2004 04-29 Special
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1,
Roll-call Attendance:
~ David Zaremba ---2L- David Moe
---2L- Wendy Newton-Huckabay ---2L- Michael Rohm
---2L-Chairman Keith Borup
2,
Adoption of the Agenda:
3,
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of April 1, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve with Amendments
4.
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: AZ 04-003 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 16.73 acres from RUT to R~8 zones for
proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325
West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
5.
Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04-002 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 75 residential building lots and B common
lots on 16.73 acres in a proposed R-B zone for proposed Jaydan Village
Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325 West. Ustick Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
6.
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: CUP 04-004 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for
reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and
front yard setbacks for side entry garages for proposed Jaydan Village
Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325 West Ustick Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
7,
Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: AZ 04-004 . Request
for annexation and zoning of 34.6 acres from RUT to I-L, L-O, and CoG
zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC -
northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - April 29, 2004
Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall beccme property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related tc documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeling.
9.
10.
11,
12.
13.
14.
15.
8,
Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04-004 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 commercial building lots and 5 common
lots on 34,6 acres in proposed I-L, L-a, and CoG zones fOr proposed
McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - northwest corner of North
Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council
Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: RZ 04-002 Request
for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to
City Council
Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04~005 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for 52 residential building lots and 1 common
lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Rock Creek
Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North Linder Road
and south of West Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: CUP 04-006 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a
mix of residential and commercial uses with reductions to building setback
requirements for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine
Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 04-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2
building lots on 2.7 acres in an I-L zone for Cafarelli Subdivision No.2
by Shawn Fickes - 1950 West Franklin Road: Recommend Approval to
City Council
Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-
4 to L-O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood
Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Recommend Approval
to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15
building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres
in proposed R-15 and L-a zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Recommend
Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-15 and
Meridian Planning and Zcnlng Commission Agenda - April 29, 2004
Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City cf Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to dccuments and/or hearings
plaasa contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
16.
17,
18,
L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC
- 2090 South Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Update on Mussell Corner: Update
Discussion on Shirt Selection: Discussed
Opportunities for P&Z Commission/Staff Communication: Discussed
Meridian Pianning and Zoning Commission Agenda - April 29, 2004
Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall becoma property cf the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related 10 documents and/cr hearings
please ccntact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Plannina and Zoninq Meetinq
Acril 29, 2004
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P,M. on Thursday, April 29, 2004, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David Zaremba,
Michael Rohm, and David Moe.
Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Tara Green, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Wendy
Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, and Dean Willis.
Item 1.
Roll Call Attendance:
x
X
David Zaremba X
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
X Chairman Keith Borup
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for April 29th and
start with roll call of Commissioners,
Item 3,
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of April 1 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Borup: The first item will be that of the minutes of April 1st.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have one comment. On Page 11 of the minutes, the first
time I speak it says: Zaremba: I would say I like that there are not flat buildings sides.
The word site should be side, as in delta, sides, That's my only change,
Borup: Any others? If not, do we have a motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of April 1, 2004, as amended.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay, We do have a number of continued hearings to get into. I do have a
correction on what I stated at the beginning, I said our regular scheduled meeting, That
is not correct. This is a special meeting that was scheduled to handle. the continued
hearings and we also did add one new one on.
-IJ,:~
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 2 of 100
Zaremba: I would only add that although it is a special meeting all items have been
properly noticed,
Item 4,
Item 5.
Item 6,
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: AZ 04-003 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 16.73 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for
proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325
West Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: PP 04-002 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 75 residential building lots and 8 common
lots on 16.73 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Jaydan Vii/age
Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325 West Ustick Road:
Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: CUP 04-004 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for
reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and
front yard setbacks for side entry garages for proposed Jaydan Village
Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325 West Ustick Road:
Borup: Yes. Okay. The first item is Items 4, 5, and 6. All three are continued hearings
from our March 18th meeting, AZ 04-003, PP 04-002, and CUP 04-004. All these are
concerning the Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC, Again, this
hearing has been opened, We are beginning with the continuation and I'd like to start
with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. As mentioned,
this was up on your March 18th hearing date originally, It had .been requested for
continuance by the applicant so that they could have some time to address some of the
issues in the staff report. I will be going over those issues here briefly. The location of
the site is -- this is Black Cat and US.IC.k andAutum.. n Faire SUbdivisio.n. sits right in this
location. The subject property is out! d in black alld sits just west of Autumn Faire on
the south side of Ustick Road. You see the aé\riäl photo. The existing subdivision
around two sides of it. The existing farm house in tj1.e northwest corner of the property
and existing residences across the street. They h~e submitted a reVised Preliminary
Plat to address some of the concern~'raised in thè"staff report and you should have a
new staff report that's based on that ~vised plat, which the transmittal date of April 23rd
and the April 29th hearing date. That's the one I will be referring to in my presentation.
This revised plat that you see in front of you would have a revised date on it of March
23rd and had a transmittal date from the Clerk's Office of April 5th. The revised report I
did focuses only on the special considerations and issues raised in the prior report and I
will go over those now. The first issue has to do with a stub street. Within the
boundaries of the subdivision, they have a stub street on the south end, this location,
and they do have a stub street on the north end, I wonder if there is an easier one to
see? It's a little easier to see. There is the stub street here and the stub street here.
Because this is in the area of the neighborhood center, the neighborhood centerline on
.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 3 of 100
the Comprehensive Plan cuts across the property in about this location. This -- it's an
area intended for smaller blOCkS., smt. . lie. r lots, higher densities. We had requested in
the prior staff report that they punc hrough an additional stub street about halfway
between the two in this location. he applicant does not wish to do so and has
submitted on their revised plat a conceptual layout for how the development to the west
could be developed. The same owner owns both properties and they have been doing
some preliminary work on this. This is, really, just a judgment call for the Commission
tonight on whether there should be a stub street or not. The Comp Plan does allow for
some longer blocks in those neighborhood centers to allow for traffic calming and such,
so I will let the applicant make their presentation and we will just be looking to the
Commission for a determination on that. The second item has to do with planter islands
that are located in the middle of the streets here and here. and, originally, they were
located right in front of a couple of lots and we asked them to shift them to be centered
on lot lines and they have done so. The only remaining question is if there is a stub
street punched in here, then, that island will need to shift. Item number three deals with
side yard setbacks. On the original landscape plan they had very narrow landscape
buffers coming in off of Ustick Road, only five feet wide, We asked them to revise that
to be at least 15 feet wide, so that the street side setbacks for the adjacent houses
would be at least20 feet and in compliance with the setback requirements. It's too hard
to see on this, but they have complied with that request, plus more. They, actually,
added 15 feet on the revised plat for a total of 20. They would like the option. however,
to make those 15 feet and so I hall' proposed some wording for how the condition
could be worded to accomplish that. . . em number four deals with existing trees on the
site, I'm going to go to some of the site photos. Looking from Ustick Road -- let me
back up. This site does have an existing historic barn on it and you can see the barn in
this photo and the old farmhouse, The existing mature trees, Staff was concerned that
those trees would be damaged and have to be removed by the new street, because it
was too close to those. We did meet out on the site with the city arborist and the
applicant did agree to move their street 15 feet to the north to try to stay out of the drip
line of those trees and the revised pia! does reflect that shift, Item Number 5 deals with
the pressurized irrigation, In the project really no change needed here, It's just raised
for more of a discussion point. They have -- they do fall within the Settler's Irrigation
District boundary and they are proposing to tie into an existing Nampa-Meridian system
in Autumn Faire. We are not sure how that's going to work out, but we feel like the
condition that we already have written will address that and just didn't know if there had
been any further information on that that the applicant could provide tonight. Item
number six deals with the right of way along Ustick Road. ACHD's requiring 48 feet of
right of way from centerline. This revised plat does provide the full 48 feet that they
require. Typically, however, we see that additional right of way in a separate common
lot to be deeded in the future, They have it drawn as if they are deeding it as part of this
project and it's my understanding that that may be, but I have asked them to clarify
whether they will be deeding it or whether they need the ability to add two more
common lots to this plat to accommodate the future right of way. Item number seven
deals with sewer. At the time this was written there was still. a question as to whether
they were able to address the sewer issued raised by Public Works and get the required
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 4 of 100
three feet of fill of the sewer in all places and I'm going to let -- I'm going to turn this over
to Bruce for a second to address that.
Freckleton: Thanks, Steve. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant has
done some redesign in their sewer system and submitted a new plan to us that shows
they are going to be bringing in some fill and that they do meet that minimum three foot
cover standard for the city, We just need to modify that right? Okay, That condition is
taken care of.
Siddoway: Okay. Moving on to the final three on Page 4, on the Conditional Use
Permit. The first one has to do with reduced standards. The only reduction that wasn't
supported in the prior staff report that they had requested is part of their planned
development was to reduce the front setback for living areas in the center lots in here
from 15 feet to 10 feet for living areas and side entry garages and given the narrowness
of the lots, I couldn't see how a side entry garage would really even work on them, but
they have submitted this elevation for one of their typical buildings and the site plan with
this side entry garages, the road would be out here and you would come in and pull in
and, apparently, this would fit on those narrower lots that they are proposing. They are
asking that they be granted the ability to have reduced front setbacks for living areas
and side entry garages, All front loaded garages would still meet the full 20-foot
setback requirement.
Borup: Steve, just a clarification, I think that's probably what it -- you had just stated
reduced setback on the living area. Do you mean -- was that what you meant to say?
Siddoway: Yes, Living area and side yard -- side entry garages. Like if they have a
front living room or something, it would be able to project in front of the garage,
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: I have also included just a couple of their other elevations. This is a -- one
of their two story elevations so is this, I thought I had a single story in there. We did
ask for elevations, as required by part of the -- by the planned development and these
are samples from them. The last one -- the next one has to dowith amenities for the
project. The amenities are not detailed in the application. Two amenities are required
as part of the planned development. The landscape plan that was submitted with the
application here, shows that the existing bam is to remain, but I have heard since, then,
that they plan to remove the barn, that they have looked at the structural integrity and
deemed that it cannot be saved and I have asked the applicant to provide details tonight
about the amenities that would be proposed. To my knowledge. they include a
swimming pool and a cabana. The last item is fencing and this was already taken care
of and will not need any modifications, but since they have widened these two narrow
landscape areas coming into the subdivision, we have said that they can place six foot
fencing on the backside of those for the back yards of those houses. I have
summarized all of this and the proposed changes that would be needed below that,
starting on page four and ending on page five. Now, these would be the modifications
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 5 of 100
needed to make the changes talked about and they reference the prior staff report.
Other than these change, the conditions would remain the same as the March 18th staff
report, And I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay.
Zaremba: I would ask one. Steve, in the portion of this. that would fall under the
Comprehensive Plan's area of the neighbor center, is that anticipated to be mostly
residential? I thought neighborhood center was sort of set aside to have local walkable
office and businesses,
Siddoway: The core of the neighborhood center is intended for the businesses and that
is outside of the bounds of this plat. The center would actually be kind off the picture in
this area and there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of, you know, ten or 15
acres that could be devoted to nonresidential uses and, then, outside of that the
densities would be higher residential densities, The commercial node of the
neighborhood center is much smaller than the big half circle that you see on the
Comprehensive Plan,
Zaremba: And that would fall off of this property?
Siddoway: That would fall -- the center of it would fall off of this. This is on the edge of
the neighborhood center,
Zaremba: The second question, ACHD, of course, has looked at this and has made the
determination that the road that actually comes out onto Ustick Road and intersects,
they say that it is 170 feet east of the west property. They do not reference where it is
in relation to -- wasn't there a roadway in a subdivision approved across the street from
this that is somewhere near where this roadway is coming out? I didn't see them
comment on that.
Siddoway: It's -- the one that was approved is over here in Birchstone and they meet
the offset for that. It's not right across street.
Zaremba: Okay.
Siddoway: I would point out that the original version -- the original version of this plat
had a strange jog in this road and they have corrected that in compliance with our staff
report and ACHD's wishes, so that now the road comes up, makes a bend, and goes
straight out and it still complies with ACHD's report.
Zaremba: Thank you,
Moe: Going through the Comp Plan again, I was noticing a couple things I was kind of
curious about.
Meridian Planning & Zòning Commission
April 29. 2004
Page 6 of 100
Siddoway: Okay,
Moe: Basically, we are in a mixed-use community area correct along with the
neighborhood center area? Did -- was there any discussion in regards to any density
bonuses? I mean as far as their amenities and whatnot, there is also in the comp plan a
pathway that goes through a portion of this property as well, is there not?
Siddoway: The pathway is, actually, off site also. The pathway does run through the
neighborhood center and it comes very close to the western edge. It kind of cuts
through the center and comes over close to this edge, but they would be looking to
accommodate that within the future development.
Moe: Oh. Okay. Thank you,
Borup: Anyone else? Steve, I have a question, I don't know if it's a concern, but in
looking at future neighborhood centers, we are looking at increased density, assuming
that there is -- that that center is going to go in, what -- what's the results if we have
increased residential density around a future center and in the center never goes in?
We just have an increased residential area, then.
Siddoway: Yes,
Borup: What assurance is there that -- you know, that it's there for the intended
purpose?
Siddoway: Well, we'll look for it to be platted for those uses when it comes through,
mu. ch like. we did at Heritage Commons, which also.I" ..i,n a ne. ig. h. r.b..,.O, r. hood center are. a,
and we have them designate this center portion of t operty fo~,--
! '.
Borup: Well -- but that had a commercial section art of the subdivision. Are you
saying that will be part of the adjoining subdivision?
Siddoway: Yes, I'm saying that when the second one comes through, we will be
looking for them to designate--
Borup: Okay. That would be at that point?
,",:,
c""
Siddoway: Yes,
Borup: All right. Thank you, Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve
Arnold and I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road and I'm here
representing the developer of Packard -- of the Jaydan Village., You know, a lot of
attention has been focused on that property to the west and we would love to submit it
as a development, but one of the issues was the -- currently we can't submit, because it
.
,;
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
April 29, 2004
Page 7 of 100
~
';
will require a lift station to lift the sewer into this portion of Jaydan Village and sewer it
east. Again, you know if this Commission wants, usJo, we would be happy to submit
something new within the next week or two. '
Borup: Well - but that's -- is that the intended trunk line -- future trunk line that it was --
Arnold: Mr, Chairman, actually, a future trunk line will be gravity, I believe, out in this
area, Any lift station would be temporary and I'd love to sell you on that tonight, but I
don't think you want to hear that. If I can, I will go through some of the issues that were
raised. I did ask for this item to be tabled in March. I inherited this project from a
coworker at Briggs and there were several issues that I wasn't comfortable with going
before you and I know you have got a lot of people here tonight and I don't like wasting
your time on something that's just going to be tabled and pulled back, so that was my
request, I did ask for it to be tabled, We did go back, we looked at the issues that were
raised by the staff by and Steve and I have been working on this and we have tried to
pull this plat basically up to what has been requested and I think that -- I'll go through
them, but I th, ink we have addressed all the issue.s 'concerns th, a,t were brought up.
There was some discussion tonight about the Com and how this all fits in. Briefly,
you know, as you go -- the intention of the' rhood center is to get some
commercial and high-density mix around that conimercl(i.1. I qelieve at this location is
the half mile. In the future we are planning roughly at the half"mile location some
commercial sites, along with some higher density h¡roSiilg, fhave got some kind of
layOuts of typical house -- or typical housing that YOlJ'i'è going to see in that next section
over that allows for the higher density. It also has some of the -- it will be -- a lot of it will
be alley loaded and/or private driveway, You willhi:lve upwards around eight to ten
units per acre. This is kind of how it's going to layd~t. Basically, as you see there --
there will be a transition from this site into -- if you òpên it to the first page, there will be
small lots, single family, As you can see, there are six units. It's going to be alley
loaded. Second page over it's -- you're going to get multiple in town home units, Same
thing, Alley-type loaded, There is the single family that's shown on there that will be
similar to this that we are proposing along our -- currently our west boundary. The east
boundary is a future parcel. This is -- these are, essentially, how we are proposing to
bring up the,denSity. We will bring tha, t denSity." p .e.'",W"iII P"ut. th',e,.',CO",m,m,erCiallots in
there at the half mile. As Steve discussed a little ut tonight, but you need to get
that -- in order to support that commercial use th half mile, we are going to be
required to bring up the roof tops, basically, to ge . -~,' at it'will support. This is how
we are intending and as you go back to the prélß ., Plat.'drawing, this shows it a
little bit better, because this is how we are in . to layout the future portion.
Basically, it will have streets that will support it a' '., è middle portions we are going to
have the alleys that will be alley loaded and will --' Þ in this area will be commercial and
the office-type use. Anyway, that's the future. That i to the west. I guess that leads to
what I'm getting at is, you know, I know staff has ,', .I!9ft it up.to the Commission and
what we have to offer is to -- why we don't want a, d~ional stub street. I worked for
the highway district for too many years. I was probably the nemesis of many
developers by requiring too many stubs, In this c~~ I think we have got, essentially,
enough interconnectivity between our parcel -- ouraastern half and our western half. I
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29,2004
Page 8 of 100
think with the future development, I think we can meet. the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan with a denser subdivision with the connections, with the alley-type
loading that we are proposing so that we'd ask tonight that the Commission allow us not
to require that stub. I think that's the only condition in the staff report that we are asking
a relief from is the condition -- I think there is a condition in the old report that's
referenced in the new one. They have asked for the stub street to the west. Again, the
planter islands, we proposed those to help slow the traffic oil those long stretches.
They are meeting ACHD requirement. The minimum street . lengths are 1,000 feet or
just below that. The islands are in there to help slow traffic, Wedid -- it Was an error on
our part. We had them in a location that, obviously, would block the driveways into -- in
or out of the lots, so we did move them to break them up on the mid -- well, on the lot
lines of both adjoining new parcels, Adjacent parcels. As you can see, I didn't think it
was possible to do a side entry garage on a 50-foot wide lot. I asked my client so that I
could see that. The house is -- it's a nice size house. It's got more architectural value
to it, to me, than my own home, I'm surprised they can get something on that size of a
lot -- or that size of a house on that size of a lot but it is doable. They do have a mixed
type of market that they were going to be putting in there, different type of homes, this
just being one of them. Existing trees, as Steve stated, we did move the street -- the
street along the northern boundary, the east-west street, we shifted it to the north to try
to pick up and safe a few trees and we did save those and -- while maintaining a decent
lot depth, The other issue was the right of way. We will comply with ACHD's
requirement. What they have, essentially, stated is they want the right of way, but they
are not going to pay us for it now. What I'd like to ask for is the ability to -- if we decide
to put it into common lots, I don't believe that that's a significant change in the
Preliminary Plat from the Final Plat. I think that's a staff call. Steve and I had a little bit
of discussion about that, but if we decide not to dedicate it at this time, it will go into
common lots, which will be dedicated in the future. "Phe amenities that we are providing
was not shown on the original landscape plan, WeJ'àre doing a neighborhood pool with
a cabana. I guess this illustrates it better. The pool being situated roughly in the middle
of the lot and the cabana will be used as a facility for changing. We are providing
parking in excess of what's required for that size of pool. There will be a covered area
that will be also utilized by people using the pool as kind of a social gathering area. The
amenities that we are providing are the pool, the cabana, and that covered area for the
pool.
Rohm: Do you have specs on the pool, its dimensions or--
Arnold: At this point, no, I can roughly say that it -- if you're familiar with the Baldwin
Park pool, you know, that one, I believe, was -- I worked on that. It was between 15 feet
wide, 20 feet in length, with a little kiddy area, wading area.
Rohm: Okay.
Arnold: What it scales out to on here is roughly that.
Rohm: Okay,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 9 of 100
Arnold: So, those are the two amenities that we are providing. The barn we did look at
trying to salvage. I had my structural engineers review it. Based on its existing
condition and some of the hazards that would be associated with keeping it on the site,
it's been determined that it's safest to remove the barn, so the barn will not be
remaining. I think we have addressed all the concerns that were brought up in the
original report. We have modified the plat on all concerns regarding the issue that was
raised in the original staff report. We think we have got a good product here and we are
requesting approval. And stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I guess I would like to revisit the side entry garage on the narrow lot and just
-- if we are talking about lots that are 50 feet wide, if you started atone property line --
one side or the other, you have a five foot setback until you get to the foundation, do
you assume the garage needs to be 20 feet or 24 feet, maybe, outside, dimension of the
garage? Yes. Thank you, The inside dimension of the garage on is 22 feet. Add a
foot or so for the front and back wall of it, we are at about 28 feet, which leaVes 22 feet
for the driveway and a turn in. In a parking lot, the drive aisles, Steve, how wide does
the drive aisle in a parking lot need to be? Is that 19 or 20?
Siddoway: Twenty-five is the minimum on a commercial parking lot.
Zaremba: And that's so that a car can come in and make a 90-degree turn and get into
a parking space,
Siddoway: Yes and a back out -- there we go. It was turned off.
Zaremba: So, we are only allowing -- if this were a parking lot, we'd only have a 22-foot
drive aisle. What I'm doing is I'm starting at one party line, subtracting a foot setback to
the beginning of the building. If the inside measurement of the garage is 22 feet, then,
let's say the outside measurement is 23, plus the five is 28, If you subtract that from 50,
you have 22 feet left. The drive aisle to get into this garage is 22 and my question is is
that workable,
Siddoway: It depends on how long your truck is.
Zaremba: Clearly the applicant is satisfied that it is, but I wonder whether -- if it doesn't
work in a parking lot, is it going to work in a driveway.
Siddoway: You can back out, you probably just wouldn't be able to back out and, then,
make a -
Zaremba: Back into the street in order to get out?
Siddoway: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29,2004
Page 10 of 100
Borup: I think it would be, but the difference here, your -- you know, the speed you're
going, you got opportunity to back up and pull ahead and adjust ,if you need to,
Rohm: When you don't have the competition for a space,
Borup: You don't have other cars, but it's -- yeah, it's not a convenient size, though.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba --
Zaremba: It is an attractive drawing. I like that.
Arnold: You know, I didn't think it was doable. Another thing to keep in mind is, you
know, you - in that five foot setback you can't encroach a building, but you can
encroach a driveway if need be, but --
Borup: He took that in consideration.
Zaremba: You're doing that on the far side,
Arnold: Most residential driveways that I know of are roughly ~- I mean a two car garage
are a little over 20 feet. They are not quite the --
Zaremba: But on a side entry, if you start from the garage door on a side entry, how far
away is the farthest part of the driveway?
Arnold: I see what you're --
Zaremba: You have got an L-shaped driveway to get in.
Arnold: Correct.
Zaremba: So -- well, maybe these people have small cars and can make that turn, I
guess, I can agree that it's physically doable and you will have to decide if it's
marketable,
Rohm: I think that's the ultimate point. The marketability is on that developer,
Zaremba: In that case, I don't have a problem with that one,
Borup: Any other questions?
Moe: I have no questions,
Borup: Okay, Okay, Nothing else at this time? Do we have any public testimony on
this application? We seem to have none.
Maridlan Plannlrig & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 11 of 100
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: You want to -- I notice staff didn't address anything on lot size transition to the
other subdivision, but I don't know if that's necessarily a concern. Did that change from
-- did that change between the plats?
Siddoway: It did not.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: Would you like me to address that, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Well, actually, the design -- the lot layout did change a little bit, didn't it? Yeah.
Yes if it's pertinent.
Siddoway: Well, I would just point out that, you know, roughly two"thirds of this project
is in the area deemed as medium density residential, as opposed to the area we were
talking about that's in the neighborhood center. They have tried to transition from
Autumn Faire Subdivision, They backed - when they -- the lots that they abut Autumn
Faire with are closer to the 8,000 square foot range. Some are larger, some are
smaller, but the -- they are trying to transition from the existing lot sizes and frontages,
They don't have any of the small 5,000 square foot lots that abut Autumn Faire, they are
all internal to their own project, and on the edges they have the larger lot sizes.
Borup: Well -- and that's what I notice, that the lot sizes on the eastern edge are about
the same as the sizes on the western edge,
Siddoway: Yes,
Borup: So, the transition was to the center from both ways, almost, rather than on the
south. Okay.
Moe: One more question for the applicant. In regard to the property that -- the
undeveloped to the west, are you anticipating that you will be putting islands within that
stretch of roadway as well on some point?
Arnold: It's -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, yes, it's anticipated that we would
follow suit with a similar design.
Moe: And my biggest concern is is that if we are reviewing whether or not to be a stub
street in and we are not going to do that, we'd probably want to have something and I
was just curious if that was your plan,
Arnold: And that's -- as a heads up, we will certainly entertain -- we will be designing
around that type criteria.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29,2004
Paga12of100
Moe: Okay. Thank you,
Rohm: Good thought.
Moe: Thank you very much,
Borup: Okay, Someone -- I believe someone was -- was someone ready to make a
motion?
Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second,
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any discussion from anyone or are we ready for a motion?
Newton-Huckabay: I just need a clarification on why the applicant didn't want to put the
stub street in.
