2015 03-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 19, 2015
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 19, 2015, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman Patrick Oliver.
Present: Commissioner Patrick Oliver. Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commission and
Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Members Absent: Chairman Steven Yearsley and Rhonda McCarvel.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
R:11M
X Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver
Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald
Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Oliver: Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for March
19th, 2015. We will begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Oliver: Thank you. We will start with the adoption of the agenda. First item on the
agenda is the adoption. We do have some changes that will be opened for the purpose of
continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meetings. Those will be Items A, B and
C. They will be scheduled for the April 2nd, 2015, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting -- just for the sole purpose of -- so, if there are anybody -- if there is anybody here
tonight to testify on that particular application we will not be taking testimony today. Could
I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair -- Chairman, so moved.
Oliver: A motion. A second?
Wilson: Second.
Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the agenda adopted. All in favor
say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 2 of 20
A. Approve Minutes of March 5, 2015 City Council Meeting
Oliver: Okay. The Consent Agenda. The next item on the agenda is the Consent
Agenda. We have a number of items on the agenda. We will be looking at continuing
CUP --
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Oliver: Yes.
Baird: If I could interrupt for the purpose of addressing Item 3 only. If you would entertain
a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda, which is simply the approval of the minutes from
the March 5th meeting.
Oliver: Got it. Thank you. So, could I have a motion to accept the --
Wilson: Mr. Chair, I motion to approve the minutes from March 5th, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Oliver: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Continued Public Hearing from March 5,2015: CUP 15-001
Franklin Mini -Storage by Osborne Enterprises Located 1975 E.
Franklin Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self -Service
Facility in a C -G Zoning District
Oliver: We are good to go. Okay. All right. So, again, we are starting with the Items that
will be moved. Is that right?
Baird: Mr. Chair, if at this time you could open the continued hearing for CUP 15-001,
Franklin Road Mini Storage, for the purpose of continuing it to a date certain.
Oliver: Okay. We will do that. We will continue CUP 15-001, Franklin Mini Storage.
Moving that date to April 2nd, 2015. Could I have a motion?
Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we continue to April 2nd CUP 15-001, Franklin Mini
Storage.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 3 of 20
Oliver: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed by nay. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing: RZ 15-004 Verona East Subdivision by Primeland
Investment Group, LLC Located East of N. Ten Mile Road and
North of W. McMillan Road Request: Rezone of 0.67 Acres of
Land from the L -O Zoning District to the R-8 Zoning District
C. Public Hearing: PFP 15-001 Verona East Subdivision by
Primeland Investment Group, LLC Located East of N. Ten Mile
Road and North of W. McMillan Road Request: Preliminary / Final
Plat Consisting of Four (4) Single Family Residential Lots and
Two (2) Common Lots on Approximately 0.62 Acres in a
Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Oliver: And we are looking at public hearing for RZ 15-004, Verona East Subdivision and
along with PFP 15-001, Verona East Subdivision. Those are Items B and C. To be
moved to the April 2nd, 2015, meeting.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we make a continuance to April 2nd
for RZ 15-004, Verona East Subdivision and PFP 15-001, Verona East Subdivision.
Oliver: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Wilson: Second.
Oliver: And a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: RZ 15-002 Calderwood Business Park by GGR,
LLC Located Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road and E.
Calderwood Drive Request: Rezone of 4.08 Acres of Land from
the L -O Zoning District to the C -G (2.73 Acres) and L -O (1.35
Acres) Zoning Districts
E. Public Hearing: MCU 15-001 Calderwood Business Park by GGR,
LLC Located Southeast Corner of S. Meridian Road and E.
Calderwood Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit Modification
to Modify the Site Plan and Certain Conditions Approved with
the Larkspur Planned Unit Development (CUP 04-025)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 4 of 20
Oliver: Okay. Slow and easy. Okay. The agenda items. We have done that. So, we will
move on to our first item tonight. We will be looking at public hearing for RZ 15-002.
Calderwood Business Park and we will start with the staff report.
Baird: Mr. Chair? One last item. I would suggest that you also open the public hearing
for MCU 15-001, also related --
Oliver: Oh.
Baird: -- to Calderwood Business Park.
Oliver: Because they are connected. Also open MCU 15-001, Calderwood Business Park
together.
Parson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you this evening
is the Calderwood Business Park rezone and conditional use permit modification
application. The site is located on the southeast corner of East Calderwood Drive and
South Meridian Road, State Highway 69. You can see here in the vicinity map that the
property is currently annexed and zoned in the city with the L -O zoning district. In 2004
this property was subdivided. Received planning or development approval and zoning
approval to develop 12 office buildings on the property in conjunction with the
administering care facility that's to the east of this site and also the single family residential
that you see along this circuitous roadway here that provided access to the office
development. And since that time it has been vacant. There currently are not structures
on this site, but there is an existing five foot detached sidewalk along Meridian Road and
adjacent to East Calderwood Drive and South Blackspur Way that was installed with the
development of that subdivision. To the north we have developed commercial property,
zoned C -G. Again, a nursing care facility to the east, which is the -- zoned R-8. To the
south we have residential properties, single family homes zoned R-4 and R-8 and, then,
across the street we had a highway on the west boundary and, then, across the street we
have other single family residential homes zoned R-4 within the city as well. So, if you
look at the surrounding area it's pretty much an enclave in what's always meant to be
developed as part of the original Larkspur development. The Comprehensive Plan for this
property is actually medium density residential. At the time that this came through under
the PD, if -- the L -O zoning was granted as a use exception under the planned unit
development and that's why we have office zoning over the MDR land use designation. If
you look to the north you can see that the property is adjacent to commercial zoned land
use designation in which staff feels there is some merit to allow the applicant to float that
designation, because it is not parcel specific like zoning. Staff finds that the applicant
should actually be -- some of that commercial designation to float across this property in
order to at least support the applicant's request for the rezone to the C -G and the L -O
zoning district this evening. Here is the original concept plan that was approved in 2004
with the planned unit development. You can see here there is the 12 office buildings.
