2004 05-20
CITY OF MERIDIAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 7:00 P,M.
City Council Chambers
1.
Roll-call Attendance:
- David Zaremba - David Moe
- Wendy Newton-Huckabay - Michael Rohm
_Chairman Keith Borup
2.
Adoption of the Agenda:
3.
Consent Agenda:
A,
Approve minutes of April 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting: Approve
B.
Approve minutes of April 29, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting: Approve
4.
Public Hearing: PP 04-012 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for six
commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a C-G zone for
Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction - Yo mile east of North
Meridian Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to
City Council
5.
Public Hearing: AZ 04-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.93 acres
from RUT to CoG zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton - northeast comer
of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council
6.
Public Hearing: RZ 04-005 Request for Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8
zone for proposed Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190
and 2240 South Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Public Hearing: PP 04-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 42 single-
family residential building lots and four common lots on 9.47 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and
2240 South Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
7.
8.
Public Hearing: CUP 04-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for proposed Larkspur Subdivision with request for
reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - May 20,2004
Page1of2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabiliiles related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
street side yard setbacks by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South
Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda - May 20,2004
Page20f2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of theCny of Meridian,
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings
please contact the City Clerk's ornce aI888-4433 at least 48 hours. prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
Mav 20, 2004,
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David
Moe.
Others Present: Jill Hollinka, Jessica Johnson, Bruce Freckleton, Wendy Kirkpatrick,
Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X David Zaremba X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
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. Start with roll call
attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: We will begin with the adoption of the agenda. Motion to adopt the agenda as
printed,
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve minutes of April 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
B.
Approve minutes of April 29, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Meeting:
Borup: Next item is Consent Agenda comprised of meetings from April 15th and 29th.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 2 of 70
Zaremba: Mr. Chair, I move we adopt the Consent Agenda with no amendments.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Public Hearing: PP 04-012 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for
six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a CoG
zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction - Y> mile east
of North Meridian Road and south of East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Okay. First hearing is PP 04-012, request for preliminary plat approval for six
commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a CoG zone for Initial
Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction. Like to open this hearing and start with the
staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This item is
on a piece of property that is already annexed into the city limits and has a C-Gzoning
on it. It's located on the south side of East Fairview Avenue. It is approximately 2.8
acres, Ultra Touch Car Wash is -- there are two a little over an acre parcels that are on
the north side of this subject land. The one on the east is Ultra Touch Car Wash, the
other one is JJ Auto. There is another auto facility to the east. There are two
residential subdivisions to the south. One of those is Sterling Creek Subdivision, which
has, I believe, three homes and, then, there is one home that's within Danbury Fair
Subdivision, Creekside Arbor Apartments are located on this larger yellow parcel here
on the southwest corner and, then, this commercially zoned parcel here on the
northwest corner is a vacant -- about a three acre vacant piece of land. So, that's the
area that we are talking about. There is just one application with this tonight, they are
proposing to subdivide that into seven lots or six building lots, one common lot. Here is
an aerial photo that gives you some sense of the area, You can see the two vacant
pieces here. This does still -- well, it almost qualifies as an in-fill. In-fill for Meridian is
that 80 percent of the land within 300 feet is developed. So, if you actually take that
300-foot radius, kind of depending on where you take it, but it,essentially, is an in-fill
piece of property. It doesn't meet our strict definition, but that's kind of what it is, The
plat that they submitted is shown here and, as you can see, the property boundaries
actually don't have any frontage on East Fairview. The access for this is taken off of a
40-foot wide easement that runs from Fairview and, as most of the Commission
probably knows by now, there is a new signal there at that intersection. It was installed
just a couple months ago. Directly north of that signal is the Fairview Lakes multi
mixed-use project. So, that 40 foot wide easement, then, is the ingress-egress for this
property. It is granted to the auto sales lot to the east and to Ultra Touch and to this 2.8
acre piece. So, what they have proposed is, essentially, a common drive that comes off
the end of that -- that easement, actually, goes here clear to the end of the property
where the residential subdivisions are and, then, comes across and there is sewer and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 3 of 70
water within that. Five Mile Creek is also a part of the parcel and that's located here in
the very southwest corner that cuts across it and, then, heads up to the west. So, they,
actually, have shown the building footprints on their plat. As my staff report indicated,
the first building that they are intending to construct is this one here in the northeast
corner. They do have an application into the city right now and there is a development
agreement that's pending that needs to be cleaned up on this property and that's
outlined in the report. It really doesn't have much bearing on the plat itself, it's related to
development in terms of the use of the property more than anything, It was tied to the
annexation. So, I wasn't necessarily planning to give verbal testimony much about the
development agreement, since it's kind of a separate track that's going on, but I did
want you to know about that. Essentially, what they are just trying to do here is get the
property split into these pieces of -- these six buildable lots. So, I think the only two
issues from the staff report that I wanted to point out are the three or four special
considerations that start on page four, The first one I just mentioned, that was the
development agreement, and, then, number two special consideration is the cross-
access to the west and the police and fire reviewed the plat and they do have concerns,
especially at build out, about getting a secondary access into this piece and we have
recommended that it happen here at this commercial drive, would come across and it
stubs -- I'll go back here to the -- this vacant parcel here. It would stub in about this
location. So, we are recommending that that be a cross-access easement that is
provided by this party, obviously, until the other piece develops there won't be a
constructed secondary access here, but the easement would insure that we could get
that in the future. And, then, item number three under special considerations on page
four is the landscape planned land use buffer and I'd just basically ask the applicant to
address the timing and the phasing with the Commission tonight. Our initial
understanding was that they wanted to have -- to just phase the improvements and get
the improvements in here to get the second -- or get this first building done. There
really is -- it's unlike a lot of other plats, since there is no public streets and there is no
street buffer to put in, there is very little in terms of sewer water, since they are adjacent
to the property, But the subdivision improvements would involve, essentially, some
landscaping and streetlights and a few things like that. And, then, the fifth -- item
number five on page five is the common area maintenance and their application did
state that there were no CC&Rs, but the note five says there are, so we just wanted that
to be clarified and, essentially, how they are going to maintain that common drive area,
which all of the parking and the drive area that you see through here are proposed to be
on one common lot. So, I think with that, if there are any questions from the
Commission, I think those are the highlights.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad. The only question I have would be on parking count.
Subtracting the eleven parking spaces that have to be dedicated to the car wash, they
still have adequate parking not counting those?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the application didn't actually include the -- you
know, all of the exact uses that they would have and, of course, the parking ratios
depend on if it's retail it's more than if it's office. It did appear from an office standpoint,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 4 of 70
if you just take an office use, one parking space per 400 square feet, it does appear that
they meet -- even if you take out that 11, that they are reserving for Ultra Touch.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman. Brad, I'm curious why there was not a dedicated roadway
headed south off of Fairview. Can you give me a little history on that?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, Bruce Freckleton and I are kind of shaking our
heads. I think that easement's been there a long time. I think it was probably done --
Well, actually, no, we do know. It was submitted with the application in 1997, but that
was, essentially, to accommodate the sewer and water, which maybe Bruce can speak
to that, but -- okay. He doesn't want to speak to that.
Rohm: I mean it's all right. It just seems like this development would have been easier
served had there been a dedicated roadway from Fairview headed south, which would
parallel the car wash and this property and, then, there would be that true ingress-
egress and cross-access to the property to the west once that whole area is fully
developed. It just --
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess the main problem with that is the Ada County Highway
District has a minimum right of way that they will accept when they accept a public
street and 40 feet is below what they normally accept, especially for commercial
development. They really don't have the width to dedicate. And, of course, the other
issue is they don't have any ownership outright of the land, they are just enjoying the
easement that is there for them, so --
Rohm: That's fine. It just -- in my mind, it would have been better to have seen a
developed road headed south from that intersection.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Agreed.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Well, this is a piece of property that has come before this Commission before.
I forget, it was like a year and a half, two years ago, something like that, and what was
proposed on this property at the time was an existing business in Meridian, a
transmission shop, wanted to move into bigger quarters and build on that. We
discussed that exact issue of why isn't that a public roadway and I think the applicant at
the time explained that there wasn't any way to widen the easement, because on one
side of it is a gas pumping area that can't be moved and the tanks are in a certain
location and that the owner of the property to the east of it, which is running a used car
lot, had curbing and stuff and wasn't willing to move that and I guess we accepted that,
one, he didn't have any control over it and, two, he had asked the questions and gotten
a no, So, we kind of shallowed that one and accepted it at the time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 5 of 70
Rohm: Well, it's not the only piece of property that's developed that way, so we are all
right. Thank you.
Borup: Any other comments? Okay.
presentation?
Would the applicant like to make their
Kinkela: Good evening, my name is Chad Kinkela, I'm with Bailey Engineering, I'm
representing Robnett Construction. I would also like to go over the special
considerations with you and in talking with my client, he said that he has no problem
with providing an easement to that property going to the west there, we will just move
the trash enclosure. However, we would like to be able to hold that construction back a
little bit, because of the base flood elevation in the area there, we are going to be filling
that approximately two feet and if we had to bring that pavement all the way to the
property line, we'd have to install a retaining wall and if somebody did connect to it, it
would be just torn down and moved away. So, if anybody's got any comments or
questions about that, I will be happy to address that. The landscaping buffer, we
understand what's being requested here. However, we'd like to possibly entertain the
thought of bonding for these improvements. It's anticipated that this first building will be
erected and the subsequent buildings below it will be soon thereafter, so if that
landscaping was in place, the likelihood that that landscaping would survive through the
construction of three other buildings would be minimal. So, we are not trying to move
around the landscape buffer, but we'd like some consideration of timing as far as the
installation of it.