Zaremba: I think the thinking is that in the areas that are in or very close to the
neighborhood centers, increased access and cross-accesS provides for greater
walkability, bicycle ability --
Borup: That's why staff wanted it you're saying?
Newton-Huckabay: That would be arguments in favor of,
Zaremba: Arguments in favor of having the stub street there would be that the ease the
access to what we hope will not only be an employment center, but a draw for
pedestrians to do their business there and the easier you can make, that, the shorter the
block lengths are necessary to make that easy.
Newton-Huckabay: What was the argument against?
Zaremba: The argument against it would be that the developer would lose at least two
building lots, probably. One on this project and one on the next project.
Borup: More than that if it went all the way through to both streets.
Zaremba: Well, the - this parcel is kind of a regular shape. The next parcel is a
triangle, which makes its development much more difficult and I personally can see
either side of the argument. I don't really have an opinion either way on whether this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
April 29, 2004
Page 13 of 100
should have a stub street. I can see a reason for it, I can see a reason not to. Actually,
on this property I don't see a reason not to, Looking at the next property, I can see a
reason not to, because its a difficult triangular shape. I don't have an opinion either way
on that subject,
Rohm: I think that the proposed stub streets that they have got on the plat gives that
ingress into the adjacent property and it allows for that new property to develop as they
perceive it and it seems like this will work for the both interconnectivity and addressing
the developer's concerns, so it seems like it works for me,
Borup: Maybe the other thing it may do is address one of the concerns from the
neighbor to the east and that's traffic coming from this slJbdivisiòn through Autumn Faire
and I don't know that it would, but, you know, the more connectivity into the other, the
more chance of that happening, Whereas, in this design it would probably be easier for
them to exist out on Ustick in the future.
Zaremba: You're saying if you extended the street that currently stubs into Autumn
Faire and made that --
Borup: Well, I'm saying adding one more access it's going to increase that.
Zaremba: Yes. It would increase traffic through Autumn Faire, probably,
Borup: Well, it -- there is a possibility of that and that was one of the concerns -- I mean
I think that was the only letter we got addressing that. I do feel we need -- we need to
have the connectivity, though.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have no more questions.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Arnold, I don't know if you had any comment on that discussion. You
still have the opportunity if you'd like to say something,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we closed the Public Hearing.
Borup: Did we?
Moe: Yes, we did.
Borup: On, I'm sorry. I -- never mind. I had forgotten we closed the hearing.
Zaremba: I believe we did.
Moe: Yes, we did.
Borup: Okay. Are you ready for a motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
April 29, 2004
Page 14 of 100
Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I will attempt this. I move that we forward to the City
Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, AZ 04-003, request for
Annexation and Zoning of 16.73 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Jaydan
Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC, 5325 West Ustick Road, to include all staff
comments of their original memo for the hearing date of March 18, 2003, as modified by
their second -- staff's second memo for the hearing date of April 29, 2004 -- I'm sorry. I
said the original memo was 2003, which it actually says on the memo, but it would have
been for the hearing date of March 18, 2004. Modified by the new memo for the
hearing date of April 29, 2004, with no annexation changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 5 on our agenda, PP 04-002, request for Preliminary Plat approval of
23 residential building lots, not 25, and eight common lots on 16,73 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC, 5325 West
Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their original memo for the hearing date of
March 18 - should be the year 2004 -- as modified by their more recent memo for the
hearing date of April 29, 2004, and with the additional changes -- I note that we are
referencing the plat with a revision date of 3/23f04 and I think I mentioned that it's 23
building lots -- or 73 building lots, not 75, And on page three of the staff's revised notes,
the April 29th notes, paragraph seven on the sewer, the applicant has satisfied that
requirement and will supply the sufficient fill --
Siddoway: Mr, Chairman, if I could interrupt Mr. Zaremba. Just so you know, these are
not written to be actual conditions of approval.
Zaremba: Okay,
Siddoway: And that one notes that Condition Number 7 in the prior staff report already
addresses three feet of fill over the sewer and would be fine. In the summary it does
line outthe issues that would need resolution.
Zaremba: Okay. I will jump to Page 4, which is, I think, what you're referring to.
Siddoway: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Near the bottom it says summary of proposed changes, Preliminary
Plat conditions. Item Number 2 we are determining that the additional stub street will
not be required, Item Number 3 the planter islands are fine as they are. They would
have only needed to be moved if we had the additional stub street. Item Number 4, we
are changing the verbiage to read: The common lots adjacent to North Christian
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 15 of 100
Avenue near the entrance to the subdivision shall be constructed at least 15 feet wide,
Item Number 5 is deleted. On Page 5, Item Number 15, the applicant has stated that
they will create the two common lots and we are agreeing that that's a minor change
that can be approved at the staff level.
Borup: I think they said they thought they might want to, but they weren't sure at this
point.
Zaremba: I Would make that a condition that it --
Siddoway: Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. That will be a firm condition, that --
Borup: Well, their other option would be to deed the property to the Highway District
right now with no compensation,
Zaremba: I would guess that's not the applicant's preference,
Borup: Wouldn't that be correct, Steve? That would be the two options?
Siddoway: Yes. I would be fine with giving them the option of adding the common lots
or not.
Zaremba: All right.
Borup: And if they don't, then, it would be deeded to the highway -- to ACHD right now.
Zaremba: Yes. Okay, In that case, I will rephrase the last statement. We are now on
page five, referring to Item Number 15, The applicant will have the choice to be made
before this goes to the City Council of whether or not, A, to establish two common lots
for the future deeding of right of way to ACHD or, B, deeding therightof way now for no
compensation. End of plat motion,
Moe: Second,
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 6 on our agenda, CUP 04-004, request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a planned development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot
size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks for side entry garages, for proposed
Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC, 5325 West Ustick Road, to
include all staff comments of their original memo for the hearing date of March 18 -- and
Marldian Planning & Zoning Commlssicn
April 29, 2004
Page 16 of 100
it should be 2004, as modified by the staff's memo of -- for the hearing date of April 19,
2004, with the following changes. On Page 5 of the revised staff memo for April 29,
Number 2 we have agreed that the reduced front setbacks may be as the applicant has
requested, Item 3 the applicant has stated that the two required amenities will now be a
community swimming pool and a nearby cabana. End of CUP motion,
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7,
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: AZ. 04-004 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 34.6 acres from RUT tol-L, L-O, and CoG
zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC -
northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road:
Item 8.
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: PP 04~O4 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 commercial building lots and 5 common
lots on 34.6 acres in proposed I-L, L-O, and CoG zones for proposed
McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - northwest corner of North
Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road:
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes that item. Okay. Our next project is Item
Numbers 7 and 8. Again, both continued hearings from March 18th, AZ 04-004 and PP
04-004, Both concerning McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC, northwest corner
of North Ten Mile and West Ustick Road. I'd like to begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As mentioned, the site is on
the northwest corner of Ustick and Ten Mile. It's blocked out there in the black, It's
currently white. Just south of the wastewater treatment plant, which is right here. This
item was deferred to this hearing date mainly because the sewer issues were
unresolved, I'm going to let Bruce give you an update on how they have accomplished
sewering this site, just real briefly, and, then, I will get back to my staff report.
Freckleton: Thanks, Craig. Mr, Chair, Members of the CommiSsion, this project is
similar to the last one you just heard. The applicant did go back to the drawing board a
little bit, changed their routing of the sewer, They are going. to be doing a little bit of
filling, but they have been able to provide the necessary cover over the sewer to make
this a viable project, so I'm satisfied with what they are proposing and have no
additional problems.
Hood: Thanks, Bruce. The requested zoning for this property is split into three different
zoning designations. They are asking for 16.64 acres to be zonedL-O, Limited Office,
which is in the middle section here in this general area. There is 14.67 acres that will be
I-L zoned, Light Industrial, and, then, there is a little piece of CoG, two lots right on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 17 of 100
corner here that they are proposing 2.76 acres to be COG. Their requested zoning
designations -- there aren't any residential zoning, if you notice there, that they are all
commercial and industrial, as called for in the Comprehensive Plan for no new
residential uses. There have been some residential uses proposed. in this area in the
past. Again, the wastewater treatment plant is here. There are some storage units just
a little bit further to the north, Idaho Power has a transmission line in this location. To
the east is the Hartford Subdivision and I did want to point out there isa home here that
takes direct access to Ten Mile and that will be important here when I talk about access
points to this development here in a few minutes, There is another single family home
on these 75 acres that's yet to develop that is zoned RUT in the county. To the west
are a few single-family homes with R-2 zoning, One of them is zoned R-2,. one of them
is zoned CoN, another one is RUT in the county, There is a single family home on this
site currently in this location right in there. A majority of this site you can see is used for
agricultural purposes. Ten of the lots that I just - the 16.64 acres of the L-O, ten of
those are for office, four of them are I-L, and two of them are CoG, Light warehousing
storage, contractor's yards, and similar uses are anticipated for the I-L lots. Staff has in
the staff report spent a pretty good deal of time working out a list of uses that the
applicant submitted with their application, uses that they thought would be appropriate
as permitted uses, Conditional Uses, and not allowed with each zoning designation.
Staff kind of tweaked their recommendation, used existing code as a guide, and
circumstances with the residential being around and the wastewater treatment to the
north and kind of tweaked that a little bit. We could talk about that if the Commission so
desires in a little bit, but I'm going to continue on with a couple of the other things in the
staff report, Usually, the city relies on ACHD and ITD on state highways to approve
access points. Staff recognizes that the applicant is proposing access points that meet
ACHD's requirements. ACHD is allowing two driveways, a right in, right out in this
general location of full access to the north and, then, this street that loops back down to
Ustick and, then, there is one driveway that they are approving that aligns with the
street across Ustick. The city does not have, as the applicant points out in the letter
dated today, I believe -- actually, it's dated yesterday, but I just got a copy of it today.
The applicant does point out that the city doesn't have any -- how does she state it?
Technical access standards, This is true. We do, like I said, rely on ACHD, usually,
and ITD to approve access points. However, we do have Comprehensive Plan policies
that calls for the city to restrict access points to arterial streets. Staff believes that the
number of driveways is too many and that numerous driveways in close spacing limits
the ability of traffic to merge efficiently onto roadways. I did just want to point out, too,
that this site is - they have 935 feet for frontage on Ten Mile and 935 feet of frontage on
Ustick and have one more driveway was here than over there. I just didn't --it didn't
seem necessary to have another driveway. It seemed like you could do the same
circulation, have a couple of driveways for the office lots. They could share two
driveways, something like that. Leave the location up to them and something that
ACHD would approve. I will leave that at that. That is site-specific condition number
two in the Preliminary Plat section. Speak about landscaping briefly. Here is the
landscape plan that the applicant submitted. Meridian City Code requires all
cOmmercial, industrial, and office developments to provide a five-foot wide buffer
adjacent to any planned pathway in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the park
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 180f100
systems master plan. Just to kind of back up, I guess. This site, unlike the last
application, actually has two multi-use pathways that it abuts. There is one along the
Five Mile Creek and one along the Nine Mile Creek. The applicant is showing that 10-
foot wide pathway with a five-foot buffer from the edge of the asphalt to the property line
in both of those locations. Staff is recommending that. they construct these as
proposed, with the exception of a little stub over to the west property line in this
approximate location, so a future crossing can be made of the Nine Mile Lateral. The
issue, though that the applicant raises in their letter dated yesterday is that they do not
want to install landscaping, As you can see here, they aren't proposing any landscaping
adjacent to the pathway, nor do they want to maintain that landscaping, The Parks
Department does not maintain landscaping on private property, for the most part, and
does not like to maintain landscaping adjacent to multi-use pathways, I have not run
into this situation before. I do not know how the city addresses it when something like
this comes up, but the parks does not have the manpower to maintain the landscaping.
It's a standard condition of the city that you maintain landscaping adjacent to pathways,
Now, the Parks Department will maintain the pathway after it's constructed, but not the
landscaping adjacent to, Speaking of the pathway, the applicant also in that letter
requested that they not have to comply with the cross-section standards for the
pathway, The Parks Department has a pretty stringent requirement for their street --
their pathway section as it's they claim more strict than the street section, which has
been confirmed that it's a pretty good cross-section.
Borup: That's what I was going to ask. Could you elaborate on the requirements for a
standard subdivision street section?
Hood: I don't have those in front of me.
Borup: Perhaps the applicant can address that.
Hood: Yes,
Borup: Okay.
Hood: I guess the staff had a -- maybe something just to throw out there for discussion,
The Parks Department will, from time to time, run their vehicles. Nampa-Meridian may
use this to run their vehicles. It should be - the pathway or whatever section, at a
minimum, should be able to handle the gross vehicle weight rating and engineered to
handle trucks, anyways. HS20 is an engineering weight load that I believe would work.
Just a couple other things that the application - again, just kind of referring to their letter
-- rebuttal letter to staff's report, Meridian City Code does require a10-foot wide gravel
shoulder abutting right of way for unimproved portions of the right of way greater than
13 feet and road widening is not in ACHD's five-year work program, Neither Ustick, nor
Ten Mile, are in ACHD's five-year work program or in their 20 year CIP program at this
time. Again, this is a standard requirement and staff would just let you know just that, I
guess, and leave it at that as well. The warrants are met for requiring that, according to
city code. The landscaping, I guess, real quickly, too. The applicant did not show any
Maridlan Planning & Zcning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 190f100
landscaping on the internal roadways, City code does require a 1 O-foot wide landscape
buffer on either side of that road. They are willing to put that in,as well as the 25 foot
wide on both Ustick and Ten Mile abutting this site. In the staff report (had asked the
applicant to clarify the fencing types adjacent to the multi-use pathway, They say the
fencing -- chain link fence will work in this location. That's fine. I just wanted to make
sure that it wasn't going to be a tunnel, basically, is what we were trying to avoid is a
tunnel pathway, I believe those were the major points that I wanted to touch on. I will
let the applicant do everything. If you have any questions for me I'll sure answer them
for you.
Borup: Okay. Questions from any other of the Commissioners? Would the applicant
like to make their presentation?
McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm
representing the applicant in this matter. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
this piece of property is a unique piece of property. I'm riot sure how many of the
members that are on the Commission now were here - I'm sure Mr. Borup was -- when
it came through as Utility Sub and it was proposed to be a solid waste transfer station
and a Meridian School District kind of bus depot. Many heated hours of testimony took
place on that and that's what kind of prompted the staff and the Council to come up with
this wastewater treatment plant -- some type of a plan as far as what was appropriate
out in this area and what is not. There have also been some residential applications
that were denied out in that vicinity. Since this property backs up to the plant, just north
of it you see is the Five Mile Creek and the wastewater treatment plant is right here. It's
unique in the fact that we have to find some uses that are, one, compatible with the
plant; two, compatible with - there is a residence here and another residence to the
west there, There is residential to the south of us and residential over here to the east
of us and it's difficult, because we are walking a fine line. Now, your Comprehensive
Plan talks about mixed use in that wastewater treatment facility overlay and that's what
this property is, It talks about light professional office, flex space, light warehousing, no
residential uses, some small scale retail uses, mini storage uses, and so we took that
out of the Comp Plan and that's, basically, what we have brought before you. We have
got two lots that we are asking for CoG, The remainder of these lots would be L-O. We
have placed L-O here on the western boundary. This would be like a mini storage
facility, because it does go back quite a distance and it is the closest lot to your
treatment plant, therefore, you know, we have minimized the amount of time that people
would be spending on that lot and so this is -- would be I-L and, then, these lots here
would be I-L. The other thing we have to contend with is this is a future Idaho Power
substation, so whatever we propose would have to be able to coexist with that. We did
hold our neighborhood meeting, We got a lot of comments, We got some positive
comments, We got some criticisms, We have tried to hit a balance and it's impossible
to, obviously, satisfy everyone, but I think with this internal roadway we are creating our
own commercial type collector, We have proposed some external accesses, but that's,
basically, just to make the project work, because the Ten Mile and Ustick are minor
arterials and, therefore, that exposure, in order to have a viable project, is important. I
criticize the staff's condition to restrict the access even further than what Ada County
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29,2004
Page 20 of 100
Highway District standards specify. We have met all Ada County Highway District
standards and they even complimented us on this commercial collector, because, as
you well know, that does add capacity to an intersection, because it allows someone to
avoid the intersection and go different directions, just like you find out at R.C, Willeys
from Franklin to Eagle Road. I will jump right to -- into the staff report, I'd like to
comment about some of the things that were in there, I guess, first, let's take the multi-
use pathway. The multi-use pathway I think is an excellent idea. My client has agreed
to construct that multi-use use pathway and when I look at the park's comprehensive
plan, the only one designated is this one right here. The other one,from what I can tell,
based on the map in the comprehensive plan for the Parks Department, goes on this
way, to the north side of the treatment plant, running along what appears to be the
Creason Lateral. We show the pathway coming here and linking back like this,
Pathways are kind of a hard sell for projects, to get the applicants to agree to them,
especially these multi-use pathways. I got into a discussion with Doug Strong of the
Parks Department based on those standards that Craig indicated. They, for some
reason, have excessive standards in their policy manual that exceed that of a public
street and I asked him, well, how did that get in there? Well, he said I'm not sure. I
said, well, you know, to try to convince the development community to build a pathway
to these standards is just -- I mean that's a hard sell. And he says, well, I guess, you
know, what we want to make sure is that we get a good path and I said, well, you know,
if it's engineered so that it has a proper base, it has a proper asphalt depth, you know,
we usually take R values out at these sites to determine what our street sections are
going to be and that's based on the soils and compaction rates and so forth. You know,
can we use some of that data to determine what is an actual appropriate width and on
the multi-use pathway at Champion Park, we came up with that standard and it was
based on, obviously, the site conditions and the type of use that would take place,
Nampa-Meridian has like a hundred -- in excess of 100 feet that they own in fee simple
where they access Nine Mile Drain here, so it's not like we are providing Nampa-
Meridian any vehicular access, I think Commissioner Borup asked what -- for like a
public street, what are the standards, They would be 12, four, and two and a half, which
would be 12 inches of pit run, four inches of road mix, two and a half inches of asphalt.
That's -- you know that, obviously, varies based on your site conditions and soil
typologies,
Borup: Do you know what the standards are that the other pathways have been built in
Meridian, say the one from Meridian Road to Linder?
McKay: I do not. I do not.
Borup: Okay, That was built by the city,
McKay: But I bet you ten bucks it's not 12, six, and two, because I think that would be
cost prohibitive, We have agreed to modify our landscape plan, obviously, to comply
with the landscape ordinance. The one item that I guess bothered me was the issue of
landscaping along the pathway. The way Craig has that referenced, he has it
referenced that we would provide five foot of landscaping on both sides of the path.
Maridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 29, 2004
Page 21 of 100
The way your landscape ordinance reads, that you shall provide a five-foot wide
minimum buffer, If the pathway were on the perimeter, then, the five foot would be on
that side and I guess my client -- I brought that up to him and he said, you know, the
path is one thing, but the landscaping, my gosh, you know, what if I spend all this
money and I put all this landscaping in and, then - you know, this is not like a large
homeowner's association, he said, and, then, they don't take care of it and they let it die.
He said I have had that happen and I'm concerned about that. I guess illY position is if
the landscaping is mandatory, then, this segment of the pathway should be eliminated,
because on the plan, if Craig can pull it out, it goes up here and I have -- I have got it
right here and I will -- you can't have my book, but -- do you have the park's plan?
Borup: No, This is the Comp Plan,
McKay: Okay. This is the official Meridian Comprehensive Plan, dated August 2003,
and it does state developer should be encouraged to provide and build pathways, It
doesn't mandate it. Commissioner Borup would look at that and tell me what he thinks,
Borup: I've got it. What page?
McKay: The map.
Borup: What page are you referring to?
McKay: It would be --
Borup: Down at the bottom right-hand corner there,
McKay: Right behind page 3-4 or -- yes, Yes. In pathways, Now, maybe I just need
glasses, I'm not sure, but it looks like to me that that pathway is going along the north
side of the plant. As one individual said to me about this property, we have to find some
type of a use that's appropriate, some type of use that can coexist with what's out there,
I do believe we strive to provide that and it's right next to the sewer plant,so, you know,
it has that hurdle to contend and the plant does -- does burp odors and I heard from
people that have been on construction crews out there that it's not a pleasant
experience. We have got to find some uses that are appropriate. Or I guess the other
option is the city buys that whole section around the plant. I don't know what else to do.
I would like you to -- did you get a copy of my comments? I would like you to take a
look at those and look the items that I have bolded. Some of them are, obviously,
repetitive, because the conditions continue to show up as the analysis takes place. Do
you have any questions?
Moe: I am a little curious as far as the CoG area. What kind of uses are they
anticipating in that?
McKay: I guess, probably, the most likely use at that direct intersection, since it is two
minor arterials, would probably be some type of convenience store or gas station.
Meridian Planning & 2oning Commissicn
April 29, 2004
Page 22 of 100
There isn't one along that corridor of Ustick. We are getting quite a bit of residential
development in the north Meridian area, The homes are going up fast and selling fast
and so that need is going to arise, Some other uses may be something like a -- you
know, some of the more neighborhood type commercial that would service
neighborhoods. It's only, what, two -- two point some odd acres we allocated, so we
kept it very small scale, 2,7 acres, and keeping it small scale, that's going to, obviously,
dictate what types of uses go on it.
Moe: Okay,
Borup: Becky, yes, maybe -- your letter addressed it, but could you maybe address the
item on the gravel along the roadway. There we go,
McKay: Along the pathway?
Borup: No. On Ustick and Ten Mile. The shoulder.
McKay: Oh. Oh. I'm not opposed to the condition, Mr. Chairman, The only thing is we
have had a couple of projects that that condition was specified and, then, when we went
in and did our decellanes and our appropriate tapered lengths, then, we did not exceed
the 13 feet and so it didn't apply and so it just kind of puts us in a crux, so I guess my
recommendation is I'm not asking you to eliminate the condition, I'm just asking you to
word it in a fashion that in the event that there is greater than 13 feet; as specified in the
landscape plan, that, then, they would landscape within that right of Way. I'm not asking
for any type of relief from that, just that it be applied appropriately, because we don't
know until we get into design how long those tapers are goingto be, how much asphalt
we are putting in there. We typically work with ACHD design staff to determine that.
Borup: Craig, isn't the main concern that that area stays somewhat esthetically pleasing
and not a weed patch and et cetera?
Hood: Mr. Chair, that's the idea with the landscaping in the right of way, yeah, the
gravel shoulder, because you don't - it's going to be awhile before that roadway is
widened and if someone needs to pull off there is at least a gravel shoulder.
Borup: But the distance is -- I mean the parameters that Becky had mentioned sounds
appropriate and -- '
Hood: Yes. What the applicant is proposing is what would be required and is
appropriate in this situation.
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the other Commissioners?
McKay: One last thing, Mr, Chairman. When you mentioned gravel, you have got your
statement in your landscape plan that mandates this buffer -- five foot landscape buffer
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29. 2004
Page 23 of 100
next to a pathway, but the park's comprehensive plan says we will -- we will construct
six foot of gravel on both sides, gravel shoulders. So, we do have a conflict,
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just -- there are a couple of
differences between the park's comprehensive plan and the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map. On the future land use map, the pathway is shown in both locations.
The parks plan shows here and also adjacent to the Five Mile on the south side of the
wastewater treatment plant. There is a little discrepancy in both the plans. I have yet to
see a multi-use -- ten foot wide multi-use pathway with six feet of gravel on either side
and I don't know what the idea was behind that either, but maybe that condition,
condition number one on the Preliminary Plat, can be modified to state just that, six foot
gravel is not required on either side of the pathway. And as far as the landscaping
goes, I guess, the way that it's worded 12-13-12-9 states that you should buffer the
pathway, Now, it doesn't say one side or the other, buffer your land or buffer both sides,
so I was interpreting it to be both sides of the pathway. I think that if they planted a tree
on their side of pathway, a tree every 35 -- now, the ma,intenanceis going to be
something that sounds like it's going to be a problem either way, but I bèlieve that it
could be interpreted as the applicant has stated and on the creek sides of the multi-use
pathway additional landscaping maybe isn't appropriate and isn't necessary, There is a
lot of open area there and there is some existing grass and trees and it's my
understanding that there is some, you know, animals that run through there and things,
so maybe it's improved enough and would be appropriate if they put a tree on their side
of the pathway.
Borup: Is that more what the developer had in mind?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, he wasn't too happy about
landscaping in general. I guess if -- you know, if -- the lessor of the two evils, the five-
foot on one side would be better than on both sides, I don't know how to deal with the
gravel issue.
Borup: You mean the -- oh,
McKay: The pathway. When I asked Doug about that requirement and how that arose,
he made some statement that in the event that they took large vehicles down a
pathway, that they'd have that gravel on both sides, That was kind of his explanation to
me. I'm not sure if that's where -- how it was derived, but that was his thought.