There were several common lots that were created with that subdivision to provide access
not only to the local streets, but internal within the development, but also to the property
on the south boundary. There is a specific plat note that states that this common lot is to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 5 of 20
provide cross -access to that residential property if it goes commercial in the future and so
the applicant as they move through the hearing process, City Council will be acting on a
vacation application in order to vacate that lot from the plat, so that -- in our
recommendation tonight they will have to establish a new cross -access easement with the
development. So, although we are allowing them to vacate that -- at least recommending
approval to vacate that cross -access lot, we are still making sure that we have an
easement in place moving forward. Here is the proposed concept plan for you this
evening. I have also delineated which -- how much of the site will be C -G zoned and how
much of it will remain L -O zoned here. So, this area to the west of the brown line here
demarks the area for C -G zoning, which will be approximately 2.73 acres. Some of that
does include the right of way along Calderwood Drive and also North Meridian Road and,
then, the west -- east half of the brown line or eastern portion of the site will remain L -O
consistent with the L -O zoning that was approved in 2004. And this concept plan this
evening shows four commercial pad sites that are fronting on Meridian Road and, then,
along the L -O portion the applicant is depicting three office lots. So, here is where most of
your intense commercial uses will occur and, then, again, there will be a transition of L -O
zoning to buffer the residences to the south and also from the nursing care facility to the
street. The access points here this evening are a full access from East Calderwood Drive
along the north boundary here and one on the west boundary along South Blackspur
Way. These were originally approved with the subdivision in 2004. ACHD did provide
comment on this application and simply stated since there are no changes to what they
acted on in 2004, they really had no comments to access proposedbefore you this
evening. So, this is consistent to what they acted on. Again, the applicant is not
proposing any access to Meridian Road and the recorded subdivision does restrict access
to that roadway as well. And, again, as part of this subdivision -- or concept plan the
applicant is not proposing any access this evening. Landscaping for the site as they move
through the process -- Meridian Road does required a 35 foot wide landscape buffer to be
installed. When the development came in in 2004 it was required to have a 40 foot wide
landscape buffer. So, the applicant is requesting to modify that buffer width from 40 feet
to 35 foot consistent with the current UDC requirements. A 20 foot landscaped buffer will
be required along East Calderwood Drive and, then, on the note on the recorded plat
there is a requirement for a 15 foot wide easement along the west boundary of the
roadway here. Typically the UDC would require a ten foot easement. The applicant has
no desire to change that buffer width to a ten foot requirement. They wanted to simply
stick with the 15 foot, which is in excess of what the code currently requires now and
because the applicant is requesting a C -G zone and the L -O zone adjacent to a residential
district along the south boundary, the UDC does require a landscape buffer to mitigate
against those residential uses. Specifically the C -G zone requires a 25 foot wide
landscape buffer and the L -O zone only requires a 20 foot wide landscape buffer. The
applicant is requesting that the Council reduce the buffer width for the C -G zoning to a 20
foot buffer width to match at -- to least to develop a consistent buffer width along the
southern boundary. The applicant has actually reached out to the homeowner that's most
affected by the C -G zoning. He's actually written a letter in support of the rezone to the C-
G zone, so he does support the buffer width and also the commercial use up against him.
And I would also mention to Commission that there is an existing six foot tall vinyl fence
that is constructed along that boundary as well. Here are the elevations for you this
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 6 of 20
evening. The office elevations are to your left. You can see there is a mix of wood siding
materials, decorative corbels and a stone wainscot and some decorative columns. On the
east side -- or eastern portion of the slide is the commercial buildings that are fronting on
Eagle Road -- or, excuse me, South Meridian Road here and have a mix of metal siding,
a glass door front, metal awnings, some stucco that will tie in with the surrounding
developments as well. So, the applicant -- or staff is recommending approval of these
elevations. We find that they are consistent with our design standards in our code.
Ultimate design and site design and building elevations will be evaluated at the certificate
of zoning compliance and design review staff level approvals as they move through the
hearing process. Because the applicant is wanting to modify the planned unit
development for this site and rezone that in conjunction -- or doing that in conjunction with
the rezone, staff felt it was much easier to facilitate the development of the site with -- by
requiring a development agreement, rather than modifying the PD. So, our
recommendation with the rezone tonight is to exclude them from the requirements of the
planned unit development, that's really the reason for the modification of the conditional
use permit, but in doing so we want them -- with the rezone want them to enter into a
development agreement with the city and so the slide that's before you this evening
represents those provisions that we are recommending as part of the rezone and the
reason why that I'm putting these in front of you is because staff did receive written
testimony from the applicant and they want to discuss several modifications to these DA
provisions with you this evening. I have provided that to you in your hearing outline and
underlined and striped out the changes that they are proposing and where staff stands on
those recommendations. So, if you would indulge me I will go through these very quickly.