Zaremba: On that subject, if you were to install minimum landscaping and an irrigation
system to keep the current landscaping alive, would you be able to expand that
irrigation system? I mean it means going back and starting over on your irrigation
system, essentially, not to do all the landscaping at once.
Kinkela: We could have -- there could be a lot of main lines that could be pulled. We
were talking about that before the meeting, that we could possibly install some trees
further away, closer to the paved alley down towards the bottom.
Zaremba: Take the portable microphone with you.
Kinkela: Is that working? There we go. We could install some trees down here in this
lower end and just kind of keep the rest of this somewhat open. We could provide a
shield right here until these actually came in and we could fill in with the landscaping.
Rohm: As long as you're up there, why don't you just go ahead and give us a
development plan as you see it currently laid out. Which parcels do you intend to
develop first?
Kinkela: My client intends to build this building here first and, to my understanding, that
they -- they have a possible buyer at this time and if that ends up working out, then, they
will want to build these three buildings right here immediately after and, then, these last
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 6 of 70
two buildings, So, it would be, essentially, a three phase development, but all of the
improvements would have to be in for this actual subdivision to be recorded or else they
would have to bond for those improvements and they want to go with the -- creating the
improvements.
Rohm: And so your intent is to do your landscaping by each parcel as it develops? Is
that, in essence, what you're suggesting?
Kinkela: Yes, sir.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: While you're there, could you also go back over the cross-access one more time,
as far as when you were discussing a retaining wall?
Kinkela: Sure, because of -- because of the base flood elevation that's created by the
backwater that occurs, this site has to be raised approximately two feet, so that puts this
area right here that you're requesting cross-access to this property, it puts it
substantially off the ground. My client would be willing to show that easement on here if
somebody in the future wanted to connect to it, but we are proposing to move the trash
enclosure that's there down and allow for the attachment in the future, if somebody so
chose to do so.
Moe: Brad, I'm kind of curious. In the notes it says to provide secondary emergency
access. Is it your intent to try and have emergency access available at that point for
that stub street or the sub out there?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Moe, the intent is, really, once the -- the fire marshal
didn't say, but I think once you hit that third building at the square footages that they
have given, you know, that there is another way, is probably what they would like to
see.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: That being said, there is still going to be that elevation difference between your
property and the property to the west, so I'm not exactly sure -- will you have to, then,
go back and cut it, so that it will be to the level of the property to the west or how is
that --
Kinkela: Well, if this piece of property is developed, they will have to fill as well to be
above the base flood elevation.
Rohm: Okay, But if they are not developing at this point in time and the cross-access is
necessary, it looks like you're going to have a drop off there. That cross-access isn't
really feasible until -- I'm not sure exactly how that's going to work.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 7 cf 70
Zaremba: Yeah, I agree, I hadn't thought of that as a current emergency exit, I was
thinking of it as future to connect when the other was developed, but the current
situation is there is a two-foot difference in elevation if one side is filled and one isn't.
Rohm: Exactly. And--
Zaremba: It would only go off into a dirt field.
Borup: Right. So, that's not the emergency access, because there is no access at that
point.
Rohm: What I was thinking after the third parcel is developed, the--
Borup: Well, even, then, that wouldn't be the access point. I'm not sure where that
emergency access would be. Was that discussed with the fire department?
Kinkela: I saw nothing in our packet that talked about that, sir,
Borup: Okay,
Rohm: I guess we need to figure that one out.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The -- it did not come up. I guess we are kind of talking about
two different issues, Chairman Borup. One is, yeah, the future connectivity between the
two retail or commercial projects, as well as the need for a secondary access and,
obviously, if -- I guess if the fire marshal -- fire department deems that they really need
to get a second way in there, before that other parcel is developed, that would be a city
responsibility to work with that property owner, if necessary, to get a gravel road or
some other way to get across there and make that happen. If it doesn't need to happen,
then, it doesn't. But the easement is in place, nonetheless, from this property owner in
order to allow the cross-access to happen.
Rohm: Well, I thought you were saying that they could only develop three parcels within
this development until that cross-access is available and available as in the easement in
place and a two foot elevation are -- it's -- it is and it isn't. You know, it is by easement,
but not by -- from the construction perspective, so --
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And I -- it was not a written condition from the fire department
that it be by the third building, I was going mainly off of other square footages that the
fire department has used. So, I guess I would not use my comment earlier as the basis
for a new condition at this point. I mean if -- we can get more information from the fire
department on this matter if you would like.
Borup: But at this point there would be nothing preventing them from developing their
whole site?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 8 of 70
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Okay, Does that clear -- does that straighten out --
Rohm: Yeah. I guess so.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: So, even though the easement is in place, we don't need to count on it as an
emergency access yet. It just would be a second way out when the other property
develops.
Borup: That was your understanding --
Kinkela: The other piece of property, the secondary access, that we don't have --
Zaremba: That as well. A two way --
Kinkela: It would be a two-win situation. Exactly. So, then, moving onto --
Borup: While we are on that, is there -- is there any access to the property to the north?
Kinkela: No,
Borup: None at all? That parking lot on the west side does not access that --
Kinkela: Well, I'm sorry, I don't mean no, but this also provides -- this 40-foot ingress
provides for the car wash.
Borup: Yeah, Other than that, is there -- right there, is there any --
Kinkela: No, sir.
Borup: It looks like there is a building there.
Kinkela: Yeah. There is an existing building there that repairs small engines.
Borup: Okay.
Kinkela: Item number four says phasing, no phase lines are shown on the preliminary
plat. There really isn't any intended phasing as far as the preliminary plat or the final
plat are concerned. Pretty much the improvements that are going to be needed are
going to have to either be bonded for or be constructed before final plat can occur.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page g of 70
Zaremba: I think the question on phasing is do you have a target date on when you
would build the fourth building and the fifth building and the sixth building or is that just
going to happen when somebody offers to buy that --
Kinkela: That's market dependent, sir.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kinkela: And. then, there was -- there was a bit of confusion about the application
stating no CC&Rs and the preliminary plat stating that there was going to be CC&Rs.
There is going to be CC&Rs. The ownership is going to be determined on square
footage of building and ownership and there is going to be a percentage and everybody
is going to own a percentage of common Lot 1 and be responsible thereof that
percentage for the maintenance.
Zaremba: So, you're comfortable with putting on the plat that the common area will be
maintained by the building owners association?
Kinkela: Absolutely.
Zaremba: Okay. I would go back to item one, if I may.
Kinkela: Okay.
Zaremba: This is, again, on page four and this is the development agreement. I know
Brad kind of glossed over that, but my recollection from the presentation that was made
-- and I forget now exactly -- a year and a half to two years ago on the other suggested
-- previous suggested -- a lot of the discussion happened about why the development
agreement had not been accomplished since August of 1996 until then. I was left with
the impression that there hadn't really been a good reason for it being long, but that the
applicant was going to rush right out the next day and fix that problem, get the
development agreement that was required by the annexation done. I'm a little
disappointed to see in the packet that that still hasn't been done. Is there any reason
why it--
Kinkela: I have to be honest with you, sir, this is the first that I have heard of it was when
I received this packet today. I spoke with my client. To my understanding, he has a
pre-application meeting set up for June 4th, something to that effect, and they have
been working with staff on that to get it taken care of, I have never met -- well, I can't
say that. Before this came in front of me about two months I had never met Mr. LaMont,
so this is the first time I have heard it and --
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Kinkela: You bet. Thank you for your time and consideration,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page10of70
Borup: Okay, Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I just shed one more piece --
Borup: Yes. Please.
Hawkins-Clark: -- that this applicant was not the owner at the time of annexation, nor
were they the applicant of the previous CUP application. So, in terms of the
responsibility for getting the development agreement executed, it would have been on
the previous applicants, not on this one. So, I just wanted to clarify that.
Borup: Okay,
Zaremba: But in the case of this application, it is -- it is moving forward to go back and
fix that --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: -- now eight year old problem?
Hawkins-Clark: It is.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: There is one.
Borup: Oh, Come forward, ma'am.
Leavell: My name is Lucy Leavell. My address is 2720 --
Zaremba: Can you pull the microphone a little closer?
Leavell: -- South Aerial Lane, Meridian, Idaho, doing business as Creekside Arbor, next
door to this property. I'm a little concerned just on one point and I came mostly tonight
to get questions answered, but I'm a little concerned having the drainage pond not a
part of the common area. It seems to me that that drawing gives the drainage pond
responsibility and all to the owner -- or the some day owner of the sixth -- I believe that
would be the sixth parcel and it would seem to me that that would be better put in the
common area and sustained by the whole park. You know, there is some responsibility
for it with a drainage pond for mosquito abatement and all those things that might seem
an undue cost to one builder and prevent that from being fully developed and that's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page11cf70
Zaremba: We will get a clarification on that, but the drawing that I'm looking at, it
appears to be in common lot that everybody is going to have to maintain.
Leavell: Okay,
Zaremba: There may have been a series of drawings, but --
Leavell: Okay. The draw I had --
Zaremba: -- we'll get a clarification, if I'm interpreting it correctly, which I believe I am,
Leavell: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Yeah. That's what this shows. All part of Block 1 -- or Lot 1.
Zaremba: And Lot 1, I believe, is the common lot. It's the driveways and everything.
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. That's what the application proposed -- or the application
does proposed it to be in the common area.
Borup: Okay,
Zaremba: And I agree with the comment that it should be that way.
Borup: Okay. Did we have anyone else? Come forward,
Jones: I'm Rich Jones, I have JJ Auto to the north, and on the elevation deal that was
brought up on the north side, what was -- what's the difference in elevation there? Is
that going to be two foot also or --
Zaremba: No. I think the issue is that a portion of this property is within a flood zone
that requires some elevation change by the -- and I think that's only -- I can be corrected
if I don't have the figures right, but it's only like the first 30 or 40 feet of this property. By
the time he gets to his north property line, which would be your south, it's out of that
flood zone, so they won't be changing the elevation next to your property.