Zaremba: I don't know if it's still valid, but the park's director that preceded him gave us
an explanation one time and that was that the heavy equipment they use for weed
abatement and insect abatement has swing out arms and in order for them to drive
down the center of the pathway and have those arms swung out, they hang out five or
six feet over either side. Now, if the new director isn't operating that way or doesn't see
that necessity or doesn't have to swing the arms the whole way out, maybe they operate
only partially out, if he doesn't see that as a requirement, I think I understand why the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29,2004
Page 24 of 100
previous parks director was doing it that way, but if the current one isn't operating that
way, I'm not that stuck on making that requirement.
McKay: Okay,
Borup: I think some of it may depend on where the pathway is, where it's proceeding to,
and anticipated use. You know, in a residential area you're going to have a lot more
pedestrian traffic, I would assume, than in an industrial area. I would -- has there been
any design standards discussed on the pathway itself, other than 18 inches of gravel is
probably not appropriate?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in the conversation that Doug and
I had on the last multi-use pathway to be incorporated was that he would look at it on a
case-by-case basis.
Borup: How about from an engineering standpoint from your side?
McKay: My engineer told me it would depend on the soil conditions. I mean I'm sure
Boise city probably has some standards that possibly we could research and look at
and maybe somehow when we do the work on the ordinance, incorporate some of
those standards, but these are just absolutely out there.
Borup: See, I don't know why this wasn't discussed when -- earlier on when these were
adopted, but I certainly agree it's not practical. Yes,
Freckleton: Mr. Chair?
Borup: I mean we are not running 20-yard dump trucks and fire trucks over these
roads,
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just wanted to maybè talk a little bit
about in their redesign for their sewer system. This multi-use pathway is going to be
over the top of two segments of sanitary seWer as well, The maintenance equipment
that the city has for maintaining the system, we have trailer-mounted equipment that we
pull with a truck and typically we require a 14-foot wide path. If we could work with a
shoulder, even if it was two feet on each side, that would give us our 14 feet, but in the
design, too, we need to take into consideration that there could be some fairly heavy
loads on that when you start looking at traffic indexes and R values for the soils that are
out there. It just needs to be taken into consideration that there will be truck traffic on
there or there potentially could be truck traffic on there, We need to look at that when
we are looking at turning radiuses and that sort of thing as well, so --
Borup: Well, it sounds like on this pathway is something, obviously, less than a public
street and more than --
Freckleton: Certainly,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
paga 25 of 100
Borup: -- and more than a residential sidewalk standard or pathway through a
subdivision,
Freckleton: Absolutely,
Borup: So, somewhere in between, I assume that's what we are looking at.
McKay: These should be beefier than a micro path. Yes.
Borup: Okay. Comments from any of the other Commissioners? Thank you, Do we
have any testimony from the public on this application? Now is the time to come
forward.
Weber: Steve Weber. My address is 3139 West Pedeau, Court and I'm part of the
Hartford Estates Subdivision and I am speaking in behalf of a few of the homes around
that area, I don't know if you want them to stand or if -- there a few here.
Borup: Okay. Yes. If you're as a spokesman for them, then, that would be appropriate.
All right. Thank you.
Weber: So, I'm here to represent some homeowners of the surrounding area of the Ten
Mile and Ustick residents, the residents of the City of Meridian, and we are gathered
together against the application of Falcon Creek for this annexation and rezoning and
many homeowners around the intersection moved to this area to get out of the city
somewhat and get away from some of the businesses and we petition this Commission
to take our concerns into consideration for -- against this rezoning. First of all, we are
strongly against the lots zoned CoG and we ask the Commission to not allow these lots
into our residential area. With these lots we expect that -- like they mentioned, a
convenience store or commercial buildings that would be a car wash or gas station, and
we get this information from the article they posted, plus what was talked about tonight.
There was a posting in the Business Review on Marèh 1st. We stress, again, that we
are against this because of some of the following issues, like traffic that would normally
pass through, would now stop at that corner in the intersection; The ground pollution
that includes, but not limited to, oil and fuel leaks from vehicles and fuel trucks, as well
as the extra noise and the lights and traffic 24 hours a day. The trash and litter that is
commonly associated that comes with commercial lots and development, as well as the
crime and aggression, which is a major concern, We are aware -- we are all aware of
the target that convenience stores are when it comes to crime, such as robbery and I'd
like to mention armed robbery, I have an article here out of the Monday's Idaho
Statesman that an assailant robbed a convenience store at gunpoint and fled on foot
and we just don't want that kind of stuff entering into our neighborhoods where are
children currently play safe, Even if the convenience store is what they are proposing,
we just -- we want to -- we are completely against the CoG because of the types of
business it could bring to our neighborhood. With additional lots planned for the I-L and
the L-O, the area homeowners are also worried about the extra traffic and congestion
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 26 of 100
bringing to the area. Along with this we don't -- we are against the visual appearance of
commercial and industrial businesses that it would bring. Currently our property value
and the country setting is enticing to potential buyers and we are worried that the
rezoning would diminish or decrease that visual appearance, Alocal realtor told one of
oUr neighbors that -- that is in the home -- one of the homes that back up against the
Ten Mile and it's east of the proposed CoG lots is to move now and that was a little
alarming. Local homeowners rallied together and collected at least 174 signatures
against -- against this whole rezoning of the whole rural area and we have also
collected at least 25 signatures of what we are calling an acceptance letters of proposed
suggestions and ideas that we would kind of like to see coming to the area and I'd like
to provide those to you guys as well,
Borup: Okay, If you want to give those to the clerk.
Zaremba: Can you summarize the things that you are suggesting?
Borup: Yes, I was going to ask the same thing.
Weber: Okay, Some of the things that we are suggesting and -- we are not real familiar
with the reasons why the water treatment plant is -- puts out the odor that it does, but
some thought that it was the sludge beds and we don't know if there is a proposal that
could be made to have that sludge taken out, so that the smell wouldn't emit and allow
either residential areas up closer to the comer and maybe that road still through there
and, then, some businesses or industrial park behind to kind of cc
Borup: Now, you realize the city is not -- has not been approving the residential in that
area?
Weber: Right.
Borup: So, that would not be one of the options.
Weber: Because of the odors right?
Borup: No; Because of the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Weber: Okay, The other one that was suggested was a neighborhood park of some
kind and we also put on there limited office space for the entire property or limited office
space for the back perimeter and we put residential for the front, as well as maybe like a
PAL soccer field or something like that, that people wouldn't be there for eight hours
during the day or whatever, will be something that is - would be. a concern, I guess.
So, that's, really, alii have,
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Meridian Plsnnlng & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 27 of 100
Zaremba: Specifically on the two lots that are currently requested to be CoG, if those
were L-O like the lots around them, would that be more acceptable?
Weber: Yes.
Zaremba: The much lighter use than CoG is,
Weber: Plus it wouldn't be a 24-hour thing most likely as well, So, yes, very much so,
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay, Thank you, sir. Did we have anyone else?
Borquist: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is
Dana Borquist I live at 3125 Wilder, That's a property that is in the Hartford Subdivision.
I was here a year or a year and a halfago when we talked about the utility plant also
and I worked hard on my house, got some sweat equity in my house, like many people
do. Knowing that the sewer treatment center was there, although I was told that a park
would be built in that location by the Hubble Home developer, I found that was
misleading information at the time, It's kind of you know, get me into that subdivision
and, then, show me later that that's not the case. I can live with that. What I can't live
with is the thought of having a convenience store right on the comer, As a law
enforcement officer I know too well what comes with those. Right here in Meridian we
have responded to several convenience stores, we have had to shoot people with less
lethal ammunition in the convenience stores. There are numerous robberies and you
can look at the -- any convenience store in the City of Meridian and look at the
surrounding neighborhood and realize that if that goes in this location, most of these
properties will have to become rental properties, because you cannot raise a family and
have the type of living atmosphere that we enjoy right now with that type of activity
going on. I realize the need for things like this, but we know the city is growing
extremely rapid and property is being consumed rather quickly, but I truly do not think
this is the appropriate location for a zoning of CoG, especially in this 2.7-acre space that
the applicant is talking about. Another issue I'd like to talk about is traffic issues. All of
us can look at ACHD and realize they are in over their heads with all the growth and the
developers rely on what their standards are and just say, yeah, we are meeting their
standards. I applaud the city for going above that and saying, you know, you need to
cut down these roads -- or these access roads, because, again, as a law enforcement
officer, traffic is probably the number one concern of every city in this valley right now
and we aren't doing anything to help it. This arterial road will definitely be a much
greater help for traffic relief, but when you have two other access points on Ten Mile
and another one on Ustick, that's going to cause a number of crashes, which will draw
your resources of law enforcement and more congestion, more standing vehicles. You
also look at this map, all the red areas are residential, I believe, all the little red blocks.
We, basically, take up three corners of Ustick and Ten Mile. There is one left and I
know that's prime land, but it's just definitely not a place for a convenience store. I am --
obviously I'd love to see a park there, I mean every person that testified would love to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 28 of 100
have a park in their backyard and I know that's probably not a reality, because of the
money and you hear of all these sports complexes going in, the ice rink and things like
that that are supposed to be going in the city and they are farther out,. you know, on
McDermott Road. Why not build things like that closer to the community, which will
have a better impact on the community than a convenience stOre and put the
convenience stores a little bit farther out and, then, let the people choose to build a
house around those, instead of the other way around, When' it's all said and done, you
know, I am definitely against the CoG zoning. I would love to see a park, but I know
that's probably not reality with this type of property, My proposal would be that you limit
it to light office space. I don't know your codes, but whatever it would be to have a
business that shuts down around 6:00 or 8:00 in the evening and, then,starts back up
in the morning and insist that the applicant do the things on the walkway. I can't believe
that they are balking at that when, in reality, it's not going to cost them a whole lot more
money on the money that they are going to be making off of this property. I think -- I
would hope that you would hold them to a standard to develop this area, so that the city
and taxpayers don't have to continually upkeep it and if they want to continue to build,
then, they should know that that's something that they need to do, Thank you for your
time and I'll answer any questions if you have any,
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Ma'am, earlier you said that Mr. Weber was speaking for you. Did you change your
mind on that?
Snell: Well, no, I am a resident and I'm a stay-at-home mother. The concerns are the
same, but I just wanted to express --
Borup: Okay, We are going to need to start limiting the testimony, We gave him some
extra time, because it was stated he was speaking for the neighborhood and we find
that's not the case, apparently. We need your name and address,
Snell: My name is Isabel Snell and I live at 3137 West Padeau Court and I'm not going
to get redundant here and take up some of your time, but as a parent, obviously, you
have heard that we all have young families, raising our kids. We just ask that when you
consider Annexation and Zoning in that area -- because it's inevitable, We know that
Meridian is growing, it's a great community, it's a great place to do business, that you
not just have the attitude to throw anything up there just because there is a sewer plant
right behind the considered area. We do ask that you consider our needs. There is,
obviOusly, a concern, We have 250 signatures and that if you could, please, do that for
us, we'd appreciate it. Thank you,
Borup: Thank you. Did I see someone else?
Edwards: My name is Y. Scot Edwards. I live at 3486 West Angelica Drive in the
Inglewood Creek Subdivision directly to the south of the development and I would
actually like to propose testimony in favor of it. It's nice to see development come that
will give people opportunity to actually work closer to home, I know -- I'm an architect
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 29, 2004
Page 29 of 100
by trade and I have been keeping track of the developments around the town and I have
noticed that Ten Mile is a potential access to get from the interstate to Emmett and it is
going to get to be a busier street, it's inevitable, it's going to happen. The concept of
being a rural area is going away, We are being surrounded. It is becoming the city. I
am not opposed to development. I wasn't planning on testifying here tonight on this
matter, I'm here on a different issue, but I just wanted the Commission to know that not
all the residents in the immediate vicinity are opposed to this development.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
Wilder: I'm Janet Wilder and 'live at 3340 North Ten Mile Road and we have a circle
drive that would be just almost where one of their driveways is proposed on the other
side of the road, Our road -- our circle drive is on the east side of Ten Mile and their
proposed driveway would be on the west. That does concern me for us getting in and
out of our driveway. The other thing that I wanted to talk about is it was my
understanding when they zoned the property as mixed use wastewater treatment plant,
that their primary concern was to kind of buffer the residential areas from the sewer
plant and my feeling on them putting commercial on the corner is that they are bringing
the sewer plant closer to us, because we'd have more noise, more lights, more -- you
know, all that that is over in the field now and it would be right on the corner across from
us. I'm against that -- the commercial on the corner. We could probably live with the
office use there. I just want to put my vote in against commercial. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3600 West Ustick Road. I'm the little
triangle property on Ustick just to the west of the -- yes. 'Right there, That little triangle.
I, actually, support this project. I think it's meets and bounds above the other proposed
uses we have had in the past for it. Considering that residential is off the table for these
people to develop, I think they have made a great effort to layer the development from
the sewer treatment plant to the houses. I do have reservations about the two
commercial -- the CoG corner units, because of the traffic and the crime situation with
those entrances and the fact that the homeowners want to sleep at night and if we have
24 hour operations right there next to their homes, in addition to the traffic going
through, it's going to make life different than what people moved to this area for, which
could affect the values and the lifestyle that we have. The pathway, I would like to -- I
have walked around there a number of times and I have lived there for years next to
that. The landscaping on the back corner, my preference would be not to have trees or
bushes, but to have just flat grassy areas for safety reasons, to have it visible from the
neighborhood, so it wouldn't be a place where crime might be enticed to go. As far as
their landscaping on the back corner, I would recommend that they are not required to
put in bushes or trees, maybe take the bushes and trees and move them farther up the
path, maybe up towards the front or move that additional landscaping up where it's
already being watered and maintained. Maybe just a gravel area next to the path,
something that could be mowed and maintained would work out well for that area.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 30 of 100
Borup: Okay. Questions for Mr. Crane? He's spent some time seeing the progression
of this property over several years,
Newton-Huckabay: Are you talking about the northwest corner?
Crane: Yes, The northwest corner -- the lowest part of the property where their water
runs in that direction. Actually, trees would probably grow. without any watering,
because there is a lot of moisture in that area. Right now it's justa horse pasture and,
naturally, it stays pretty green, even without irrigation in that corner, because of the
slope of the land in the area, I think if they just flatten that area and maybe put some
top soil next to the path and kept it mowed -- you know, they wouldn't have to do
extensive landscaping, but just, you know, mow it a couple times a month or something,
so that the waste treatment plant does the same kind of thing, they don't have extensive
landscaping, but they go out there and they mow the natural grass and keep it down
and that looks pretty nice,
Borup: Thank you, Did we have anyone else? Mrs, McKay, have you got any final --
Hood: Mr. Chair, while the applicant is coming forward, I would just like to refresh your
memory and maybe answer some of the questions that are in the audience that have
been raised and what's in the staff report right now. If approved as proposed with CoG
onthe property, any use would have to come back before this board and there would be
a Public Hearing on any proposed use on either one of those two lots. That would be --
that's right now written up in the development -- the proposed development agreement
for this site. Just because the zoning may be approved as CoG, doesn't necessarily
mean that a C-Store could go in there right away, There would have to be another
Public Hearing for any use and just, you know, maybe -- I don't know if this helps or not,
but some of the other uses that are allowed in the CoG zone, such as banks and clinics,
those type of things that aren't maybe as intense as a convenience store or a gas
station, are also normally allowed in a CoG zone, but, again, anything would have to
come back in for another Public Hearing and have to be posted similar to what is out
there today. The other thing -- and I apologize to Mrs. Wilder, that the access -- I want
to talk just briefly a little bit more about that. I had touched on it in the first part of my
presentation. She does have the driveway on Ten Mile and she doesn't have access,
like everyone else in that subdivision, to internal streets and she takes access to Ten
Mile right in between the two driveways that the applicant is proposing. Her circle
driveway is right in here --
Borup: I think it's just a little bit north of that. You were on the subdivision, weren't you?
Hood: Okay, Well, it's right in here, I can't exactly see it from this location, but it's
actually in between their two driveways that -- I'm not quite sure, Maybe we can clarify
how ACHD's policy is even met in this instance, because their policy of a 45 mile an
hour roadway is 240 feet offset from any driveway on that side or across the street, so
I'm not even sure that those driveways do meet ACHD policy and there is no way that
those driveways can go away, That property is always going to have access to Ten
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 31 of 100
Mile Road. There are those potential conflicts there and I just wanted to point that out
and I apologize, because I did speak with Mrs. Wilder on the phone and I didn't bring
that up before and I apologize for that so, just a couple clarifications. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Hood, I don't think you addressed that in the summary and I may be
remembering wrong. When the last application was denied, did City Council have -- did
they elaborate on some suggested uses that felt the city would deem appropriate? Is
that something that's handy or -- and maybe Mrs. McKay has the information, too, I
don't know,
Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, what the end result of that was
was that the city would undertake further analysis of the noise and odor effects of the
wastewater treatment plant, we'd try and get some scientific data,we would, then, take
that to the community and reexamine the orange guerilla -- that was probably the quote
that was used for that night. T that effect, we just met with the odor consultant Buz
Rush, the other day, who was in town, and we did meet with him and he talked about
the. methodology and kind of what they would be looking for. The Public Works
Department has started that analysis and will bring that back. They have basically said
we know we don't want residential right now. We don't know what the long-term use is
or the long-term viability of residential uses in the area, it was more of the. suggestion
and they didn't feel they needed to solve it right then, that we could do some additional
work on it, but it was mostly centered around the residential use,
Borup: Okay, I was remembering back to the bus barn, transfer station, you know,
rejection, I think that was kind of the results of that. No to residential, and no to heavy
industrial. Maybe Council didn't elaborate beyond that. That's one of those things
where they expressed what you can't do and maybe not much what you can,
Powell: Right. I think that the current mix that's set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, I
didn't -- they didn't express feeling uncomfortable about those mixes, other than maybe
the quantity of that wasn't viable, which was always the former applicant's argument in
wanting residential.
Borup: Okay,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Director Powell, I would only clarify as part of that
discussion, that the consideration of what's appropriate in this neighborhood is not just
this property, but it's about a third of this square mile is included in that whole thought
and discussion of what's appropriate to surround the -- it does include this property, but
it's not only focused on this property, I just wanted to clarify that.
Borup: Right. Okay. Correct. Becky?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will be brief. It looks you have
got a lot of people waiting to talk to you later on. Just a couple of points I'd like to make
is, one, I think Craig has done a real good job as far as trying to list out acceptable uses
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 32of100
and everything along that perimeter that, obviously, has the impact on the residential
will be a Conditional Use and I brought up a C-Store, 'but Craig makes a good point, you
know, there are banks, there are beauty shops, there are video stores, there are
different things. C-Stores are not necessarily 24 hours. I have done some Kit 66's in
the past and they clòsed early. I have a Chevron just down the street from my house at
Beacon Light and Highway 55 and it closes like at 11 :00, They are not necessarily a 24
hours type nuisance, I believe the Conditional Use process is intended to -- you guys
have restricted hours of operation, you have turned Conditional Use applications down
when you felt the use was too intensive for what adjoined it. We are not asking for cart
blanche. The whole purpose of this wastewater treatment plant overlay is that all uses
are scrutinized here and make sure that they co-exist with not only the treatment plant,
but also what's around it, and we believe that we have done a good job doing that. We
have to provide some type of neighborhood commercial. They talk about traffic. When
you provide some mixed uses, such as office, some light industrial like mini storage and
some limited neighborhood commercial, you reduce the number of vehicle trips on the
arterial. If none of those facilities -- we all got to gas up our car, we all run out of milk,
they have got to go out to Fairview and if we can provide some essential services that
can coexist, we, in reality, reduce trips. The I-L, like the mini storage and the other I-L
lots, we have placed next to the treatment plant, those are extremely low generators
and those are -- from a traffic perspective, ACHD has always said they are preferred,
especially in areas that are highly congested. We think we have got a good project and
we think that this will benefit this area and it with, I believe, try to set some type of a
standard and a balance as far as what development is going to take place, especially
when it's right adjoining the treatment plant. Some of those other properties that are
designated with the overlay don't -- I don't think they abut it, they may be within a certain
distance of it, but this one it's unique, Oh, one other thing. It was talked about PAL
soccer, We did look at that option, We pursued that option. I met with those people
multiple times, I even did, with free of charge, a rough concept on how many ball fields
could be done on a portion of this property and they attempted to try to obtain financing
and could not and so that was disappointing to me, but we have exhausted a lot of
avenues trying to figure out what is an appropriate use for this property. Thank you.
Borup: Unless there is any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Moe?
Moe: Yes, I was a little bit curious in regard to access off Ten Mile Road in regards to
the property across the street. Are we going to be able to anticipate doing some shifting
of the access points?
McKay: Mr, Chairman, Commissioner Moe, on that access drive I haven't had them go
out -- usually what we do is have them go out and stake where our locations are and,
then, try to adjust. Craig mentioned ACHD standards, Under some conditions there
waS one instance where they looked at a driveway for the one single residence and the
staff told me their words were as a temporary use or a temporary driveway. Now, in
that instance the property was a little bit larger than this one, so I don't know what
potential that has for redevelopment, if ever. But I will take a look at that driveway and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 33 cf 100
see if we have a conflict. I don't want to cause them any heartache and have, you
know, the access ways conflicting, so I will try to work with her.
Borup: Are we referring to the same access point? You're not referring to this, are you?
McKay: I'm referring -- I think that--
Borup: These down here.
McKay: Yes,
Borup: Okay, Those are the ones that would be near her property.
McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other Commissioners? Final comments from staff?
Zaremba: Yes. I would ask one more, just -- Becky? Mrs. McKay. Sorry. Slow on the
uptake here.
McKay: I don't know if I'm on the hot seat or if it's really hot.
Zaremba: Would this project be not viable if the two CoG lots were L-O, instead of CoG?
And my thinking is -- I think the alternative would be yôu provide it --or together with
staff provided a list of things that would be prohibited. My alternative would be to
include in the prohibited CoG's a gas station at this location.
McKay: That would be within the purview of the Commission if they felt that that
particular use would be too intensive, To answer your question, it's a -- you know, the
parcel is 30 - what, 34 acres in size and there is only so much demand for office, so
much demand for mini storage and light industrial. I was trying to create some type of a
mixture to, obviously, appeal to a wider variety of uses, I can't, I guess, honestly
answer that question, I mean I'm not a realtor, I just know that there is typically a
threshold of office and if we have too much, then, you know, you can't market it. It sits
and -- I don't know. It may make it unviable. I couldn't directly answer it. As far as the
C-Store, if this Commission feels that's inappropriate, you know, there may be like a
bank may be a better use and 9:00 to 5:00 or something like that.
Zaremba: Thank you
McKay: Thank you,
Borup: Okay. Commissioners?
Rohm: Chairman Borup, the comment that I'd like to make on the two commercial lots
is they are, in fact, required to go through a Conditional Use Permit process and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
Apri129,2004
Page 34 of 100
Conditional Use is just that, conditional, and if, in fact, there is a proposed use of a give
lot and there are people that speak out against it, then, that at that time will sway or will
have an impact on the decisions being made and that isn't a decision that has to be
made tonight, because at such time that those applications are made, anybody that is
here tonight will have an opportunity to speak at that time as well, so if a C-Store is
something that's just inappropriate for that location, then, more than likely these seats
will, then, again, be filled,
Borup: And I think along that line, probably the only way to. really make an educated
decision on something like this is to see the project.
Rohm: Exactly.
Zaremba: Well, I thoroughly agree with you. The only hitch that I would put in that is
that we have had applicants come before us on other projects and flat out say this is a
CoG zoning, this is permitted in a CoG zoning, and you can put conditions on it, but you
can't flat turn it down, because it is allowable in a CoG zoning and that's a struggle for --
you know,
Borup: But - so we have had anywhere they got what they asked for with that attitude?
Zaremba: I just think we could save ourselves and the public some trouble if we made
a couple of decisions that -- we already know a gas station and' á convenience store
aren't going to be acceptable and we could add those to the list of things that are going
to be prohibited. I agree there are some other CoG uses that probably could be there, I
wouldn't have a problem with a bank and it didn't sound like other people in the
audience did, The staff and the applicant have taken time to make a list of things that
would be prohibited in the two CoG lots and. I think we could tonight add gas station and
convenience store to that list and not have to put everybody through it again, because
we know it's going to draw a crowd in opposition, I'm comfortable deciding that right
now,
Rohm: And I'm not against that either, All I'm saying is if, in fact, there was an
application for a C-Store and there was opposition to that, it would - that testimony
would heard at that time and more than likely it would go that direction, but if you want
to limited it even at this juncture, I don't have any problem with that either, because it's
obvious that there is enough people in the audience that are not in favor of those two
specific --
Borup: Well, then, why even have a Conditional Use if we are going to handle
everything right now?
Zaremba: Well, we are not handling everything. The other possible uses would still
come for a Conditional Use, but I think --
Borup: Right. But you're saying one of those is objectionable.