If you have any questions I'm more than happy to answer them for you. So, the first
modification would be to 1.1, which basically states -- when I originally crafted the
development agreement it's been the city's policy not to allow them to move forward on
the development until the DA is recorded. Because the applicant's already had zoning in
place on this property, they were wanting to move forward on this application before you
this evening, they still have zoning in place in order to get a certificate of zoning
compliance and a building permit for this development. So, we gave them some latitude.
We are certainly amenable to allowing them to develop the L -O portion prior to recording
the DA, since they have zoning in place. So, just simply want to state the C -G zoned
portion won't be allowed to get CZC and design review approval until the DA is recorded.
The next provision would be provision C, which is highlighted here before you. Again,
because the two site plans differ substantially from one another -- one has seven
buildings, one has 12 and you can see how they are all fronting on a common open
space, the applicant is going to have to come in and do a staff level approval to readjust
those property boundaries to match the concept plan or something consistent to the
concept plan. So, the applicant wants to have some flexibility as to the timing of that and,
again, it's laid out here in your hearing outline and staff is agreeable or supportive of that
request by the applicant. The next provision is provision D, which requires the 1,500
square foot of open space -- central open space within the development. The original
concept plan from 2004 actually had more open space than that. Staff felt this was a
good compromise to require 1,500 square feet and still keep with that original of having
some kind of common open space with the development. Consistent with our current
mixed use standards that we have under our Comprehensive Plan today, the applicant did
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 7 of 20
reach out to me and sent me an e-mail said they were fine with the 1,500 square foot
requirement. So, I just want to go on record that originally they had proposed to strike that
and do something smaller, but I think in the testimony that I received from them I believe
they are amenable to keeping that at 1,500 square feet. The next provision is E and staff
-- because of this property that's adjacent to the residential district and because we really
want to keep this a neighborhood commercial feel and not really impose too much traffic
onto that adjacent subdivision, staff really looked at our schedule of uses in the UDC and
really dove down into what should we prohibit -- what uses should we prohibit on this
property moving forward with allowing this intense zoning district on the property and we
felt comfortable with prohibiting drinking establishments, minor vehicle repair, equipment
rental sales and service, cell towers, vehicle washing facilities, fuel sales facilities, outdoor
recreation facility and vehicle sales and rentals. The applicant is proposing that you
modify and allow vehicle sales facilities on the site and staffs experience with those types
of uses, they can be pretty noisy to the adjacent residences and that's why we felt strongly
to have that included as part of the DA and so this is one of those provisions where staff
wants to stay with the original recommendations and does not support striking that use
from the DA at this time. DA provision F -- if you recall in the revised concept plan there is
a drive-thru proposed up there towards Calderwood intersection and Meridian Road and
there is only one drive-thru showing on -- on the site plan and, again, keeping with that
neighborhood feel and trying to minimize traffic into that subdivision, we felt it appropriate
to limit the site to one drive-thru use and, again, staff wants to stay with that
recommendation to you this evening and keep in mind that the applicant will have to go
through a conditional use process in order to establish that use, because they are within
300 feet of a residential district. So, it's not vested by the -- in concept plan by any
means, but we certainly wanted to put -- put it in the development agreement that this site
is not to have any more than one drive-thru in the location shown on the concept plan.
The applicant is asking to, allow for two and allowing for them to be located anywhere on
the property and we are not in agreement with that recommendation either or that change.
Next DA provision would be the provision for vehicle access. As I mentioned to you, the
applicant, as they get to City Council, they are seeking Council's approval on a vacation
application to remove this common lot from the recorded plat that requires a cross -access
with that adjacent property. Well, under our current UDC we do have requirements where
we can require cross -access through an easement, rather than a platted lot. So, we did
have a provision in the DA that, one, we are going to say no access to Meridian Road
consistent with the recorded plat today, but we want to make sure that the applicant
submits a recorded cross -access, shared parking agreement with the first building not --
get it sooner, rather than later. So, originally we thought we wanted it with the first
certificate of zoning compliance application. In talking with the applicant they would like
the opportunity to get started on one building in there and they have agreed to provide
that recorded document to staff prior to getting occupancy of the first building and staff is
supportive of that request. And the last item has to do with the -- one of the vacation
conditions. The application went back, looked at the -- the requirements of the plat and I
did miss a common lot that allowed access to this development, so it wasn't represented
in the staff report as a lot that needed to be removed for cross -access. The applicant
brought that to my attention. So, again, staff is amenable to just adding Lot 16 to that
condition, so that -- make sure when he goes to the county and gets those plat notes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page & of 20
changed with the Ada County assessor's office that that lot would be removed from that
plat note as well. Other than what I presented to you, the applicant is in agreement with
all other provisions. Staff has not received any other public testimony on this application
and at this time I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may
have.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Bill, in regards to the -- you said there was a vinyl fence on
the property -- the residential to the south and so what's the action -- concept of what --
I'm guessing that's been -- but what is your -- I guess your vision for that easement across
that area? Is it just going to be -- you know, it's a -- there is a sign up there, it's cross -
access and saying you can't access right now or is it going to be landscaped or what's
the --
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, at this time we have not required
the applicant to construct a driveway, only grant the easement. Typically with concept
plans they can change a little bit. There may be -- this building may be smaller than
what's showing on the concept plan, so we want to at least keep it a little bit open to allow
the applicant flexibility as they try to mirror this concept plan. I mean it is -- complies with
the concept plan, but have some wiggle room to change. So, I said show it in that general
area, but I think the applicant would like to have the flexibility to change it, so we have not
required them to construct that. In my experience with it we have tried to be a little bolder
and require the cross -access to be constructed, but what we find is sometimes the grades
don't always match with the adjacent property, so sometimes it's good to give them a little
latitude and construct it when the property to the south develops and that way we actually
get the grading and the cross -access in a location agreed by both property owners. So,
the only requirement by this applicant is to grant cross -access to that southern property
owner. When he comes in and does something different, rezone the property, or propose
-- he will have to come back to the city and rezone it, because it's currently R-4. So, if he
wants that commercially -- a commercial zoning district on that, he's going to have to
come back through the process and at that time we will require him to reciprocate the
cross -access and get that constructed and work with this developer. They certainly can
build it at this time if that's their desire.
