of95
Guenther: And as I said, this site plan I didn't have until 4:00 o'clock today, so --
Borup: Right. Yeah. But the same idea down along here.
Guenther: At this point --
Borup: So, that would be my recommendation for the new design.
Guenther: It might be at this level to continue it at this time and give me a shot at that.
Borup: Well, hopefully, it will be in the design for you to look at.
Guenther: Yeah.
Rohm: Before we take a motion to continue this, I'd like to go down the row and have
each Commissioner, if there is anything specific that you would like to have the
applicant and staff consider, this is your opportunity for -- to bring up your points of
interest. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I may have failed to mention this before, but I certainly would
like to see a roadway connection along the --
Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I think everything has been stated that I was concerned about.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing more to say on this application at this time.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Well, let's see -- no, I have nothing more to add.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Other than is there any input from the applicant on how much time they would
need on a redesign?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take an opportunity to present this
Commission's concerns to ITO and ACHO in order to -- because they -- ACHD still has
not made a comment on this application, which I have only gotten brief staff comments.
If I can bring this recommendation that Chairman Zaremba has as a Commission
recommendation, I will present that to the ACHO and ITO staff that I have been in
contact with and get their comments for you specifically related to that item.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February] 6, 2006
Page 75 of 95
Borup: I think if you could present the engineer study -- or the traffic engineering study
that was presented, that would help in making that presentation I would think.
Rohm: Okay. All right.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if it would be appropriate to make a motion within the
discussion of this, I would move that we direct staff to move ahead with presenting our
concerns to ACHD and ITD if necessary.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that's appropriate.
Zaremba: That was a motion.
Borup: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: We haven't set a date for a hearing or anything.
Borup: No. He's doing a different motion.
Moe: Oh, we are going to do that.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we direct staff to work with ITD and ACHD
on the interconnectivity --
Zaremba: Traffic and interconnectivity concerns.
Rohm: -- concerns and --
Zaremba: And the need for a bypass for this intersection on all four corners.
Rohm: With our desires to see that interconnectivity. All those in favor say aye.
Oppose same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Guenther: Mr. Chair, you might also ask that we forward that recommendation for
consideration to the City Council, since they are the deciding body. And we will have
the director present, along with ITD and ACHD recommendations.
Borup: That's what he meant. He was intending that.
Zaremba: That's included in the motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 76 of95
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: So, are we ready to continue this one?
Rohm: Yeah, I think --
Zaremba: I think the interests are known.
Rohm: I think that the date that the staff would like to see this continued to would be the
March 16th date. So, if someone would like to make a motion to that effect. Just first
that -- do you think that you can work with staff and get a --
Thompson: I can get things turned around fairly quickly. That's much more time than I
need, but I don't know what staff needs.
Rohm: I think that --
Borup: They need ten days.
Guenther: We are looking at -- from March I'm looking at least another seven projects
and I had six tonight and one continued, so if you want a sane staff member, you should
probably at least give me a month.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Well -- and you would need to have it ten days before the next hearing,
because if it's that far revised it needs to go out for comment again from the other
agencies.
Guenther: That is correct.
Rohm: I'd entertain a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-002 related
to Gateway Marketplace, to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-
002 for the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
March 16,2006
ITEM #
6
PROJECT NUMBER
PP 06-002
PROJECT NAME
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
- ,
~
Page 1 of 1
file:1 IS: \P%20& %20Z\Barb \Maps\ V icinity%20Maps\Gateway%20rnarketplacejpg
---
1/20/2006
I"!p.ression antibou.r.ra~ et à séchage rapide
1!Jt'mM!z Ie gaba.rit 516pge 1 of 1
BOTTLES MARK K & BOTTLES GERI C
5418 NEAGLE RD STE 180
BOISE, ID X3713-0000
GILBERT CARL 0 & GILBERT M
PATRICIA
3475 E USTlCK RD
MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000
JAMES A KISSLER LLC
1125 W AMITYRD
BOISE, ID 83705-5494
SARAY CO
1500 ELDORADO ST STE 4
BOISE, ID 83704-8565
USTlCK MARKETPLACE LLC
1260 J W EXPLORER DR STE 200
BOISE, ID 83713-0000
@O9~5 @AHaAV \!l\
-
www.avery,com
1-800-GO-AVERY
-
BRYSON BARTL
2600 NEAGLE RD
MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
PO BOX 7608
BOISE, ID 83707-1608
MOORE WINSTON H
PO BOX 8204
BOISE, ID 83707.2204
SCHEERER ADAM
3154 E LESLIE DR
MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000
WILLIAMS WALTER C & ROBERTAJ
3104 LESLIE DR
MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5714
AH3A'd-O9-00S-1.
WO).AleAe'MMM
;;;;; GúAt~Vl~ L/
~ AVERV@ 5160@
EAGY GREGORY L & EAGY CHANDRA.T
13000 W VENTANADR
BOISE, TD 83713-0000
JAMES A KISSLER LLC
1591 E SENDERO DR
BOISE, TD 83712-0000
SADIE CIŒEK LLC
2076 SEAGLE RD
MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000
SLAGEL EDWARD
2700 NEAGLE RD
MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000
9v\f'
O/D~
I/O 11 ì 1"4
@O9~S UVldWU @AAaA'd esn
fiU!: 'U!.!d ee.!:! e6pnws pue wer
CITY OF MERIDIAN
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the
Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian,
Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 16, 2006, for the purpose of reviewing
and considering the application PP 06-002 of Landmark Development for Preliminary Plat
approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision generally located on the southeast comer of Ustick Road and Eagle Road.
A more particular description of the above property is on file in the Planning Department,
660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202, and is available for inspection during regular business
hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. You may contact the Planning
Department at (208) 884-5533 during regular business hours.
A copy of the application is available to review upon request. Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing, and the public is welcome and invited to submit
testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials
should be submitted to the Planning Department no later than seven (7) days prior to the above
hearing date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. All materials
presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring
accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City
Clerk's Office at (208) 8884433 at least 72 hours prior to the public meeting.
The Ada County Highway District may also conduct public meetings regarding this
application. If you have questions about the traffic that this development may generate or the
impact of that traffic on streets in the area, please contact the Ada County Highway District at
\ \ ",II I ""'"
\\\\ ' "i¡,
(208) 387-6170. "",~~ Of ~:'¿;¡!:~>'"
~ ð, """""'Þ \"'1t' -':;.-
$" '.tcnn.-, "",}.t-, ,,' -:::.
.. <::() \, -'
~ \ ~
~ \
~
~,
DATED 10th of January, 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
February 16, 2006
ITEM #
15
PROJECT NUMBER
PP 06-002
PROJECT NAME
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
NAME (PLEASE PRINT) FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL
\o~ ß.. ~ ê) çJ+.
,-'
".
, ,-
, RE'CEIVED-
FEE:
"~Dn~ .
, "
C' . , . ": ""',,u,"
"~'I,te "":,,P,la, n,
: CC;f;Y of Meridian
. lty Clerk Office
""
---'-~~:""""',:.
.' ." ..."
.' ....." .
.. ' ., ." .' ..
, ". :,.I's.: :ml':':
Rev Ise\.J """"Iteranl
. J::\.:~¿" ) i
-~".._.._----,--,.,_/ "-
"..-".d ."
~r
,
~
""jIIIIOI". I ,I O""/~"'OO.' I
: '[:" '______lULllJJILQ IJ_llllllilli'lIIIIII.lI:\ ::..><, '~:;~ ','C m~ I
1:/1 I I 1--i--~--(fiJ O'fllWnmrmmmu .,,)' ,<~?~<' }Ÿì., ~~"/ !ï! I
, ' ~" I t:ru.wllJ1LLCi [mttttttt{}ttH-mHH.~ ,.~,,<~. dmTíTt" _I
/~rl ,,~t '~"~, [II ~(~I~~~ ~,~ (í------=---~ ' ~
~" < ¡ . I ;., i . ~-":_::,::: = LrrmTTTTTU1Tímmnili I ~ ¡ ///
, . I I I ~ '1/ '
:i' "n~~ ~. .,,'
¡ I:,:! Ù1tt~~I~ii::::::~ '1-]------- ~i?
f~ I ¡ I II~ lHttttH'HI'~ IJTITTTTTmJ III îTï1Tllll L I . / /
: \ I ' ~" " _to-H!t11H - , ~
J 'I,:¡: I~-J~ i_~~~i7
:) I I W ~fH1!Htj{}jH¡ttitIIH~ I -~ I
I. I ~~~---,. (lllillilliml'i""""Q ~ì
:/: ~-I~~llffiT;~mITm' ~
--____I_I.:L_-__-~-" .I~~,~~: L~ L~"____~') ,
¡ ,1~ f .JTTITrmm-:j ( ----1+111: i ì I"JlnTlTlHUïTm_/ l- -
, I '! : ~ i1!-LI-~JiHf{\ \J~!~ [Lillil I.ul /lW~~OJJL!JWI (1
.1:, IE"-III,jn---:j';-~I---il" I ,Iii
'I I i ~ ----~ ì utH,+rI-. Jttttttttt{J I: II
..'/ ;, I }=fl ~~~~It+:l: ~~:.:_~, ' ~ , I J'"
. I fJ =I~I-- lJìTTTl.IUllllllilli -,I ) ,'" .