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 35 of 100
Zaremba: These two I think we know are going to be objectionable,
Rohm: I think that it just provides the developer with some insight as to what they can
make application for in the future, as opposed to bringing something in. that would be
denied anyway, All it does is it gives them a clearer picture of what they potentially can
develop on those two lots,
Zaremba: Well -- and I would add that I have been here for a couple of the previous
applications on this property and I'm aware of applications that were made before I was
here, On the whole, this appears to be an answer to 90 to 99 percent of the objections
that were raised to previous projects proposed here. Granted, it's in the county and the
city isn't forced to annex if things come before us we don't like, but some use is going to
be made of this property at some point and, to me, this anSWers an awful lot of the
objections that have been raised before, We still have, to me, just the one detail of that
corner being a little too intense under this proposal. I am fully supportive of the entire
project. The only limitation I would put on it would be we know right now that we aren't
going to want a gas station and a convenience store, Then, the only thing that would
leave hanging for me is a discussion about how many accesses on Ten Mile, Frankly, I
like this proposal. I think it's a very fine proposal and when you. compare it to the ones
that I have seen and heard about, it's a good edition.
Moe: I happen to agree 100 percent.
Zaremba: .I guess we know how I stand.
Moe: Yes, Yes, we do. Quite frankly, I would agree but my biggest concern was -- and
that's why I asked the question early on, was what - what exactly was planned in that
CoG. I'm very concerned about convenience stores and gas stations, in that area and
so, therefore, I happen to agree with that, if that can be a prohibited use for both
convenience store and service stations, I wouldn't have a problem at all with this project.
Rohm: I think we are getting pretty close,
Zaremba: Are we ready to close the Public Hearing yet?
Borup: It sounds like it.
Zaremba: We have a direction. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public
Hearing on -- is this two items or three items? On these two items, AZ 04-004 and PP
04-004,
Moe: I'll Second.
Rohm: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 36 of 100
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearings, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Let's see. The hanging issues are the pathways, whether it's going to have
landscaping, Whether it's going to have gravel, and some discussion of access to Ten
Mile.
Mae: Also, basically, the design of that pathway correct?
Borup: Do you mean the engineering design, as far as -- yes, I don't think we are going
to answer that question tonight.
Moe: No,
Zaremba: Well--
Borup: But maybe some direction, I mean I think we can offer some direction and
opinion.
Rohm: I still wouldn't think that the pathway should exceed the standards for a public
roadway, I mean as far as --
Zaremba: Well, you know, somebody might want to land a 747 on it sometime and that
might be the only open space,
Rohm: What was I thinking?
Zaremba: Sorry about that.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Quite frankly, the only thing that I would defer on that was I don't know why you
would need six inches of base, Four inches would be fine, I really don't have a
problem,
Borup: It wasn't six inches of base, it was 18, Or--
Moe: Well, you're going to need 12 inches of pit run material for a structural base there,
probably, depending on what they come up with the soils report and four inches and two
inches is fine with asphalt, two and a half isn't required either. I don't know that we are
that far off from what you're going to need. I don't know if you worded it such that
maybe use this as a guideline, 12, four, and two, unless the engineers come back with
something other,
Borup: Well, the 12, four, and two is a public roadway base.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning CommiSSicn
ApriI29,2O04
Page 37 of 100
Moe: In some, yes.
Borup: 50, I would like to see what is required in -- you know, What has Meridian built
on the other pathways that are already constructed and maybe what surrounding cities
are doing. It may be appropriate. I am really puzzled how these standards ever got in
there to start with. It doesn't seem to be based on anything of -- appropriate or logic,
Moe: Would you be wanting to change it a little bit, because Bruce has already stated
that there are areas that they are going to have to access across and whatnot.
Borup: Yes, Actually, it needs to be more than a micropath standard and I think it's --
Bruce was saying that five feet with maybe two feet of gravel on each side would work
for the city maintenance. The only thing would be on that is maybe the base. I don't
know if we need to -- I don't know if tonight's the time we are going to solve that.
Moe: Who is the wordsmith that's going to tell us how we go that route? Bruce, it's
given to you,
Borup: Maybe we don't need to say any more than that we agree that the present park
standards do not seem appropriate,
Newton-Huckabay: Excellent suggestion,
Rohm: Well, I think the civil engineers can determine what the specifications should be,
so short of that, you know, we have to fall back to some ambiguity, Is that the right
word? I think
Zaremba: Well, I'm not sure it needs to be ambiguity, but I would be comfortable saying
there is - and maybe it's part of the Development Agreement, that standards or
something will be worked out between the applicant and the staff that satisfies the Parks
Department and --
Rohm: There you go. I like that.
Zaremba: You know.
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: I wouldn't just leave it vague, but I would empower to the staff and the
applicant and the Parks Department to come up with an engineered standard for this
property.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if you like, I'll take a stab at it. How about we just say H520
loading standard or a negotiated standard with staff of Parks Department and Planning
and Zoning, Public Works.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 380f100
Borup: Could you explain what HS20 means?
Freckleton: It's the loading characteristics and you establish the base section. It's
based on soil characteristics, the gross vehicle weight, and what you're going to put on
it.
Borup: Okay. That would vary depending on --
Freckleton: Yes. It depends on what kind of soils you're dealing with out there. It
seems to me like it's probably a more appropriate way to establish this section, They
are going to be doing these soils investigations to establish their street sections anyway,
so it would be a piece of cake for them to come up with a section for this road or this
path,
Borup: Oh, I think that makes more sense than establishing a --
Zaremba: For us to decide -- to establish an engineering standard.
Borup: Well, for anybody for this specific thing, because it's going to vary with the soil
conditions,
Newton-Huckabay: Just leave the access off of Ten Mile,
Freckleton: Mr. Chair -- excuse me. If I might add to that. If we could get that two-foot
shoulder on each side, so we have a total 14-foot wide pathway, 10-foot hard surface
and two feet of side gravel.
Borup: Yes. That's what I meant. I think earlier I said five, plus two on each side and I
meant 10. Thanks, Maybe the access points, I don't know if we would want to address
the landscaping on the pathway. I don't know, Also the right of way area on the two
public roads, but it's still in the staff report. I believe.
Zaremba: Well, we have with other applications tried to follow the principal that on
arterials we need to limit the accesses. I think we have the additional consideration
here that there is what will probably not be a temporary driveway to the home on the
other side of the street, there has been no move to give that piece of property access to
the subdivision that's behind it and I would not anticipate that that's anywhere in the
near future that something like that would happen. That further complicates this
driveway situation.
Rohm: Maybe it's appropriate to have one ingress and, then, cross-access between the
two CoG lots,
Zaremba: That's the direction that I would go.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 29. 2004
Page 39 of 100
Rohm: Yes. That seems like it addresses -
Zaremba: In what appears to be approximately the same distance, there is one access
to Ustick and I would think the same would be appropriate along Ten Mile. I do
appreciate the internal road. I think that's a very good stroke. Then, as you said, the
cross-access, Then, there seems to be a consensus.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree,
Zaremba: Landscaping along the pathway, Anybody have an opinion?
Rohm: I don't think that there was a significant objection by staff to the adjustments in
the landscaping along that pathway. It seems -- weren't they going to just eliminate the
buffer on one side of the pathway? Isn't it agreed -- that was agreed to? . Staff would
accept that?
Borup: That was my understanding,
Rohm: Yes, Think that --
Borup: Well, they would still like to see some trees,
Rohm: Right.
Zaremba: Okay. Let's see if I can sort through where these notes would go,
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did just want to apologize. The page
numbers got removed from the staff report somehow, I promise you they were on there
at one point in time, so it may be a little more difficult to reference pages and conditions
and I do apologize for that.
Zaremba: I will sort through my paragraph numbers, I guess, if we can, Well, let me
give it a stab and people chime in if I'm going off track. Mr, Chairman, I move that we
forWard to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, AZ 04-
004, request for Annexation and Zoning of three point -- I'm sorry -- of 34.6 acres from
RUT to I-L, L-O, and CoG zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek,
LLC, northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road, to include all staff
comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of April 29, 2004, received by the City
Clerk April 26, 2004, with the following change: Under Annexation and Zoning, special
considerations, paragraph A, refers to a development agreement. I would leave that in
the whole, but add in that development agreement it includes a list of things that would
be prohibited in the CoG zone, I would add to that prohibited list a convenience store
and a gas station, I believe that's the end of the annexation issue.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 40 of 100
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 04-004, request for Preliminary Plat approval 16
commercial building lots and five common lots on 34,6 acres in proposed I-L, L-O, and
CoG zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC, ,northwest corner of
North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo
for the hearing date of April 29, 2004, received by the City Clerk April 26, 2004, with the
following changes: Beginning on -- under Preliminary Plat special considerations,
paragraph A, can include the statement that the pathway will have shoulders that make
-- give it a total width of 14 feet and shall be designed to the standards of HS20 or as
agreed jointly by Planning and Zoning staff, the applicant, Public Works, and the Parks
Department. Parks. Parks Department. Paragraph B, we shall allow one access on
Ten Mile -- one driveway access on Ten Mile, in addition to the roadway access to Ten
Mile,
Hood: Mr, Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, just to clarify, you are working on site
specifics one and two or paragraphs A and B, They reference the same thing, but the
conditions are actually site-specific conditions one and two and itwould be easier, since
that's what gets actually forwarded to the City Council, to amend those.
Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry. I was in the wrong place. Site-specific conditions are what
I'm looking at right? Or should be looking at. Okay, Let's review, then, Paragraph 1
under site specific conditions, Preliminary Plat, we will end up saying that the pathways
will include shoulders that give a total width of 14 feet and be designed to standards of
HS20 or as agreed by -- agreed jointly by Planning and Zoning staff, the applicant,
Public Works, and the Parks Department.
Borup: Number 2 probably just as written by -- in the staff report, isn't it?
Zaremba: Let's see. Well, this appears to eliminate the driveway access to Ustick,
which I don't have a problem with a single driveway.
Borup: No, It's got one full access approach and one public street. I think that stays
the same.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: And, then, they are saying the same thing on Ten Mile, which would eliminate
one of them. '
Zaremba: Okay. There is no change to Paragraph 2. Under site-specific conditions
Preliminary Plat, three asks for recorded access agreements, and we want that anyhow.
Four is landscaping discussion and we would -- I've lost what we were going to add to
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commls'slon
April 29, 2004
Page410f100
that. Did we decide on trees and stuff? This is getting to be a complicated motion, I'm
sorry. We are starting and stopping.
Borup: This landscaping buffer is, I think, along Ustick and Ten Mile that it's referring to
and in four. Well, no. The last bullet point. The last bullet point is a pathway.
Zaremba: Okay, Paragraph 4 we will leave all bullets the same, exceptfor the last one
and are eliminating the trees or ask them to move somewhere else? Alternate
compliance. '
Borup: I think it mentioned they'd like to stay with the one for 35 feet.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Just on one side.
Borup: On one side.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: But we haven't discussed that very much, but if that sounds appropriate --
Zaremba: That would work for me, instead of along both -- the same requirement,
except along both, along the eastern side,
Borup: Yes. Or the interior. Either way you want to word it.
Zaremba: Yes, Interior. Okay. Re-continuing with the motion, under site specific
conditions Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 4, the last bullet shall be changed to read:
Provide a minimum five foot wide landscape strip with one tree for every 35 linear feet
along the interior sides of the multi-use pathways. In parenthesis it says those
pathways are on the west and north sides of the development. The rest of the
paragraph stays the same.
Borup: Did we want -- I'm sorry. The bullet point at the top of the page talks about
landscaping within the ACHD right of way.
Moe: Yes,
Zaremba: So, this is under Paragraph 4, site-specific conditions Preliminary Plat, the
fourth bullet, which starts out construct a 1 a-foot wide gravel shoulder. That can be
modified to read that after acceleration and deceleration lanes have been established
beyond the right of way and the remaining portions that needs to be graveled will be
graveled, What was the 13 feet about? There was some discussion of 13 feet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Paga 42 of 100
Hood: That's the unimproved area from -- that's how the code is worded right now. It's
a future roadway outside of the sidewalk is more than that distance and you have to
gravel that. If it's less than that, then, you're let out of that requirement. It will apply --
Zaremba: That's already in the ordinance?
Hood: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I will consider that included and I have run out of things to say, I think.
End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Yes, counsel?
Gabbert: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you did not address the
maintenance of the landscaping within -- on the interior side of that path. I believe that
that was a concern and --
Zaremba: That may be covered by ordinance as well, isn't it? If you install landscaping,
you have to maintain it? The idea would be that the business owner's association would
be responsible for it. Let's ask staff. Thank you, .
Hood: That is in the ordinance in certain places, specifically, on multi-use pathways. I
don't know that that's spelled out. I do not have that section of code in front of me right
now.
Zaremba: Let's do this: Under site specific conditions, Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 4,
the final bullet, the previous modifications to that bullet stand and. we will add a
paragraph that said landscaping shall be maintained by the business owner's
association of this project.
Rohm: End of motion?
Zaremba: Now end of motion.
Rohm: Second,
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Borup: Good job, Commissioner,
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we take a short break.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 43 of 100
Borup: Okay, This would probably be a good time to take a -- we will take a short
break at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 9,
Item 10,
Item 11.
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: RZ 04-002 Request
for a Rezone of 7.48 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Developmemt - east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue:
Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04-005 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for 52 residential building lots and 1 common
lot on 7.48 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Rock Creek
Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development - east of North Linder Road
and south of West Pine Avenue:
Continued Public Hearing from March 18,2004: CUP 04-006 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a
mix of residential and commercial uses with reductions to building setback
requirements for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley
Development - east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine
Avenue:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and begin with our next
hearing on RZ 04-002, PP 04-005, and CUP 04-006. All three of these are Continued
Public Hearings from March 18th for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure
Valley Development. We'd like to start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I'll start out
with just a brief overview that will touch on all three and, then, go through the Rezone
plat and CUP in particular, The site is currently zoned limited office, The
Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as high density residential. The
property is bounded by Meridian Friends Church to the east in this rectangular parcel
here Pine Street on the north, there is Pedmont, Navaro, and Clarinda Subdivisions on
the north side of Pine Street. Union Pacific Railroad, a 200 foot right of way that abuts
the south and Tramore Subdivision apartment complex is here and I think a couple of
the Commissioners will remember that. Roundtree Subdivision was proposed on the
south side of Tramore. The senior apartment complex is on the north lot and that's
complete and occupied today, The southerly portion for Roundtree Subdivision was
denied by City Council, as noted in the staff report a couple of months ago, and the
reasons for the denial are outlined in the staff report, but, essentially, it comes down to
three things. One was the concerns about the senior complex and the high density
apartments and the traffic -- particularly the density and the traffic that would be
associated with the apartment complex on the same -- essentially the same parcel as
the apartment complex that was -- that was one of the issues for denial. Another one
had to do with open space and the way the floor plans were proposed on Roundtree
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
April 29. 2004
Page 44 of 100
was that they did not have a private usable area within each unit that was a hundred
square feet or greater. Council was concerned about that. They also had concerns
about the elevations and just the general design of the units, In essence, that's -- that's
the reasons for Roundtree's denial and I did outline in the report some of the -- how that
inter-relates with this proposal and, for the most part, staff finds that the reasons don't
apply as much because of the -- there is some separation of the senior complex, but I
certainly don't want to state that, you know, there aren't some things for the Commission
to still consider tonight, in particular the density is exactly the same, but since the
Comprehensive Plan calls for high density in this area, it is adjacent to a railroad track, it
does have an urban collector on the north side of it, Pine Street, which does have bike
lanes, You do have Linder -- or, I'm sorry, the high school within walking distance,
There are several factors that staff feels that high density is appropriate for this area
and the comp plan supports it, so -- generally, the plat -- well, I'll just touch on the
Rezone, I guess, first here on item number nine. They are proposing to Rezone it from
the current limited office to R-15, 15 dwelling units per acre, We have recommended to
staff that a portion of the north end of the project not be Rezoned to R-15, because they
are proposing two non-residential lots and we have been recommending that the use try
to match the zone as much as possible, rather than having -- having the R-15 be an
underlying zone for commercial office -- or commercial or office uses. We are
recommending that stay the same. That's, essentially, the Rezone request. The aerial
shows you, kind of, the Nine Mile Creek that bisects the property, continues on here to
the north and west, so that does present somewhat of a design challenge for the
applicant and, as you will see, they have proposed just a one crossing of that. Here is
the beginning of the apartment complex that's shown there. As far as the Preliminary
Plat is concerned, they are proposing 92 dwelling units that are all located within four-
plex structures. There are 23 multi-family lots, two commercial lots or office lots, I'm
sorry, here on the north and, then, one common open space lot, which is, essentially, all
parts of the project that are not buildable lots have been proposed to be put within one
common lot. That is a slight change from the original plan that was submitted to the
city. This is a revised plan that came through after the Roundtree Subdivision was
denied, They did remove two buildings. Other than that, largely, it's the same, Their
proposed density is 12.3 dwelling units per acre. The amenities that they are proposing
as you -- as you enter in off of Pine, there is a common open space lot here just north of
the Nine Mile Drain, There is another common lot here just south of the Nine Mile
Drain, And, originally, staff had concerns about a lack of usable open space on the
north side of the drain. They did add and increase that to provide this in the revised
plan. There is also some other open space I think there is a better layout that's shown
here, You can see there is some green area around each of the four-plex buildings,
along with trees. The amenities that are in these two òpen space lots I mentioned are
playground, a tot lot here on the south, and a picnic and barbecue area on the north
side of the drain, They are also proposing to extend a five-foot wide pathway from
Tramore, which is already there. It exists today. Extend that to the east. Those are
proposed areas for usable open space. We had asked for a specific calculation tonight
and I was told verbally. We will ask the applicant to address the Commission, but -- that
it's about 10,3 percent of the site is open space and that -- that does not include the
Pine Street street buffer, nor the Union Pacific landscaped area that they have shown
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 45 of 100
here. The elevation -- the proposed elevation has a common stairwell that is in the
middle of the building and that, of course, serves the upper two units. There is two units
on the bottom, two units on the top, The materials are shown there, but if the applicant
could just address that as well, the building materials that they are proposing to use
here, because that was a critical piece of the denial for Roundtree Subdivision, so we
wanted to be clear with that. Let's see, I think there are just sixorseven specific items
in the staff report that I wanted to point out. The first one is on Page 7, Item Number 3,
that we have asked for a new legal description, as I mentioned, that retains the L-O
zoning on the north end. The second item I want to point out on page eight, special
consideration A, as a part of the planned development, they have proposed to reduce
the side setbacks. The R-15 requires -- would require a 10-foot side setback for a two-
story structure and they are proposing it to be five, so it would be 10 feet between
structures, The city has approved that 10-foot separation before, the International
Building Code does support that, but that is a reduction that they are asking for a part of
the project. If the Commission could just bear that in mind, thinking about the amenities
that they are proposing.
Zaremba: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm going to interrupt. I think the other times that we
have agreed to that, we have added a stipulation that no fencing be put along the
property line between the buildings and the thought there is preserve a ten foot wide
area that the Fire Department could get through with ladders and stuff if they needed to.
Has that been discussed with the application or should I take that up with the applicant?
Hawkins-Clark: I would probably do that. We did not raise that in the staff report, nor
have I talked with the applicant about it.
Zaremba: Okay,
Hawkins-Clark: Usually, of course, these four-plexes, it's fairly uncommon to separate
them with fencing internally. You will have the perimeter, but -- yes,good thing to raise.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark Let's see. On the bottom of page eight, there is also reference to the
emergency access for the site and as you may recall with the Roundtree Subdivision
there was a driveway -- 25 foot wide driveway connection that's proposed between the
two projects shown right here on the west property line. The Fire Department does
require, obviously, as well as police, that there be that second access. They are
proposing I believe it's 48 dwelling units on the north side, so that would be with the
single point of access off of Pine, so we have recommended that they have a second
point of access that is fire rated, fire approved, before they could start any buildings on
the south side of the Nine Mile Drain. Mainly for discussion sake, I included this
paragraph D, a point about interconnectivity and I will just go back to the vicinity map.
It's a little bit difficult to see here, but, again, here is the Meridian Friend's Church and
here is the subject property. Idaho Avenue stubs to the Friend's Church here and
Broadway Avenue stubs to the Friend's Church here on the south side of the drain,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi'¡sion
April 29, 2004
Page 46 of 100
Both ACHD and city staff think it's pretty unlikely that Idaho Avenue will be extended as
a public street, because of its close proximity to the office parsonage that is on this site.
That is not the case on the south side of the canal where Broadway may provide some
better connectivity, both for the existing Tramore Subdivision, as well as for these
others, Now, the applicant has not proposed to have either a driveway stub or any kind
of public street on their east boundary. They have got units along this entire boundary,
Mainly we wanted to just raise that for the Commission, If you saw that there were
some advantages to having this project be able to get out both to the east and to the
west, that opportunity is there. Since we don't have an application before us on the
Friend's Church site, of course, we don't know how that - how that will work, but I
wanted to raise that. The ACHD has not required it. The applicant is not proposing it.
As long as the number of units remains consistent how it is proposed at the 12.3
dwelling units, I think staff is supportive of the way they have it. Obviously, keeping in
mind that we have required that second connection out through the Tramore apartment
complex. Let's see. Then, two more -- two or three more items to point out. On page
ten --
Zaremba: I'm sorry, Mr, Chairman. Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: I was going to ask when you were done how likely Roundtree is to resubmit
some kind of an application, but your statement that you made just now that you want
the second access to be through the Tramore property - is that what you said? We are
not looking for this second access to be an eventual access through Roundtree's future
proposal?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I'm sorry, that would be the case, I mean Tramore is the name of
the subdivision to the west and it's a two-lot subdivision.
Zaremba: Okay. So, the Roundtree --
Hawkins-Clark: Roundtree will be on part of Tramore's --
Zaremba: -- is part of Tramore --
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Zaremba: Okay. So, it would be the southern portion of the Tramore c-
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Hawkins-Clark: -- that this would gain access to and not their current existing parking
lot?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Maridlan Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 47of100
Zaremba: Thank you for that clarification.
Hawkins-Clark: On Page 10 we make a reference there on sub point Roman numeral V
about the trees on the property and there is very few on -- if any, on the south side of
the canal. There are eight ash trees on the north side that are pretty good size and the
city arborist has gone out to the site, has looked at them, feels that they are in good
shape and would have to be mitigated for. The applicant's proposing to take all of them
out and replace them with the same amount of calipers that they have. There is, I think,
250 caliper inches of trees that would be removed and the code says if you take 250
inches out, you got to put 250 inches back somehow. We have not gotten that
information from the applicant, if they have proposed the full mitigation. I did want to
point out that the -- Elroy Huff, the arborist, have deemed those to be decent trees.
Then, I wanted to go back to the amenities. In terms of visual access, the Police
Department, Chief Musser, has made a comment on this application about public
surveillance of these two open space sites and so we have recommended to enhance --
to enhance that, that the side elevations of this building here, this building here, and this
building, so three of the -- three four-plexes -- I'm sorry. Four. This one as well. That
those side elevations have windows that can provide sort of that visual access to the
open spaces, so it's not just a blank wall. Actually, we do have site elevations here that
I can put up on the overhead, so you can see those, This is the proposed right
elevation. We haven't seen a floor plan, so it's unclear as to whether or not ~- you know,
what kind of rooms these are, but we just wanted to raise this for the Commission, that
probably it should be located in either a living room or kitchen within the units to provide
that access that the Police Department's looking for for safety.
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, Brad, you're saying there should be windows on the second
floor that are --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: -- that are usable, as opposed to -- well, the little high ones, but at least one
window that -- on the second floor.
HawkinscClark: Correct. Yes. It would be both floors. Right.
Borup:- Because they are separate units,
Hawkins-Clark: While we are looking at this elevation, it might be helpful to just mention
that the -- as part of the planned development CUP application, one of the reductions
that they are asking for is the rear setback to be 12 feet, instead of 15. This is only on
the interior lots, though, The whole perimeter would still have 15-foot rear setback. On
the interior ones this balcony, which is, I believe, six feet by about 10 -- and I will ask
them to verify that, but that would encroach into that rear setback, so you would be
looking at -- in those rear yards, you know, about eight feet of free space that is
unencroached. The code outright allows four foot encroachment for balconies that are
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 29, 2004
paga 48 of 100
unroofed, which these are. They are basically asking for an additional two feet beyond
what the code allows. The code would say you could -- on an unroofed balcony you
could come out four feet into your required rear setback and they are proposing to come
out six feet. The bottom units have patios, which are just pads, there is no structures on
those, Those are 10 feet -- 10 feet deep. That -- there is basically two exceptions that
they are asking for. One is the rear setback to be 12, instead of 15, and, then, the other
is the balcony overhang to be six, instead of four,
Zaremba: Brad, again, if the balcony dimension is six feet by ten feet for 60 square
feet, that doesn't meet the hundred square feet of private space, which is the reason
that the City Council turned down Roundtree,
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. There is some usable space in the front of the unit.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: And I may have that balcony dimension wrong, so I will just ask Mr.