Fitzgerald: And Mr. Chairman. Would there be -- if they don't desire to put the stub there,
would there be in the design review to do landscaping or something of that nature?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it would more than likely be a
grass strip.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Parsons: Probably no landscaping, but something there, yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Bill.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 9 of 20
Oliver: Any other questions? Okay. Before we begin I'd just like to add a couple things to
the public hearing process to let you know that in a moment the applicant will come
forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff
comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. Then we will have any
public testimony and at this point I have three people that have signed up to testify. Any
person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes to say what they want to
say. If they are speaking for a large group, like an HOA -- I don't think we have that here
tonight -- you can have up to ten minutes and after the testimony has been heard, the
applicant will come back up again, their opportunity to respond to anything that's been
said by the testimonies and, then, and we will close the public hearing and the
Commission will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make a
recommendation to City Council tonight. Having said that, we will ask at this point to have
the applicant come forward, state your name and address.
Warnick: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.
For the record my name is Lance Warnick. Professional engineer with Aspen Engineers.
Business address is 45 West Main, Suite B, P.O. Box 205, Kuna. 83634. I'm here tonight
representing the applicant GGR, LLC, in the project you see before you. As -- as Bill had
indicated, we are here to discuss a project we are calling Calderwood Business Park. As
you have seen in the staff report it's generally the undeveloped threeish acres located at
the southeast corner of Calderwood and Meridian, so it's about a half a mile south of the
freeway. We are here tonight to ask your recommendation on those items to Council that
Bill has talked about. To rezone that westerly portion to C -G, to -- and leave the -- the
west -- the east as light office. To modify the existing conditional use permit, essentially
allow us to go on with our new concept and, then, turn it into a development agreement
that would spell out the specific conditions that the city would like us to comply with and,
then, the vacation of the plat notes and that landscape easement that has been
discussed. And not that it's before you, tonight, but Bill did indicate we would also be
asking Council to make that south boundary that landscape essentially the same width, 20
feet instead of 25 and 20 on different portions of the landscape. First I want to thank Bill.
We have been working with him for many months on this project. My involvement with
this property goes back a long time. But we have new -- new property owners and Bill has
been very helpful in helping us try to find a way, I think, that we can move forward that's
compatible with the neighbors and I think meets the city's interest as well and I just want
to thank -- thank him for that. I think Bill's presentation, a letter of intent, and the staff
report describe things pretty well. In a nutshell, what the applicants are trying to do is
develop this parcel. You know, it sat vacant for ten years and something needs to change
and so I think the proposals that we have been working on the last few months, the
concept plans and some of the changes due to conditions, I think will get an opportunity
to, you know, bring some new businesses, bring some tax base and hopefully also
support and provide some opportunities for the neighbors to get services, as well as being
a benefit to the community. When we originally met with staff we were considering
actually rezoning the north portion of the project to be C -G -- and let me see if I can use
this thing here. So, essentially -- I hit the wrong button here. I can't get it to work. I'm
sorry. Originally we were planning to rezone the north portion to C -G, essentially provide
-- that entire north area would be contiguous to the portion of Southern Springs
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 10 of 20
immediately adjacent to us. In discussions with the neighbors, got the -- I guess guidance
and suggestion that keeping an additional buffer along the eastern property line would be
desirable and so that's why we -- we changed from original intention and decided to move
that C -G portion to the west side of the property. In your staff report you have the letter
from Mr. Siemsen, the property owner to the south, specifically requesting that and that's
one of the reasons that we have done that. We think having the L -O on the east side
does provide an appropriate transition to the nursing home and the adjacent residential
subdivision down to the southwest -- southeast of us. You know, we -- we had a good
neighborhood meeting with the -- with the neighbors. There was several discussions and
some comments. We -- after the meeting we actually sent out a packet of information to
everyone at the meeting, giving them information on the different allowed uses in each
zone. We, then, had a follow-up meeting, purely voluntary, invited the neighbors to come
back. We presented an update to our concept and it seemed that we answered a lot of
the questions that they had to begin with and I do want to thank the neighbors for being
willing to meet with us and talk with us and you will see that several of them are here
tonight. But I think that communication that the applicant has done -- we are trying to
reach out and try to, again, make a project that can -- can make -- make many different
areas good for -- good for the applicant, good for the neighborhood. You know, the
property -- that east side remaining L -O, good buffer. C -G on the west. You know, that's
the corridor down to Kuna. It's the highway there. It seemed natural to keep that as C -G
and that's the reason we are asking for that. The second request to have the project take
a conditional use permit, it simply goes back to we are doing something a little bit different
and instead of modifying a conditional use permit and creating a whole new set of
conditions, we just kind of want a clean slate and get the city something easy that can be