. : ~ ? II ~E ITf!lliWUlHLllLlfi ::= J . ;'1; /," I +
1_- (__n_------) lffi[JTTffiJTTTTTTTTllJ \ I .cc.- I / I
¡ ...-...-- "~JI!!TTTTTTTTL/ , ,
=====".=======þ-=---::::ll1J1Wlj-(LWlWl ~~ I ~ I~ i ~-::'-=::;.;-:=--:=n::::::::~:J
+ ' ~
,..,.,.,
...",--
. ., , . ., ... .
. ,.. .. """...
: : n': ' ::' I: , '
Arc-- it ect LJ na ... ...Vis i an
, ,
-,..
",.",
.i PARCEL ANN[XAT/~N LSKETC'I
I .I'~ -~! &
IRU I: ' A t A- '"
II .~.- ¥" '*' Rool~ " ' _"M' u..t ~ fa --
, ' -- "" ""...." ~"."""iõJ'""' ""=, --"
--- ,,' , ,," ", 't I ÇLQ '-~" -", ,-
'I '~otAPart I IlL II ,,' m..J --- .1.- I ,
:: "~" CA J ~'.. ~: "'~..~ ~ ì"'" -__~ll ~I:'
. I ci.A ~---"" ---" I ( ...- r..... III,'
, '--;'1 :c...ï-- .." , .' [I
I I' l' ~... - (:A -- ~-::::.-;: J .. r.... ,I it
IRUt ~"~" ,," I .' :(
III II, ~~ ,," CA I It ¡.
: :~:!" ' ". .._~-~, ~ ~: ¡~
:::~1 ".~I, ,001'- "',, ----- I I c ~::rll': :
I II "II """"," ,II ;"""".'-", "". "--"111
: ~Il - I~~~,-___:~-.... ----~--- "_.~~t' ."" . II~' ":
". I ..--- ",,'---'-"-,,---', ,l I I
' ",,- ",,-' , ,,"',,- I
1_....1 L.8i5nc); - CA , -c eo. , ~~ ¡ :
a~lu.- a "I II
ÇIIð~..j 1Cfh_... i ,~' 'I
WLHI 1)O~,IMw, Ø~,*I-1 ,,-:t I
~~~I"\ , ""II"" ==;;";""...===--'
TAI_Trøl\lø.iIll.iMI,u"do(¡lIpolIOc=ft:t/ll'illl1 1 - -I -~-" m_- w..__.",-~'- "
~'~......... --~,-'!"' . -'--- , ,
8.J10 Appt~ Aœ-' ".~ ,
~CN!W"';"'~.I ~" CONCII"TU!iRIII...-..- ' - "I
.N!ttIi , ' - ~ ~~=-- . RoL'
UNa. .,.. ..... ~-_.... "'.LIIØ I.Ø"" ,
"'...-d ...".......-~e~'IIOINAt.IJIIII,...~ "~~"'~""'¡:',,WJ:'P~
.' ,,'
-- '
d,,_,,"
: !2004DACencejptPlan
"-.r--c--.-._-."-""""'_-'-"'-'--"
" " ,,':
- ,,' ""
, ,
, ,,-"
, '"
, ""
, , ,
, , , '
, , ""
, "
, ' '"
, , -"
, '
: ' -", ".-"- -.-'-" -,,-._-,,_u-
" --"
i
i
i
~
: .:,
'... "
, ,., '., , ,..
'. ".'iTraffic ..' apPirovEe ct. .'and .
P ro-pose-d
- -
: _: . - :
--------:---;--:----- -. .----
--------"--""""",, """"""",-",--,,--"---
i
i
- I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
r.::..
/
'" ",-
-
" ---------------------"-"'--' " "-"--------------------------"-,-,-"",,,,,,, - .""""""",,--,,---------------------------
~t Ace;;
otrendl~n'ti~ "\ TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON
IO'\ -IO ,,:. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
tC;'",""T,,""~~EP~~omments and recommendations will be considered by
M ;{ì3 if,~~rl 7t and Zoning Commission please submit your
AYOR
Tammy de Weerd JAN 1 f!'1me n recommendtions to the City of Meridian
C 1'Þ'1~ i[JDS
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS W.:4,r:ttrf: ~fiR~artment, by: February 9,2006
Keith Bird ~~:R~ 10, 2006 File No.: PP 06-002
Joseph w. Borton Hearing Dafe~1l ~ 16 2006
Charles M. Rountree '
Shaun Wardle Request: Public Heari 9 - Preliminary Plat approval for 23
commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway
Marketplace Subdivision
-.
,:
CITY DEPARTMENTS
City Attorney/HR
703 Main Street
898-5506 (Cily Attorney)
898-5503 (HR)
Fax 884-8723
By: landmark Development
Location of Property or Project: southeast corner of Ustick Road and
Eagle Road
Fire
540 E. Franklin Road
888-1234/ fax 895-0390
Parks & Recreation
11 W. Bower Street
888-3579/ fax 898-5501
- David Zaremba (no FP)
- David Moe (no FP)
- Wendy Newton-Huckabay (No FP)
- Michael Rohm (No FP)
- Keith Borup (No FP)
- Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
- Charlie Rountree, CIC
- Christine Donnell, CIC
- Keith Bird, CIC
Shaun Wardle, CIC
- ~ater Department
V"Sewer Department
= Sanitary Services(No VAR, VAG, FP)
- Building Department
- Fire Department
- Police Department
City Attorney
= City Engineer
- City Planner
- Parks Department
Planning
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 202
884-5533 / fax 888-6844
Police
1401 E. Watertower Lane
888-6678 / fax 846-7366
Public Works
660 E. Watertower Lane
Suite 200
898-5500 / fax 895-9551
Building
660 E. Walertower Lane
Suite 150
887-2211 / fax 887-1297
- Wastewater
3401 N. Ten Mile Road
888-2Í91 / fax 884-0744
Your Concise Remarks:
- Waler
2235 N.W. 8th Street
888-5242/ fax 884-1159
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office(FPIPP only)
- Ada County Highway District
- Ada County Development Services
Central District Health
- Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrig. District
== Idaho Power CO. (FP,PP,CUP)
- Qwest (FP/PP only)
Intermountain Gas (FPIPP only)
- Bureau of Reclamation (FPIPP only)
== Idaho Transportation Dept. (No Fp)
- Ada County Ass. Land Records
Meridian Development Corp.
- Historical Preservation Comm.
JAN 1 9 2006
CI1ì' HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 8,Cj.._~~QfeMrkenO.diffi.ane
CITY CLERK - FAX 888.4218 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING - FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE - FAX 884~,e~ c
Printed on recycled paper
PP 06-002
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT landmark Development
February 16, 2006
ITEM NO.
15
REQUEST Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone
for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision - southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle
Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
No Comment
( \J (\\\ Î\ \I V
\\~
'¥)
y\ 'J fJ\1,
l,\1Ù
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
See attached Draft ACHD Report
See attached Comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS'IRRIGATION:
See attached Comments
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTH ER:
contacte~ OV fA1J; 0 ~ Dotel-( {/ -{) (~
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Phone: 3 'I~ -If $Jl¡
u{fv
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Right-of~ Way & Development Department
Planning Review Division
RECEIVEIf-- ~~"" --------
FER ( 9 2006 ~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY GLE-RK ClcÄ-LÇ.~-,,-,,---,,"----__--_---=~ffiIn~tte~_~ ---- u_---------"-
ProjectlFile:
-"""" ---.-. .,-,--_._, """'----"""""'-'------'-""'-.-----"" ----" "'--""" '-'----" ".---." .._------,
- -----"'-"_._--"""",_._-"",
Gateway Marketplace-MPP-O6-002
Lead Agency:
Site address:
Staff Level
Approval:
Applicant:
Owner:
Staff Contact:
Tech Review:
City of Meridian
[ID
m
&
[p
U
Southeast corner of Ustick Road & SH-55
x
Landmark Development Group LLC
1882 Toluka Way
Boise, 10 83712
James A. Kissler
1125 W. Amity Road
Boise, 10 83705
Christy Richardson
Phone: 387 ~6178
E-mail: crichardson@achd.ada.id.us
February 3, 2006
Application Information:
Acreage: 22.85-acres
Current Zoning: C-G
Proposal: 23 commercial lot subdivision
A. Findings of Fact
Existing Conditions
1.
Site Information: The site is currently vacant.
2.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
Direction
North
South
East
West
1
Zonin
C-G
C~G
RUT
C-G
recess to C-G
2.
2
Development Impacts
3.
Trip Generation:
This development is estimated to generate x additional vehicle trips per
day (0 existing) based on the submitted traffic impact study.
4.
Impact Fees:
There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any
building permits. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee
ordinance that is in effect at that time.
5.
Traffic Impact Study:
summary is noted below.