Clever, who is representing the applicant tonight, to clarify that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think those are the main issues that are somewhat outstanding
that we are asking for some feedback from the applicant on tonight.. The pathway, as I
mentioned, I will just -- right now they are not showing the pathway to go full to the east
boundary, so we will be asking for that. We have asked for that in our staff report. Are
there any questions at this time?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Brad, I did have one other. I thought I was
understanding the drawings correctly and this appears to repeat that. Is there a
necessity for there being no intersection here? Normally, I Would think there would be
some cross-vehicular access in that area.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, there is a
pedestrian access. They have also proposed a trash enclosure in that area that would
serve these units that would you know make that difficult. That's certainly a design
issue that is up for the commission's discussions. I don't necessarily see the -- you
know, the benefit or need for it, since they -- ACHD has approved a curb cut for these
two office buildings, They will have some separation and you don't have much of a
turning distance if you were to put a vehicular connection across there. . It's a pretty
shallow distance to make the turn. I -- I don't necessarily see the benefit of it, but -
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zcnln9 Commission
April 29, 2004
paga 49 of 100
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Ralphs: Members of the Commission, my name is Rod Ralphs, I'm here on behalf of
the applicant Treasure Valley Development. I'm at 850 Franklin, Suite 406, here in
Meridian. If it pleases the Commission, I have some handouts for you this evening, if I
could hand you those first. Okay. What I'd like to do first, if we could, is go to the slide
that reflects the handout that we just provided, What I'd like to do is go through here
and describe some of the issues raised by staff and, of course, any questions that you
might have. We have got 92 units going in there, that's 23 buildings, and we do want to
keep the lighter limited office on the front. Really, the only change we are looking at is
going R-15 on the back, We are proposing 3,000 square foot buildings -- they are
approximately 3,000 square foot up here, in keeping with what you already have for the
Comprehensive Plan and for the proposed use for this site. As we get in here, we'd like
to also point out some of the open space, As staff indicated, we are not counting the
berm area along Pine, nor are we counting in down here along this lateral as part of our
open space and, yet, we still exceed the ten percent of -- one thing I would point out.
Here we have this trash area and if you look on your handout it shows it a little bit
better. If we were to explore interconnectivity right there, we would actually lose one of
the trees, there is one of the established trees there, Out of the three trees that we
believe are salvageable out there, putting that driveway there would actually take one of
those out. The remaining two trees constitute about 95 inches and, then, we can
mitigate the rest with some additional landscaping. I wanted to go down through some
of the amenities that staff pointed out. On the original plat that was suggested, we had
the tot lot or play area here south of the Nine Mile Drain. Point out to the Commission
and the Nine Mile Drain is what is characterized as a natural water feature, so we will
not be tiling, However, if you will look at staff comments, we would be looking at staffing
down here with a -- or, excuse me, tiling this lateral down below. What we have
proposed on the initial application was putting the tot lot over here to the south of the
Nine Mile Drain and the concems for visual and public surveillance by the police chief
are certainly -- certainly valid and so what we have asked is that we would put the
barbecue and picnic area, along with the tot lot, next to each other. We just want to --
as we get ready to go into the development on this, we don't want to be married to the
north or the south, we want to be able to keep that open, We will put those two
together, but we want to be able to have that option to either put it on the north south
side, We are right now is this current configuration -- we are particular to this one,
because, obviously, you have fronts of units that are able to look right into this area
along that public surveillance. Also, even though this tot lot here is in the center and
you have got this green open area around it to protect them from traffic and, you know,
darting out into traffic, we do have an area where traffic would be coming and going and
they would also be able to keep an eye on there for the little ones playing in the area,
One of the other amenities that we had that was not mentioned was we were going to
be putting in a horseshoe pit. It's an active outdoor recreation site that could be used as
another amenity, We have no objection to extending this path over here where it stubs
into Tramore, all the way across here. Then, also stubbing it to the east property line,
so that some day as they go -- as they develop that next piece, that that would be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29. 2004
Page 50 of 100
available. I believe that's what we have got in the way of amenities and wanted to just
make sure -- we have got the tot lot, we have got a barbecue pit, we have got walking
paths and, then, we also have the horseshoe pit. One of the things that staff indicated
is that we are asking for a conditional -- or a variance on the setbacks and staff had
indicated that that was 12 foot on the interior, but we'd also like to have 12 foot on the
exterior lots as well. Now, what we propose -- if we can put that side elevation and just
show where those balconies are. What we have got here is we have got the 60 square
feet here in the back and as Councilman Zaremba was pointing out, that would be 60
square feet. Then, we would also have a seven by nine foot area here in the front porch
that they would also be able to use for their private space and that would exceed the
hundred square feet combined. Down on the bottom where we have the patio slab, that
would be approximately a 10-by-10 square foot slab and they would have that, plus the
entire access to the back area of that building on the ground floor for a private area, I
wanted to touch a little bit on the construction materials as well. What you see here is
you have some vertical boarding here. This would be shakes. If you could go back to
that color rendering, I think that would help a little bit more. Thank you, What we would
have here for architectural effect is you have a cedar shake look here that would be a
different color. You would have lap siding down here on the lower and you have the
vertical board here. I appreciate Council pointing out that we do have in the elevation
some side fencing, However, we would not have that and that would be in keeping with
the Fire Department and the police have asked for security sake, getting in between the
buildings, and, then, also accommodate the five foot setbacks that we have on the
sides. They would have ten feet to go back in there. Then, we would adjust the
landscaping also, so that there would not be any interruptions if they needed to get back
in there, I believe I have addressed the emergency access, The tot lot play area, we
also wanted to point out that with this Nine Mile Drain remaining uncovered, we will be
putting in a six foot, noncombustible fence that would be visible -- or a non-sight
obstructive type fence through there that would allow people to see through it, but it
would also keep the little ones out. It would be noncombustible material and it would
wrap around these areas here where the Nine Mile Drain still remains exposed. By
combining all the open space that I spoke of earlier and that, again, is excluding the
berm area and, then, also the area down there along the lateral, we are about 35,119
square feet. You can see that on the handout I gave you, to put us at right at 10
percent we would be at 32,000. We have added some more square feet as open space
to be used. We have visited with ACHD about our interconnectivity issues, Going back
to the other concern about what is going to happen with Broadwayand Idaho Streets,
we don't know what's going to happen. One of the applications you can see that
property -- if we could go to that one that would show that area there to the east. Okay.
Great. I have not personally been out on this side of the road, but instead of looking at
it coming and stubbing all the way through, another use would be for someone coming
in there and just wrapping this around, ACHD, with the visits we had, if we maintain this
connectivity and go up through and use the Tramore -- and I'll call it Tramore No, 2 or
Roundtree, just to avoid confusion, but we will have that emergency access going from
the west into Tramore and, then, there would be another crossing over here going over
the drain, Now, that's option one, and, of course, that's our preferable option. That
would be an asphalt road that would be wide enough and that would be easy access for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
ApriI29,20O4
Page 51 of 100
emergency service vehicles and personnel. One of the other things that we had
discussed arid would be available to us as another option would be improving this canal
area back here for access by emergency services and that can be and I understand it's
been done historically, but don't ask me which project. I believe that's it. Let me just
take a quick look at the notes I was taking during the park here. As Cóuncil -- or,
excuse me, as the Commission will note, we do have windows there on the side
elevations arid we certainly can add a larger window in that upper story if you want to
make that as part of the conditions.
Borup: Does the interior floor plan accommodate that?
Ralphs: I understand those are bedrooms upstairs, so yes, I believe that's it, Members
of the Commission, I would certainly answer any of your questions at this time. We just
feel that this proposal is within keeping of the Comprehensive Plan, High density is
allowed, We have allowed for traffic connectivity and flowing. We have reviewed it with
ACHD and we feel it's in keeping with what you have got in place for the
Comprehensive Plan for this area, I have nothing further, so I'll field any questions you
have,
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I do have one. Along the Nine Mile Drain is there any easement for anybody
like Nampa-Meridian to have an access to that or --
Ralphs: Certainly. That would be a part on the plat and there would also be gates, We
would work with Nampa-Meridian on that, making sure they would have gated access to
that. We see things like that. For example, like the Ten Mile Drain in other areas where
we have had to fence it.
Borup: Mr. Ralphs, you had mentioned that you are requesting 12 foot on all the lots,
so that's different than what your application states. Is that what you're saying?
Ralphs: That's correct. We are going 12 feet on all the rear line setbacks.
Borup: And is there a reason for that?
Ralphs: That is to accommodate the extra docking area that We need to accommodate
the privacy space.
Borup: Well, don't those setbacks refer to the building?
Ralphs: Right. There is the other fine print that says that weare only allowed to
encroach a certain distance into those setbacks with an overhang and that's where we
are going with that.
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 52 of 100
Borup: So, that's why you're asking for the 12 feet, is because of the overhang, not
because of the building proper?
Ralphs: Well, the building ties into what the overhang is. The buildings come back off
the property line 12 feet and, then, we have the overhang of six. Really, what we are
doing there is we are not only asking for a change from the 1,5 to the 12, but, then, we
are also asking for a Variance for the -- instead of four feet overhang, asking for six.
Borup: So, that the plat that you submitted that shows that setback, is that a 15 foot
setback that's depicted on the plan now, the dotted line?
Ralphs: I believe it's 12. Just one other comment to add, that bygoing 12 on the back
we were able to add another five to the front and give a little more separation from the
street and the parking area,
Borup: What are the building sizes?
Ralphs: I'm sorry, What?
Borup: The size of the building,
Ralphs: The size of the buildings are -- I've got that down here, The total size of the
building -- that's a great question, because I --
Borup: The dimensions are what I was looking for,
Ralphs: Okay. Total footprint is about -- is 4,324. Excuse me. That would be 35 by
70, Yes. If I can, I'd just present to the Commission the different measurements of the
units. The upstairs unit is two bedroom, two bath of 984 square feet. Then, the bottom
units are a three bedroom, two baths, at 1,178. If you take those numbers and you
double up the -- each floor, you come up with 4,324 square feet per building.
Zaremba: Let me ask each -- each four-plex would be under one ownership? One
person would own a whole four-plex?
Ralphs: Yes, That would be the expectation.
Borup: Well, I'm not understanding why the necessity to ask fora reduced setback on
the perimeters, unless the building sizes are changing. You have 29 feet of setback
available now. No, That's not correct. Yes. Yes. That is, Which gives you -- which
gives you 15 and 14.
Ralphs: Fifteen and 14. I'm going to defer to the engineer here for a moment, if that's
all right.
Borup: I'm referring to the rear setback,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
paga 53 of 100
Clever: Nathan Clever of Leavitt Associated Engineers, 1324 1st Street South, Nampa,
The building -- the purpose for the setbacks that we requested are we have the stairs
that you can see at the -- can you go to the side profile again, Brad, Thank you. This
side profile does not show the stairs going down. They protrude another three feet past
the front. When we went and looked at laying out these - this subdivision, we looked at
several other -- several sites and they all showed no open space in the front. We are
looking at parking five feet there was the building. We did see a couple that have
greater setbacks in the front. Our hopes were that we would be able to obtain 12 to 15
feet in the front and put 12 foot in the back. That -- allowing that would give us more
open space, it would be quieter for the residence inside and pull them off the street, and
so they are not in apartments right on top of each other.
Borup: So your feeling is that the residence would rather have their private open space
in the front of the building, rather than behind?
Clever: Our feeling was that it gave a better -- it made a nicer residence for them and
we tried to add in additional amenities and open space to provide for them recreational
facilities so, the answer would be yes.
Borup: Okay. I just -- maybe that's me, I think that having a private open space out
near the parking lot isn't very private,
Clever: That is a good concern. One of the -- all of us barbecue, One of our ideas was
to put in the amenity of barbecuing to draw the residents from their homes, so
everybody wouldn't have a barbecue on the back patio, that they would go use the
community barbecue.
Borup: So, you're proposing the front setback to be what?
Clever: We are asking for 12, but, most likely, build 15, because the stairs are going to
be sticking out three feet from the top.
Borup: Okay. Which leaves you 14 for the back.
Clever: One moment, please. We do have the home -- the home plans with us. Let's--
I just want to verify that the home is 35 and not 37 feet deep, because it seems there is
a discrepancy of two feet, obviously, like you pointed out. It is 37 four inches.
Borup: Okay. That's different than what was stated but it's 70 the other way?
Clever: That's correct.
Borup: So, which open -- which size building was the open space calculated on?
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 54 of 100
Clever: It was the same identical building, 60 foot -- 60 by 100 square foot, balconies
on the top and an additional nine by seven in the front.
Borup: Okay. All right. Maybe I spent too much on that time.
Clever: Oh, I probably apologize for misleading you,
Borup: Okay. Thank you, Did you finish your presentation, Mr. Ralphs?
Ralphs: I believe that's it, unless the Commission has any other questions for me,
Rohm: I think where Chairman Borup was going with that square footage deal, is that
the 37 by 70 versus 35 by 70, are you still -- do you still have the required ten percent
open space.
Ralphs: Yes, we do.
Rohm: Isn't that where you were going with that, Keith?
Borup: Well, part of it. Really, where I was going was -- I didn't see the necessity of
asking for a reduction when it fits the way it's -- we thought it was designed now,
Obviously, you know, there is another two feet, so that does make a difference.
Ralphs: Okay, Thank you, if there are no further questions.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have concern on the accesses to this property. It doesn't seem
like usable --
Borup: The one additional to the west?
Newton-Huckabay: I like the idea of, you know, possibly connecting to Broadway or at
least coming out over here by the railroad. You have to go a long ways to get out of
here.
Borup: Well, I have always had a concern about interconnectivity between
developments,
Newton-Huckabay: It seems like the interconnectivity in the new developments in
northern Meridian are -appear to be required and, then, maybe we are in an older part
of Meridian and we don't have a requirement to hook up to existing stub streets. Do I
need to repeat myself?
Maridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 55 of 100
Borup: No.' No. I understand. Part of the concern is we don't -- I mean maybe part of it
is because we don't know how the property to the east may be developed. But -- and
that's one of my thoughts on the reduced setback. I mean we have a deck six feet from
the property line, without knowing what is even going to be developed over there, too,
I'm not so sure -- three feet probably doesn't make a lot of difference,
Zaremba: I would be inclined to defend the access as presently shown going to the
west, not necessarily, again, because of this property, but we know that if there is ever a
new proposal for the Roundtree or Tramore 2 property, they are going to need a second
way out and this is the only option for them.
Borup: I think what the Commissioner was talking about was to the east.
Zaremba: Yes but I thought you were saying to trade, not have the --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no. No. I don't think there is enough access to this property.
Zaremba: Okay, Well, I certainly would support having one go tothe west.lthink it's
Broadway to connect with, but that would, essentially, mean giving up one building,
Borup: Or half a building, It becomes a duplex, rather than a four-plex.
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: And I'd support that, too, except that my only concern is not knowing how that
property may develop. We have seen a lot of stub streets, as was just shown on the
subdivision to the east, that has the two stub streets that likely may never be used.
Newton-Huckabay: I think they have a better chance of being used if you have another
stub street with the potential to hooking up one of the -
Borup: What I'm getting at is I like the idea allowing for it and preparing for it, but maybe
an option of abandoning it if it would not be used as the adjoining property developed,
rather than have it there going nowhere. I don't know the best way to. accommodate
that. I do know once the buildings in place it's too late. Any other thoughts along that?
Rohm: I'd just like to hear the applicant's response to that. Yes, I concur that it would
be nice, I'd like to know what the applicant has to say.
Borup: Okay. Any other discussion, maybe, while we are -- they are formulating
something? Any other items?
Ralphs: I'd just point out that Roundtree is here tonight and we have worked with them
and about using mutual access, at least for emergency vehicle purposes, through those
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 56 of 100
- using that road, We have connectivity through there and we are going to develop
these projects as best as we can to get--
Borup: No, I think we were talking about connectivity to the east.
Ralphs: Okay, The deal with the east is the interior roads here in Rock Creek are all
private and I'm not the ACHD attorney, but, really, you would be bringing those public
roads and, then, what kind of a transition do we have between Broadway and Idaho
going into a private roadway system, I don't know what hoops. would be required to
jump through that. Then, of course, we don't know exactly what the church is going to
do with that back piece. It could be years before anything else happens.
Moe: So, you are anticipating that it going to the west is going to be feasible for an
access road that the Fire Department has required?
Ralphs: That's what our expectation is. We have certainly had the discussions about
coordinating and cooperating with Roundtree's proposal on that as Well, I know it's also
in the staff comments that we are not going to be able to do anything on that back piece
until something is worked out to the satisfaction of emergency personnel. That's why
we actually have the two options. Number 1 if Roundtree goes forward, great. If not,
then, we will be working with the Fire Department emergency services for taking care of
that road there along the Nampa-Meridian lateral.
Rohm: So, are you saying that you're not going to develop the back half until the
Roundtree develops?
Ralphs; No. It's -- we can put in -- there are a number of options we can dowith that.
Roundtree comes in we have an emergency easement already in place, an agreement
with that property owner, okay, to use that. Now, whether that means for a temporary
access until Roundtree is resolved, either way, that we have refined enough or a good
enough road in there, whether it's gravel or asphalt, again, based on what the
emergency services people tell us we need to have in there, the access will be there
and if, for whatever reason, that one gets shut down, we do have another one there to
the south using that lateral. Does that answer the question? I'm still seeing a furrowed
brow.
Rohm: I just wanted a better understanding, That's good.
Moe: There is a condition we can't do anything - he's got to be able to have access out
from there.
Rohm: Basically, he's going to have an easement --
Ralphs: And we have already had the discussions with those ,involved in Roundtree to
put that in place. As has been pointed out here, they are going to need us and we are
going to need them.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 57 of 100
Moe: If they can't do that, then --
Rohm: That's down on the railroad right of way?
Ralphs: Correct. Well, actually, it's along the lateral there. It's a Nampa-Meridian
lateral.
Zaremba: It sounds to me like you, basically, have agreed with everything the staff has
requested,
Ralphs: We try,
Zaremba: Am I interpreting that correctly?
Ralphs: We certainly have tried, Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to move on?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 9, 10, and 11.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Your turn. I'm retired,
Moe: All right. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of -- excuse me.
Move on to City Council approval of RZ 04-002 for rezoning of 7.48 acres from L-O to
R-15 zones for proposed Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development,
east of North Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue, with all the staff comments
of the meeting date -- now, we use them both? Where is my other one here? Oh, the
hearing date of April 29, 2004, and received by the Clerk's Office April 22, 2004.
Zaremba: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 58 of 100
Borup: Motion and second. That Was with, I assume, all staff -- no modifications to any
staff comments?
Moe: That is correct.
Borup: Okay. All in favor?
Zaremba: I would only note in discussion that staff has suggested. that not all of it be
converted to --
Borup: And that's why I brought that up, because --
Zaremba: And it has been agreed by the applicant that a portion of it will -- as staff has
requested, will remain L-O,
Moe: L-O. That's correct.
Borup: And per staff report they are to have a new legal description prior to City
Council.
Zaremba: Right.
Borup: And that's why I brought that up, to make sure that was understood, the two
zones.
Moe: I would include that for sure,
Borup: Yes. Well, it already is, That's what - okay.
Zaremba: Just making an extra point of it.
Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Mae: Okay, Mr, Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of PP 04-005, request for Preliminary Plat approval for.52 residential building
lots and one common lot on 7.8 acres in the proposed R-15 zones for proposed Rock
Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development, east of Linder Road -- north Linder
Road and south of West Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments and conditions of
the hearing date April 29, 2004, and received by the clerk's office April 26, 2004,
Zaremba: Second,
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmissicn
April 29, 2004
Page 59cf100
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP
04-006, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of a
mix of residential and commercial uses with reductions to building setback requirements
for propose Rock Creek Subdivision by Treasure Valley Development, east of North
Linder Road and south of West Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments and
conditions of the staff -- of the hearing date April 29, 2004, received' by the City Clerk's
office April 26, 2004,
Zaremba: Second,
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12,
Public Hearing: PP 04-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2
building lots on 2.7 acres in an I-L zone for Cafarelli Subdivision No, 2
by Shawn Fickes - 1950 West Franklin Road:
Borup: Thank you, Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing -- this is a new Public
Hearing, PP 04-003, request for Preliminary Plat approval of two building lots on 2.7
acres in an I-L zone at 1950 West Franklin Road. I'd like to open this hearing at this
time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is a
resubdivision of an existing lot in Cafarelli Subdivision. This application is here tonight,
because there waS a notice -- well, actually, we didn't post the property when it came up
the last time. It's a Preliminary Plat for an industrial subdivision located in an area with
I-L zoning. There will be two building lots on 2.7 acres and, additionally, the applicant
has revised their plat and there now will be two landscaping lots on the western side of
the subject property. Actually, it's a pretty straightforward subdivision. There is one
issue I want to briefly go through, There is a proposed private road to the west of the
subject property, which is being constructed by SSC and the school district and this
applicant is not participating in the construction cost of that road and weare requesting
that they be required to put up a fence on the western side of the property to restrict
access to the road until they come to an agreement with the school district or the road
becomes a public road, because it's currently proposed as a private road. That's really
the only outstanding issue, The applicant has gone and revised their Preliminary Plat
from when we first reviewed this application and there now is a 25-foot wide cross-
access easement shown on the eastern side of the property. I do -- I want the applicant
to address -- we had requested a vehicle turn around be shown and so I'd like for them
to go ahead and address that, but we do have the cross-access easement shown on
the eastern side of the property, I believe there was a Public Works issue, which Bruce
should go through, and explain, That's it's for my staff report and. staff recommends
approval of this application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Apri129, 2004
Page 60 of 100
Freckleton: Thanks, Wendy. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the issue
seems like it -- it's a popular issue tonight, but sewer serviceability for this lot cannot be
provided via gravity back to the line in Franklin Road, The applicant has proposed
installing individual grinder pumps on each of the buildings that would be constructed on
these lots and pumping to the end of the line in Franklin Road. Originally when I wrote
the staff report I wrote that service should be provided via a single pump station, that
their service lines would gravity flow to this pump station and, then, it would pump back.
The applicant prefers to do it with the independent grinder pumps that they would
maintain independently and they would run gravity service lines out to Franklin Road, so
that when the trunk line is extended into area, it simply could be connected up and the
pumps could be taken off line and abandoned. There is quit a considerable economic
difference between the independent grinder pumps and a single pump station and I
don't have a problem with that. We have to just modify Preliminary Plat condition
number two to allow the independent grinder pumps on the lots and that would be the
only modification.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Bruce, is there any anticipation of how long this alternate
method is going to be necessary?
Freckleton: Well, the Black Cat trunk sewer is in design and that would be what would
be coming up through this area, so I don't think it would be too awful long. '
Zaremba: A couple of years, as opposed to ten years?
Freckleton: Yes,
Borup: Okay, Anything else?
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, we had an additional idea on how
to restrict access on the western side of the property, but we didn't understand that the
western side will be pretty much exclusively a swale, a landscape buffer. One thing
they could do -- essentially, the only access point to the west would be through the
cross-access easement, which kind of divides the two lots. If they were to do -- put a
fence there at the end of that cross-access easement, that would also restrict access
without having to fence that entire property and obscure the landscape buffer, it's
another option and the applicant can address that.
Borup: Okay, Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Amar: Good evening. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar, address114 East Idaho
Street. I know we have had a long night so far - it's not over yet, so I will be brief, We
have reviewed the conditions of approval. Other than the two items that have been
mentioned, we just want some clarification. We have no issues with those conditions of
approval. This project is currently zoned for the use we are intending, which is asking to
split the lots for two separate buildings, rather than one, I do have a map here with me
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisslcn
Apri129, 2004
Page 61 cf 100
this evening to show the typical use of this project, There is one building that sits
probably out towards Franklin Road and another building that sits behind adjacent to
that private access, although both buildings will be taking access off Franklin Road
through the existing easement. We will be restricting access to that private road until
such time that either an agreement has been reached with the school or the road
becomes public. The issue with the road right now is the school is not sure exactly what
they want to do with it. We have spoke with Wendell Bigham, He's sure it's going to
become public, It's our eventual hope that we will take access to that, but it will be
either through an agreement with the school or when it does become public. Until that
time we have the required turn around space and the parking spaces, all taking access
off of Franklin Road. With respect to the grinder pumps also putting ,in there, because it
is a temporary situation putting in those, but the service lines would be installed at the
time of building construction, so there won't be a need to do this later, it will all be ready
to bolt, so to speak, when the Black Cat Trunk Line is extended. . We would request that
we be allowed to use grinder pumps, but in conjunction with that also provide the sewer
main line extension for a service line extension at the same time. With respect to the --
to the fencing, there is fencing that we will be putting from the corner of the building and
securing the site, as it is a manufacturing site, so there will be materials and things of
that nature and equipment that will need to be fenced off. The one issue -- and I
understand it as being restricting access to that private road, we would like the ability to
restrict access through other means, other than just strictly fencing. The concern in this
area is it's going to be more of a landscaped area, so restrict access with some
landscaping trees, a swale, or other things of that nature. We spoke with Mrs, Powell
briefly -- and, I'm sorry, Wendy, it was just a few minutes before this hearing and she
suggested that we comply through a certificate of zoning compliance, making .sure that
we have restricted access to that road, as long as it remains private. I think with that I
would stand for any further questions and appreciate your time this evening,
Borup: Questions from anyone? I assume that the concern for the access would be in
the parking and the driveway area. Are you going to have any curbing along that?