managed, a set of new conditions, many of which are very much in line with what's before,
but it just gives it a very clean way for the project to be tracked and, then, third, to have
some of those plat notes moved and vacated. The -- the plat note four references a
specific connection from Mr. Siemsen's property at Lot 5 of the plat and, essentially, what
we are asking to do is to allow that specific location to be removed, so that, as Bill said,
that we can coordinate that specific location. Our currently thought right now is where you
see that yellow line on the map right now, that's pretty much what we anticipate. It
provides them a connection and I think it's more of a direct shot up to the driveway, up to
Calderwood, as opposed to trying to, then, get into the development, we had less south, if
his property does develop commercial I think it does provide a better access to his
property, but that would be our intent and in answer to your question, if I may, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Fitzgerald, I would anticipate if that building develops we would build the
parking lot that you see down there, but we would probably keep, you know, ten, 15 feet
of landscaping until a connection is made. That way you don't have somebody wanting --
thinking they can drive through the fence and, as Bill said, it gives more flexibility when we
make those elevation transitions. As a civil engineer -- boy, an inch or two on grade can
make a huge difference and so if I have, you know, ten or 15 feet to play with, I can do a
lot of design in that distance. So, that would be -- be our intention to kind of hold it back a
little ways, so -- and, then, finally, as Bill had indicated, the -- the plat shows a 35 --
excuse me -- a 40 foot landscape buffer along Meridian. We are just asking to be in line
with current city code, which is 35 feet. We have got five extra feet of landscaping over on
the east side, more than is required for Blackspur, so I mean I just -- we just want a little
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 11 of 20
bit more -- want to go back to in line with what's in city code. You know, I think Bill has
done a good job introducing our comments and as stated we are in agreement with those
requested conditions, with just a couple of clarifications, you know, it sounds like staff is
okay with, you know, four of those conditions and so if you're able to make a
recommendation for approval to Council, we would ask specifically that you would -- you
would consider the language that we have proposed. For example, you know, 1.1, that
that limitation apply just to the C -G zone. We had actually submitted some construction
drawings about two weeks ago for utility work and driveway improvements that would,
essentially, connect that driveway in Calderwood over to the driveway in Blackspur and if
we didn't have this condition and had the C -G only in there, that would mean that we
couldn't go forward with any of the buildings on the light office zone, so we just want to
clarify that as an existing use we want to have that opportunity to afford and, see, again,
that's just clarification. You know, this will probably have to happen in a couple different
steps. We would anticipate the first property boundary adjustment would probably get
things in line with what you see here on the concept and, then, the commercial portion, as
that develops we would, you know, reconfigure the lots as needed. Otherwise, we are just
making a guessing game over on that side right now. Yeah, we are totally fine with the
1,500 square foot, so there is no change for that. E. Again, staff has proposed, you
know, one of seven or eight different -- different limitations that could not go in the C -G
zone. We are agreeable with all of them, but we would -- would like to have the
opportunity to have a vehicle washing facility. There has been some -- some interest on
that and don't want to necessarily limit that specific use. We feel that it can be compatible.
On the drive-thrus, all we are asking is to have the project be judged on its merits. You
know, a drive-thru, due to our proximity of the residential, does have to come back for a
conditional use permit and whether there is one drive-thru or two drive-thrus, it just -- we
would like the opportunity to have a drive-thru judged on its merits, its location, its size,
the impact, not just simply say we can only have one specific drive-thru. If you want to
limit it, you know, we are comfortable with having a limit of two, but all we are asking is
that -- just to know that when a drive-thru -- if one is proposed on the property, you will
see a conditional use permit coming through this body for consideration and a decision
can be made whether it's appropriate, whether that's zero or one or two specifically based
on its merits and that's all we are asking for there. H. Yeah. All we are trying to do there
is -- I hate giving an easement agreement in place prior to the certificate of zoning
compliance. As you know, that's, essentially, a very detailed concept plan, but I still have
to do a design after that's put in together and sometimes we have to move things and
change things a little bit during the design and construction and so all I'm asking is getting
a little bit more time so that that preparation of that agreement and easement can be tied
prior to occupancy of the building, so we don't have to record an easement and, then,
come back through and change it. That's all we are asking for. And I think Bill did a good
job on the vacation of one. We just want to include that other common lot. We anticipate
that each of these lots would encompass the buildings and the easements that go as
mentioned and would provide access. So, that's -- that's the story. I don't have much else
to say. Just ask to have your recommendation for the rezone of that east -- excuse me --
west side to C -G, you know, modify the CU to, you know, give us our new site plan, allow
us to enter development agreements and, then, vacate the plat notes and that landscape
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 12 of 20
easement as has been discussed and that you consider those -- that revised language
that we discussed and with that I would end my presentation and stand for any questions.
Oliver: I just had just a quick question again. So, looking at the south there is a six foot
vinyl fence on that property -- is that currently there?