Jones: Okay. And the other thing on that easement, you know, at the general meeting, I
guess, we had here a few months ago discussed like coming out of the back side of my
property and coming across, that that would work out, you know, and the gentleman
that was here was going to get back to me and we haven't discussed it yet and I don't
know if that's feasible or not.
Zaremba: Is that something you would want to have happen?
Jones: Excuse me?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Paga12of70
Zaremba: I mean are you in favor of that happening?
Jones: That I could get out the back way and come out -- yeah. And I was willing to buy
some of that property there, you know, the last time we discussed that at the general
meeting here -- it wasn't a Planning and Zoning one, but just everybody came in and
discussed it. I don't see the guy here.
Borup: That was a meeting with the owner of the property, developer, or--
Jones: Or like the designer or the architect.
Borup: Okay.
Jones: And we discussed it --
Borup: So, that would also serve as their emergency access.
Jones: Right. The other thing that -- you know, since the new stop light went in there at
-- what is it, North Lake, it is difficult to get out of my place and in and out and if I could,
you know, get out that way. Plus other people could go out during the day. At night I'd
have to put a gate across there, you know, but during the day they could get in and out
of there.
Zaremba: You would have a building there, is that not true? We were thinking that you
actually had a building there that would make that not possible, but --
Jones: No.
Zaremba: Grab the walking mike, if you would.
Jones: Is it working?
Borup: Yes.
Jones: Like right here, there is a building here and one over here, but if you came right
through here and, then, I don't think -- I don't know what their design plan is, because
that way they could leave this parking here, come out here -- this is the property I was
discussing to buy, you know, but that -- I don't know what's going to happen there.
Zaremba: I suspect the applicant would be willing to hear that -- or happy to hear that
you're willing to discuss that with them, We'll let you two get together afterwards.
Jones: You know, I'd like to see it develop instead of the weeds, so -- but if we could get
-- that way could go in and go out that way or that way with the easement road, I don't
know. Because on the elevation thing, made me nervous, because if on the west side
they have to raise it up, I will become a lake.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 130f70
Zaremba: We will get that confirmed by the application, but I think you're out of the area
where they have to fill and the cost of fill I'm sure they won't go any further than they
have to.
Jones: Well, that's why I thought I'd put the road there and wouldn't have to fill. It would
save them a bunch, so --
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Did we have anyone else? Okay, Would the applicant like to maybe
address a couple of those questions and, then, any other final comment you may have.
Kinkela: Do I have to say my name and address again?
Zaremba: Please.
Kinkela: Chad Kinkela with Bailey Engineering. I'm representing Robnett Construction
on this project. The question about the storm drain pond being in a common lot, that is
part of the Lot 1, and so it will be maintained by all of the lots, I'm not quite sure how to
address the access to the north. This -- about three quarters of this site is in the flood
way, flood plain, excuse me, of the drain and we have raised it above the base flood
elevation, We have -- because the applicant is seeking a building permit, they have
authorized us to commence on the entire site design and I have got a set of -- I have a
full set of plans, half scale here, and he is going to be two feet below us and that's the
only thing I can do. There is --
Zaremba: I must have misunderstood, then. You are filling all the way to your property
line?
Kinkela: Yes, sir, we are. And I show a retaining wall back in that hammerhead area,
Behind the building I'm showing four-to-one slopes. So, I'm not going to be filling on his
property, I'm not sure that there is another way to develop this piece of property and not
have to have flood insurance on all these buildings,
Zaremba: Well -- okay. My previous comments I clearly understand where the end of
the flood zone was. I was assuming that the flood zone only went about here and you
only had to fill, you know, part of your property, but if you're having to fill it all, then, my
comments were not correct.
Kinkela: Well, you're fairly close, sir. I mean -- but when you fill up one portion of the
piece of property, you have to take the whole property in consideration to make the
drainage work and all the building elevations work, So, the area in which building
number two on lot number two is going to be -- I don't know if I will be able to read this,
but that area needs to be filled about a foot and a half to make all the drainage work and
the build pad to work, As far as shifting the buildings around and allowing for a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 14 of 70
secondary access to the north, I'm really not quite sure I see how that would really fit
into this development and I'm not sure that --
Zaremba: I don't think we were thinking of making that a requirement.
Kinkela: Okay.
Zaremba: I think we were suggesting that if the two of you talk and you come to some
mutually acceptable agreement, I would be happy for both of you, but it wasn't my
anticipation of actually making that a requirement.
Kinkela: Okay.
Zaremba: He may have something to offer you that would make it worth changing in
order for him to gain a second way out of his property that would --
Kinkela: Okay.
Zaremba: -- give you one as well, but I don't think that was my intent to make that a
requirement.
Kinkela: Okay,
Zaremba: Just suggesting that you become friends and talk with each other.
Kinkela: Very well.
Zaremba: But on the question of how far you fill, if you have done your own drainage
plan, if you're going to -- if I'm now understanding, essentially, stop your fill far enough
back from his property that you can slope it back down to his property -- you're not
planning a retaining wall on your property line?
Kinkela: The only location that we are planning to have a retaining wall is on --
Borup: There should be a laser at the podium.
Kinkela: -- is in this area right here where the parking is, so that we can get the
hammerhead, Yes.
Rohm: Just North-South, not East-West.
Kinkela: No, The only location is going to be this small -- it would be like a 22 foot long
retaining wall for the parking area and, then, all the rest of it from the building will slope
to the north to his property line at a four-to-one slope.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 15 of 70
Zaremba: So, the second part of my question on that is your whole plan for the majority
of your property is that your drainage would be away from his property, with a possible
exception of that last little piece of slope.
Kinkela: That is correct, sir,
Zaremba: Okay. I just don't want to suddenly be flooding his property, because you
have raised it.
Kinkela: No. And, as a matter of fact, we will be able to hold that retaining wall back far
enough that we will be able to create a small swale and direct all that water in the
landscape area, so that it stays on our property. Thank you for your time and your
consideration on this and I hope I answered all your questions. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on Item 4 be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Having seen the previous proposal, which was okay, I think this one is much
better than the previous proposal. The lady who spoke and owns the apartments that
are right next to it had quit a bit to say about the other proposal as well and I was
pleased that she only had a few comments about this, which turned out to be satisfied.
That being said, my inclination is to move this along.
Mae: What are we going to do in regard to bonding of landscaping and whatnot?
Zaremba: Yeah. Shall we solve that? Which things do we need to solve? The applicant
was in agreement with almost everything.
Moe: Yeah, Number three and, then, number five needs to have the land will be
maintained by a building owner's association.
Newton-Huckabay: They already agreed to number five,
Zaremba: Are you ready to make a motion? You seem to have it well in hand,
Moe: No, I'm not. I wasn't sure what we were going to do on bonding and whatnot, so --
Zaremba: Let me ask staff. Is bonding for the -- I can tend to agree that the act of
construction may destroy landscaping that would be put in and cause a double
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 16 of 70
expense. My concern is that the underground work be done, probably, and get the
sprinkler in where ever it's going to be. Is bonding to have the rest of the work done
satisfactory?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: Okay.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can just throw one quick item in. I was pretty tardy getting
my portion of the staff report done, so in your motion if you would, please, just refer to
the supplement staff report as well.
Moß: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file
number PP 04-012, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots
and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a CoG zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett
Construction, one half mile east of North Meridian Road and south of East Fairview
Avenue as presented in the staff reports dated -- to the Public Hearing date of May
20th, 2004, received by the city clerk May 16th, 2004, and supplement of the transmittal
date -- excuse me -- received by the clerk May 18th as well, the supplemental staff
report, End of motion. Excuse me. I'm sorry. No, I'm not. Along with the following
changes to the special conditions on item number three, the landscape plan land use
buffer, put that we will bond the landscaping to complete as buildings are constructed
and, then, item number five in regards to the clarification that their will be -- the land will
be maintained by the building owners association in regards to maintenance. End of
motion,
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.93
acres from RUT to CoG zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton -
northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-009, request for annexation and zoning of
36,93 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton, northwest
corner of Eagle Road and Ustick, Like to open this hearing and start with the staff
report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this application is just an
annexation and zoning. There are no -- there are no other variances, plats, conditional
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 17 of 70
use permits before the Commission at this time. The property that is described in the
legal description is located here at the northeast corner of Ustick and Eagle Road.
There are, actually, two county parcels today, but they are both proposed to be annexed
at this time and are both described in the legal description. So, the 36.93 acres is
incorporating both of those. As this Commission well knows, the other three corners of
this intersection have had recent annexations by the City of Meridian, They have been
completed through the Public Hearing process, mostly just some legal documentation
that is finishing up, such as publishing the ordinances, But the Kissler -- what was
called the Kissler annexation was on the south side of Ustick and involved about 24
acres in this area and also involved about 23, 24 acres over here, with the exception of
this middle piece that was removed. W.H. Moore Company also was approved by City
Council a couple of months ago for their 58 acres on the northwest corner. There was a
development agreement that was required that, essentially, required that they come
back to the city with a Conditional Use Permit in the future on -- with a concept plan.