Amar: There will be curbing, The other thought with this -- there is a swale and We can
put some additional landscaping in there, so I guess you can get an access to it, but
you're going to have to drive over a tree, just as you would drive over a fence, It's going
to be difficult to do it. I understand wanting to restrict access to it, I just want to make
sure it looks nice, instead of fencing right on the road.
Borup: So, the swale would be the whole length of the property?
Amar: I can let my engineer answer that question,
Borup: Okay. Well--
Amar: It will be in there and I don't know if it will be the entire length of the property or
not, but certainly we can put it in selected --
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 62 of 100
Borup: But it's still a landscape buffer either way.
Amar: Sure, Sure, I would anticipate the swale similar to the Sundance project off of
Meridian Road, which is a swale, but it's also a landscape buffer and it looks --
Borup: It's also a storm water retention, isn't it?
Amar: Yes,
Borup: Okay. Is the anticipated sewer usage just going to be for office buildings?
Amar: Yes. It's -- the shop up here will be a cabinet shop and this shop will be a
welding shop, Neither one of them will be a high impact as far as waste usage it will be
just for the office use,
Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission?
Rohm: Just a comment. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to come up with a way
to access that private road prior to coming before this Commission. We would have
liked to have seen that happen.
Amar: Well, we would like to access that property also and we had a. discussion with
Wendell, His comment is until they know what the eventual thought for that road is,
they are not sure what they are going to do or when they are going to do with it. We are
still talking to Wendell. It's much easier for us to gain access from this road than from
Franklin, so it's our desire to do the same,
Rohm: That's cumbersome at best off of Franklin,
Amar: Sure.
Zaremba: Well, along that line, my comment would be that it would be in the long range
plan for traffic flow in that area much better for you to have access to that road and my
question, I guess, would be either staff or legal and you -- I will get a combined answer.
Can we add a condition that if and when that road becomes public, they will abandon
their access -- the direct access to Franklin?
Rohm: Well, there was already a curb to Franklin serving the existing commercial --
Zaremba: Oh, you want to share the driveway with them?
Rohm: Yes. That's what --
Amar: Back when the subdivision was approved there were certain access points
allowed on Franklin,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmissicn
April 29,2004
Page 63 of 100
Zaremba: Okay.
Amar: That access shows the driveway with this property and also the property to the
west -- or east. I'm sorry, That property cannot be -- or that access can't be
abandoned, because it's access for the property next door, '
Borup: Yes. I think that will just take care of itself, They are going to want to use the
easiest access.
Zaremba: Well -- and I would assume at some point, if that -- if what's now a private
road becomes a public road, it's probably a good location for a signal. I would assume
that the people from your property would want to use that, even if you do have a
driveway on Franklin, so -- I guess I have no further comment.
Borup: Okay, Anyone else? Thank you.
Amar: Thank you.
Borup: Any other testimony from the public on this? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on PP 04-003 be closed.
Moe: Second,
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Borup: Okay. I think there was only probably two items, one on the grinder pumps and
Mr. Freckleton I think clarified that. And the other would be on the access to the west,
about a fence and -- or not the fence -- that the landscaping buffer wouldn't be adequate
for that, which makes sense to me.
Newton-Huckabay: That the landscaping buffer would --
Borup: No, Staff had - I think it would. I mean staff was talking about putting a fence
along there, but -- and the applicant is saying they'd like to just keep it the landscaping
buffer as the -- to prevent the access,
Moe: Yes, I am, too,
Zaremba: So, let me ask staff to steer us toward where those two comments are.
Borup: Maybe that was just in the testimony,
Newton-Huckabay: I do believe it was just in testimony,
Meridian Plannlrig & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 64 of 100
Borup: Okay. We don't need to worry about it.
Moe: Yes. Just--
Zaremba: Okay,
Moe: Just the one, then?
Borup: Okay,
Zaremba: Okay. The sewer one is on page four, paragraph two. That sentence needs
to be modified.
Moe: Yes.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if you like, I could suggest a modification,
Borup: Okay. I think we'd appreciate that.
Zaremba: Go.
Freckleton: Okay. After the word via, just scratch the word a. single and insert
independent grinder, It would read via independent grinder pump stations. Then, insert
on each lot and scratch adjacent to Franklin Road frontage. That would take care of it.
Moe: Mr. Chairman --
Zaremba: No. Wait. Okay, Paragraph 16 is where the western access is, On page
five.
Moe: Oh, you're right.
Zaremba: And just -- I would just add to that additional landscaping will prevent access
until such time as that road becomes public or an agreement is made for use.
Moe: Strike this and just do additional landscaping,
Newton-Huckabay: Instead of the fence?
Zaremba: Well, I think it was going to be both, wasn't it? The fence and landscaping?
Kirkpatrick: It would be a combination of both. Right.
Zaremba: So, I would add to it -
Maridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
April 29, 2004
Page 85 of 100
Moe: Including additional --
Zaremba: And it can be up to them whether it's a swale or something else,
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-003,
request for Preliminary Plat approval of two building lots on 2,7 acreS in an I-L zone for
Cafarelli Subdivision No.2 by Shawn Fickes, 1950 West Franklin Road, to include all
staff comments and conditions of the hearing date March 18, 2004, with the following
changes. On Page 4 of the conditions of Preliminary Plat, Second paragraph, there to
read sanitary sewer service shall be provided via independent grinder pumps. Oops.
Wait a minute, I'm reading my own stuff now, Shall be via independent grinder pump
stations on each lot. Strike a single pump and strike adjacent to the Franklin Road
frontage, Also on condition Number 16, add a sentence to include including additional
landscaping to -- including additional landscaping to access -- I just lost that. Excuse
me, Including additional landscaping until access has been agreed upon.
Zaremba: I'd second.
Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Item 13.
Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9047 acres from R-
4 to L-O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood
Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road:
Item 14,
Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15
building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres
in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-15 and
L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC
- 2090 South Meridian Road:
Item 15.
Borup: Thank you, Okay. We'd like to move on to our next application and I think we
have a few people that have stayed for this this evening. The reason this was at the
end is because it was a new Public Hearing the others were continued, We'd like to get
-- because of the hour we mayor may not be able to get through everything this
evening, but we will get started and see how the evening progresses. I'd like to open
Public Hearing RZ 04-004, request for a Rezone for 9.47 acres from R-4 to L-O and R-
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 68 of 100
15 zones for South woods Subdivision and open Public Hearing PP 04-005, request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 15 building lots and one common lot on the same project
and Public Hearing CUP 04-008, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned
development office and assisted living in the proposed. R"15 and L-O zones for
Southwoods Subdivision, with all three of these hearings open at this time, we'd like to
start with the staff report,
Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this project Was -- the staff
report was written assuming that the consistency matrix that, you all recommended
approval of would have gotten approved Tuesday night. I wanted to give you an update
of what happened Tuesday night. The Council had a lot of discussion about whether
the matrix was proposing new policies or not and it really -- it was not. That was one
line of questioning that I received on the matter. But they had a question about whether
it was new policy and most of it was just putting existing goals and policies into a
graphic form. The one issue that was not as strongly supported by the text of the
document, though, was the provision that properties that were less than three acres in
size could request a light office designation, rather than the -- or if they were on a
collector or an arterial street. That footnote that we had on the consistency matrix was
kind of a new policy, There is some general support for that and Wendy will go in to
that in a little bit, but that was one line of questioning, whether it was new policy or if it
was just graphically depicting one. We talked about that at great length. Then, there
was great confusion regarding the Old Town District and zones versus uses and, then,
there was questioning along the lines of what kind of public participation did we do and
although we had talked about it with many people there was not a lot of support in the
record. There was actually none, other than our staff recommendation and your
recommendation. We were kind of weak on the public participation aspects, Given all
this line of questioning as the evening went on, it became that they were not
comfortable with it, especially in light of the fact that we were looking at redoing --
completely revamping the zoning ordinance and they felt that we'd have to go back and
redo this consistency matrix and they really didn't want to get in the habit of having to go
back and amend the Comprehensive Plan on a regular basis, I withdrew the application
after about a half hour of grilling and so it was not passed the other night and it was
assumed that that would pass for your staff report, but Wendy has written an update.
There are policies about it and I'll let her go into that now, but she asked me to give you
a rundown on what happened on City Council, so -
Borup: Thank you.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll briefly run through kind of the
major components of the project and, then, I'll go through and analyze some of the
major issues we have before us tonight. The project is located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Meridian Road and Calderwood Road. It is just to the south of
Southern Springs Subdivision. The project consists of 9,47 acres, which are currently
zoned as R-4. The applicant's proposing to Rezone 3.06 acres to L-O and the
remaining 6,22 acres to R-15, The project encompasses a Preliminary Plat'for 19 lots,
including 14 L-a, Light Office lots, and four residential lots and one common lot. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 67 of 100
applicant is also applying for a planned development and a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a reduction, in the frontage requirements for the L-O and I think that was -- oh.
Actually, to access the lots in the L-O off of a common drive. Now, I'm going to go
through in some more detail what the matrix issues are. Where we -- when I wrote the
staff report I was assuming that the matrix would be approved by the City Council,
because we had no opposition to the matrix and seemed to have a lot of support from it,
but I want to go through -- when we originally met with this applicant when they came in
with Southwoods Subdivision, they, actually, had three options for how to pursue the L-
0 zoning and the staff report is somewhat misleading in that it $ounds like there is only
one way to do it. The first way would have been the matrix we thought that was the
cleanest way. That's off the table, The second way was to doa use exception through
the planned development. That actually doesn't meet the needs of the applicant and
how they want to configure the project. The third way to do this -- and J .c you should
have received a memo I wrote up today kind of explaining this. The third way to do this
-- we have done this in the past year on Southern Springs and on Office Jet Subdivision
- is to make an interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan and I have included in the text
of my memo exactly where we are taking this interpretation from in the Comprehensive
Plan. To make an interpretation where if the subject property is adjoining an area with
Comprehensive Plan designation where we think it's appropriate to expand will be for
the reason the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and we are. expanding that
Comprehensive Plan designation to include the subject property and this is, obviously,
something that is done on a case-by-case basis. We are not setting a precedent here,
but in this situation we feel that it's appropriate, considering directly to the north of
Calderwood Road we have a Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial and we
anticipate that that property will, while it's currently zoned RUT, will become a
commercial use and I think we actually have a developer who is interested in that
property this evening, you might want to ask him about that. Considering that
Comprehensive Plan designation immediately adjacent to the north and the property's
location on Meridian Road, it's very similar to the scenarios this past year, which I'll run
through where we made a similar interpretation, Let's see, The first of these -- this is
Office Jet. Office Jet had L-O zoning immediately to the north and some CoG zoning
that was to the south and to the east of the subject property, so we made the
interpretation that this was considering the location and the adjoining uses it was
appropriate to, essentially, expand that Comprehensive Plan designation to include
Office Jet. That was the -- and, then, more recently we saw this in their neighbor
Southern Springs where that red triangle you see, actually, to the north of the subject
property, had existing CoG zoning and the property immediately to the east, that kind of
half square we bumped out that Comprehensive Plan designation to include -- to
encompass -- to encompass that subject property and they went ahead and zoned
those CoG and in both of the scenarios, in Office Jet and in Southern Springs, they were
properties that had a Comprehensive Plan designation of residential and the
interpretation was made to expand either the L-O or the CoG zoning. Staff -- staff is
very supportive of making a similar interpretation here for Southwoods, It's, obviously,
for you to consider, but I wanted to explain that that is another way this applicant can
proceed with the L-O zoning and staff is fully supportive of it and we feel it's very -- it's
an appropriate interpretation in this case. I'll go through kind of what the L-O zone --
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 68 of 100
portion of the project entails. It's 14 office lots they are proposing, They are mostly
going to be professional offices. We have a Preliminary Plat. We do not have a
detailed site plan, so they would be required to come through with CZCs for each of
these -- for each of these lots and that would be when we would go through and figure
out and make sure they had enough parking and all of those requirements for the L-O,
but -- so I'm going to go ahead and start with the second part of the project, the eastern
side, which includes an Alzheimer's facility and an assisted living center and an
independent living center, I don't know if you want to stop at this point. Do you have
any questions on that interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or about the L-O
component of the project. Or shall I just continue?
Borup: Questions anyone? It sounds like we are fine,
Kirkpatrick: All right. The residential component of the project is it's on four -- proposed
four lots, It includes 72 residential units and by residential units I -- the applicant will
clarify this, but I believe that they mean 72 people will reside within this project. There
are two stand-alone buildings, an assisted living center, and an Alzheimer's living
center, which is on the northeast part on the east side of the canal. Additionally, there
are a number of four and six-plex lots, which are two on the southern part of the
property and those, are the independent living units, Actually, the reason the applicant
is -- has requested the R-15 zoning, they have an overall density of 90 and it's an acre,
but they couldn't request the independent living units, which are classified, technically,
as multi-family housing, without the R-15 zoning. That's, actually, why they have that
request here tonight and I believe that's part of the controversy here this evening, The
applicant met with myself and with the Police Chief several weeks ago regarding safety
concerns with the Alzheimer's center. The Police Chief had, you know, expressed
some concerns with an Alzheimer's center that wasn't strictly controlled with access,
that it can pose a danger to the Alzheimer's patients, but he came out with Doug Clegg,
one of the applicants, and was -- I think when he walked away he was really pretty
satisfied with the solutions they had come up with. There are wristbands that the
residents wear to restrict access out of the doors, The outside patio area in the back is
-- it's fenced where it's really impossible to get out. He will go through that. It's a pretty
comprehensive safety plan they have for the Alzheimer's center and I was really
impressed with it, I didn't know that these things existed. I'll go through some of the
other components here. The applicant is proposing for the residential component of the
site plan, they have submitted a complete site plan and they meet all of the parking and
landscaping requirements and all of the -- all of that -- the requirements for the R-15. I
wanted to emphasize that staff fully supports this component of the project, the
residential component. I think it's really important while we are, you know, dealing with
an aging population that we house these people in our community and I think it's -- it's
highly appropriate to have them in a residential location, rather than in a commercial
zone or a light office zone and I think that this configuration works really well with the
light office acting as kind of a buffer for Meridian Road for these residents and the
residents - the residential living center and the Alzheimer's and assisted living,
independent living, being adjacent to an existing subdivision. I think it's a really nice
location and a good use, Do you have any questions of staff?
Maridlan Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 29. 2004
Page 69 of 100
Borup: Questions at this point? Okay, Is the applicant ready for their presentation?
Perez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Rob
Perez. I reside at 4148 North Westview Way in Boise, Idaho, I am a member of
Calderwood Community, LLC, and the applicant for Southwoods Subdivision. I'd like to
take a moment and give you a brief overview as to how we arrived at the development
plan that has been so strongly recommended by your staff, followed by, with your
approval, brief comments by Doug Clegg, who is acquiring from Calderwood
Community 6.25 acres to the easterly portion of the property for the purpose of a senior
housing project and, then, brief comments by my colleague in Calderwood Community,
LLC, Scott Stewart, regarding the three acre L-O that we are requesting. When we first
heard about this property for sale, my partners and I showed an interest in acquiring it
and asked the sales agent what the highest and best use, in their opinion, of the
property would be and they indicated four-plexes, two story four-plexes for multi-story
apartments, Usually, when an agent represents the highest and best use, you know,
we find we often concur. However, when we inspected the site, we found a couple
things. One, we found that the traffic noise created by Highway 69 was, in our opinion,
a little limited factor for a substantial single family residential use. I should say a single-
family residential use on a substantial portion of the property. We also determined that
Southem Springs -- the approval of Southern Springs commercial development really
changed the complexion of our property for a strict residential use, Those were our
opinions having inspected the property. We concluded the same thing that Wendy
mentioned, that a light office would be a nice buffer for any further residential use on the
back portion of the property. We also recognize -- and there is a number of people here
today who I respect, I'm a homeowner, you know, I -- neighbors are important to me as
well. We had two separate homeowners meetings, one in tandem with another use
nearby, and one specifically for our project. We were pleased with the turnout. We had
23 people attend the two meetings interested in our project. I think, in all honesty, there
were three things mentioned that I think represent concelTis of the people that are here
tonight and I'd like to mention those, If we miss some, "m sure they will correct me.
Then, mention briefly how I think we mitigated those concerns. Firstly, they were
concerned with traffic -- increasing traffic as a result of the development. Secondly,
they were concerned with obstruction of their views. We have seen a lot of four-plexes
tonight, two story four-plexes and I don't know about you, but you know, if you're used
to looking out of your kitchen window and seeing something other than -- or second
bedroom window and seeing something other than another building, it's kind of nice to
keep it that way. I can appreciate those concerns. Thirdly, impact on property values,
First of all, as a result of those neighborhood meetings, we committed, as a
development team, to restricting the structures to one-story structures, We think that
that is important in respecting the neighbors, Secondly, with respect to traffic, we felt
that the senior housing component, which frankly came to us cis a result of demand
assessed in the marketplace by independent consultants that Doug Clegg was privy to.
Interestingly enough, we found that seniors typically do not travel during peak hours and
so we felt that that did respect the concerns for traffic. A lot of these seniors, of course,
are not going to be as ambulatory as others, but the complex contemplates those
Meridian Piannlng & ZOning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 70 of 100
seniors who want the dignity of independent living, want their own garage to drive into,
but yet, perhaps, aren't comfortable cooking for themselves as well as they used to or
their spouse, they can have access to meals and other amenities through the assisted
living center and that's the, quote, R-15 need, even though we are really an R-9,
because we are looking at attached units similar to Altura, if you have seen Altura on
the eastern side of Boise, This is a concept from the Park Center that we are really
bringing to Meridian, And also one that Doug Clegg will talk about briefly as it relates to
what he did at Eagle and has been so highly received in Eagle. We think we addressed
some of the traffic considerations with the nature of the usage in the back and,
secondly, light office, the way it's configured, we have a lot of interest by dentists,
orthodontists, and Scott will talk more about that. Chiropractors, insurance agents,
accounting professionals, so we will have access to -- the entire Meridian Greens and
other areas will have access to that, without having to get onto Overland without having
to cross Meridian Road. We think that the usage of it really compliments the concern
for traffic, Then, finally, I think what Doug will show you will hopefully speak for itself.
We focused on a high quality living environment. Yes, there is some structures in here,
but when you see the magnitude of the landscaping, when you see the quality of the
elevations, we put a lot of time and a lot of money and certainly Doug has in making this
a project that the City of Meridian can be proud of. That's certainly for you to decide,
but it won't be without lack of effort. Doug?
Clegg: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Doug Clegg and I reside in
Eagle, Idaho, and I appreciate the late hour and your willingness to stay here and
especially those that have showed up tonight. I, like Rob, am a concerned homeowner
and we have taken great length to insure that the quality of this project is in alliance with
our neighbors, I thought it would be useful tonight for me to give. a little bit of
background on our company, so that at least the folks that are here and you knew that
we weren't just a fly-by-night start-up group, We have been providing assisted living
service in the state of Idaho since 1995 and I believe in that period of time we have
probably taken care of over 700 seniors that have been through our direct supervision.
We currently have four locations. We have owned and developed five. We have about
70 employees right now that work for us and our licenses our with the Department of
Health and Welfare and the Bureau of Licensing for what they call elder care and under
that licensing status we not only take care of seniors, but we take care of individuals
that also have Alzheimer's, dementia, and what they call sundowner's syndrome. We
have had some experience in taking care of these individuals. I don't think there is a
person in this room that hasn't been affected in some way by a family member that
needs additional care, whether it's a parent or an aunt, we have all lived through that,
either personally or vicariously, and it's an unbelievably growing need and, frankly, your
community needs this project, You need this component of care in your -- in the City of
Meridian, In fact, this campus that we are proposing tonight is unlike anything that's in
the state of Idaho right now, which has all the elements of care available to us, which
includes the Alzheimer's, assisted living, and independent living. We think it's -- we are
confident that it's going to be highly successful and hope that -- I'm going to show you a
few slides here in just a minute to give you an idea of some of the campuses that we
have developed and I'm hoping that it will speak highly of the quality that we are
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page710f100
proposing for this project, Why don't we do that? Would you guys -- let's just roll
through these real quick, I think I've got 41 exposures, These are projects that we have
around the state. We thought you might be interested in looking at this, I don't know
how many seconds you want to take, but can we just roll through this? This is Soda
Springs, Idaho, This is the first project that we developed in 1995, . You can just keep
going right through here. I have got two or three photos of this and this is an aerial
photo of this particular project. This is American Falls and one of the things I want you
to notice here is that all these projects are nestled in high-end residential areas. In fact,
that first project that we were just looking at in Soda Springs is in the highest residential
area for that city. Same with American Falls, And anybody that's driven by American
Falls by the water tower and looks off to the lake or the reservoir, that's the project that
you see on the freeway right there and the residential houses that surround that are the
highest real estate value in the entire city. It's a great compliment. This is the front
elevation of that particular project. You can keep rolling through that. We have
purchased all the adjoining property around that project, This is an interior look of a
project that we did in St. Anthony that we just developed this last year. Why don't you
just go ahead and keep rolling through there. That's the front elevation. There is a
piano. Kitchen. Administrator's office. That's American Falls again. I don't know how it
slipped in there, But this is another shot of the front of St. Anthony. This is a part of our
entry or vestibule, Dining facilities, It's a little bit dark, but you can see how those are
organized. This is our project in Eagle. I'd like to pause just a minute on this one, And
I hope everybody that's here, especially those that are here going to express some
concerns, will take the time, if not tomorrow, this week, and go and visit this project in
Eagle. We have had a tremendous response with this project and this is probably the
project that's most similar to what we are proposing in Meridian tonight. This is the
assisted living part of the project. Why don't you go ahead and give me a couple more
slides, This is the front elevation, This is the comer. This is located at 653 North Eagle
Road, This is another shot of the assisted living facility. Another shot for you there,
Another side angle. This is a gated community in conjunction with the assisted living
facility. We had a bunch of folks here that, actually, were going to tell you how great the
project was, but they don't like to drive after dark, so they all went home, They are not
here tonight to share their feelings with this, but there is a gated part of this community
in the back and why you don't roll through some of these slides here, so you can kind of
get a feel for this. We got ponds and water features. You can see here off to the right
this property adjoins Clear Creek development, which was developed by Doug Jayo.
Average property values in that development are between 350 and 650,000 dollars,
which means that this type of a project is very compatible with high end residential
homes and he has had no problem. You can see all the homes under constructiOn. I
took those this afternoon at 1 :00. All those homes are currently under construction and
I think most of those homes are between four and 5,000 square feet. It's a beautiful
setting. This is the inside of the facility. The main entrance there. Fireplace setting.
That's a library off to the right. Another sitting area in the facility. That's another shot of
the library there. Dining, It's a little bit dark, A little bit of an overview there for you.
Front area. That's the other gate to the entrance to the back part of the project.
Another shot of a different facility for the interior, Go ahead and roll through that. Okay,
I think these are pretty big slides, but we probably don't need to look at those. I did
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
April 29,2004
Page 72 cf 100
want to visit a little bit about the reason why we organized our project the way we have,
so that you might understand the concept that's here. This is a gated community and all
the roads that are within this are private drives, In the very center of the project there,
that octagon-looking building, is an 1,800 square foot rec center that's going to be used
for a multi-purpose center for all the individuals that live in the independent living units.
All the real estate on this project is owned under one company and managed under
Spring Creek Management and anybody that lives here, including the independent living
units, have all their meals, laundry, housekeeping, activities, and transportation
provided for them, if they choose to have that. In addition to that, all the utilities are paid
for and it pretty much -- everything is covered when you move into. one of those
independent living units, with the exception of their phone and they handle that
themselves, All the units have 24 hour wait care, The project will probably have the
equivalent of about 22 full-time employees and that's kind of an overview of what we
plan on doing here. We are pretty excited about it and we feel confident about the
needs here, We have done a market study and there is an overwhelming need for this
type of a project in this location, With that, I'm going to turn some time over to Scott to
wrap things up for us.
Stewart: Mr, Chairman, Members of the Commission, we appreciate this time to share
this with you tonight. My name is Scott Stewart. I reside at 1643 East Highgate Court
in Eagle. I'd just like to take a -- I will be very brief and I think a lot of -- a lot of what we
wanted to say has been said, but I want to talk just briefly about the L-Q portion and
why we sized that to the size it is and why we are requesting that size. And, basically, it
boils down to a scale that you need to have enough mass, if you will, to put enough
building there where people will come to it. If you only had one or two buildings, it's
hard to attract people. You need to have enough services that provide enough services
to a community that people will come there and it becomes a matter of convenience.
We felt like the light office, the professional park up front, was important for the buffer
for the residential. As we spent more time studying that and as we, you know, thought
about the traffic and the noise on Highway 69, we felt that was an extremely important
part of the project. We have also talked to -- as was mentioned, several possible
professionals are interested in this and are anxious to locate here and one is a dentist.