A traffic impact study was required with this application and the
6.
ted R
d
Roadway Frontage Functional Traffic Count Speed
Classification Limit
Ustick Road None Minor Arterial 10,833 on 8-5-3 w/o 40 MPH
Eagle Road
Eagle Road Principal 41,939 on 1-6-05 n/o
995' Arterial/State 50 MPH
(SH-55) Highway Fairview Avenue
*Acceptable level of service for a two lane collector roadway is "0" (9,500 VTD).
7.
Other Development in Area/Miscellaneous
. ACHD reviewed this site as part of a rezone and annexation application, MAZ03~0018.
. ACHD has reviewed and approved MCUP05-0048, the application for the Kohl's Department
Store at the northwest corner of Ustick Road and SH-55.
. ACHD has received an application for Bienville Square at the southwest corner of Ustick Road
and SH-55, a mixed-use development. That application is on hold while the applicant revises the
site plan.
8. Findings for Consideration
1.
Ustick Road
Ustick Road, from Leslie Drive to Ally Street, including the Eagle Road intersection, has just been
widened and improved to 5-lanes. Sidewalks were not constructed with the roadway improvement
project, but are required to be constructed as development occurs on the undeveloped properties.
The intersection was widened to include dual left turning lanes. This project was a public/private
partnership that involved other land owners and developers in the area.
The applicant should be required to construct a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk on Ustick
Road. Provide a sidewalk easement for sidewalk located outside of the right-ot-way.
Ustick Road Driveways
Offset Policy:
. District policy 72-F5, requires driveways located on collector or arterial roadways with a speed
limit of 40 to align or offset a minimum of 185~feet from any existing or proposed driveway.
. District policy requires driveways to be located a minimum of 440-teet from signalized
intersections for full access, and 220~feet trom signalized intersections for restricted right-in/right-
out access.
2.
3.
3
Width Policy: 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.
Paving Policy: Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to
grave/ 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 3D-feet into the site beyond the
edge of pavement of the roadway.
Applicant Proposal
. The applicant is proposing to construct a right~in/right-out driveway on Ustick Road located
approximately 350-feet east of SH-55. There is a median in the center of the roadway to restrict
the access.
.
The applicant is proposing to construct a full access driveway on Ustick Road located
approximately 700-feet east of SH-55.
Staff CommenURecommendation
. The driveways should be approved as proposed, in accordance with District policy.
3.
Cross Access
The applicant is not proposing to provide any cross access to the parcel to the east. That parcel is
currently under consideration for annexation and rezone to the City of Meridian, and has only 330-
feet of frontage (Una Mas parcel). Further to the east is a 5-acre parcel owned by ACHD and also
currently under consideration for annexation and rezone to the City of Meridian. ACHD acquired
that property with the intent that a north-south roadway would be constructed in the future at the
signalized intersection with Ally Way. In December 2005, the ACHD Commission approved the
designation of that roadway as a collector from Ustick Road to Fairview Avenue, along with an east~
west mid-mile collector to connect to SH-55. (See map.)
This site could have access to a signalized roadway (Ally Way) if sufficient cross access is provided
between property owners. Cross access should also be considered to the parcel to the south.
4.
Eagle Road Right-at-Way, Improvements and Access
The City of Meridian, applicant and ITD should work together to determine if additional right-of-way
or improvements are necessary on Eagle Road (SH-55). Access points should be approved in
accordance with the Eagle Road Corridor Study.
C. Site Specific Conditions Of A~roval
1.
Re-construct the northern driveway, on the adjacent flag lot, as a curb return driveway with
minimum 15-foot curb radii. This driveway shall be no wider than 30-feet.
Construct one new curb return driveway with minimum 15~foot curb radii located approximately 120-
feet north of the south property line as proposed on the revised site plan. This driveway shall be no
wider than 30~feet.
Close the existing curb cut driveway located approximately 96-feet south of the north property line
with curb, gutter, and sidewalk to match existing improvements.
13.
4
4.
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
D. Standard Conditions of A¡mroval
1.
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
2.
Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right~of-way.
3.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
4.
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.
5.
Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
11.
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.
12.
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 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.
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/variance 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 transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the
proposed development.
Attachments
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Appeal Guidelines or Request for Reconsideration Guidelines
4. Development Process Checklist
5
9
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action
1.
Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD
staff or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request
reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action
previously requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and
materially carried out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties.
8. Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for
reconsideration, but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted on by
all Commissioners present.
If a motion to reconsider is made and seconded it is subject to a motion to postpone to a
certain time.
b. The request must be in writing and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District no later
than 3:00 p.m. on the day prior to the Commission's next scheduled regular meeting
following the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken. Upon receipt of the
request, the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on the agenda for that next
scheduled regular Commission meeting.
c. The request for reconsideration must be supported by written documentation setting forth
new facts and information not presented at the earlier meeting, or a changed situation that
has developed since the taking of the earlier vote, or information establishing an error of fact
or law in the earlier action. The request may also be supported by oral testimony at the
meeting.
d. If a motion to reconsider passes, the effect is the original matter is in the exact position it
occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. It will normally be returned to ACHD
staff for further review. The Commission may set the date of the meeting at which the
matter is to be returned. The Commission shall only take action on the original matter at a
meeting where the agenda notice so provides.
e. At the meeting where the original matter is again on the agenda for Commission action,
interested persons and ACHD staff may present such written and oral testimony as the
President of the Commission determines to be appropriate, and the Commission may take
any action the majority of the Commission deems advisable.
f. If a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a reasonable fee, to cover
administrative costs, as established by the Commission.
Request for Appeal of Staff Decision
1.
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.
7
b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the
Secretary of Highway Systems, Wllich 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.
I
Development Process Checkl ist
II
[8JSubmit a development application to a City or to the County
[8JThe City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD
C2,'JThe ACHD Planning Review Division will receive the development application to review
C2,'JThe Planning Review Division will do one of the following:
OSend a "No Review" letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific requirements at this time.
8
DSend a "Comply With" letter to the applicant stating that if the development is within a platted subdivision or part
of a previous development application and that the site specific requirements from the previous development also
apply to this development application.
ØWrite a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating
the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
DWrite a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and
evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy.
DThe Planning Review Division will hold a Technical Review meeting for all Staff and Commission Level reports.
DFor ALL development applications, including those receiving a "No Review" or "Comply With" letter:
. The applicant should submit two (2) sets of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development
Review Division for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required
by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee calculation.)
. The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-of-way,
including, but not limited to, driveway approaches. street improvements and utility cuts.
DPay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval.
DID YOU REMEMBER:
Construction (Zone)
0 Driveway or Property Approach(s)
. Submit a "Driveway Approach Request" form to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Construction (for approval by
Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval.
0 Working in the ACHD Right-ot-Way
. Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a "Temporary Highway Use Permit Application"
to ACHD Construction - Permits along with:
a) Traffic Control Plan
b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50' or you are
placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt.
Construction (Subdivisions)
0 Sediment & Erosion Submittal
. At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Con an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan
Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction - Subdivision to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Drainage
Division.
0 Idaho Power Company
. Vie Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being
scheduled.
0 Final Approval from Development Services
ACHD Construction - Subdivision must have received approval from Development Services prior to scheduling a Pre-Con.
9
-~~~ ~
Gee g~~TTR~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
~HEALTH Environmental Health Division
DEPARTMENT
Rezone # -
Conditional Use #
Preliminary / Final/Short Plat
G~f-e,wo..1-
'",1,
pp O~ - OOJ..-
VVI~yk(;.J-f lAc- ~ 5"""b t6lo1';S:; 0 '^
, .
¡,'-, c
~
i:,\.il.ï\J
Return to:
0 Boise
0 Eagle
0 Garden City
.3:Meridian
0 Kuna
OACZ
0 Star
" ::',
0 1. We have No Objections to this Proposal.
0 2. We recommend Denial of this Proposal.
0.3.. - ~pec.ifiQ knowledge as to !he ex~ct type of use must be provicjed before we can comment on this Proposal.
0 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this Proposal before we can comment.
0 5. Before we can comment concerning individual sewage disposal, we will require more data concerning the depth of:
0 high seasonal ground water 0 waste flow characteristics
0 or bedrock from original grade 0 other
0 6. This office will require a study to assess the impact of nutrients and pathogens to receiving ground waters and/or
surface waters.
0 7. This project shall be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources concerning well construction and
water availability.
de. After written approval from appropriate entities are submitted, we can approve this proposal for:
H central sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water well
0 interim sewage ~entral water
0 individual sewage 0 individual water
~ The following plan(s) must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality:
J8::Central sewage 0 community sewage system 0 community water
0 sewage dry lines ~ntral water
J8f1 O. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem.
0 11. This Department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other
considerations indicate approval.
0 12. If restroom facilities are to be installed, then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet Idaho State
Sewage Regulations.
~3. We will r~e plans be submitted for a plan review for any:
...esL food establishment 0 swimming pools or spas
0 beverage establishment 0 grocery store
0 child care center
0 14. Please see attached stormwater management recommendations
015.
Reviewed By: -.