The property is also bounded on the north by -- Boise Church of the Nazarene has the
property that you can just see a portion of here and to the east is Providence Place
Subdivision, which is in Boise city, as is the church. So, this, actually, is the only
property that is in Meridian's area of city impact that is in this entire square mile that is
bounded by Eagle and Ustick. The Comprehensive Plan does designate the property
as mixed use regional, as it did for the other three corners, so all four corners did have
the same designation in the long range plan. They are proposing the general
commercial zone for the entire 36,93 acres. The aerial shows you a little bit better the
surrounding uses and structures, et cetera. You can see the church and the parking lot
here. What's not reflected too well on either of these are the existing public streets that
are affected. Obviously, you have Ustick Road and Eagle Road, which is under ITO's
jurisdiction, but you also have a stub street coming out of Providence Place Subdivision
here in this location and there is also a stub street coming out along the north -- the
north boundary. The applicant did submit this concept plan with their annexation packet
and the way that the staff report was set up is we kind of have two items to talk about on
this concept plan. One of them is a more detailed review of this area that I'm outlining
with the cursor here, which includes a super store that is probably about 168,000
square feet and the associated parking, They also are showing other out buildings --
out. -- or out pads, I'm sorry, for future development here and, then, a conceptual
commercial on the north side here that is about 15 acres in this area on the north. It
shows Bald Cyprus Road, which is the road that's -- if you have been out there, it's
probably about 80 percent complete. It's not constructed with all of its asphalt, curb,
gutter, sidewalk at this point. My understanding from the Boise city and Idaho
Transportation Department, there was -- the reason for that is the access to State
Highway 55, Eagle Road, was in question, not approved, and so the street was not
finished, So, as far as the concept plan, on the bottom of it you can see a cross-section
of a new public street that they are proposing as part of the concept. It's a little bit
difficult to read on this, obviously, but it is a cross-section for the street, which would go
along this east boundary is what they are proposing. The first -- from the property line
moving to the east would be 20 feet of landscape buffer, which under Meridian's
ordinance does require that to be planted pretty densely if it's a buffer between land
uses. Single family residential and commercial requires 25 feet of buffer between land
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 18of70
use and that has to be planted with evergreens and other deciduous -- a mix of things
that provide fairly dense screen within three years is what the ordinance requires, so
that they have to pick species, et cetera, that grow quickly and provide that buffer. That
would be what the city would require within that 20 feet. And, then, you have a five foot
sidewalk, curb, gutter, five foot bike lane, and, then, the through lanes here and, then, it
repeats on this side, bike lane, curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk and, then, ten feet of
landscaping. So, that's kind of how that cross-section moves through there. As noted
in Ada County Highway District report, they are proposing a new signal to be installed at
that new street, which would at this point, obviously, just service to the north, but could
potentially service to the south in the future. They are showing -- besides that new
street, they are showing curb cuts off of Ustick Road, which would provide commercial
driveway access, one here in the middle of the site and, then, a third one located closer
to Eagle Road. On Eagle Road the proposed access points are a -- here on the -- in the
-- generally the middle portion of the project and, then, Bald Cyprus is proposed to be a
second access onto Eagle Road. The way that staff has recommended that the
Commission -- one option for you to consider in terms of how to look and how to
incorporate this concept plan into the annexation would be to require a development
agreement between the City of Meridian and developers and property owners and
within that development agreement there would be a couple of exhibits and this would
be one of those. What we have recommended is that at this point just the southern half
be what they have in terms of, essentially, a detailed layout approval. And, then, the
northern half, which is strictly conceptual with no layout shown to us at this point, would
-- would come back in the future, so that you could see more detail on that before any
buildings would be constructed. Just a couple of other things to point out. On page ten
of the staff report, the first bullet there is the ITD Eagle Road corridor study. Mainly, just
a point of information that Idaho Transportation Department is in the final stages of a
corridor study that goes from 1-84 all the way up to the city of Eagle and that corridor
study involves, obviously, a lot of different things, but part of that is how accesses,
especially in this area, would -- this is the most undeveloped portion of that whole ten
mile stretch, is, essentially, in this mile in terms of the size of the parcels and they have
not published the study at this point, but we just wanted you to know that it is underway,
they are looking at some design issues in terms of maybe detached sidewalks, other
things that could influence how this site develops and I really have no other information,
since nothing's been published, other than that that is underway. We have suggested in
that last sentence that, if possible, staff recommends that this property attempt to
incorporate those new standards, so that they have conversations with ITD, so that they
don't build something, ITD, then, comes back and says, well, we want to change it and
they have to modify things. So, that's mainly, I guess, a point of discussion tonight.
And, then, the second bullet on page ten deals with the proposed uses that they have
here, In terms of the use -. the main use that's shown on the site plan is the elevation
that was submitted with the application, What you see on the top here is what would
face Eagle Road, The second one down is the rear elevation. The third one down
would face the north and, then, the bottom one here would be the south elevation that
you would see from Ustick Road. The other uses that they have proposed are -- would
incorporate, essentially, obviously, the rest of the site from this quarter -- a quarter of
the way through their site up and, then, this northern 15 acres and what's proposed is
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commissicn
May 20.2004
Page1gof70
that some uses be allowed outright, others be conditional, and, then, some be
prohibited. The use largely matches the city's zoning ordinances that a lot of the things
that would be prohibited anyway are prohibited. Some of them would be allowed
without a conditional use permit and that's something you can do through the
development agreement. We have suggested that five items be required to come back
as conditional uses, not be just allowed, and that's bottling and distribution plant,
hospitals, molded plastic products, utility facilities, and warehouse storage, and that
those be shifted from permitted uses to conditional uses. We have also recommended
that there be a definition put in of what a standby generator is. They have proposed
that that be incorporated, but there is no definition in our code, nor in the application, so
we wanted to clean that up. We have recommended that any structure over 50,000
square feet be a Conditional Use Permit. This would be in addition to the one that they
have already proposed with this application. It wouldn't affect this one, obviously. And,
then, the final change that we are recommending is to add a footnote that just states
that it's not an exhaustive list and, essentially, the planning director or zoning
administrator would be granted the authority to make those determinations on future
uses if they are not listed. So, there will be two exhibits to the development agreement
and I guess those are kind of what we are -- the meat of what you would be talking
about tonight, then. One would be this layout, talking about the physical layout, and,
then, the other exhibit would be the use list, which was submitted with the application
with the proposed changes that we have listed in our staff report. We have
recommended that the -- that the vehicular access points that are shown, obviously,
have to be approved through right agencies, Ada County Highway District and lTD. Ada
County Highway District has submitted a detailed report to the city, which states that,
essentially, if they come in with this type plan to the highway district, they would be
favorable. The one that's closest to Eagle Road entering Ustick would be right in, right
out, as shown here and as Ada County Highway District had in their staff report, The
middle one would be full access right in or left in, left out, and, then, of course, the
signal would be a full intersection. I think some of the other issues that we have
recommended for the development agreement are fairly clear there. If the questions
come up during the Public Hearing, staff's happy to go through them. I don't know as
part of this initial staff report if I need to do that, but are there any other questions at this
point?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Would the applicant like
to make their presentation? The applicant has the opportunity to make their
presentation first.
Turnbull: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. My name is David Turnbull. Address is
12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise, I appreciate, as usual, the fine job Brad's done
presenting this application. I'd like to note for the record that I left my son at the
Pinewood Derby, my daughter with her keys locked in her car out at the soccer practice
picking up my other son and I hope my wife's coping pretty well at this point, so -- this
particular property has been a topic of considerable discussion over the years, whether
it should be in Boise city, whether it should be in Meridian city. We are pleased to bring
this application forward into Meridian city. And this is, as Brad mentioned, the final
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
May 20. 2004
Page 20 of 70
application to come through on this corner. The other three corners have been through
the Public Hearing process, through the annexation process, and are pending final
publication. As usual -- and particularly on a project of this size and this magnitude,
Brad has done a very fine job. We are in almost completed agreement. There are just
a couple of items that we need to discuss. One of those issues that's vital to this
project, is access to Eagle Road and staff states -- oh, by the way, I do have a copy of
the final report you were referencing, Brad. It has been published now. And we have
been working closely with ITD to deal with the access issues on Eagle Road. The new
study, which is dated April 2004, does, in fact, recommend access points -- an access
point at the quarter mile section, which would be the extension of what Brad referenced,
this section road here that was constructed about 80 percent of the way. The reason it
wasn't completed is because there was a disagreement between the property owners
and it requires a decel lane to make it a -- the application valid. We would propose,
through going through this process, to work with the property owners to the north, which
is the church people, to accommodate that license agreement they already have,
provide for the decel lane, and make that access come to fruition. I would note that
when I was driving by here this afternoon right now what they have done is they have
connected through this partially constructed road and, then, they go to the north and
they go through the church parking lot to get to Eagle Road. I think what we are
proposing to do would, actually, make that a safer more viable solution for access to
that area. So, we are working with lTD. Brad correctly stated that that's part of their
jurisdiction and we will work -- continue to work with them on the access to Eagle Road.
And I should note that part of our submission when we went through the process with
ACHD, they requested and we have agreed on this roadway section right here, which
we think will give even further mitigation to the Eagle Road access situation. In fact,
they would like to connect it further to the south and create a connection -- I think it's to
Records Drive that will connect on that half section there, all the way up through this
intersection, give more or less another avenue almost like frontage road type situation,
that should provide relief to Eagle Road. This solution comes at a pretty big price. This
section of roadway right there is a million dollar price tag and that's something that we
would be funding ourselves. So, I do want to point that out, because I think it does
deserve some special consideration that we are going the extra mile. The other area
that we need to discuss is the staff recommendation that the Commission requires a
minimum of 12 acres be dedicated to professional office or other non-retail uses, I think
this is an unprecedented requirement, given the other applications that have gone
through on this corner. Staff noted that the southeast corner or the Kissler parcel was
approved at a hundred percent commercial retail uses and the northwest corner, which
is the Blue Marlin or the Winston Moore property, was approved without any requiring --
requiring any kind of residential uses and we certainly would expect to be treated no
worse than those other applications were. Our company - Smith Brighton is a sister
company to Brighton corporation. We have probably developed as much professional
office space as anybody else in this valley. If I thought it were feasible or desirable to
build professional office space on this property, I wouldn't hesitated to do it, that's one of
my main lines of business, and I feel like we know that market and we do it pretty well.