IhrFTidtaMVM
Oliver: And as Bill said, it is a 20 foot buffer; is that right?
Warnick: If I may, Mr. Chairman?
Oliver: Yes.
Warnick: The L -O zone, light office, requires a 20 foot landscape buffer.from a residential
use. So, the current zone, if we had a couple buildings in there, would be -- would be 20
feet across there. When you go to a C -G zone that requirement increases by five feet to
25 feet. With -- with this plan as you see here we have got centrally one portion, it's light
office, so we have a 20 foot setback and the other one would be, you know, commercial,
so we have a 25 foot setback. And so this isn't before you tonight, but what we are going
to be asking the Council is to make just that just a consistent width --
Oliver: Yeah.
Warnick: -- of 20 feet along that side and just make it look nicer I think
Oliver: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you.
Warnick: Thank you so much for your time.
Oliver: Okay. At this time I'd like to take public testimony. What I will do is ask you to
come up and give us your name and address. We will start Lance Warnick. Okay. And,
then, we will go to Marilyn McIntyre. Okay. Would you come to the mike and give us your
name and address, please.
McIntyre: My name is Marilyn McIntyre.
Oliver: Speak in the mike, please.
McIntyre: Marilyn McIntyre at 2207 South Blackspur. I'm new to the state of Idaho. I
have only been here since July. My husband and I moved to Blackspur -- to that division,
because it's primarily senior citizen. It's very quiet and like what was brought up before,
it's a senior citizen area. As you come into Blackspur -- onto Blackspur. I don't see that it
can accommodate this at all. I think it's going to bring in so much traffic and I don't know if
the City of Meridian does an impact on that or not. I don't know. I'm not familiar with any
of this. I'm only being thrown into this because it's happening. But I just am now hearing
Meridian Planning R Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 13 of 20
Lance say that they might accommodate two drive-thrus. This -- I can't imagine any of my
neighbors that think that this is a good idea at all. It was originally done for light office and
I think that is what it -- could work there and nothing else and that's all I have to say.
Oliver: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for coming this evening.
McIntyre: I apologize. I have a head tremor and when I get nervous it gets worse. I
thought I was just signing up for Lance and his people. Thank you.
Oliver: Okay. Ron Gwartney.
Gwartney: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you.
Oliver: Could we have your name and address, please.
Gwartney: My name is Ron Gwartney. I reside at 425 Monarch Street, Eagle, Idaho.
83616. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I'm a partner in GGR, LLC, and we are
the applicant, partnered with two other individuals and I'm not going to be able to help but
be redundant to Lance's presentation. I will be very brief, I just wanted to introduce myself
and give you a brief perspective on the project to this point. I just wanted to start again
with thanks to Bill and his staff. It really has really been a good working experience with
the city. They have been responsive -- quick to respond. They have been accessible.
They have given us some good directions and suggestions and we have kind of worked
through this preliminary stage as well. We are proud of our communication. We have had
not one, but two neighborhood meetings. Several of the neighbors are here today. Good
discussion, good turn out at those meetings, and we felt that we certainly had the majority
of the neighbors in support of our plan at the end of those discussions, but with all due
respect to the previous testimony. So, in addition to that Bob Runyan, my partner and I,
have met separately and individually with the landowner to the south, as has been
mentioned tonight a couple of times. We gained his support for the commercial rezone.
He being one landowner with adjacent property. He had no objection to that or -- and we
gained his support of our general plan. The letter -- he was gracious enough to provide a
letter stating both those positions and I think that's -- they have been available to you. We
also met last week separately and individually with two administrators from Spring Creek
Assisted Living, just -- there are a significant neighborhood, obviously, to the east. We
wanted to just get their perspective. They were excited to see something -- some activity.
They I think had had -- through the past ten years -- I don't completely understand the
back story, but I think they had been approached a couple of times to expand and they
didn't have any interest in that. They did feel that there could possibly be some -- some
uses for the three office pads that they could send our way, medical, professional
services, those sort of things. Anyway, good meeting, good support from those guys.
Wanted to just reiterate that we understand there is a balance here and we have worked
really hard to come up with a development that has significant landscaping, significant
amenities, good open space. We want it to be a walkable, approachable, first-class
development. We do believe that the highest and best use for that western site is
commercial and it falls in line with -- with what's north of us and entirely possible that we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 14 of 20
will come down the road on that busy corridor. We want to attract first-class commercial
tenants and, of course, we don't have the ability to have done that yet, that we don't know
where we are going to be, but we know that there is significant activity in the commercial
market and the economy seems to be -- be coming back a little bit in that sense. So,
yeah, we just, again, want to just have a very balanced development, taking into
consideration everyone's needs, but we want to maintain -- hope to gain your support and
maintain enough flexibility to be able to attract good users and so appreciate your
consideration of the entire project, appreciate consideration of the comments, and we are
always available for more information or questions. So, I guess that's all I have tonight.
Oliver: Commissioners? Thank you very much.
Gwartney: Thank you.
Oliver: I don't have anyone else on the list for -- to testify. Is there anyone else that would
like to come forward?
Baird: Mr. Chair? Before we close the public hearing I have got a couple things to say.