:2D O,
/
15726.001 EHO904
Review Sheet
~ & ~ 1~ 'Dé4t/Ua
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 836-5; -4395
,,- FAX # 208.463-0092
,'-" "'--.
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nompo 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
,. ..
1 February 2006
Planning Department
City of Meridian
- - 660E. ~aJ:~rtower l-:!ne Suite202 -"
Meridian, ill 83642
-- - - - --
--- ----- ---- -- -- - -- - - ---
- - -- -
--. -- - - ---
-,,- -- - --- -
RE:
PP 06-002/Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Dear Anna:
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that 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 Milks Lateral courses through the
southern portion of this proposed project. This easement must be protected and any encroachment
without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is
unacceptable.
All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the
site, the Nampa & Meridian lITigation District must review drainage plans. The developer must
comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all
developments within the Nampa & Meridian lITigation District.
ALL WORK WITIDN NAMP A & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT FACILITIES MUST
BFCOMPLETEO BY MARCH 1~, 2006.
Sincerely,
13t/!J¡J~
Bill Henson, Asst. Water Superintendent
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District
BH/dbg
C: Crew Foreman
File - Office/Shop
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABlE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS. 40,000
~ & ~ ~~~Ue
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
2 February 2006
phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
Tamara Thompson
Landmark Development Group, LLC
1882 Toluka Way
Boise, ID 83712
-- -- _n______--
-- ------------,----_..--,----~-~--..-'---'-"-------- --- -..-
-------------,,- -- _n ..
RE:
Land Use Change Application - Gatewav MarketDlace Subdivision
Please note the District now reQuires three (3) sets of Dlans
Dear Ms. Thompson:
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,
Dictated by Ms. Moore and
mailed without signature
In her absence to avoid delay
Donna N. Moore, Asst. SecretarylTreasurer
NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
DNM/smc
cc: File
Water Superintendent
Meridian City Planning Department
James A. Kissler, 1125 W. Amity Road, Boise, ID
83705
enc.
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS. 23,000
BOISEPROJEG RIGHTS. 40,000
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE Of 2/16/2006
STAF}' REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
Hearing Date: February 16, 2006
cM'eri d i 1A \
IlJ.\HO f~
.~ )?
\~["~'1:-1" f~~"t~_\/"-!!!--'::':
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
P&Z Commission
Joseph Guenther, Associate Planner
Gateway Marketplace
PP-06-002 -.. Preliminary plat for 23 lots on 22.85 acres for Gateway Marketplace
by Landmark Development Group, LLC.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Landmark Development Group, LLC, is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat with a
Variance to Chapter 3 Article H of UDC to construct up to 250,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
uses on approximately 22.85 acres within the Gateway Marketplace development at the Southeast comer
of Us tick Road and Eagle Road/SH-55. This is the second application and would be the second
commercial project constructed within the Kissler aImexation project AZ-03-0 18. The 36.33-acre site was
approved for annexation with a Development Agreement (DA) in April 2004 under the name Kissler
Annexation (see File No. AZ-03-018). The DA (Instrument No. 104107406) requires that any future use
be consistent with the approved plans for the annexation. A concept plan for the overall site was
submitted with the preliminary plat application showing building layouts and drive aisles.
The Commission should note that a variance application, submitted concurrently with this preliminary
plat application will be before the City Council at a date to be detennined, the variance request proposes
two new approach to N. Eagle Road/State Highway 55, one for right-inlright-out access driveway and one
planned for a full access point. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has not approved any
approach pennits on this site and has made comment that this site does not qualify for access by standard
district policy. The overall design ofthe site is paramount on the approval ofthe Eagle Road approaches.
If the City Council denies the approaches, Stafffeels the design of the plat does not adequately provide a
frontage connection from U stick Road, the future collector road west of the site, or south to the future
signalized intersection with River Valley Drive. The Development Agreement for the 22.85 acres does
sufficiently address the interconnectivity of the site as a public street access to Ustick Road and two
approved approaches have been provided for by ACHD as well as a frontage road was required for tIns
site by the Development Agreement.
2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending continuance of the subject application (PP-06~002). Staff is recommending that the
Commission require the applicant to re-submit an amended plat which: 1) provides more articulation to
the building design and does not constitute a strip development, 2) provides a frontagelbackage road
east/west and connects with a private or limited access commercial street to Ustick, and 3) provides a
better design for cross access to the parcels east and south ofthe site. The ACHD staff report suPports the
requirements of cross access to adjacent parcels and compliance with the Eagle Road Corridor Study.
PROPOSED MOTIONS (to be considered after the public hearing)
Recommend Denial
I move to recommend denial of File Number PP-06-002 for the following reasons: (you should
state specific reasons for denial. You should address how the applicant might re-do the
application to gain your recommendation for approval.)
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
RE C E I'VE.D
rEB -1 3 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN pagel
(~ITY CLER( C':-::-IC',F
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
Recommend Continuance (Recommend Approval)
I move to continue File Numbers PP~06-002 for the hearing date of February 16, 2006, to -'
2006, For approval: and direct staff to draft findings and conditions for approval to (date ceI1ain)
and in addition to staff's comments, direct the applicant to make the following changes: (insert
comments here)
3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
a. Site Address/Location:
SE corner of Us tick Road and Eagle Road/SH55
Township 3N, Range 1 E, Section 4
b. Owner
James Kissler
1125 W. Amity
Boise Id 83705
c. Applicant:
Landmark Development Group, LLC
Tamara Thompson
1882 Toluka Way
Boise ill 83702
d. Representative:
e. Present Zoning:
Tamara Thompson, Landmark
General Retail and Commercial (C-G) (AZ-03-018
f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Mixed Use-Regional- 2002 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map
g. Description of Applicant's Request:
1. See Exhibit A (prepared by Landmark Development Group LLC) for a copy of the
detailed site plan which depicts the lot layout, building, parking and access locations.
Exhibit B shows the proposed landscape plan.
h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The application notes that the mixed use regional
designation provides for the overall site to be developed with a I11Îxture of RetaillRestaurant
/Drive thru and other Commercial uses oriented around automobile traffic. The applicant
notes that the site is an ideal location for a retail complex and will provide the additional
landscaping along drive aisles, the design review for structures along the gateway corridor.
4. PROCESS FACTS
a.
The subject applications will in fact constitute preliminary plats as determined by City
Ordinance. By reason ofthe provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11
Chapter 6, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter.
Newspaper notifications published on: 13th of February and 30th of January, 2006 (for
Planning & Zoning Commission)
Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January 20, 2006 (for Planning &
Zoning Commission)
Applicant posted notice on site by: February 6,2006 (for Planning & Zoning
Commission).
b.
c.
d.
5. LAND USE
a. Existing Land Use(s): Bare land, single faI11Îly residence
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
pagc 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAff REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Large lot residential, highway-oriented
services, rapidly urbanizing.
c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Future pad sites within Schmitchger Subdivision, Lowe's site zoned C-G.
2. West: Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision, Bienville Subdivision proposals, zoned
CRG, Rl, and RUT
3. South: undeveloped parcels zoned C-G with Redfeather Annexation.
4. East: Una Mas conceptual project and ACHD future right of way, zoned RUT-
proposed zone C~G
d. History of Previous Actions: In April 2004, the owners and City entered into a Development
Agreement for various High Density Commercial, Multi-family Residential, transitional, and
office uses under File AZ.03~018. Some property was annexed and zoned to General Retail
and Commercial (C-G) with a Development Agreement while other portions of the property
(on the west side of Eagle Road) were not included in the annexation leaving out parcels
which were addressed with the original conceptual plan.
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer:
Location of water:
Extension of mains in U stick Road
Extension of mains in Ustick Road
Issues or concerns:
Water main connection in Eagle Road is required.
2. Vegetation: Agricultural/Irrigated
3. Flood plain: N/A
4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Milk Lateral bisects the property
5. Hazards: None identified
6. Size of Property: 22.85 acres
7. Description of Use: Up to 250,000 square feet of Retail, Commercial, and
Restaurant uses and associated parking and landscape improvements.
f. Subdivision Plat Inforrnation-
The submitted plat contains 23 lots in a C-G proposed zone with commercial uses.
Commercial uses are shown to be a mix of restaurantlretail spaces with six approximate
30,000 square foot buildings and 8 approximate 3,000 to 6,000 square foot buildings and
8 approximate 2,000 square foot attached buildings, and one approximate 40,000 square
foot officelretail building.
g. Landscaping -
1. Width of street buffer(s): Per the Future Land Use Map, both Ustick Road and Eagle
Road are designated as "Entryway Corridors." As such, the UDC (Table 11-2B-3)
requires a 35-foot wide street buffer adjacent to both roadways. The landscape plan
(Sheet Ll.l) proposes a 35-foot wide buffer along both Ustick and Eagle Roads. Ifthe
applicant proposes to construct the "Entryway Corridor" buffers in easements they
must meet the landscaping standards required in the ODe.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
2. Percentage of site as open space: The UDC does not require open space or site
amenities for cOlmnercial uses.