But given the cost of the land and the cost of the traffic mitigation we are going to have
to provide, I don't think it's going to be feasible and I'm not sure that it's necessarily
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 21 of 70
desire. There are some inherent conflicts between office and retail uses and, typically,
if you were asking for a mixed use type of environment where you're mixing retail and
office, office would be the predominate component, with very limited retail -- service
retail as being the mix in the mixed use. This is the prime retail corner in this location,
It's the so-called going home side in both directions. That's why this is the prime retail
location. In fact, it will be anchored by Lowe's, who is a world-class retailer, and Lowe's
has -- I would really have to commend them. We have worked with them on another
project and on this project we said, you know, the City of Meridian and we, ourselves,
are going to want to really step up the esthetics and we want to do this in a first class
manner and they have come in and submitted some site plan elevations that go above
and beyond their normal store format. They have submitted some more pleasing
architectural designs that I think will be of benefit to this area. So, I think that this whole
intersection needs to be viewed as a whole. I'm quite certain that there will be a
substantial amount of professional office constructed in this area. I think that probably a
lot of that will go in the Blue Marlin project, where he has 58 acres and, quite frankly, he
acquired the property at a very substantially lower price and can afford to do more of
that kind of product. I just don't know that it's feasible -- if it is feasible, we will certainly
take a look at it and we will certainly do it, but to require 12 acres, which is a large area
of office space next to retail, to be required to be some kind of professional office, I think
is not reasonable and we are asking for that condition to be deleted. So, in summary,
we are in agreement with the staff findings and recommendations, with the following
exceptions -- and maybe Brad can help me out a little bit here. There is special
consideration proposed use list item C, which states that -- delete the -- states that any
structure over 50,000 square feet would require a Conditional Use Permit. I believe we
submitted with this application a list of approved uses and so I guess, I need to ask a
question of Brad, why that would require a Conditional Use Permit, if it were on the
approved use list?
Hawkins-Clark: The reason that staff recommended it was mainly for the visual impact
that it would have at a premier intersection for the City of Meridian and that the
Commission and City Council, since the City of Meridian does not have design review
on buildings, on a building of that size we felt that it would be reasonable to have some
dialogue between the Commission and the Council on the design of that building that
would be at such a high visible intersection.
Turnbull: Okay, Well, let me state for the record, if that's the intent, that it's not to
determine the types of uses that would be allowed, but more or less to provide a -- sort
of a design review hook, we are comfortable with going through that process, so that we
can discuss site issues, screening, you know, the issues that you bring up, like loading
docks and things like that. We did the property at the corner of Eagle and Chinden,
which is the Target store, and I know that there are - and there are probably some
neighbors here that are going to express some concerns, but, quite frankly, I have
driven behind that store between the Hobble Creek Subdivision and the Target store,
there are no loading docks, there are no waste receptacles, there are no, you know,
really uses that would be obnoxious to the neighbors, And, in fact, it creates a
substantial and I think, actually, an attractive buffer to the traffic on the -- on Eagle Road
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 22 of 70
and Chinden Boulevard, So, if the purpose of the conditional use is to go through those
site-specific requirements, we are comfortable with that. The other special -- the other
condition under the annexation and zoning facts and conclusions, item 3-A-", I would
ask that you delete the requirement for 12 acres shown as commercial on the north end
of the site be required to incorporate professional office or other non-retail use, As I
mentioned before, that hasn't been a requirement of the other corners that have been
annexed in this area and we certainly feel like we should be treated at least on an equal
footing with them, particularly given the fact that we are creating some mitigation --
traffic mitigation at our own expense. We would ask for your considerable -- your
consideration and favorable treatment there. The other two items, I think, are just
mostly I want to have a statement on the record and I think Brad pretty well made that
statement. There was a condition under the annexation and zoning facts and
conclusions, item number 3-D, that refers to loading docks and those kind of uses, I
believe we have already worked with Brad and gone over the loading site on the Lowe's
facility and he's comfortable with that and I just wanted an affirmative statement on the
record that we have worked through that issue. And, then, finally, we are -- there is an
item under the transportation policies, as I noted before, We are working with lTD.
There are some proposals being put forth for ITD that would limit the access. Right now
we-- this property has three deeded accesses. When the property was purchased for
the expansion of Eagle Road, three deeded accesses were given to this property. ITD
is making some proposals to reduce that number, but we will work with them and
complete that application. So, with that I will stand for questions. Oh. And I do have a
list for each of you of the four items I just referenced,
Zaremba: Brad, could you go to the view that shows the proposed building? Mr.
Turnbull, would you walk us around the large building and indicate loading docks and
trash enclosures and stuff like that, please?
Turnbull: There is a side loading dock right here that will be screened with landscaping.
And this -. the trash enclosure -- okay. Jim Manion from Lowe's is here, he might be
able to answer that question better than I.
Manion: I'm Jim Manion, senior site development manager for Lowe's Home
Improvement. I'm at 1530 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, California. It's a pleasure to be
with you tonight and you wanted to walk around the building, right?
Zaremba: Please.
Manion: See if I can -- nobody told me how to work this.
Zaremba: There may be another one tied to the counter there,
Manion: Okay. As Dave pointed out, this is a three dock loading dock and the -- it's not
an open dock, it's -- when you look at the elevations, there are dock seals where the --
Borup: Could you pull the mike just a little bit closer?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 23 of 70
Manion: Thank you. Yes. It's a three bay loading dock and it has dock seals, so the
trailer directly communicates with the building, so it reduces noise and the trash
enclosure -- right next -- I'm trying to see it, but right here is a compactor where all -- it
directly communicates with the back room there. This is a receiving area and all the
cardboard and trash go into this crusher, then, this is the receptacle that is used to
transport the trash away. Towards the back here is a staging area. There is a receiving
dock here for a flatbed activity -- well, the flatbeds would, actually, unload here and,
then, they would spin off the drywall or redwood or cement bags, more the rough
products, into the store this way, but this is the transformer -- I'm having trouble seeing,
but I believe this is the transformer and generator that was spoken by -- or about earlier.
And, then, there is a canopy here for the lumber loading and contractors. We have,
effectively, three entrances that run during the store operating hours. Contractors
usually park in this area and collect their goods here and are loaded here. We have our
main entrance, offices, bathrooms, and just about all the store personnel and check out
occurs in this area here. And, then, we have our garden center, which is right here, and
we operate that as an entrance and checkout area also, so the parking throughout the
day can be kind of level and the intensity would probably be mostly through here. This
would be the less intense area of the store. And, then, there is just one other cantilever
or 16-foot gate here that receives most of the garden center product and, of course, this
is the garden center here. I hope I have answered your questions.
Zaremba: That was a very fine answer. I would only see one thing missing. Is there an
outgoing loading dock for your deliveries?
Manion: Pardon?
Zaremba: Is there an outgoing loading dock for the deliveries that you make?
Somebody buys ten sheets of plywood and wants them delivered.
Manion: Generally, what we have is a company truck and --
Zaremba: It loads where the contractors load?
Manion: A lot of times I have found that there used to be an activity that occurred here
and it's traditionally on the large orders carried out here and here now.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: One question I would have also would be as far as deliveries coming in, are they
going to come in off the new road into the property? Would that be the access to that
point? Okay.
Turnbull: Mostly likely, yes. You need to understand that this is a collector standard
road where -- with landscaping on both sides that meets your landscaping ordinance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 24 of 70
Borup: Mr. Turnbull, clarification on access on Eagle Road. Did you say ITD had
approved one access point on Bald Cyprus? That was the one they have approved at
this point?
Turnbull: I believe the church has a permit in hand. The only reason it wasn't perfected,
from my understanding, is they needed a deceleration lane on the property that's
subject to the application.
Borup: So, is that the one that you were referring to or are you referring to the mid
property access point?
Turnbull: Well, that's the one -- there has been some proposals going back and forth to
have the connection at Bald Cyprus completed and understand that Eagle Road, under
the plan, is going to a median controlled access system, I, actually, about the time they
were doing this study, had the opportunity to go Tucson where they have several major
five and seven lane roads that are meeting controlled access and they work very well.
But, then, the second access would be mid point into this property and be a right in,
right out only,
Borup: Okay. That would be a right in, right out?
Turnbull: Right.
Borup: Okay. Rohm, you were going to ask a question?
Rohm: I was just curious about this generator and I don't know if you have any specifics
on the generator itself, but generators have a tendency to have a lot of noise associated
with them and can you speak to at all? Do you have any idea the capacity and --
Borup: Maybe just a clarification. Is that for emergency -- emergency generator, I'm
assuming?
Turnbull: That's correct.
Borup: For power failure situations?
Turnbull: That's correct. I'll bring Mr. Manion up to answer that.
Rohm: Even those types of generators require exercise,
Manion: That is correct.
Rohm: Yeah.
Manion: It's a standby generator and I forget the key right now, but it is a standby
generator that has a capacity -- it's for life safety reasons. It also runs our smoke
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
May 20. 2004
Page 25 of 70
exhaust systems in case of an emergency and it may have to operate a jockey pump if
the water pressure isn't sufficient to aid the sprinklers and there is a once a week
exercise of the generator that can be determined -- it's about a half hour and if the
Commission so desires to specify when that happens, we would be happy to
accommodate you there.
Rohm: Well, that's kind of the direction I was going on that and I suppose there is
probably some standards on noise levels associated with generators. Brad, could you -
- do you know whether we have some noise levels?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Rohm, the city's noise ordinance is
11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., which is administered by the police department and between
those hours, obviously, I think it -- it's just a standard wording of a noise ordinance that
say you cannot disturb.