We have talked to an orthodontist, a couple of different CPA firms. They recognize the
growth in this part of the city and the need in this area for these services and they are
looking for this and like this area for their professional businesses, We feel like this will
be a true asset to the community, that it is something that is -- as I watched Doug and
studied his Eagle development and the success he's had there, I know several people
that live there and they have been extremely pleased with the services, the quality, the
way it's maintained. I strongly feel that this will be a tremendous asset to the City of
Meridian and urge your approval of this good project. We will answer any questions
that you may have,
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Stewart: Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission
April2g, 2004
Page 73 of 100
Zaremba: Just one short one, if I may. I got -- you have other operations that have
independent living and assisted living. Do any of your other operations have
Alzheimer's care?
Stewart: I would need to have Doug Clegg answer that question. He is, actually, the
assisted living -- I'm, actually, one of the owners of the property.
Clegg: The state of Idaho does have a classification for Alzheimer's care, but under
Section 700, anybody that has an elderly care license, as long as they are doing the
same training that's required by an Alzheimer's classification, . can do care for
Alzheimer's, We do not have any units that are designated as Alzheimer's
classification, but we have those that we take care of, probably about 20 to 25 percent
of them are at some stage of Alzheimer's. We have had a lot of experience in taking
care of folks with that disability,
Borup: So, the difference here is you have a separate building strictly for that; is that
what you're saying?
Clegg: Yes, Yes, We have a separate building, A lot of times when folks get either
sundowner's or dementia or Alzheimer's, which are all different diseases, but when they
get that disability and they advance in that disability, when they get outside the social
norm of folks that stay in a normal assisted living environment, we work with individuals
that specialize in that kind of care, so that they are in a. setting that's familiar to
everybody else that's with them, It doesn't mean that we can't take care of them it just
means that they are not compatible with the rest of the residents that are staying in that
facility. That's why we feel the need to do this.
Borup: Okay, Thank you. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay,
We'd like to go into the public testimony and, of course, we do want to have everyone
have the opportunity or at least to be heard, A couple things to do that. One, of course,
to have that opportunity we may need to -- we are looking at perhaps time limitations as
per our policies, but also what we have done in the past, if there is anyone that is
speaking on behalf of a homeowner's association or a major group of people, we extend
a little extra time there. Is that the case tonight? Okay. Go ahead and come on up.
Durray: Good morning, My name is Michael Durray from Meridian Greens. I live at
752 East Jamaica Court and I am the president. I don't know how I became president.
I'm president of the board of directors for Meridian Greens and I have a couple of things
that I'd like to throw out --
Borup: And let me establish first, you're speaking on behalf of Meridian Greens
Homeowner's Association?
Durray: Yes.
Borup: And how many people here in this audience, would you raise your hands,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 74 of 100
Durray: Some of them left, because it's late.
Borup: Okay. Those four people on the back row,
Durray: Okay,
Borup: Okay, He is not speaking on your behalf, then?
Newton-Huckabay: Are you speaking on behalf of any of the people that are here?
Durray: Not necessarily, Just the people that sent e-mails that have called me. The
board. Probably about 30 people.
Borup: But they are not here.
Durray: No, They have got -- that's why I'm here, because they couldn't make it.
Borup: Okay,
Durray: Can I give this to the overhead folks?
Borup: Yes,
Durray: I think I can do it in three minutes, There are two issues that we want to bring
to your attention and that we object to. One is the zoning, We looked at the plans and
they are beautiful. A lot better than the Rock Creek or whatever that stuff that you guys
were looking at. This is really nice, In the case of the zoning, the staff really really
supported this particular project, meaning your staff, because they had a precedence in
that particular area above the site was already zoned -- I want to say R-15, and,
therefore, we can now justify this new site as R-15 and, then, what's going to happen is
R-15 is going to go right down or south on Meridian Road.
Borup: Let me clarify that right now, That's zoned commercial, isn't it, or what's the
zoning to the north?
Kirkpatrick: The property directly to the north -- it's still in the county --
Borup: Well, I mean -- but the other project that was approved earlier I think is what
he's referring to,
Durray: Right here. The justification was that since this was R-15, then, we can do this
R-15 and, then, we can do this R-15,
Kirkpatrick: That was -- you're talking about Southern Springs?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29,2004
Page 75 of 100
Durray: Yes.
Kirkpatrick: That was CoG.
Borup: CoG. That's commercial zone.
Durray: Okay. What I'm saying is that the justification for changing this from R-4 to R-
15 was that this was zoned differently and, therefore, we can continue to expand the
use, That's -- and it's late, guys, so --
Borup: No. I understand. I just wanted -- yes, that was, but it's a down zoning of that
use, It's not continuing the same use.
Durray: Okay. I stand corrected, I'm concerned is that what will happen is that this
here for future development will become R-15, because this has been approved R-15. I
understand the project managers are saying, well, the reason why this is R-15 is
because it has separate parking and so forth. It's really only X number of units per mile
of square acreage, but that's our concern, in that the expansion of R-15 down this road.
And he brings up pictures of other subdivisions that are in the 600,000, 700 -- well, we
live right here. This is Meridian Greens. Although ours is not 600,000 dollars, the
second concern that we have is traffic and looking at the access into here is
Calderwood and -- why am I nervous, I shouldn't be nervous -- coming down here and
that's how you access it here. This road backs up in the moming from 7:00 until 9:00 all
the way back here to Victory. When I try to get out here, we can't get out. People are
trying to make a left-hand turn in the morning and they can't get in. Now weare going
to add all this traffic, all of this structure here, and L-G is okay, we don't have any
problems with L-G, but the second concern is the traffic. People -- instead of coming
this way and having to go this way to school, are coming right this way to 3rd, taking a
shortcut. Shortcut through our housing and I'm trying to sell a house and I also sell real
estate besides speaking to P&Z Commissioners at night. I'm having problems selling
this particular house, because people are saying it's too noisy. Well, why is it so noisy?
Not so much traffic here, but when they expanded Overland from two lanes to four, lots
of traffic here. Yes, we don't mind this construction, but let's have some sort of egress
and ingress other than a shortcut through Meridian Greens. Is it three minutes yet?
Thank you very much,
Borup: There may be some -- sir? Any questions?
Durray: I'm not nervous. Really, I'm not.
Borup: I just wanted to clarify on the traffic issue you're concemed about this project
generating traffic through your neighborhood?
Durray: Yes.
Borup: From the assisted living people or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 78 of 100
Durray: No. From the office, If you look at the plan, the only way to get into the light
office is through Calderwood,
Borup: Right.
Durray: Yes, please. That's my technical assistant back there. It's upside down. Do
you see where the title is? That should be north,
Borup: Yes, We have got plats in our files I think showing that access, so --
Durray: Now, I'm going to need -- thank you, Okay. Here is Calderwood right here and
people will go this way -- right now as we speak they go here to continue and avoid this
light here and so going into this project, people will come in this way -- do they Want to
come in this waý? No. They will come through here to go into this area or the same
thing, they can't make a left at Calderwood, because traffic is backed up, so they will go
here at the light and come down 3rd Way into the light office.
Borup: People going to work in the morning?
Durray: Yes.
Borup: To the office space --
Durray: To the office, plus the staff helping the assisted living, This is going to be very
congested, because the business -- and the project people said,well, we need this
project. I don't argue with that. What we need is better traffic control, so that it doesn't
use -- it does not use our property, our road, to go in here. Give us a plan for this, The
trees and all of this other stuff is good stuff, but it's the traffic that's going to kill us. You
say, well, how is it going to kill you? It's lowering our property value, I'm a real estate
agent. People selling here are having to lower their selling price by 10,000 dollars.
That's real. That's real money. They will all wind up in the assisted living, because they
will go crazy when they get a chance to sell their sell hOuse.
Rohm: A Catch 22.
Durray: That's correct.
Zaremba: I would ask -- this is a real subject that you bring up and it, actually, has been
brought up before when we were considering these triangular pieces of property a little
bit north of Calderwood,
Durray: And you guys have a tough job. I didn't realize you worked five hours at night,
from 7:00 until 2:00.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 29. 2004
Page 77 of 100
Zaremba: Well, what I would wonde~ -- I think it has been suggested that you try and
make contact with ACHD about what they call traffic calming things, which may mean,
you know, maybe somehow getting an island or something -- or even traffic bumps or
something that would make it less attractive to come racing through your neighborhood,
Durray: And that's exactly what happens, is they race through. You're absolutely right.
Zaremba: But I mean have you gone to ACHD and discussed traffic calming measures
with them?
Durray: One project at a time, sir. That -- because if you approve this project without
any consideration to egress and ingress by way of Calderwood, then, we will have to do
something about speed bumps -- and speed bumps -- nobody likes speed bumps. Now
it's impacting us because we have to go over the speed bumps, whereas right now we
don't. It's a nice community, It's one of the jewels, if you will, It's going to be not a
jewel.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Durray: Thank you so much.
Clark: I'm Gordon Clark, I live at 1919 Southeast 3rd Way, which ison 3m --
Borup: What was your name again, sir?
Clark: Gordon Clark,
Borup: Gordon Clark,
Clark: Yes, I'd like to point out a couple things. First of all, the property due north is
actually a rural transitional that is below the commercial there, so that has not made the
transition to have a contiguous zoning, as Ms. Kirkpatrick implied,
Borup: No. She clarified that.
Clark: She never said that it was rural transitional due north.
Borup: Yes. She said this property was still in the county is how she put it.
Clark: Oh, Okay,
Borup: And this is a project here that was C-G,
Clark: Right. The creek that goes along there, the residents that moved into Meridian
Greens there, they actually had to put their buildings 75 feet back from the creek and
I'm trying to understand why that -- it's also an irrigation ditch. Why that does not apply
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 29,2004
Page 78 of 100
to the Aizheimer's facility that's going to be going in there. That's not a 75-foot leeway,
Another one is that I am opposed to the light office down sizing, making it denser, I
don't see any requirement for that. There is so many office buildings going in along
Overland and everywhere else, I don't see the use -- I don't have a problem with light
office going in there, I just don't know why they need to have a change in the already
regulated L-O zoning of having it more dense than that zoning is,
Borup: I'm not -- I didn't follow that statement.
Clark: In their proposal, the light office is one of the waivers they are asking for is that
they can -- a reduction in lot size below the standard 7,000 square foot. They don't
need to do that. They can go ahead and just do light offices like everybody else does
light offices.
Borup: Well, it would make the buildings smaller by having a smaller lot.
Clark: Okay, Why don't we -- why don't we stick with the -- you get a change to the
zoning and, then, we have to do a special use permit on top of that. I don't understand
that. The other thing that hasn't been brought up, which I'm kind of curious, is the
aging. They keep referring to the elderly or older people. The fact is there is a lot of
people who suffer from dementia that are young people and also assisted living centers
can be meant for young people, too. There is no clarification here saying that it has to
be elderly people and even though we love our grandmothers and our great aunts, that
doesn't mean that, you know, younger people can be in these communities and I'm not
sure that really fits with what they are saying, The other thing that I would like to bring
up is land use a little bit. There has been a problem that I see and that is the first thing
that alerted me to this is for years -- 11 years, according to the lady that I have been
sitting next to, is that that area of land has actually been a private bird sanctuary and it's
been posted as that the whole time. I have lived there for a couple of years and I have
noticed that as well. All of a sudden after this property sells the signs are ripped down
and it's no more a bird sanctuary and we are kind of concerned citizens wondering why
all of a sudden is the bird sanctuary gone. Then, the next thing we know it's changing to
R-8 and, then, well, it's actually eight or nine, so it needs to be fit into the R-15 category
and it just brings up a lot of red flags. I asked Ms. Kirkpatrick about that and she said
she's going to look into it and the last time I talked to her hadn't found anything,
Borup: Look into what?
Clark: Look into that being a bird sanctuary and if there is, you know, any regulations
on that or--
Borup: Well, just because -- okay, From what you have stated it sounds like whoever
lived there put a sign up.
Clark: Yes. There were multiple signs saying bird sanctuary.
Meridian Planning & Zoning CommÏ5sicn
April 29,2004
Page 79 of 100
Borup: Right. Well -- I mean anybody can put a sign on their property and it can say
anything they want.
Clark: But I'm saying as a concerned citizen arid knowing that there isa sanctuary for
birds all this time and you love your community and the birds are within our community
and now all of a sudden it's not a bird sanctuary anymore, so. I'm just saying that I'm
concerned.
Borup: But I'm not sure that stating something is something makes it so.
Clark: Well, it's been protected --
Borup: By who?
Clark: By the owner.
Borup: Okay. Exactly. It's not a government -- it's not a --
Clark: I'm not saying that, I'm --
Borup: -- or even a private corporation or anything, so -
Clark: One of the things that I did bring up with Ms, Kirkpatrick was the traffic situation
here and she suggested that maybe a traffic light could go in there. I did take the time
and call the ACHD and found out that this is actually a state highway, so they have no
jurisdiction over that. However, they had done a traffic count at this intersection and
along the road there. They approximated that 23,000 cars pass this way daily on
Meridian Road and they said that the probability of a traffic light going in to Calderwood
would probably not happen, because there is not that many cars going into Calderwood
at this time. Then, I called the state and they said no way, there is never going to be a
traffic light going in there. In fact, that the highway is designed to hold 37,000 cars,
which already is backing so much I don't quite understand that. There really is going to
be a problem and I would suggest that most of the traffic is going to be coming from
downtown Boise or other areas north of this facility and trying to make-- get into this
facility or the light offices and they will need to make a left turn going into Calderwood
and you just can't do it and so I also agree with what has been said, they will end up
going down Southeast 3rd Way, which is right in front of my house, and I have kids that
walk down there and ride their bikes and everything else and it will be going down that
way to get access to this property. Those are kind of my concerns, I see what's being
presented, it looks nice and everything, I just would -- we just aren't planning -- you guys
are zoning and planning -- we are not planning for traffic considerations here and, I don't
know, maybe you guys can put all your weight together and get a traffic light put in
there. If that happens, I wouldn't have a problem with this at all in many regards. I think
that, you know, it would make a lot more sense, but right now we do have an issue
there and I think it's a safety issue.
Meridian Planning & Zcnin9 Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 80 of 100
Rohm: It sounds like you'd like to have a signal there whether this project went or not.
Clark: I -- yes and there is another reason for it, too. The school district just got
rearranged and so now half of Meridian Greens is, actually -- the elementary school is
connecting with Bear Creek, which is to the far left there and so now for my kids that are
going to be next year going to Meridian -- to Mary McPhearson Elementary School, they
are going to have new students who are in that Bear Creek and they are not going to be
able to play with their friends, because they can't get across the highway, so if they had
a street light there, they could get across the highway, so -- anyway, thank you,
Borup: Thank you.
Britton: Mr, Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Lester Britton, I live
at 2019 Southeast 3m Way. I represent myself, my wife Rebecca, as well as the
following adjacent property owners: Richard and Glenda Openshaw. Richard is here
tonight. Douglas and Marie Olson, who are both here tonight. Earl and Betty Ramsey,
Earl is here tonight. Blaine and Mary Jane Bennett, who are both here tonight. We
wish to formally oppose this Rezone of the subject property from current R-4 to the
proposed R-15. This Rezone directly opposes current use plans and will drastically
impact our property both monetarily and esthetically. I could read this document, but it's
all our concerns. I think we have all sent them into the city, you now have them, so
rather than elaborate -- one thing everybody that's talked here has not got the property
that we have got. Right at the end of this project. The parking lot -- all the cars are
going to be shinning their lights in our bedroom at night. We are going to have
emergency vehicles, because it is an Alzheimer's unit, you know, and it's drastically
going to change our way of life there and it is going to take our property values down.
Thank you,
Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward?
Bengson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Brad Bengson. My
address is 5710 South Schooner Way in Boise. I happen to have the privilege of
owning the little RUT of property that's directly north of this project and I, quite frankly,
am quite in favor of the project for many reasons, I didn't know what to do with my
property, because I bought it to put in an equipment rental business and I changed my
mind and so I have been wondering which way to go and I think this is -- I think this is a
nice alternative for what possibly could happen to that location. As a side light, I did live
next to an assisted living facility before I recently moved, I lived there for several years.
They were probably the finest neighbors I have ever had. They don't drive their cars
real fast they don't holler at their kids, their dogs and cats don't get in your yard. I can't
recall seeing a single emergency vehicle's lights flashing in my windows at night. The
people are just grateful to have a nice place to live and if you do want to talk to them
they appreciate it. Those are my comments and if you have any questions I would be
happy to answer them.
Borup: Okay,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
paga 81 of 100
Bengson: Thank you,
Borup: Thank you, sir.
Swanson: My name is Greg Swanson, I live at 1705 Southeast 3m Way. I live at the
entrance 011 the corner of Antigua and Southeast 3rd Way, where I can actually See
Overland Road and in the three years that I have lived there we have noticed an
increase in traffic and primarily the high school opening and also, then, the widening of
Overland Road, A big concern is -- the major issue is traffic. I have spoke to a number
of neighbors about this proposal. Everybody seems to agree that a buffer strip along
Meridian Road is appropriate, that people aren't going to want to live in that buffer zone
and that that's a good use of the property, It's the back portion that we have to
consider. Another thing that hasn't been addressed is if you look at the plat map of the
proposal, what is happening in what we would refer to as phase two, all the comments
that have been addressed tonight increase exponentially as we begin to find out what
phase two is, There was some allusion to a complete retirement community or
something else in that second section south of this proposed property. The stub road
goes there and, again, we are not accessing off of Meridian Road, we are accessing off
of this intermediate road about a third of the way in as basically the buffer between the
light office and the retirement community, Now, we, again, have --depending on the
use that that is put to, doubling or tripling, depending on how that project is zoned and
utilized, Again, funneling right through Meridian Greens in terms of that Calderwood
access. I'm home many times during the middle of the day. The high school students
are using Calderwood as a cutoff. I have seen individuals that you could tell are
professional or just normal business people starting to utilize Southeast 3m Way again
in terms of accessing back out through Calderwood. Now we have a subdivision that if
you look at those roads, they were designed to handle the Meridian Greens Subdivision
traffic flow. There were curves in the road and they are not designed as straight though
roads, probably to slow traffic down and now we are actually turning Southeast 3rd Way
into a zone and our concern is, again, the traffic flow and how this back portion -- the
buffer strip I think everybody agrees at some point that has to be utilized in a
commercial type of fashion or light office, but the back portion -- a number of neighbors
that I have discussed this with and myself, we would urge that that -- a portion of that
back remain as R-4. There is no reason that that cannot be continued to develop. We
have the observation point there on Victory, the south end out of Meridian Greens that
was developed, the phase four Meridian Greens just recently went in, those are high
end homes, they were all good uses of that land and we'd urge that to be considered.
Thank you,
Borup: Sir, it's this area here that you are talking about you're concerned about the
development of?
Swanson: The back end in terms of --
Borup: Right here.
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 82 of 100
Swanson: Yes.
Borup: Where the Alzheimer's unit is going,
Swanson: Yes, Then, the problem is is that nobody has addressed from the portion
back to Phase 2 right here. What's happening out here?
Borup: That's not part of this project.
Swanson: We understand that, but as you look at the zoning change to R-15, then, are
we going to end up with a huge density population in there, If this section is zoned,
then, it's the progression that we need to also be concerned. about, because of the
traffic flow and the use here, that's what I'm talking about on this doubling.
Newton-Huckabay: They wouldn't have access only to Calderwood is your thought?
Swanson: Yes, Normally when you have a light office fronting on a major thoroughfare,
you have the access -- ingress and egress on that major thoroughfare, Here it's being
done through this lateral road, for lack of a better term, and based on that lateral road
now you're even increasing the potential for the traffic flow to go right through a
subdivision that was not designed or people purchasing homes that were not
purchasing those --
Borup: And I understand, but we can't really address that. I'm still confused on your
concern, You say the back property, You're concerned about the Alzheimer's unit?
Swanson: From the -- yes. From the light office back, that whole portion should remain
R-4. We have had Observation Point --
Borup: Right. That's what I'm talking about. You're saying you want all this to be R-4?
Swanson: That would be -- I don't think anybody would oppose that and they would
actually embrace that.
Borup: Do you think there would be less traffic with an R-4, as opposed to this project?
Swanson: Yes, The density is going to be minimal.
Borup: Okay.
Swanson: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmisslon
ApriI29,20O4
Page 83 of 100
Phillips: Yes. I'm Gary Phillips. I live at 332 East Calderwood Drive, I won't go into --
most of my concerns were -- have already been spoken to tonight, except for the one
and the gentleman just here alluded to it a little bit. I was wondering why there is no
access to this light office off of Meridian Road? What's the reason for that? I don't
know if you guys have an answer to that or maybe the developers do, but --
Borup: I think we will let them maybe address that, but, generally, it's because it's such
a busy road and they don't want cars turning in and off of that.
Phillips: Okay. Then, that just puts out -- it seems to me that they would put that much
more traffic onto Calderwood. If they at least had some access into this light office off of
Meridian Road, that would alleviate some of the traffic that would be on -- or I mean on
Calderwood. Thank you.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, you have included your packets a
letter from ITD stating strict restriction of access to Meridian Road in that location. I
believe you can only have it on -- I can't find the letter. On the half mile, but we do have
a letter from ITD restricting access just to Calderwood Road. There is no flexibility
there.
Borup: And I guess that's the real answer to that question, Idaho Transportation
Department is not allowing it.
Clark: I notice that Calderwood is not as wide as all the other streets, even through
Meridian Greens. Is there any development plans for widening Calderwood? It's
actually quite narrow as it is right now and that's another concern I have.
Borup: Okay. We will get an answer to that.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, Calderwood Road is actually
classified as a major collector,
Borup: What you're saying is it's not paved as such, so does that major collector have a
50 or 60-foot right of way?
Kirkpatrick: We are not certain. We are looking it up.
Borup: Okay but it's at least 50. The right of way, Okay, Maybe -- perhaps the
applicants can maybe address what ACHD has asked them to do on that. Does that
conclude -- okay. Quickly.
Openshaw: My name is Rick Openshaw. I'm at 2049 Southeast3rd Way. I wish I could
have gotten a letter or had my in-laws here. They lived in Modesto, California, they
lived right next door, a fence between them and an Alzheimer's place. When they went
to sell the property they were told by the realtor selling the property that - so they would
know ahead of time it definitely would affect the amount of money they got. How much I
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 84 of 100
don't knoW, but they said it was a real downsizer. It did bring down the property value
quite a bit. Also when I bought the house I bought it new --
Borup: So, did you say they -- that was built after they bought the -- after they -- their
house was built that that project went in?
Openshaw: They were -- no. When they bought the property it was -- both places were
existing.
Borup: Okay and so they sold it for less than they bought it for?
Openshaw: No, They made money on it, but they would have made more money had
that not been next door to them. In other words, that affected the value of the property -
Borup: Well, I understand, but you said it was already existing,
Openshaw: Well, when they bought it.
Borup: But they would have made more money if it were on a lake.
Openshaw: Well, I don't know.
Borup: Okay.
Openshaw: What I'm saying is both the buildings were there, They bought the house.
Then, the other thing is Chuck Fuller, who was the builder of the house of which I'm in,
when I bought that it was a concern of me to what was back there or going to be back
there. He said they had no idea. He said he had talked to the city, the mayor, which is -
- Chuck Fuller, if any of you know him, and he said whenever anything was to go back
there, he said they wouldn't -- the city told him that they would not let anything go back
there, that the people that were backed up against it, like we are, agreed on what was to
go back there and had an input and a real concern about it. He said they told him that
we would be notified and that we would -- if we were for or against it, we would have a
lot of weight in that and it doesn't sound like maybe we will, I don't know, but --
Borup: But you were notified.
Openshaw: Anyway--
Borup: Yes, I think that's really what you meant and that's definitely the case. That's
why we hold these hearings. Okay. Mr, Perez, did you have some conclusions?
Perez: Sure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 85 of 100
Zaremba: While he's on the way up here, I would comment in ACHD's notes, Page 2,
Paragraph 8, the existing right of way of Calderwood Drive currently has a total of 126
feet of right of way, 60 feet from center line.
Borup: Okay so, it's 120-foot right of way.
Zaremba: It's going to be a pretty sizeable street.
Borup: Or it could be.