4. Other landscaping standards: The landscape butTer along Ustick Road should be
constructed in accordance with ODC Chapter 3, Article B.
h. Planned Development Characteristics - N/ A
i. Conditional OseJnformation:
1. Non-residential square footage:
250,000
2. Proposed building height: 65 feet
3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: 25%
4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: Not defined
5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: Not defined
6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: N/ A
7. Number of Residential units:
N/A
j. Amenities - The applicant is not required to provide an amenity
k. Off-Street Parking (residential uses) - N/A
1. Proposed and Required Residential Standards - N/ A
m. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Parking - One off-street parking space required for
every 500 square feet of gross floor area. Also, one Type A and one Type B parking space
required for the loading area (per UDC 11-3C-8). The proposed total building floor area is
250,000 s.f., which requires 500 parking spaces. There are no Type A or Type B spaces
shown, and the total number of parking spaces has not been calculated. This may be
addressed during detailed CUP review, CZC review, and/or building design review but the
design appears to meet the minimum standards of the UDC parking requirements.
n. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.):
. The applicant is proposing two new access points to Eagle Road/SH55 to serve
the Gateway Marketplace project at approximately 700 feet and 1200 feet south
of the U stick/Eagle Intersection.
As noted above, lTD must issue a right-inlright-out permit and a full access permit for
this site, and the access is fl.lrther contingent on the Meridian City Council granting a
variance to UDC 11-3H. At this time the policy in place would be for backage roads to
serve this site and provide connection to the 'l2 mile and the collector road systems. lTD
has submitted a letter indicating that they will not make a decision on approving access to
Eagle Road until such a time as the Meridian City Council has formally acted on the
Variance request. City staff does not support any access to Eagle Road in this location.
In addition, the recorded DA between the applicant and the City requires either a public
or private street be constructed parallel to Eagle Road/SH55 that may connect to the north
boundary and may also connect to Eagle Road, if allowed by lTD at a point to be
determined by ACHD. AClID has stated that the applicant shall provide cross access
south and east to connect to the future collector roadway east of the site and the
connection to the signalized access proposed south of the site at River Valley Drive.
This project along with the Una Mas Project east of the site will connect with Ally Street,
a proposed public street serving as a collector roadway to the entire area.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 4
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
In addition, the applicant is proposing two new access points to Ustick Road at the
following locations:
. Driveway # 1 - 350 feet east of Eagle (right-inlright-out with center median)
. Driveway #2 - 700 feet cast of Eagle (full access)
Ustick Road, from Leslie Drive to Ally Street (on the east side of Eagle Road), including
the Eagle Road intersection, has just been widened and improved to five lanes. The
intersection was widened to include dual left turn lanes.
The applicant's preliminary plan does not show a new public, cross access, or
commercial street extending south of Us tick Road for future connection to the east and
south. The preliminary plat (Sheet PP-l) shows a loading road as an approximate 40- foot
street section from the full access on Ustick, continuing as a commercial service drive to
the end of the southern boundary of the site where one east-west break is proposed. The
area (Kissler Annexation site) concept plan shows the road connecting to the properties
south and east of the site with a frontagelbackage road system. The area plan (Una Mas
Annexation) shows private, internal driveways connecting to the future public street; such
driveways run mostly east/west connecting the Kissler site to Ally Street and ultimately
Ustick Road.
For a detailed report on both ITD's and ACHD's actions and comments, please see the
letters/reports submitted with the application.
6. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On December 28th 2005, staff held an agency comments
meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian
Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff will included all
comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval if the Meridian Planning
Commission requests approval of the design as presented. If the Meridian Plal1llÎng Commission
agrees with the staff analysis that a redraw of the plat will be required of the site then staff will
provide comments at such time as a new proposal is ready for Commission review.
7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated 'Mixed
Use~Regional' on the Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation
is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where
innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The MU-R has no upper limit on the square
footage of non-residential uses and is intended to allow a broad range of uses.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the
proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy):
.
Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services.
(Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1)
When the City established its Area of City Impact. it planned to provide City services to the
su~ject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed to be annexed in the following manner:
. The subject lands currently lie within thejurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian
City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the
Meridian Rural Fire Department.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 5
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/I 6/2006
.
The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's
Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police
Department (MPD).
The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change.
The subject lands are currently senJiced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
The suQject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Librmy District. This
service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no
revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation.
.
.
.
.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department;
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B: Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities
within the Impact Area.
Stafffinds that the site is designatedfor MU-R on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map. Although strictly commercial uses have not been !'pecifically plannedfor this property
on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map the Development Agreementfrom the
annexation shows this portion as commercial and consistent with the overall site plan when
combined with the proposed Bienville Subdivision, and Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision
which are all bound by the same development agreement. The bulk proposal of uses would
also meet the general classifications for mixed use regional.
.
Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, ActionS: Locate new community commercial areas on
arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining
residential areas.
Ustick Road is classified as an arterial roadway. The applicant is not proposing access from
the adjoining commercial areas by way of cross access, sidewalks or shared streets which
will provide future connection to residential areas east of the site along Ustick Road. Staff
believes that the commercial areas proposed compliment the existing and planned residential
areas in the vicinity but better connection must be planned tofacilitate non-arterial
commercial collector connection to the site
.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D: Encourage appropriate land uses along transportation
corridors.
Staff believes that the proposed land uses are appropriate along the adjoining transportation
corridors (Ustick Road and Eagle Road). Staff supports the proposed uses at this site as they
are consistent with the Mixed use regional district and the approved development agreement.
.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on
collectors and arterial streets.
The ACHD evaluates access points in their analysis; no direct lot access is allowed to any of
the arterial/collector roadways. The proposed access points to the arterial streets generally
comply with ACHD 's standards as detailed in the staff report. Please see the ACHD staff
report contained in the/ìle.
ITD has indicated that they will not act on the proposed access points to Eagle Road until
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
such a time as the Meridian City Council acts on the variance requests-
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has a policy./òr access to a Type IV Principal
Arterial will be at intersections only, and spaced at one-ha(fmile intervals in urban areas.
ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in !!ipecial cases and on a temporary basis.
The Eagle Road access shall be eliminatedfYom this project.
.
Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers
along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, bemIs, etc.).
The applicant is proposing to construct appropriate buffers along all of the adjacent arterial
streets. By Ordinance, a minimum 35:foot wide landscape buffer to Gateway Corridors. The
landscape plan shows the appropriate landscape buffers.
Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this
application:
.
"Require all new parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands." (Chapter V, Goal
III, Obj. D, #3, page 43)
"Eagle Road is the major north-south arterial in Ada County. The capacity of this arterial
should be protected by minimizing the number and location of private driveway access
connections to this important roadway. The City should recognize, adopt, and help implement
the Eagle Road Access Control Study, prepared by ACHD in 1997." (Chapter VI, page 71)
"The capacity of arterial. . .roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway
connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimize access
points on arterial. . .roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page
72)
"Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of
existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79).
"Identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as
offices and other low intensity uses." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #7, page 102)
"Restrict curb cuts and access points on. . . arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D,
#5, page 107)
.
.
.
.
.
8. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11~2B-2lists retail
store/restaurant/drive thrul office/ financial institute uses as pennitted uses in the C-G zoning
district.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide
for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. Four Districts are designated which ditler in the size and scale of commercial structures
accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location
of the district in proximity to streets and highways. C-G General Retail And Service
Commercial District: The purpose ofthe C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which
are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review
ofthe impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located
in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need oftravel-related
services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such
districts shall be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city, and shall not
constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial
development.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
c. General Off-Street Parking Standards (from UDC 11~3C-5):
The following standards shall apply for off-street vehicle parking for nonresidential uses: In all
Commercial Districts the requirement shall be one (1) space for everv five hundred (500) square
feet of gross floor area.
d. Structures Subject to Design Standards (ll-3A-19B5): All structures on property adjacent to
an entryway corridor (UstickiEagle Roads) are subject to the design standards listed in this
section.
e. Outdoor storage/refuse areas (11-3A-12): Outdoor utility meters, HV AC equipment, trash
dumpsters, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall
design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are
fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets.
f. Development along State and Federal Highways (11-3H-4B2): If an applicant proposes a change
or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other
than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be
abandoned and removed.
a. No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed.
b. Public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at:
1.
the section line road; and
ii. the half-mile mark between section line roads. These half-mile connecting streets shall be
collector roads.
Section 11-3H -3: The applicant shall construct a street, generally paralleling the state highway,
be designed to accommodate future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state
highway that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or half
mile collector road. The intent is to provide jor future connectivity and access to all properties
fronting the state highway that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line
road and/or half-mile collector road. The street shall be designed to collect and distribute traffic
(emphasis added).
9. ANALYSIS
9a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
The PP application does not substantially comply with the Unified Development Code. However,
there are several areas of clarification and some modifications required to both the site plan and
plat layout in order for staff to recommend full approval of the application. Below are several
special considerations for the P&Z Commission to review at the public hearing:
Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
PP Application (PP~06-002): The proposed preliminary plat can be conditioned to comply
with the Unified Development Code.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-00Z
page 8
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2116/2006
Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance
of the proposed development with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that tIlis is a
good location for the proposed development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the
required facts and findings for a Zoning Amendment.