Rohm: So, it's not a decibel --
Hawkins-Clark: But it's not -- no. The code is not a decibel level. That would - if, that
was desired by the Commission that would have to be set as a part of this.
Rohm: Yeah. And I don't think so much on the nighttime, but the exercise, I would be
curious how much noise is associated with that generator, because if it's like a mag
generator, they can put out -- they can make quite a bit of noise. And I was just curious
on that.
Manion: I will be happy to provide the staff with the decibel level. It's kind of a -- there is
a decibel level at point of the engine and, then -- that's where it's taken and, then, how it
falls off is quite a science. But I think what would help everybody on this is, I think if
there is a concern about the noise level, a half hour in a seven day period, again, the
Commission can dictate when that generator is exercised in a seven day period for a
half hour.
Rohm: I think just normal working hours would probably be sufficient on that, but you
wouldn't want to exercise it at 11 :00 o'clock at night.
Manion: That's correct. And we would be happy to accommodate, again, the city, the
residents, if they prescribe a certain time or a certain day, a certain time on a certain
day, to keep that at a minimum.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I think we should move on with the Public Hearing. A lot of people
want to testify.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
May 20, 2004
Page 26 or 70
Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Okay. This is a time that we give
opportunity for any of the public to -- any testimony on this application, so now is the
time to come forward, any of those that would like to, Yes, sir.
Jamison: My name is Allen Jamison and I live on the border -- the east border of that --
right on the border where the street is going to be put in, on the east border, and there
is a buffer zone put in there and I want to know whether the buffer is going to be
between the road and our houses or is the road going to be next to our houses? Where
is the buffer going?
Rohm: The buffer is adjacent to your property and then; the road is, actually, west of the
buffer,
Jamison: West of the buffer?
Rohm: Yes.
Jamison: Okay. How about those stub streets going out of our housing, are they going
to go into this property? Are they going to be traffic going in there all the time? I mean
have access off of those stub streets?
Borup: We can clarify that at this point. They do not show access to those stub streets,
so they would stay as they are now.
Jamison: He showed us some a while ago. There are two of them.
Borup: Right. Right. But they don't go into this site.
Jamison: They wouldn't --
Borup: No.
Hawkins-Clark: Actually, they do propose that.
Borup: They do propose -- okay. The plat doesn't show it, does it?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, correct. I mean it's not a plat, but, yes, the site plan does not
actually show, but --
Jamison: That's going to put a lot of traffic in our area if they do go through and it won't
be necessary, because there is three other accesses to get into that property. More
than that, there would be about four. There are two stub streets that will make it terrible
for us in that housing, because it will be an easy way to get in and not much traffic and
people use that to get in. And there is a lot of other accesses into that property, without
using those stub streets. I know where they are, because I live right behind there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 27 of 70
Borup: Right. Again, Brad, the site plan doesn't show --
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, it's listed in the Ada County Highway District staff
report,
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: You know these public street issues are largely Ada County Highway
District. Obviously, this Commission can discuss them and make -- make those
comments, but largely this is a high district system and they are recommending that in
their staff report, so --
Borup: And normally -- normally what ACHD's rationale is to allow the residents access
to here, so they would not have to go onto Ustick and -- I mean that's --
Jamison: Well, I object to that very generously and that compactor, when does it
operate?
Borup: Okay, We can get an answer on that. I would assume it's as necessary.
Jamison: Well, that should be -- that shouldn't be at night either, like the generator.
Borup: And I think that could be a condition that complies with those.
Jamison: I think that's alii have.
Borup: So, you're saying you'd like it before -- when you say at night, what hours are
you talking about?
Jamison: Yeah.
Borup: Which hours?
Jamison: Oh, well, it would be 11 :00 -- like he said about the generator would be about
the same thing.
Borup: Okay. So, before 6:00 or something like that?
Jamison: Yeah, That's alii have,
Borup: Thank you, sir, Yes, Come on forward,
Bowhecker: David Bowhecker, 334 South Bitterroot, Boise. I am on the board of the
church to the north and our comment is that the access point that is shown in the center
of the property has been discussed. The developer has not approached the church
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commission
May 20. 2004
Page 28 cf 70
regarding that access point and it was -- information given to me was that the church
owns the property to the south of that road one foot.
Borup: So, there has been no contact at all?
Bowhecker: No.
Borup: Is that your understanding that that is a -- you say the church still owns the
property or is it deeded right of way? It's not a highway district right of way?
Bowhecker: We are talking about the center point --
Borup: Right.
Bowhecker: Right there, Yeah. Right at the point -- right there. Correct. The access
into the road -- is it Bald Cyprus? That we own the property to the south of that, one
foot. Bald Cyprus.
Borup: So, at this point it's private property, it's not -- it is not a road right of way or--
Bowhecker: That's my understanding.
Borup: Okay. And they have not contacted you at all you're saying?
Bowhecker: The developers have not contacted the church.
Borup: I assume you would like them to do that.
Bowhecker: We would like them to do that. Any questions?
Borup: Any questions? Thank you, sir.
Bowhecker: Thank you.
Borup: Yes. Come forward.
Gilbert: Thank you. My name is Carl Gilbert. I live at 3475 East Ustick Road. My wife
and own a ten acre parcel right directly to the south of the east part of this complex and
from what we are seeing here the proposed signal light on Ustick Road is going to be
right smack in the middle of our driveway and that's not acceptable. I mean I don't think
that would be much fun. Do I need to point out to you what parcel I'm talking about?
Borup: And where is your driveway? On which side of your property? Right there,
Gilbert: The property to the west of us, all of this here, is the Kessler property that has
just been annexed. As a matter of fact, it's my understanding that the Meridian city is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission
May 20, 2004
Page 29 of 70
now right down the middle of his driveway, right here, which we have a shared
driveway, So, the way that I'm seeing this, if I'm understanding correctly, the signal light
here is going to be right either in my front room window or right in my driveway, but I'm
on the south side of the road,
Borup: Okay. I think you're off a little bit, sir. The signal light should be on the east end
of the property. About right there.
Gilbert: Well, it's not going to be -- well, this -- oh, completely over here?
Borup: Right there.
Gilbert: I thought it was right here.
Rohm: No, Right there.
Gilbert: Well, that's still going to back up traffic. We have got traffic on Ustick Road right
now -- the traffic on Eagle Road and Ustick Road right now is just -- the subdivision that
this gentleman was just talking about has dumped so much traffic on Ustick Road that
the people that live there, like us, we have been there 12 years, we used to watch
where there was -- you count the cars by the day. Now, there is a three lane road that
goes clear over into the -- they make an eastbound turn lane, so the westbound traffic --
or, excuse me, the eastbound traffic comes right down off the gutters right into our fence
line, because the traffic has forced them over and there is no traffic enforcement there.
So, a signal light right at that area looks to me like it would really cause some problems.
Borup: Okay, The center of that road should be about 55 feet from their east property
line.
Gilbert: It's going to be right at the -- what you're saying it would be right at --
Borup: About 55 feet.
Gilbert: Right at my east most property line.
Borup: No. No. I assume that other lot is more than 55 wide, isn't it?
Gilbert: The other lot next to me -- there is the Summers Funeral Home and, then, the
lot next to me is probably 156 feet.
Borup: Okay. So, that signal light should be about a hundred feet from your property
line.
Gilbert: But that signal light is -- if the signal light was there, that is past -- there is two
houses right there where you're suggesting and one of them is supposedly on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 30 of 70
historic register and states that they would never tear it down, because it was built in 18
something, a big rock, sandstone house.
Borup: Okay, I think it could be on the register. I'm not sure if it is.
Gilbert: I was told. I don't know that for a fact. But, anyway, it was told it was never
going to be torn down and that was a condition on the sales, but, then, I'm not a
Philadelphia lawyer, so I don't know. I'm just saying that that signal light is going to be -
- I'm going to be looking right out the front of my place one way or another, whether it's
in my driveway or to the -- on the east side.
Borup: Well, you will be able to see it, but it looks like it's from your property --
Gilbert: You'll have to E-mail groceries to us. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Yes. Come on up.
Harnden: Hi. I'm Scott Harnden. I live in the east -- Heather Meadow Subdivision there,
so thank you for the opportunity to discuss a few things. My main issues involve safety,
specifically the safety of the children in that neighborhood. One issue -- if you could
point to the elementary school that's right by that new proposed Lowe's?
Moe: There is a pointer right there.
Harnden: Well, it would have to be a smaller shot, I believe, Could you get a smaller --
Borup: No, That's what they --
Harnden: I believe it's right there; am I correct?
Borup: No,
Harnden: Ustick Elementary?
Borup: No. It's down another half a mile. Yeah.
Harnden: Okay. So, often when I go to work the traffic is backed up from Ustick all the
way almost to Cloverdale or coming home from work, which is right by that elementary
school. So, one question is what will we do with the traffic -- extra traffic from Lowe's?
And what about possible safety hazards with the children in front of that elementary
school, which is very close? Another issue is something the applicant said. One, he
addressed the trash compactor, yet gave no specifications. The applicant said that the
trash compactor and loading into the building would not interfere with our subdivision,
but yet they are both facing our subdivision. The applicant stated -- the applicant did
not state anything about the stub streets. but, yet, they would go right into our
subdivision. The applicant did not bring up many of these safety issues and I question
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 31 of 70
whether the applicant has kept in mind the safety of the children in that neighborhood,
It seems that many of the things were not brought up tonight and I hope that this
proposal will not result in injury or death of a child in that neighborhood or in front of that
elementary school. I hope that you will keep that on your conscious as you vote tonight
and I appreciate this opportunity from all of you and, hopefully, I'm not appearing too
angry, because I'm not angry at you, I'm angry at the applicant for the lack of details and
lack of concern with our safety of our children. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Holland: My name is Steve Holland; I live in the Heather Meadows Subdivision, My
main concern is with the sound pollution. I know those loading trucks are very noisy
and I'd like to ask you to please impose some kind of restriction on when deliveries of
those rough parts, like concrete and wood, et cetera, can be made. Preferably, I'd like
to, you know, not have that occur during night, during the typical sleeping hours, I
would think that, you know, like from about 10:00 o'clock to about 7:00 o'clock, maybe
even 8:00 o'clock in the morning, if we could restrict that, that would be great. Thanks.