Perez: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I appreciate the comments. Regarding
ACHD and the collector street, it has been paved to collector standards, so they do
anticipate a lot heavier traffic, The reason there is not a stop light there today is
because in their mind the traffic just does not warrant it, so. the comments tonight
relative to the increase in traffic -- you know, I can appreciate it, but, by the same token,
it's the very lack of traffic that is the reason it's not being managed. The other comment
would be just consistent with the prior comments regarding traffic relative to the nature
of our residents, They do not travel during peak hours. A lot of them simply are not
going to travel, because they are not going to drive, They will be driven via a van or a
bus as an accommodation by Spring Creek. Impact on property values. I think Doug's
gone to an extraordinary length to landscape and create a -- as you can see -- I think it's
been acknowledged by the people that have commented tonight that the elevations, the
building materials are a quality such that to say that an Alzheimer's facility somewhere
else automatically translates to a problem today, I would question whether or not it has
the same amount of effort in landscaping and Doug -- I think the landscaping comment
was we are at 46 percent landscaping regarding the requirement of 17 percent. Light
office density -- and I believe that's the last -- or two things, One, the stub road, The
reason the stub road is there is it requires connectivity. We do not Own any other land
in this area. The only land that Calderwood Community, LLC, owns related, unrelated,
directly or indirectly, is that parcel of property for those - actually, two parcels of
property, We have no plans, because we have no land for further development. The
stub road is there strictly for connectivity. Regarding light office density, the demand on
the marketplace is for smaller office, but we have created small lots strictly for flexibility,
We can vacate lot lines and the likelihood is that the average office complex here will be
5,000, 7,000 feet, but we do want to have the flexibility to serve the small office user. I
believe that addresses most of the concerns.
Borup: No, you need to address the Commission, Yes. Well, you're welcome to ask
him anything after the meeting is over, I would assume you could stay a few minutes, if
that's what she'd like, Okay.
Britton: Becky Britton. I live at 2019 Southeast 3m Way. I'm Lester's wife, What
doesn't show up here is our homes, Here. That is the parking lot and the dumpsters
and the delivery entrance all right at our back fence, The parking lot, the lights,
everything all night long. It will be coming right facing our back house, The back of our
house. Ifthe City of Meridian has best interest in mind of the people .that live there,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 660f100
then, We ask that you guys reàlly take a hard look at this, because it's taking our
property value right down the tube and we paid a lot of money for it, just like everybody
else. The wild bird sanctuary, We were even told that's why it wasn't maintained, the
property. That's why we bought there, That's what the realtors told us, They said --
you know, at one point they told us the city owned that little piece between the creek
and our fence and that there would never be anything there. Stupidity, whatever you
want to call it, that's where we live. That's our home, We are real people and we just
would ask that you guys would take a look at that.
Borup: Thank you. We are done with the public testimony. Mr. Perez, maybe -- or
maybe Mr. Clegg could answer that question on -- there was one more raised by--
Clegg: I would be happy to,
Borup: And that was on trash collection and visits -- evening visits and that kind of
thing,
Clegg: Yes, Interestingly enough, the reason we put the Alzheimer's unit in the back of
the project is because it is the lowest traffic area of all the other components of the
project and the only reason we have this parking lot designed the way it is is because
the fire marshal wants to be able to turn around and we really do not have the need for
the parking or the commercial traffic in that area. In fact, it won't even accommodate it.
All of the commercial traffic that brings any supplies to that community, will be bringing it
to the main facility and we will, actually, have a golf cart that will be kept there to bring
meals to the independent living units, that will bring most of the supplies to the
Alzheimer's unit. In connection with that, there was some concern about emergency
vehicles, On a project like this, we probably will see about -- I'm going to say about two
or three a year and most of those happen during wake hours and most of them are non-
lighted responses. There are not very many sirens, if any at all. In fact, I don't -- I'd say
in the history of us doing this in 10 years we maybe have had three or four where the
EMTs felt the need to turn their sirens on to get to our facilities. It's usually somebody
falls and they need assistance to get in and get some x-rays and so they come over and
pick them up. That -- maybe that can help.
Borup: And maybe one other -- there have been discussions with -- on trash collection
hours.
Clegg: You mean as far as the city or BFI or--
Borup: Yes, Sanitary Services,
Clegg: We have not and we are -- we would be thrilled to either do away with that trash
bin. there or put it anywhere you want. We, actually, had two on the site and probably
don't even need it. We would be happy to move that. It just seemed like a convenient
location to have it there, but we will do whatever you want.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
Aprii 29, 2004
Page 87 of 100
Zaremba: Let me ask a question that might help some of the property owners that are
right behind you. This turn around area here, if this Island were to slip a little bit to the
northeast and this parking actually go over on this side, so that anybody parking there,
their lights are actually facing away from -- assuming anybody did come at night and I'm
sure the facility is probably closed to visitors at night, but --
Clegg: Yes. Actually, the gates close at 8:00.
Zaremba: If you could -- you would still have the same turnaround area, but if you could
reconfigure it so that the parking faced exactly the opposite direction,
Clegg: Absolutely.
Zaremba: Would that be a possibility?
Clegg: You bet you. We would be happy to do that. One of the restrictions we have is
that right now the Army Corps of Engineers won't let us get anything within 18 feet from
the top of the slope. Now, I don't know if they are meaning that that's a structure or if
we paved it and put parking there, if they can drive on it -- we are happy to explore that
option and make that change if they will let us do that.
Newton-Huckabay: What type of -- do you have a barrier -- some type of barrier
between you and the properties behind you?
Clegg: Yes. A six-foot fence there and we are happy to put anything they want, just so
you guys know. We will -- if you want us to match the current fences you have there or
if you want us to -- I know some of the property owners don't have any fence there right
now, some of them have some beautiful redwood fences. I think another one has a
vinyl fence, We will put up whatever they want to provide that privacy there. Or we
won't put up any fence at all, We will need a fence in the back to provide security for
the residents that stay with us there, There will need to be a fence there. That's a state
regulation, so we will have to have that.
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba, on your comments, I just wonder about -- well, maybe
you can answer this: How often are wheelchairs in use? Putting it across the parking
lot would not have easy access to a sidewalk into the building, but -- I was thinking of
wheelchair access.
Clegg: Yes,
Zaremba: I'm not sure it would be any farther from the entrance than the -
Clegg: Yes. We actually have drive-thru covered drop-offs and that's usually when -
when primary givers bring their loved ones to stay with us, they'll stop, help mom or dad
get out and, then, they will go and park afterwards, You are right, we would need to
make some probably -- have at least one or two ADA parking stalls just for life and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmi5sion
April 29,2004
Page 88 of 100
safety reasons, Okay. I got a note here, just to reaffirm everybody, that the gates do
close at 8:00, so this is a private community, meaning that -- and we do that for security
reasons, The folks that live in these independent living units have the latitude to come
and go as they please, so the system works -- when they come, they dial in and they
have a special code, they can come in and out of the project when they want. Most of
them drive rarely, if ever, In fact, most of them we don't want to drive and even though
they bring their cars, their kids take their keys from them and just make them feel good
about it. They -- some of them will drive and they have access in and out, but the rest
of the residents that stay with us -- we only have three staff members on this project in
the evening. It's a pretty quiet setting. It's going to be a lot quieter than anything that
would be in a R-4 zone that would be a residential setting. I mean these guys go to
sleep and right after the 6:00 news and they get their dinner. It's a real quiet place,
Borup: That's been my experience with older people they don't like to drive when it's
dark, A couple years older than me.
Clegg: Are there any other--
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Clegg? Okay, Thank you. Okay, Commissioners,
how would you like to proceed? Do we want to keep the hearing open or --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearings, All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Discussion? Do we want a little bit of discussion first?
Rohm: Well, as near as I can tell, the issues associated with this development really
are existing already. Meridian Road is congested due to existing develops in the area
and it's that ingress onto Meridian Road or the left turn off of the traffic headed south
that causes congestion. I don't think that this project is going to change any of that,
really, for all intents and purposes, An assisted living development -- those people don't
come and go on the high traffic hours of the day and so I'm not sure that that's going to
change anything and --
Borup: I would agree with that, that assisted living is probably the --
Rohm: The lowest impact development that you could have for that location. It seems
that way, It's not that I -- I listened to the testimony and I think that they have got some
valid concerns and I think the issues about the parking on the end here, if they move
that island and turn the parking the other direction, so that it minimizes the impact, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 89 of 100
think tlìös~ àte goód suggeätions and they come from comments taken in direct
testimony here,
Zaremba: Well -- and of the major issue by several -- mentioned by several people is
the traffic by the high school students, which has nothing to do with this project. I think
that's a problem that does need to get solved, but I, frankly, don't see how this project
has any effect on the high school students cutting through the neighborhood or not
cutting through the neighborhood and, I agree, I can't think of anything much more low
impact at traffic times than very senior citizens. I agree, they don't drive at dark they
don't drive --
Rohm: They don't drive.
Zaremba: I'm getting senior enough that I avoid -- I drive at night, but I avoid the
cómmuting times when I can.
Rohm: As do I.
Moe: I guess I would add -- the only thing I would add is I do have a concern with the
traffic as well, but, quite frankly, I would anticipate that going L-O, you're going to get
more traffic going in there with the office and what I heard tonight was the audience
really didn't oppose the office portion of this project. I agree, I think the assisted living
and whatnot is going to be far less traffic than people are anticipating, compared to what
the office is going to bring to that area,
Rohm: And maybe another way of looking at it is the overall developmimt of this tract of
land, if it were to be developed alternately from this proposal and put additional
residents in there, it would, actually, end up being more --
Borup: There would be a lot more trips.
Rohm: There would be more trips --
Zaremba: As a planned development in R-4 it could have between 50 and 60 houses
built on it. If that's the normal, what, 2.9 people per house and one car for each of them,
I see that as being a lot heavier traffic impact.
Borup: And that was my point. The ACHD trip is 10 is that right?
Zaremba: Ten per house?
Borup: Ten or 20.
Zaremba: Ten per single family dwelling unit?
Borup: Yes 10 per day. I mean that's how they -- that's how ACHD calculates the trips,
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page gO of 100
Zaremba: So, an R-4 type development of approximately this acreage, between nine
and 10 acres could --
Borup: Five hundred trips.
Zaremba: Five hundred to 600 trips, I don't see this proposal generating that much
traffic.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, in the Ada County Highway District report they are estimating
that Calderwood Drive currently carries approximately 80Ò vehicles trips per day and
this project is estimated to generated an additional 360. They also state that --
Borup: You think that's between -- that's the whole -- project as a whole?
Freckleton: Correct. They also state that due to the fact that the traffic volumes on
Calderwood are not anticipated to exceed 3,000 vehicle trips per day -- so they are
talking 3,000, but with the current 800, plus the additional 360, you're well below that
threshold, They are recommending that Calderwood Drive be constructed as a one half
of a 30-foot -- 36 foot street section, with vertical curb, gutter, and five foot concrete
sidewalk within a 50 foot right of way, I believe the 126-foot reference 0/1 the second
page of the report is just a typographical error, because they are talking in the report of
a 50-foot right of way, so I just wanted to clarify that.
Borup: Yes. I was wondering about those 120 feet.
Zaremba: Well, if the requirement is that this applicant build half the roadway, then, I'm
sure when the RUT property on the other side of Calderwood develops. that's where
they will get the other half,
Borup: Okay. Anything else pertinent for discussion? I think it's --
Newton-Huckabay: I have one comment and I think it might be helpful for the public to
explain why we can go from an R-4 to an R-15. Because I'm having a little trouble
understanding all that when I read through it myself.
Borup: Go ahead,
Newton-Huckabay: No. I don't want to go ahead.
Borup: Oh, I thought you said you wanted to share that --
Newton-Huckabay: I think staff can handle that just fine.
Kirkpatrick: Well, I will go ahead and explain that. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the subject property is medium density residential and that entails R-4 to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 91 of 100
R-B zoning, basically. The future land use map, which is a part of the Comprehensive
Plan, allows for a user to ask for what we call one step up in density. If you have a
medium density that -- a medium density designation in the Comprehensive Plan map,
you can request a step up to high density. They are allowed R-B as an outright use.
They are requesting R-15, that's their one step up, That's at the discretion of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. If you find it's appropriate, you can recommend
approval. If you don't -- again, it's at your discretion. That's how that works, It's done a
lot here in Meridian I have seen,
Newton-Huckabay: Thanks, Wendy,
Zaremba: Well -- and that part of it is true whether the consistency matrix was
approved or not right?
Kirkpatrick: Right.
Freckleton: Yes,
Kirkpatrick: Oh, and I wanted to just make a note -- if you all start heading this way, we
-- I do want to go ahead and delete my rather breezy comments on Page 10 under
special considerations. That should have been deleted. That's not meant to be a
condition, so --
Rohm: Well, let's see, I don't think there is anything in --
Zaremba: The only thing I would add in that spot would be to reverse the layout of the
turnaround and the parking,
Rohm: In the special considerations?
Zaremba: Yes. There is a condition,
Borup: Can you review your lots on that again as far as why? I can see that that's
going to put cars closer to the property line, it's going to move -- it's going to have --
Rohm: I was thinking he was going to take these --
Borup: Right. That would put the drive aisle over there, so that's -- and that's when the
cars are making noises when they are moving, not when they are parked.
Newton-Huckabay: How would they shine on --
Borup: Because the parking is changing with the -- if it goes over here and shifts, then,
they are going to have to be driving that -- through that area.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 92 of 100
Rohm:Well -- but their headlights, as opposed to be pointing this direction, they will be
rounding and coming back this way and the headlights will face back into the property,
rather than at the --
Borup: Well, that's what I was wondering. What headlights?
Rohm: Well, if there is any traffic at night, that's where they would be pointed,
Borup: If. Okay,
Rohm: Right.
Zaremba: Well, I think the point the Chairman is making, the Alzheimer's residents
aren't going to drive at all and the gates close at 8:00 for visitors and only the
independent living residents would have access in and out the gate and the three
employees, so --
Borup: Yes. That's what it was and that's the --
Rohm: So, we don't want to move the parking or is that --
Zaremba: I understand the -- if I understand the gate closing, there would be nobody
pulling in or out there.
Moe: Is that 8:00 year around?
Borup: Okay 8:00 year around. The only thing that might --
Zaremba: That's an affirmative answer.
Borup: Might consider exchanging the trash area with the storage building. The
storage building would act as a buffer for the trash enclosure, if the layout would
accommodate that. Do you see what I was talking there, David?
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: That probably wouldn't be too bad of a buffer.
Newton-Huckabay: I think you could maybe put in there something about the -- you
know, the fencing or something or something between the two would be agreed upon by
the residents that back up to the property.
Borup: Right. That would be -- yes, I think that would be appropriate. Okay. Were we
still thinking that drive -- or the parking area needs to be redesigned?
Rohm: I don't know that it does,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmissicn
April 29, 2004
Page Q3 of 100
Borup: There could be a couple of people down here drag racing around there at night,
maybe. I don't know,
Rohm: We are getting tired, aren't we?
Zaremba: Well, I actually think it becomes a daytime issue, I guess the question still is
would we rather have the traffic -- the people starting their cars and parking their cars
facing the other direction even during the daytime, it's not a nighttime light in the
bedroom issue, I guess, but the noise --
Börup: That may be.
Zaremba: The noise issue may still exist and having it be that much farther away might
help,
Rohm: So, would that be a plat issue, then, or would --
Zaremba: Yes. It would be a plat issue, I'm not sure it would be major enough. I
would consider that minor enough for staff level discussion,
Borup: That probably makes sense.
Rohm: Yes. I don't think - I think that they can make those kinds of adjustments,
because that doesn't move the parking lot, it just --
Zaremba: It doesn't change the number of spaces,
Rohm: All right.
Zaremba: Are you on?
Rohm: Yes, I don't think they are going to make any changes. I think I can handle this.
All right. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Rohm,
Rohm: I move to recommend approval of File Number RZ 04-004, request for Rezone
of 9.47 acres from R-4 to L-O and R-15 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by
Calderwood Community, LLC" 2090 South Meridian Road, including all staff comments,
dated April 29th, received April 26th,
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 94 of 100
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr, Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of File Number PP 04-007,
request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 15 building lots, 14 lots- 14 office and one
residential and one common lot of 9.47 acres in a proposed R-15 and L-O zones for
Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC, 2090 South Meridian Road,
including all staff comments for the hearing date April 29, 2004, received April 26, 2004,
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval of File Number CUP 04-008,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for office and assisted
living in a proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood
Community, LLC, 2090 South Meridian Road, including all staff comments for the
hearing date April 29, 2004, received April 26, 2004.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, remember, additionally you
wanted to delete the special consideration comment Number 1, the breezy comment.
Borup: Wendy's very worried about that.
Kirkpatrick: I want it gone.
Rohm: I think -- I don't think we are going to do anything with the parking we are going
to leave that up to staff, working with them for their Final Plat.
Newton-Huckabay: And what about fencing between the neighbOrs that back up
directly to that, does that need to be included in your motion?
Rohm: I think the fencing takes care of itself, It's already listed as a consideration and
special considerations on Page 10 will be deleted. End of motion.
Moe: I'll second,
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Borup: Thank you. I guess it looks like the neighbors are gone. I don't know if this --
there has been a lot of concern on property values, but, you know, I could see a lot of
people moving into those subdivisions just so they could be close to their to parents and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
April29, 2004
Page 95 of 100
that could be a very desirable lOcation with -- I mean a lot of people have their children
-- we are taking a temporary break. We are going to reconvene our meeting.
Zaremba: Back on the record,
Item 16,
Update on Mussell Corner:
Borup: We are, Our last three items are little update information. Item 16 was an
update on Mussell Corner.
Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, you may remember --
Borup: Yes, We turned it down.
Powell: Well, Mr. Zaremba started to make a motion to recommend denial and I said
no, no, no, you have to actually deny it. Well, I was wrong. On a combined
preliminary/Final Plat you are actually a recommending body. We forwarded a
recommendation for denial to the City Council for you all, just so you know that. Just
wanted you to know that --
Gabbert: Anna, can I clarify that? When the preliminary/Final Plat comes through on its
own, then, we deny?
Powell: Correct. If it's a Preliminary Plat you deny on your -- if its stands alone, If it's a
combined preliminary/Final Plat, a recommendation for denial.
Borup: That makes sense, because City Council does the Final Plats. Is that the
reason?
Powell: I guess so. That was -- Commissioner Zaremba is smirking over there,
Zaremba: What I was trying to say is that the original maker of the motion is satisfied
with the outcome, It certainly meets the intent of what we were planning to do.
Powell: And, then, the other update was not on the agenda, but, again, with the matrix
and I think as staff what we learned is we have got to have a little more in the record
when we go forward to City Council on some of these things, even though we had
verbal, kind of popular opinion approval.
Borup: You didn't tell them that 100 percent of the public testimony was in favor?
Powell: Yes,
Zaremba: Didn't we actually have Public Hearings, though?
Borup: Yes,
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
Apri129,2004
Page 96 of 100
Zaremba: That were noticed and --
Powell: Yes, They didn't kind of feel that that was enough. They had some valid
concerns and criticisms and a lot of it is just putting the comp plan in graphic form. It
isn't necessary for that point. The L-G stuff, particularly the one you approved last
week, was relying on it as well, but the material that Wendy presented you today is --
can be used in a lot of cases for where it is appropriate. I'm not too concerned, Then, if
the Commission wants to, we can revisit the idea of the matrix maybe once the new
comp plan -- or the new zoning ordinance is done and --
Borup: So, if we would have been more critical, it would have saved you the problem at
City Council?
Powell: Well, we just needed a better record, maybe. I don't know. We'll be a little
more careful and a little more diligent next time.
Item 17.
Discussion on Shirt Selection:
Powell: The other thing was the shirts. You know, you get two things every year, You
get a turkey and you get a shirt, We'd like to kind of break them up and at the rate you
guys are going it's going to be turkey time before you pick your shirt, so we would like --
Newton-Huckabay: I already picked my shirts, like my first day on the job.
Zaremba: I thought we picked them. My only concern is it wasn't clear whether it was a
wash and wear or one that needed to be ironed.
Borup: Well, the one picked did not have a woman's style,
Newton-Huckabay: They are unisex shirts,
Zaremba: I thought it was a unisex?
Borup: Well, the one we picked the first time before Wendy came wasn't, so that's why
it wasn't ordered,
Rohm: Well, which one do you want, Wendy? Pick one and we will go with it.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I prefer clothes that need to be ironed and I am not
adverse to grabbing an iron,
Rohm: A nine iron?
Newton-Huckabay: That, too,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 97 of 100
Zaremba: I consider myself a quàlified and excellent ironer. However, it's the only thing
in my wardrobe that needs to be ironed.
Rohm: And I don't care.
Moe: Off the record. I iron every morning,
Newton-Huckabay: Now, what's wrong with -- this is the one they told you that first day
that -
Item 18.
Opportunities for P&Z Commission/Staff Communication:
Powell: Commissioners, you don't need to decide it right now, I was just kind of egging
you on a little bit to make a decision, We have one last item on the agenda maybe we
could get through,
Borup: Yes. We can close real quickly and, then, do that in two minutes before we
leave.
Powell: Great Brad and I wanted to talk to you. We had kind of brainstormed on some
opportunities to get together with you all and I know I have been. kind of talking about it
and haven't been very good about scheduling things. We do have one scheduled with
Moe, Rohm -- and Wendy and that's the 13th for kind of a new commissioner orientation
and looking forward to that We got that one scheduled, but we were thinking -- Brad
and I would like to meet with you individually, if we just took once a month and kind of
rotated amongst you and, then, on fifth Thursdays, such as today, if you wanted to have
a joint meeting we could do those. You have fifth Tuesdays with the City Council. If
you wanted to do fifth Thursdays with staff, we would be more than willing to do that
Zaremba: As a group?
Powell: Either, yes, as a group staff or certainly group of you, yes, and, then, we would
-- the once a month thing we would probably just offer to take you out to lunch, go out
and meet someplace to your liking, We do have a small budget We can use that
budget to buy your lunch,
Zaremba: I'm in favor of all those ideas,
Borup: What would be on the agenda for the fifth?
Powell: Thursday? Maybe just -- I'm not sure. Certainly something that would be open
to you, if you wanted to take the opportunity to discuss different long-range projects that
you wanted us to work on, I mean --
Borup: Maybe do some updating on the laundry list and some of those things.
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 98 of 100
Powell: Yes.
Zaremba: We would call them workshops; so that they are not Public Hearings,
Powell: Exactly. We could even hold them at the Police Department, where we can all
sit around the same table,
Borup: That might -- I think our last discussion we thought with the two meetings a
month we would have some shorter meetings and have time to get to some of those
items,
Newton-Huckabay: If this is an example of the fifth Tuesdays or Thursdays,
Rohm: Well, actually, we are getting out about an hour early.
Borup: Well, no, I was -- the meeting would have ended at 1 :00 o'clock, if that was
done or not. I had already decided that before we --
Rohm: And that was a good comment up front.
Moe: Well, the meeting is not over yet, so --
Zaremba: Well, I would agree to individual meetings, We have already had one, so I'm
not next.
Powell: No. That makes Keith next if I --
Borup: I told you I was going to drop in sometime this week and it didn't happen.
Zaremba: I think the fifth Thursday's meeting, as a group is doable for me.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you proposing all these during the workday?
Powell: The lunches would be during the workday. The fifth Thursdays would probably
be after work, your normal meeting time, 7:00, or 6:00. We could do it earlier, We
could do 6:00 and feed you dinner and sit around the table.
Newton-Huckabay: The ones during the workday, would they be an hour, two hours,
three hours?
Powell: Just lunch,
Newton-Huckabay: An hour and a half?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 99 of 100
Zaremba: I would propose something to kick off the fifth Thursday, if we were going to
do that, would be some educational things. Bring us up to speed on the latest thinking
of smart growth initiatives and the latest thinking of the new urbanism.
Rohm: Great comments.
Zaremba: Things that we may not be directly exposed to that you alias professionals
keep up to date on,
Powell: There is this new buzzword called form based zoning that may be a fun topic.
Give me an excuse to find out what it is, so -- we could do that. You probably won't
have one for a while, Probably three months, '
Zaremba: Another fifth Thursday you mean?
Powell: Yes.
Zaremba: As far as those individual meetings, I'd just pop in when I got questions. I
hope that's not a problem.
Powell: Oh, no, not at all.
Hawkins-Clark: No, I think -- yes, The door is constantly open there, but I think our
staff -- I guess what Anna and I were thinking about -- these meetings are not providing
much time at all for the planning side of Planning and Zoning. It's largely zoning, There
is a whole realm of, you know, other areas that the Idaho state statute, the Land Use
Planning Act, charges you with and not that you have to do a lot of times -- and our goal
certainly wasn't to just haVe your busy lives become busier and if it's not of any interest,
but I guess that's why we wanted to bring it up; right? To sort of deepen the
understanding of what the planning side of Planning and Zoning Commission is about
and that's sort of the goal.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I personally am very interested in that, but I need to have -- I
just need to be able to schedule that stuff out at least two weeks in advance. I mean I
can be accessible any time during the week I just have to be able to plan to know ahead
of time. You know, more than 24 hours ahead of time. Actually, the evening time, too.
Borup: The fifth Thursday would always be on a fifth Thursday.
Zaremba: And it only happens four times a year,
Newton-Huckabay: Yes, you know, and I'm an accountant, so I really am aware of
when those are. You get one each quarter.
Rohm: I move we adjourn,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 29, 2004
Page 100 of 100
Moe: I second,
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 12:43.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:43 P,M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS,)
APPROVED
~$~~
KEI H BORUP - CHAI AN
LLLJ () <y
DATE APPROWD