Non-Residential Buildings: The applicant has requested a maximum of 250,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant/office spaces. Staff does not propose to limit the applicant to their request as this
area is designated as commercial, is surrounded by other commercial uses and is a prime location
for intense commercial uses designed in a clustered fashion.
Drive Thru Separation: The applicant has requested several lots to be drive thru retail uses which
have a spacing requirement of 300'. Since the site plan is conceptual in nature staff feels that the
applicant shall design the site to meet the 300' standard separation for drive thm uses with this
application. If a drive~thru use is proposed within 300' of another drive thru then, a conditional
use application must be approved.
Access to SR 55/ Eagle Road: The applicant has requested an access point to Eagle Road.
According to ITD records, the applicant has subnlitted a request for access permit but is not
vested with an access point for this location as the change in use is the deciding factor as to when
an access point be granted. Currently the site has no access to Eagle Road and the use is
agricultural/residential where the plat will change the use to commercial and is subject to the
design requirements of UDC 11-3R. UDC requires that all access for Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision shall be taken from Ustick Road at points determined by ACHD.
Uses: All other lots shall be limited to Office/Retail/Restaurant/Drive tbru uses and General
Commercial uses listed as permitted in UDC Table 11-2B-2. Any uses (excepting Drive thru)
not listed as permitted shall be subject to conditional approval.
Sidewalks: The applicant is not proposing to construct internal sidewalks on some of the internal
streets/drive aisles. The design does show the incorporation of the eight-foot walkway which is
directed to the main access to the commercial building. When and if the plat is resubmitted as
recommended, the applicant shall provide a more defined pedestrian access corridor showing
collector designed roadways with a detached sidewalk on one side, designed in compliance with
the Private Street standards listed in UDC 11-3F. Since the applicant has submitted a plan which
is conceptual in nature staff feels the sidewalk locations shall be made consistent with the UDC
including drive aisles which shall include a detached sidewalk. The second drive aisle access
point to Ustick Road shall be designed with the private street sections as listed in UDC 11-3F and
subject to including sidewalks.
Landscape Street Buffers:
Arterials: UDC 11-2B requires a 35-foot wide street buffer along classified arterial roadways
and entryway corridors. Eagle Road and Ustick Road are classified as Arterial Roads. On the
submitted landscape plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a 35-foot wide street buffer
along Ustick Road and Eagle Road. The applicant should be required to depict the required
street buffers on the face of the final plat in an easement or place the required buffers in
common lots as per ODC Ilh3B. See Exhibit B below.
Commercial Streets: UDC 11-2B requires a lO-foot wide street buffer along commercial
roadways. The submitted plat does not include commercial cross access east and south. Staff
feels that a designed commercial cross access street shall be provided and subject to the
landscape standards for commercial street buffers. Within the 10-foot street buffer, a
detached sidewalk shall be provided.
Ditches. Laterals. and Canals: There are several irrigation laterals that bisect this parcel. Per ODC
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 9
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR HIE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
ll-3A~6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled. The
applicant is proposing to tile al1 of the irrigation facilities located on site. See Exhibit B below.
Pressure Irrie:ation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied
by a yeaHound source of water (UDC 11-3A-15). The applicant should be required to utilize any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,
a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point
connection is used, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the
common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground,
pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved
specifications and in accordance with City Code. See Site Exhibit B below.
Fencing: The applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. A detailed
fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat (UDC 11-3A- 7). If permanent
fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around
the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance
with City Code. See Exhibit B below.
Cross-access h1temal: There are some commercial lots that do not have frontage on a public
street. Instead the applicant is proposing to provide cross-access easements to the lots that do not
have public street frontage. Because several of the proposed lots do not have ftontage on a public
street, the applicant should provide a cross parking/cross access agreement for all of the lots
within the retail and other commercial portions of the subdivision to use the driveways and
parking aisles. The site should be redesigned to provide a backage road on Eagle Road. Access to
Eagle road shall be determined by the Meridian City Council and at least the non-signalized
access point to Ustick Road shall be designed to serve as a commercial collector for
intercol1l1ectivity to the south and vehicular movement in the north/south direction in cooperation
with the parcel east of the site. Maintenance of the drive aisles and parking areas should be
provided for in a note on the face of the final plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCRs. See
Exhibit B below.
Cross-access South: The applicant shall be required to provide cross access to the parcels south
of the site. The project is a portion of a larger site project (Kissler Annexation) and the sites shall
maintain consistent traffic flow for the entire site.
Eae:le Road Access: The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has a policy for access to a
Type IV Principal 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. The access points shown at approximately 700 feet south and 1,200 feet south of the
Ustick Eagle Road intersection shall be eliminated as it does not meet criteria of either ITD or the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Loading Space Parking: UDC 11-3C-8 requires off-street loading spaces for commercial uses.
The Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application shall clearly demonstrate that both a
Type A and Type B space are available on site, located near the refuse/service area behind the
building.
Elevations: The applicant has not submitted building elevations of the proposed structures. The
application lists the proposed building materials, including stone, brick, stucco and timber to be
accented with chrome, aluminum and gloss painted trims. UDC 11-3A-19 requires all structures
on property adjacent to an entryway corridor to comply with the design standards listed in this
section. Staffs interpretation of the UDC is that the applicant may choose to place the "primary
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 10
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
entrance" on an elevation other than the public street side. However, the public street elevations
(Ustick Road and Eagle Road) must still meet the other standards listed in 11-3A-19 (except for
the primary entrance standards).
The elevations will need to be reviewed prior to issuance of CZC to comply with the following
ordinance standards:
a) Facades: Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the façade,
roof line recesses, and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the
length of the facade.
b) Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging
eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e)
corruces.
c) Mechanical equipment: All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line.
d) Color and Materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high-
quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Smooth-faced concrete
block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent
materials.
Refuse/Service Area Screen: Neither the Site Plan or Landscape Plan call-out how or ifthe
refuse/service area on the east side of the buildings will be screened. UDC 11-3A-12 requires the
visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent
properties and public streets. The applicant's CZC application must clearly demonstrate how this
standard is met.
Cross Access: The property to the south is dependent on access for intercol1l1ectivity and is
directly tied with the existing Development Agreement for providing a frontage road to Ustick
Road. The applicant has provided a design not showing any points of access within the
immediate vicinity. These points of access are paramount on the success of the general area and
staff feels a minimum of three points of cross access shall be provided to the east and one point of
access to the south, which shall all be designed to private street standards for pedestrian and
vehicular traffic circulation.
Strip Development: The purpose statement of the General Commercial District specifically
reads, "shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of
commercial development." The comprehensive plan policies further reads, "Use the
comprehensive plan, subdivision regulations, and zoning to discourage strip development, and
encourage clustered, landscaped business or residential development on entryway corridors."
There are six larger scale buildings and eight small scale buildings all attached on one or two
walls. The overall length of the building is approximately 880 feet long of the approximately
1,330 feet of the entire length of the site which is over 2/3rds of the site. Adding on the
approximate 230 feet of the building shown on lot 18 and the retail buildings fronting Us tick
Road and the overall length of buildings approaches 1,200 feet and approximately 90 percent of
the face of the site would be developed. Furthermore, the overall length of the parking lot would
only exclude the 35' landscape buffer to Ustick Road and become an overall length of98% of the
site length as parking lot, approached in a north south direction. Furthennore, if the parcel south
of the site is developed in a similar fashion the City of Meridian would be seeing a parking lot
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
approaching ~ mile in length. This constitutes a strip development. Staffwollld recommend
the applicant break the parcel into clusters of small/medium/larger sites which would be
connected by a backage road north south with an east west connection.
9b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the Preliminary Plat
applications needs to be revised to confonn to the adopted DA, Comprehensive Plan policies and
ODC standards. As noted under staff analysis we recommend the building elevations be
submitted in compliance with the enttyWay corridor standards, the access point to Eagle Road be
eliminated and redesigned, and a private street section for cross access provided to the south be
added to the preliminary plat in place of the proposed Eagle Road access, the site be redesigned
as not to constitute a strip development and an internal backage road be designed to facilitate
vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the full access provided on Ustick Road. We recommend
continuance of the application for redesign in order to meet the concerns of staff as detailed in
this report subject to revision of the preliminary conditions shown in Exhibit B or denial of the
application. Staff has not provided findings with this staff report and will provide findings for
approval or denial at the direction of the Commission.
10. EXHffiITS
A. Drawings
1. Preliminary Plat (by The Land Group, dated November 15, 2005)
2. Landscape Plan (by The Land Group, dated September 15,2005)
B. Legal Description
C. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Parks Department
6. Sanitary Services
7. ACHD
D. Required Findings from UDC
1. Preliminary Plat-Pending
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
PP-O6-002
page 12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2116/2006
Exhibit AI: Preliminary Plat PP-1(The Land Group) Dated November 15,2005
--.._--- --. - -
..----------",
'-""-""-------.---.-----..,,-
---- -----~.._-_._..-.- -.-
!~
-"
.jJ
:I~
:' ~
.'ic.