Just -- thank you for testifying, sir, but when we get to City Council I would recommend
that the applicant speak together as a whole before we take public testimony. That way
the public gets -- will get a chance to respond to everything you have had to say. I'd have
to offer this woman a chance to get up and speak again if she wants -- to respond to
anything you may have said. So, just for keeping an orderly hearing, we ask that you and
your representative coordinate that initial presentation. It's not enough of a problem
tonight, since we don't have many people here to testify. And the other thing, members of
the Commission I wanted to comment while the record is still open regarding the cross -
access easement. We get a lot of these and one thing we like to make a provision is it's a
movable easement, that we do our best shot at putting it where we think it will be, but we
put a provision in that says it's easily modifiable at the request of the applicant, with the
concurrence of the adjacent property owner and from a staff perspective tracking it at the
time of certificate of occupancy is always troublesome, because the planning staff doesn't
always have a chance to track it the same way that they track a CZC. So, sometimes
those get -- get by us if we let it go past the CZC stage and hook it up to the certificate of
occupancy. So, I just wanted to put that on record from an operational perspective as you
consider the request for the -- the easement.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Bill, did we actually get a copy of the letter that they are
referring to in regards to the neighbor to the south?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it should be in your application
packet --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Parsons: -- on the website.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 15 of 20
Fitzgerald: I had not seen it. Okay. Thanks.
Oliver: Okay. At this time I need to get a motion to close the public hearing.
Baird: Mr. Chair, I may have thrown you off. We have had the applicant speak. We have
had one person from the public -- I suppose we should offer the applicant the last word as
part of our standard public hearing process.
Oliver: Okay. You have your choice. You will need to state your name and address
again.
McIntyre: Marilyn McIntyre. 2207 South Blackspur and I appreciate that you did this for
me, because one thing that was said is that most of my neighbors were in agreeance and
-- and I think to some extent that's true, but when we just now recently heard about the
two facilities that might be drive-thrus, one of which would be a carwash, none of us are in
agreement with that. That's the first that we had heard of that. And so, again, I appreciate
that you did that.
Baird: We try to keep it fair. It's the process.
McIntyre: Thank you. I believe in fairness. Okay. Thank you.
Oliver: Thank you very much. Okay.
Baird: And the final portion of the public hearing would be rebuttal from the applicant.
Oliver: Would you like to come forward? Restate your name and address.
Warnick: Mr. Chairman, Lance Warnick, Aspen Engineers, 45 West Main, Suite B, Kuna.
83634. 1 just -- I just want to clarify on those drive-thrus, the drive-thrus are not being
approved tonight. All we are asking for is the opportunity to come back with conditional
use permits and have them judged on their merits. Any action by you tonight doesn't
guarantee that there will be any drive-thrus today. So, I just wanted to help the neighbors
understand that that is the case. I'm just -- we are just asking not to have a limit of one, to
have up to two, but, again, that would be up to your discretion and the neighbors would
have an opportunity to comment on any drive-thru that is proposed here. That's all I
wanted to say and thank you very much for your time.
Oliver: Questions? Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to get a motion to close the
public hearing for Items RZ 15-002 and MCU 15-001.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the public hearing on RZ 15-002
and MCU 15-001.
Wilson: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 16 of 20
Oliver: I have a motion and a second to close RZ 15-002 and MCU 15-001. All in favor
say aye. Opposes say nay. It's been moved and seconded to close.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: Okay. Now we can talk about it a little bit, if anybody wants to start.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I think I -- I understand the position, probably, of the neighbors,
but I also think that they have done a good job of taking some of the neighbors' comments
and bringing it back to giving a buffer on that L -O zone to the east and so I think there has
been some compromise. I do think up against Meridian Road it is a -- it is a commercial
type zone and I think Bill did a great job of balancing what the requests were from the --
from the applicant with some of the issues. I think having a car wash there would be
brutally loud. If you have been next to Express -- Metro Express anytime it's -- that's a
rough gig. So, I -- you got a tight corner in there and so in my regard I think I will be
making a motion to -- unless that's okay with the chair and Commissioner Wilson, I'm
going to make a motion to approve, after considering the staff report, the applicant's
testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 15-002 and
MCU 15-001.
Oliver: Thank you. Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I was going to ask about that movable easement. Does that need to be part of
the motion?
Baird: Actually, I -- unless there is a second to that motion, I might allow it to fail, so that
we can have some additional discussion.
Fitzgerald: I will withdraw it.
Baird: Okay. Thank you. It may be premature to make a motion, unless the other two
members don't have any other comments to make, but there are a list of items that are
changes to the staff report that have been listed out -- Bill, if you could put that up on the
-- the DA provision. Those -- the request from applicant for the changes to the staff report
should probably be specifically addressed in a motion. If you're accepting staffs
recommendation it could be as easy as referencing the staff's recommendation. If you
want to go through them one by one you can certainly do that. Other issues that were
brought up tonight include the applicant's request to have the easement moved from time
of CZC to the time of certificate of occupancy. The request for the carwash. The request
for the two drive-thrus. So, each of those items that have been specifically requested that
deviate from the staff report should be addressed. Probably best to be deliberated upon
and, then, we can somehow roll that into a motion. Hopefully that helps.
Oliver: Do we want to start with what we have in front of us?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 17 of 20
Wilson: Well, I was just going to say I think -- I think this rezone makes -- makes sense.