Borup: Okay, Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Beck: Good evening. My name is Richard Beck, I live at 3723 Bottlebrush Avenue and
I represent the Heather Meadows Homeowners Associ?tion and we are, I guess,
disappointed with legal description on tonight's hearing, It basically states that it is an
annexation and rezone application. But, in fact, in addition to those applications, it is
also a detailed -- you know, approving a detailed site plan. However, we have had the
opportunity to --
Borup: Maybe I can get a clarification on that. And Brad might clarify that. The other --
the site plan is additional information that was provided. It was not -- it is not part of the
application, but we like to have some information on what the use is going to be. So,
thi$ was provided so we could have additional information for the city and the public,
Anything to add to that, Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I don't think so, You're correct; normally the
annexation applications do not require submittal of a development plan or elevations.
Staff did recommend that more detail be included in this one, since they wanted to
proceed with it with a building, so--
Borup: Okay, So, essentially, that's why this was provided, so there would be more
information for you as the neighborhood and us as a city,
Beck: Okay. I just -- you know, approval of a detailed site plan -- I read the staff report
and it, you know, mentioned -- you know, wanted you to be aware of the fact that you
were also approving a specific detailed site plan, so I wanted to mention that. We did
have the opportunity to review the application and we, as a neighborhood, find that it
does not substantially comply with the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan. The subject
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 32 of 70
parcels envisioned a mixed use regional, envisioned a combination of compatible land
uses, possibly developed under a concept or master plan. It may be possible to
approve just the CoG zone and it could comply with the regional concept, but we feel
that approval of this application would, basically, with a CoG zoning and accompanying
detailed site plan, would only increase the possibility of a hundred percent commercial
development of an almost 40 acre site with no mixed use. I know city code -- I believe
there are sections that require you to consider transitional zoning or even transitional
uses between commercial and residential uses. So, this detailed site plan before you
does not include any transitional zoning or use. And approval of the detailed site plan
also augments the following issue, which I -- some people brought up tonight. The city
code asks has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas, which may dictate
that the area should be rezoned? For example, have the streets been widened? Will the
area be served adequately by essential public facilities and serviçes, such as highways
and streets, et cetera? Will the proposed uses not involve uses that will detriment -- that
will be detrimental to any persons, properties, or the general welfare by reasons of
excessive production of traffic or et cetera? Will the area have vehicular approaches to
the property, which shall be so designated as not to create interference with traffic on
surrounding public streets? And, again, in the staff report he references a traffic study
that was done and submitted by ACHD that basically indicates at 2010 build out this
project will roughly generate about 10,000 additional vehicle trips and if you add in the
other areas in this vicinity that also will generate -- generate traffic, like the Blue Marlin
and the Kissler projects -- and I think it's a very important issue. Many -- I guess Eagle
Road could be considered to be currently operating easily with standards. Ustick Road
is my concern. Would it be able to handle the traffic as a two-lane road? I would
definitely call to your remembrance the north -- North Meridian Traffic Study that did
study this area and did make some recommendations on what could be improved on
Ustick Road and, if you remember, those improvements have not been made yet. So,
we request that you either deny the application or require the applicant to submit a site
plan that shows -- that basically meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, shows
mixed use, shows transitional uses. At the same time should you find that this project
does comply with your Comprehensive Plan, we would request that conditions of
approval that -- I have made a list -- be also included in a development agreement.
And, unfortunately, I only have one copy to submit, but who do I submit it to?
Borup: To the clerk.
Beck: Okay, And I will state that the applicant has not seen the conditions of approval.
Unfortunately, I was not made aware of this application until roughly two days ago, And
just some other --
Borup: You say you weren't made aware until how long ago?
Beck: Two days ago.
Borup: Two days ago?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 33 of 70
Beck: Uh-huh. However, I do live outside of the 300-foot radius and I'm not a hundred
percent certain if the homeowners association did receive notification. I haven't seen
any type of letter. And just as -. just because it's kind of a --
Borup: And you had not noticed the site sign?
Beck: I did notice the site sign, Uh-huh. And this is kind of the final comment. The
applicant did indicate that -- and I don't know if you could go back to the elevations?
Would that be possible? You know, the site -- the applicant said that, you know, Lowe's
is stepping up the architecture, trying to come up with something that's visually pleasing
and when I read -- you know, when I take a look at this elevation, I just basically see a
box, you know, with a few extensions. Just a box. I don't see a step up in architecture.
And those are basically our concerns. Again, we would request that you would consider
whether this application with the site plan and zoning really complies with the
Comprehensive Plan. Thank you,
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Stringham: Hello, my name is Carol Stringham, I live at 3441 -- never mind. 3441
Bottlebrush. It's going to be right back up to the street that will run behind this new
development. We originally bought the house with the promise from Heather Meadows
that it was a low density commercial. I'm thoroughly disappointed there is going to be
this Lowe's. First of all, a beautiful sunset can be seen. I know that I have to give that
up at some point, but to such a large building. Instead of the 9:00 to 5:00 low-density
commercial low use, a 9:00 to 9:00 I'm guessing high volume, I'm concerned about the
noise, privacy, Also resale. We are a -- just a starter home, so we are going to be out
of there sooner than later, And something that I would consider -- I'm curious if -- I'm
concerned about the connections with the -- I don't know what you call those, the streets
that are dead ended right now that will connect to it. Stub streets. Thank you. So
Broadleaf is the one that's closest to us on -- and that won't be shielded by the 20-foot
sound barrier. I am grateful they are going to put that in, I didn't know they were going
to do that. Something I would have you consider is that Ustick Road right now where
Heather Meadows is where you turn in, it is three lanes, with the middle lane, and, then,
it starts narrowing to Eagle Road and does get back, as was previously mentioned, to
our subdivision and even back to the school in the morning hours and at night. And so
with that narrowing and the traffic already congested, I see that there is going to be a
change in having to widen the road. I want you to consider if they are going to do that,
because it is narrow. Also I would ask you to consider not repealing the requirements of
having the 12 acres of professional development, since that is what we were told and,
hopefully, that would be some less real estate that would be there that would kind of
transition, as was used on the sound and the use of that area and those are my
thoughts and I am disappointed, but I appreciate the sound barrier going in and wish
you to consider those two points I brought up. Thank you for your time.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Turnbull, final remarks you'd like to
make?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 34 of 70
Turnbull: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. I will respond briefly to the comments that
have been made. I'll let Mr. Manion address any issues of hours of operation and those
kinds of things. Mr, Bowhecker, who represents the church board to the north,
mentioned that we hadn't had any contact with their church board. We had discussed
this with Merlin Knight, who I think is the president of their board and Tony Bohner, who
I think is their attorney. Okay. And, basically, Matt Smith from our office discussed it
with those two gentlemen. They said they wanted to form a committee and they'd get
back to us and they did return our call and directed Matt to meet with Steve Hill, who I
believe is on your board; is that correct? Okay. So, we have had some discussions with
them. And I understand that those things don't always get transmitted, but we have
made a good faith effort there.
Borup: So, I'm confused on the status of the -- of the road. There is not a right of way at
this point? You said it was partially completed and --
Turnbull: Our understanding from Mr. Hill was that that road was, essentially,
completed, except for the final connection to Eagle Road. So, this was done on private
property? No ACHD approval or inspections?
Turnbull: No. I believe it was done with ACHD approval. However, when it came to
making the final link with ITD, from our understanding from Mr. Hill, I believe, of the
church board, there was a deceleration required on Eagle Road and the two property
owners weren't able to work out that agreement. That's what we are trying to help
accommodate.
Borup: Okay. So, they were intending that that would have been deeded to ACHD, but
since they couldn't make their link, it didn't happen?
Turnbull: Correct. It was a requirement of the Providence Subdivision to connect out to
Eagle Road,
Borup: Okay.
Turnbull: And so I believe Hubble, who developed that project, the Providence
development, actually constructed that road over the property I think that's owned by the
church. But the final connection was never made and, hence, we have some unfinished
business there.
Borup: Okay.
Turnbull: Let's see. Carl Gilbert mentioned the signal. You know, we -- and there was
several other comments made about traffic on Ustick Road, The traffic study that was
commissioned and has been through ACHD and been reviewed by them indicates that
Ustick Road will require widening with or without this project. The traffic generation that
are quoted will happen, you know, with or without this project. We, actually, are working
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 35 of 70
with ACHD to see if we can enter into a public-private partnership with them to get that
-- that process moved up, much like was done at out Silverstone and EI Dorado projects
on Eagle and Overland Road projects, Those details haven't been worked out, but,
obviously, it's in everybody's best interest to get those improvements done as quickly as
possible and at the most cost efficient way possible. So, we are pursuing that. Mr,
Harnden, I believe, mentioned safety issues. The safety issues are -- can be mitigated
with the collector road that we are proposing to construct, plus the signalization, plus
further widening, A couple of people asked about the stub streets. Those stub streets
were required in those locations by ACHD when Providence development went in and
so those are -- will be required by ACHD to connect to this new collector road. I don't
think that that indicates that traffic will be reverse flowing into this development, it
typically goes the other way, the residents in that neighborhood will have access --
better access out of their development and access to these retail sections, but I don't
think people are going to be driving through their project to get anywhere, because it's
not the quickest and easiest to get anywhere, other than the subdivision.