IJ
¡:
!~
h
, ,"
I;,
, -~~
i.'
¡'1
-,,: a
"'"
. ,-
,-' -
i"...JI-C- --,' .' I I I'
:t~-".L1.i:;----_..- _/ III
.. '¡çJ; r~----. -,~b t.'.~,-~I-:ð1fr~~lj~
.:.i!I¡,--"",-,'+--":if>-j""'-r"";';'-Î,J':r-",."/'iL_-J'~-
-I....;-:t;;~i;'/; '". I," -iF't",jJ:'O'-"..".
"':I(,..' :,;¡.II"i'r.)i';'i,-;¡¡iI",.:~;,7i;.i.
II'" :r:'~!XJ["J ~l :i~I~ '~! 'L,)'¡ I~i¡,fui. '
':: ,i:'i' r ii I¡".>" r ;~~,Íj:~'-~I
""':".. I,: '---t~J,_w~'::'1
¡, ':"-L'::' iJ" ~-{r----L-..-,~~ ---l ~ ~~\, 'f?
'--_L- .-~r~_.._--__i_L~.~,.j.L~,J~" i- -. ii'.~Li'_:;'!':
"
5
D
~
;;
0
~
-"
cc
!'" '-':
,-- "",,( Is
i æ
;¡;W¡¡ ¡Ii ¡: i~ ,Ij
.' .. . -.. ;¡ --,.. ..
. "
""IY :
J'"" r It"
r_~~-
r .C iI: - "8.j',;~~¡ (.;.ì!I::"\i\rr'.1/,f\I<I..'H'ìCl,:-;l.Lml\î::;!U.\j ]] T'^",2
; ,'. "T.- :- ~_I:l~~-=--,:,~':~:::i~~:-_-=~n- -J;!
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit A Pagc 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
Exhibit A2: Landscape Plan L1.](The Land Group) Dated September ]5, 2005
.,- "", ,,- - ",-
¡¡¡Ii
!~ .
.;
:~
IT! ~-- "'.~ , ~--f-"]___"~'
i -:; ;; '! t.< I.!" -.- -~.,.(~I .. --- G~t~way M~~kelpl~~~'- ... . . .!L È:
'= ".4 .Iie: ' ¡filii ~'(.It~ !PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE F>LAN¡ :' :;; ~.S!
.," _....':._---_...~"~=--l,--~~' ---, --'--"-'-=--- r,1[f\:!')-'~~~,;r;~\lI~)- ,. UH- . ,;:: I
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit A Page 2
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2116/2006
Exhibit B: Legal Description
~Iaiborn ... waite consultìf19¡...!I.<,
engineers 8, surveyors
120 N. Curtis Rd.
Boise, Idaho 83706
(208) 376-8555
Fax (208) 429-9862
P.N. 2279
October 20, 2005
PARCEL "A"
US TICK PROPERTY
REMAINDER PARCEL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land lying in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, T.3N., R.IE., H.M., Ada
County, Idaho, and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest oomer of said Section 4, thence S 89" 49'08" E along the
North boundary of said Section 4 and the centerline of Us tick Road for a distance of
97.62' feet;
thence leaving said North boundary and centerline S or 50'52" W for a distance of77.96
feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of Us tick Road, being the REAL POINT
OF BEGINNING;
thence along said South right-of-way line for the following 13 courses:
N 44' 02'14" E for a distance of47.06 feet;
thence S 89' 49'08" E for a distance of 262.81 feet;
thence S 4Z 51 '21" E for a distance of 41.18 feet;
thence N 87 17'10" E for a distance of29.03 feet;
thence N 4Z 43'35" E for a distance of40.57 feet;
thence N 89" 13 '34" E for a distance of 179.28 feet (formerly described as 179.20 feet);
:kiJL,,~'O:i :;S-:;::"¡:(u!..ci.,SI;';h--<..U; ;\.':'JWta,
thence S 89" 49'08" E for a distance of 10.00 feet;
,I¡"IIc<.:I\i (, ;...'.:. t.. U';""~I:".C:l'l>r¡~4jleel.
ClProjectslUstickLl.A (2279)lOocumentslParoel A.doc" I "
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit B Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFf REPORT fOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
daiborll 4. waite consulting~
engineers & surveyors
120 N. Curtis Rd.
Boise, Idaho 83706
(208) 376---8555
Fax (208) 429-9862
P.N. 2279
October 20, 2005
PARCEL "B"
USTICK PROPERTY
5.51 ACRE SPLIT
A parcel of land lying in the Northwest ]/4 of Section 4, T.3N., RIE., B.M., Ada
County, Idaho, and being more Particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Section 4, thence S 89' 49'08" E along the
North boundary of said Section 4 and the centerline of Ustick Road for a distance of
97.62' feet;
thence leaving said North boundary and centerline S or 50'52" W for a distance of 77.96
feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of Eagle Road;
thence along said East right--of-way line S or 50'52" W for a distance of 1038.43 feet to
the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence continuing along said East right-of-way line S 0 r 50' 52" W for a distance of
154.90 feet;
thence N 00' 36'13" E for a distance of93.77 feet to the South boundary of Government
Lot 4 of said Section 4;
thence leaving said East right-of-way line S 89' 51'00" E for a distance of 700.02 feet;
thence S oa 36' 13" W along said East right-of-way line for a distance of I 14.17 feet;
thence S 89 51 '00" E along said South boundary for a distance of 6 1,35 feet;
thence N 89" 51 '00" W for 8 distance of363.00 feet;
thf>!,,"""""'¡!"¡"' ~~H ">l:'h ":W:11!:;r:' 1" Drt" "'i"')O.' f f"_-,, ,Loii"'lI.. ....':-~:---i'-:-':¡ f~,~t.
tI,'n::, '1>(1 !' r¡O'\V;~,;;,;Jj-,.I¡'i'\(\I{C. v) let.!.
C:\Projec¡S\USlickLLA (2279)\Documenls\pan:e1 a.doc- I -
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit B Page 3
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 211612006
thence N 89" 51 '00" \"1 for a distance of} TrOD feet;
thence S OU 09'00" W for it distance of 34.50 feet;
thence N 89" 51 '00" W tor a distance of218.67 feet to the REAL POfNT OF
BEGINNING;
containing 5,51 acres of land, more or less.
Prepared by; Todd R. Waite PL.S.
C:\Projects\UstickLLA (2279)\IJocuments\ParœlA.doc- 2 -
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
] .1.8
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.1.11
1.1.12
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
C. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
SITE SPECIFIC REQUlREMENTS- (Gateway Marketplace)
1.1.1
The preliminary plat labeled as PP-l prepared by The Land Group, dated November 15, 2005,
shall be redesigned, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the
accompanying Annexation and Zoning (AZ-03~018) Development Agreement shall also be
considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat.
UDC 1] -3C-8 requires off~street loading spaces for commercial uses. The Certificate of Zoning
Compliance (CZC) application for this project shall clearly demonstrate that adequate parking is
available on site, located near the refuse/service area designed at the building.
Graphically depict on the face of the plat, the required 35-foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick
Road and Eagle Road.
1.1.2
1.1.3
No direct lot access to Ustick Road or Eagle Road will be allowed. The existing driveways to
Eagle Road may be for construction purposes if approved by lTD. At such time, direct access to
Eagle Road shall be prohibited.
That prior to signature of the city engineer cross access to parcels east and south of the site be
granted.
The applicant shall provide at a minimum one commercial cross access drive to the properties
east of the site which shall be designed according to private street standards as listed in UDC 11-
3F, with a minimum of 24' travel way, no parking backing on to the service drive, a one side five
foot detached sidewalk with a 5' landscape buffer. The commercial cross access drive is to
provide connection from the future Public Roadway (Ally Street) east of the site, through the Una
Mas Annexation site, and provide the most direct vehicular traffic flow to a public road system.
The applicant shall work with ACHD to detern1Ìne if a public frontage road shall be provided at
the southern boundary of the site. One half of a 42' public roadway design for a frontage/backage
road shall be reserved at this site until such a time as ACHD staff provides a written statement
refusing the reserved area.
Depict on the tàce of the final plat a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along a future commercial
access roadway to be designed along the easterly most access point to Ustick Road. Said
landscape buffers shall be in either a common lot or an easement adjacent to the rights of way.
The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, labeled Sheets LS 1.1, is not approved with
these applications a landscape plan consistent with UDC 11 ~3B shall be submitted with the final
plat which reflects any changes made to the preliminary plat to redesign the subdivision
consistent with approved access points. Including but not limited to full landscaping along Eagle
Road which currently shows two access points.
With the final plat application, submitted revised copies of the landscape plan with the changes
listed above.
Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision Business' Owners Association(s)
The applicant shall submit from the COlUlty Surveyors Office the appropriate documentation
showing that usage of Gateway Marketplace as an approved subdivision name.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 1
1.1.18
1.1.19
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
1.1.13 Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment will be screened from view from any public right-of-
way. The applicant shall submit drawings at the time of CZC submission that demonstrate this
condition is complied with.