You know, Meridian Road, Highway 69, is an economic asset and it makes sense to -- for
this rezone. I would agree with my fellow commissioner on the carwash. As for the other
one -- I guess because we -- or we are sticking with the 1,500 square feet common area, I
think I would say that we could have the two drive-thrus -- at least put that forward.
Because, as mentioned, it would be discussed and deliberated at a later time. So, I would
support that motion.
Oliver: Okay. I don't have anything to add.
Fitzgerald: Nothing at all?
Oliver: No. It's -- to me it's -- with what the staff has put forward, I think it's very good. I
didn't see any problems with what the staff had. I do have a little bit of problem with what
this nice lady was saying, that some of the factors there that need to be addressed -- the
idea that -- you're right, that if the property facing the main Meridian highway and, then,
having the lower part the -- more of a quieter I think would be appropriate.
Fitzgerald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would -- I mean I understand where you're going. This
has to come back for public comment for us to look at it again and so if we are going to
give this developer flexibility to -- and I get it, it's a -- I mean you have to go tenants that --
so, we have some restrictions in there on the carwash side and some other things, which I
think Bill did a great job of laying out. So, I wouldn't have a problem if that's the motion we
want to move forward with, of including both of those in there.
Baird: If the Commission is through deliberating I might turn to Mr. Parsons and ask if you
have been keeping track of the deviations from your staff report and which requests of the
applicant are being granted based on what it looks like where the motion is going, so that
we can help -- help the Commissioners formulate a motion based on the deliberations.
Are you prepared to do that, sir?
Fitzgerald: Well, I think the only deviation we have got is the drive-thru.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's the way I was tracking it.
What I was trying to do with Machelle was find that letter from the adjacent residents
supporting the rezone and we have tracked that down in the application. It was actually
page number 30. Not to deviate, but from what I'm hearing it looks like you are agreeable
to allowing the applicant to move forward with the property boundary adjustments as I
explained in my presentation to you. They are good with the 1,500 square foot area, so
that will remain in there. You want to keep the restriction on the vehicle washing facility as
stated by staff. And, then, the other one -- it looks like you are open to allowing the two
drive-thru uses, realizing they have to come back through the conditional use process.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 18 of 20
Parsons: And, then, the last one would be are you good with the recorded cross -access
shared parking agreement with the first certificate of occupancy for the building and if you
need me to elaborate on that I can elaborate on how we track that from the planning
division side of things.
Oliver: Would you, please.
Parsons: Yes. So, basically, what we will do is when they come in for their first CZC and
design review application, we will place a condition on that certificate of zoning
compliance that we receive that documentation before they receive occupancy of that
building. So, what will happen is they will get -- they will get their CZC approved, they will
get that building permit, they will get it under construction, and once they have those
improvements done on the site they are going to call up the Planning Division and they
are going to say we are ready for final inspection and I'm going to go through the CZC
staff report and say, well, did you provide this and they tell me no, then, I'm not going to
waste my time to come out and sign off on the building, you have to finish this first. So,
that's typically how it works through us. If we do go with the first certificate of occupancy
we don't let them -- we will allow them to get a building permit, but, again, they won't be
able to occupy until that's been recorded and established and we make sure we lock that
down. We also have some Enterprise software where we actually can put those
conditions in there, too, and make sure it's complied with moving forward.
Oliver: Thank you
Baird: So, Mr. Chair, it sounds like the process has improved since -- since I have been
aware of it. So, I retract my comments about the difficulty of tracking it. It sounds like we
have done a process improvement.
Fitzgerald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I trust the staff to know what they have to check off
when they go through and it gives the applicant an ability to be a little bit flexible in where
they are going to put that. I think that's good for both the resident to the south and for the
applicant as they move forward, so --
Oliver: Is there any other discussion? Could I get a motion?
Fitzgerald: Do I have to go through this whole thing?
Oliver: Probably.
Baird: Yes.
Fitzgerald: So, with that being said --
Parsons: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interject. I think your motion this evening can be as
simple as we support all the changes with the -- with the following and just state requested
by the applicant, just state the two drive-thrus.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 19 of 20
Fitzgerald: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would move for approval -- after seeing all staff,
applicant and public testimony, that we recommend approval to the City Council of file
number RZ 15-002 and MCU 15-001 with all the staff recommendations and
modifications, with the one change of expanding that drive-thru ability -- or restriction from
one to two. And also allowing the flexibility of the -- the easement -- the cross -access
easement to occupancy.
Wilson: I second that motion, Mr. Chairman.
Oliver: We have a motion to accept RZ 15-002 and MCU 15-001. Do I have a second?
Wilson: Second.
Oliver: Okay. We have -- it's been moved and seconded that we accept RZ 15-002 and
MCU 15-001 with all staff recommendations with restrictions from one to two -- right?
Baird: On the drive-thru.
Oliver: On the drive-thru and, then, the easement. All in favor say aye? Opposed say
nay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: We have no more items on the agenda. Therefore, I need just one more item.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair, I will move for adjournment.
Oliver: I have a motion to adjourn. Do I have a second?
Wilson: Second.
Oliver: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Opposed say
nay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Oliver: We are now adjourned. Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 20 of 20
APPROVED
�bEFr -CH AN
ATTEST:
Mk� -
JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
DATE APPROVED
Qo¢pgev wuctrs\
r
Gam¢ l90
J
t
_
city of _.
✓rte
�F
Sr AL
Y
'fid of eAe iPEp�,