1.1.14
1.1.15
The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11.
The awnings on the west and north elevations shall extend at least 20 feet beyond the entry doors,
measured from the building face to the outer edge of the awning for the retail buildings. The
applicant shall submit a drawing at the time of CZC application submission to demonstrate
compliance with this condition.
Comply with UDC 11-3A-12 regarding a screen for the refuse/service area.
No irrigation pump station or facility is shown on the Site Plan. However, if one is proposed for
the site, it must be located outside of any required street buffer. Impervious surfaces are
prohibited in said buffers.
Prior to the City Engineer's signature of the final plat, all existing structures shall be removed
from the site.
1.1.16
1.1.17
Provide internal cross access/cross parking agreement(s) for all lots in Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision. All cross access drive aisles shall only approach the ACHD approved points of
access to the public street system. Maintenance of the aisle and parking areas shall be provided
for in a note on the face of the final plat, AND/OR in a document such as CCR's.
Other than the points of access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to Dstick Road and Eagle
Road is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to Eagle Road and
Us tick Road.
1.1.21 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
1.1.20
1.1.22
1.1.23
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
1.1.1
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT
1.1.2
1.1.3
Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision
pursuant to City Code.
All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All
stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subj ect to UDC 11-
3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated
surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11- 3A-
18. Where the applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where staff has reviewed
such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as
proposed by staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved
open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the
facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of
the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at
the time of final construction.
The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the
subdivision. If permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 2
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARfNG DATE OF 2/1 6/2006
1.1.4
debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing
should be installed in accordance with City Code.
Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing
additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed.
Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to
be mitigated.
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13, unless
otherwise approved by the Irrigation District(s). Plans will need to be approved by the
appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written
approval or nonhapproval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association
approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to final plat signature.
1.1.5
1.1.6
Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved Preliminary Plat does
not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A.
1.1.7
2. Public Works Department
2.1
Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in Ustick
Road. The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate
main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of
easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains
is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials
shall be used in confonnance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in V stick Road. The applicant
shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size
and routing with Public Works.
Due to the commercial uses on this project, a connection to the water main in Eagle Road shall be
required to guarantee adequate fire flow. Coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works
Department.
The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat
but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian' s standard fonus. Submit an
executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area
of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document. '
The applicant has indicated the pressure irrigation system in this development is to be maintained
as a private system, therefore plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works
Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and
maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required
prior to final plat signature on the last phase ofthis project.
The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 3
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAfF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2116/2006
2.7
2.8
source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single~point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
AU existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from
domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-
domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
2.9
All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6.
Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association
(ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department.
If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature.
A drainage plan designed by a State ofIdaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall
be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1 ~91) for all off~street parking areas. Stonn water
treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental
Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Stonn Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities
and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is
prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving streanl provides written
authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all
necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow
Injection Wells.
Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed,
drainage lots constructed, road base approved and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be
recorded, prior to applying for building pern1Ïts.
A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to
signature on the final plat.
All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths,
pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining
certificates of occupancy.
Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as detennined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the tìnal plat
per Resolution 02-374.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Pennitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Anny Corps of Engineers.
Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
2.10
2.11
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 211 6/2006
3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation.
3. Meridian Fire Department
3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fIre protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water
quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
3.2
Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 W' outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shallnot face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications.
d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits.
e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing
buildings within 1,000 feet ofthe project.
3.3
All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
radius.
3.4
Provide a 20~foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in
accordance with Appendix D Section D 1 03.6 Signs.
Operational fIfe hydrants, temporary or pennanent street signs and access roads with an all weather
surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the International Fire
Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D.
The 23 office/commercial lots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an
unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has
experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency
Services Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and
3800 by the year 2010.
Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure.
Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy.
The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan
and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required
intersection(s ).
The Fire Dept. has concerns about the ability to address the project and have the addresses visible
from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact Vicki Heugly at 898-5500 to
address this concern prior to the public hearing.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 5
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2116/2006
3.12
All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall
be required to comply with the Intematiollal Fire Code.
3.13
Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the Intemational Building & Fire Codes.
3.14
\ Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fIfe apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout
with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
i. For Group R~3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m).
ii. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183
m).
There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections.
Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with Appendix D
Section D I 05.
Side yard fences shall not be allowed.
Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m2) shall
be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having
a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 m2) that have a single approved fIre
apparatus access road when all buildings are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler
systems. (Remoteness Required)
4. Police Department
4.1 The police department supports the requirement for a frontage road as the length and bulk of the
proposed buildings impedes serviceability to all sides of the project.
5. Parks Department
5.1 Standard for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance 11-3B will be followed.
5.2
5.3
6.
Standard Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standard established in
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance
Tree Grate and Tree Box standard: The proposed tree grate shall be a 6 foot by 6 foot, cast iron,
French pattern tree grate. This grate shall be placed in a 6 foot by 6 foot inside diameter tree box
with a steel grate frame set in concrete. Prior to CZC approval, contact Meridian Parks and
Recreation Department for specifications and tree box construction drawings.
Sanitary Service Company
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 6
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/1 6/2006
6.1
Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit
stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application.
Ada County Highway District
7.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
7.1
Re~construct the northern driveway, on the adjacent t1ag lot, as a curb return driveway with
minimum15~foot curb radii. This driveway shall be no wider than 30-feet.
7.2
Construct one new curb return driveway with minimum 15-foot curb radii located approximately
120-feet north of the south property line as proposed on the revised site plan. This driveway shall
be no wider than 30-feet.
7.3
Close the existing curb cut driveway located approximately 96-feet south ofthe north property
line with curb, gutter, and sidewalk to match existing improvements.
7.4
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Approval
7.5
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or
right-of-way.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
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.
Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy.
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 nW11bers) for
details.
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.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building pennit
(or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
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.
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 7
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify aII 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.
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 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.
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 subj ect property unless
a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect
at the time the change in use is sought.
Exhibit D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Preliminary Plat Findings (UDC 11-6B-6):
In determining the acceptance of a proposed subdivision, the Commission and Council shall consider the
objectives of this Title and at least the following:
A. The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Development Plan;
In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, 'Mixed Use Regional' is defined as areas including
commercial and residential development consistent with auto and service oriented uses. Staff finds
that the requested General Commercial (C-G) zoning designation is in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map, which delineates the subject property as "Mixed Use-
Regional". The purpose of the C-G district is "to provide for a review of the impact of proposed
commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major
highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the
transient and permanent motoring public."
Staff finds that the proposed zoning is in general confonnance with the comprehensive plan (please
see Section 7 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that
apply to this development). The applicant wiII need to revise the site design and allow staff time to
complete a detailed analysis in relation to the interconnectivity of the site, compliance with the Eagle
Road corridor provisions, and general classification for the site layout ( not constituting a strip
development)
B. The availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development;
The site is intended for commercial uses which, based on the Comprehensive Plan description, will
have such uses as retail, wholesale, service and office uses, as well as appropriate public uses such as
government offices. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of all utilities necessary to
serve this proposed development. Pennanent sanitary sewer service to this development is to be
Gateway Marketplace Subdivision
Exhibit C Page 8
~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF 2/16/2006
provided by the extension of sewer in Ustick Road and extended south through the site to be looped
with extensions in Eagle Road. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of utilities to and
through this proposed development. Sizing and routing shall be coordinated with the PubJic Works
Department.
Other urban services, such as water, are near to this site and the applicant should be able to extend
such services to the site.
The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay park and highway impact fees.
ACHD has submitted a staff report with site specific and standard conditions which will is attached as
Exhibit C. On December 28, 2005, a joint agency/department comments meeting was held with
representatives of key service providers to this property. Based on the joint agency/department
meeting and other comments received from agencies/departments, staff finds that except for sanitary
sewer, the public services listed above can be made available to accommodate the proposed
development. The Commission and Council should reference any written and/or verbal testimony
submitted by any public service provider, regarding their ability to adequately service tIllS project.
If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure,
utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future
residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Staff fmds there will not be excessive
additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed zoning and subsequent development will
not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
C. The continuity of the proposed development with the capital improvement program;
Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, the
subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds.
D. The public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Please see Exhibit B for comments and conditions from other agencies and departments.
E. The other health, safety or environmental problems that may be brought to the Commission's
attention.
Staff is not aware of any health, safety or general welfare problems associated with the development
of this subdivision that should be brought to the Councilor Commission's attention. ACHD considers
road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any
public testimony that may be presented to deternllne whether or not the proposed subdivision may
cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware.
Staff would not find the existing design in the best interests of the City of Meridian due to the lack of
intercol1l1ectivity to the surrounding properties. The lack of a frontage road isolates tIllS parcel as a
strip development that does not provide the best product for future servicing of the site by fire, police
and general citizens of the City of Meridian. Staff recommends redesign as detailed in this report.
F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is not aware of any natural, scenic or historic features which require preservation. The applicant
will be required to maintain, fence, and improve the waterways which are existing on this site.
Kohl's CUP Application
Exhibit F Pagc 1
.-..----~
~
-------