Borup: And they'd also have access to this signal light, then?
Turnbull: Correct. They would have access to the signal light. Richard Beck mentioned
that this application doesn't substantially comply with the Comprehensive Plan. I think
the staff-report adequately details that it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. As
per the issue of transitional uses not included, we discussed that at length with staff and
concluded that the addition of that street, with the landscape buffering, does, in fact,
constitute a transition and does provide that landscape screening. Again, I just -- I
would reiterate that this area is designated for commercial uses. That's what we are
proposing to do here. We can work with this Commission to come up with satisfactory
solutions to any of the noise pollution issues. I think we are -- already have gone a long
way in addressing any traffic issues with the mitigation we are proposing to put in and if
you have any further questions for Mr. Manion on operational issues, I will defer to him
on those items,
Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Have you -- do you see any feasibility
at all with having a small amount of office space on the site somewhere?
Turnbull: It's possible, but I don't think -- I think 12 acres was probably an arbitrary
requirement and probably in excess of what I could feasibly project. Like I said, it hasn't
been a requirement in some of the other applications. If it's feasible and we can do it,
we will certainly look at it.
Borup: And I'm not saying 12 acres, but -- and I don't know what --
Turnbull: I'm not unused to doing office.
Borup: Yeah. I realize that. So, I guess that's what I'm asking, if a smaller amount
would be feasible, ten percent, or something like that. Or have you looked into it to that
extent?
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 36 of 70
Turnbull: I haven't. You know, it's hard to quantify. I don't know how you quantify that in
advance. But I think what I stated before is probably accurate. When you want to do a
mixed use between office and retail, the way it works best is if you have -- well, we have
done this in one of our projects, Boise Research Center, we have 1,250,000 square feet
of office and we have probably 30, 40 thousand square feet retail, plus another 45
square foot hotel that's about to start construction, So, you know, it usually works the
other way where it's predominately office and, then, you supplement it with service retail
and those kind of retail uses that augment and service the surrounding employment
center,
Borup: Okay, Nothing else? Thank you. Maybe we can get some clarification on the
hours, then.
Manion: Jim Manion with Lowe's, Our hours of operation in Idaho --
Borup: Yeah. I think the main concern was like hours for the compactor and delivery
hours.
Manion: Okay. Thank you. We have receiving between -- receivers that come into the
store between 7:00 and 4:00 p.m. and that's the predominate receiving hours at the
store. What we -- we are a little different and I think it's to the benefit of the community
in how we operate. We are a DC operating company where we receive truckloads from
a company-owned distribution center, so the frequency of deliveries is greatly reduced
from competitors that we have and so -- and it's, I think, a less intrusive operation.
What I can say is that there is about three truckloads a week for the covered trucks --
truckloads that come from a distribution center to the store throughout the week and
they are company trucks, Now, there are a number of other trucks that come in
throughout the day that are anywhere from a Fed Ex to a flatbed to a pickup truck
bringing widgets and gadgets at a smaller quantity, but --
Borup: Are those trucks usually backed up to a loading dock?
Manion: Yes. Generally -- I went by a couple stores -- I have developed all the stores in
Idaho, but it's primarily an exchange program. The truck comes in, there is always
going to be a trailer at one of the other doors and what happens is from the company
trucks -- and it's more efficient for us -- is on this exchange program a trailer is backed
in, the full trailer, and it will unhook and hook up to the previously delivered trailer and
pull out and leave and, then, the night -- the crew has so many days to unload that
trailer until the new delivery shows up.
Borup: And that's enclosed trailers?
Manion: That's correct.
Borup: Okay, So, those are going directly into the building.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 37 of 70
Manion: That's correct.
Borup: I think probably the concern would be, you know, forklift operation and that type
of thing at late hours.
Manion: That type of operation does run during the business time of the -- over at the
other side of the store, the lumber area, that operation is about two trucks a week,
company owned, again, coming from a distribution center consolidating and that activity
is really during business -- those receiving hours.
Borup: Okay.
Manion: But what I -- I guess the point I wanted to make and in full disclosure is what
happens is in a 24 hour period -- I'm not saying it would happen, but that exchange
happens, but there usually has to be somebody in the store and this market doesn't
require 24 hour operation in the store, but in our dense populated, high volume stores,
there might be a night crew throughout the night and they could receive this drop trailer
and, again, here I believe the primary would be during business hours, a drop and
exchange.
Borup: Okay.
Manion: But --
Borup: How about the compactor operation?
Manion: I have to admit, I'm informed more on the construction side, but --
Borup: Any problem with restricting those hours to --
Manion: I don't think so. We kind of --
Borup: Probably, the main question would be is the noise level. The compactor is inside
the building?
Manion: I have to be honest with you, I have been -- I do 11 states and a lot of
commission meetings and everything and this is the first time compactor hours was ever
brought up or the noise level. It's pretty unique. And I really am not prepared to
understand what kind of level that they generate and nor have I ever been hauled back
later after a store is open and said you got to do something about that compactor
operation. Now, I have heard about trucks and such, but it's kind of unique to me to
hear that tonight and I don't believe it will be a problem, but as to the hours it operates
and everything, I'm kind of stymied on that.
Borup: Okay,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission
May 20, 2004
Page 38 of 70
Manion: Thank you.
Borup: Well, let's see. Questions from any other Commissioners?
Manion: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any other comments from staff?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, just a couple of things --
Borup: Did you get a copy of both the submittals?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, we did.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: On the notes that I was taking, I think one thing that was missed -- there
was a question about whether or not the homeowners association was notified. I am
looking at the mailing list and I do see that Heather Meadows Neighborhood Association
-- there was a notice sent to 701 South Allen Street, Suite 103, attention homeowners
association. So, they -- that did go there, That was one question. On the question of
the historic home, I -- the staff report did raise that. There were three findings that staff
felt probably could not clearly be met and one of those was the finding that historic
structures be looked at, if at all possible, to be preserved. Staff's understanding it is not
on the national register. It is listed on Ada County's historic survey, which is different
than the National Park Service list, which, actually, is the register. But I did explain that
in the report.
Borup: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: It is a sandstone blockhouse that's there in that corner that is on this
property that would be removed if this proceeds as approved.
Borup: Okay. And being on that survey -- I assume that means if someone wanted to
make an application, it would have been considered, but at this point --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It is eligible to have an application submitted for it. Right.
Borup: Okay. Anything else? Any other comments?
Hawkins-Clark: As far as Ustick Road, Ada County Highway District report, I'm just
looking here, they -- they have recommended that for the first 500 feet from the Eagle
Road to the east, that they dedicate 60 feet of right of way, which would make it 120
wide and, then, at that point it would taper down to 48 feet of right of way, but just to
clarify, that's just referring to the dedication of the road, not the construction of it, which
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 39 0170
would be an Ada County Highway District project. And to clarify, the Highway District
hasn't really -- they haven't had a hearing on this, because they haven't received a
formal development application, What they have given the city is conditions that they
would probably put on the applicant if they do get a development application. So, that's
just to clarify that those discussions would probably still take place.
Borup: And there would be a public hearing at ACHD or --
Hawkins-Clark: I can't answer that.
Borup: Not sure. Okay,
Zaremba: Actually, that's a general question. ACHD's hearings are open to the public,
but I don't believe they are noticed in the same way that our hearings are. Often people
don't know their hearings are happening. But they are open to the public if you know it's
happening.
Borup: Okay, All right. Commissioners, I think that concludes testimony.
Zaremba: Mr, Chairman, I would move that the hearing on AZ 04-009 be closed.
Rohm: Second
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Borup: Okay. Anybody want to start any discussion or are we ready for a motion?
Zaremba: We probably need to tweak the motion a little bit.
Moe: I would be a little interested as to what we are going to do about the 12 acres in
regards to the north, as far as showing those as commercial. Deleting that or not.
Zaremba: Okay. That, by the Comprehensive Plan, is mixed use area. The zoning
requested matches Comprehensive Plan intention, I suspect what staff was trying to do
is to make sure that there is some mix to the use. I didn't read that sentence as
requiring the entire 12 acres to develop that way. To me, when it says it shall be
required to incorporated professional office and other non-retail, I read that as some of it
would need to be that way, not all 12 acres, and that the sum is unspecific as to how
much it would be. I'm comfortable either way,
Newton-Huckabay: So, you're saying a percentage of 12 acres needs to be --
Zaremba: Yeah, I'm not so sure I want to specify the percentage, but I didn't read that
as saying that all 12 acres had to be pre-designated as office or non-retail, just that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission
May 20.2004
Page 40 of 70
some should be incorporated, and I think the operative part of it was that the zoning
administrator, which means Anna Powell, would make that decision, rather than us, so
that it didn't have to keep coming back through us and if we wanted to add the word
some, so that it doesn't sound like all 12 acres have to be that way --
Borup: I think if we could make it a little less ambiguous would be good.
Zaremba: And not to speak for the applicant, but it may be almost automatic to have
some of it in there. I would see that change. Loading docks, which are at 3-D, we have
had discussion about loading docks. The thing -- what I probably would add there
would be the comments about the operation of the compactor and the generator and,
then, perhaps define some hours between which all of those have to occur, It's just on
the thought that at some point the retail operation of the store may go to 24 hours -- I
mean 15 years from now, maybe, but that could happen. I think it's reasonable to have
some restriction on delivery and generator and compactor hours. I probably would be
more inclined to go closer to 7:00 a,m., than 8:00 a.m. and maybe cut them off at 6:00
p.m., rather than 4:00 p.m., as suggested by the homeowners association. That's open
for discussion. That's just one person's opinion.
Borup: That's the exact hours I was thinking, 7:00 to 6:00.
Rohm: So, you'd just expand D to include --
Zaremba: The compactor and the generator.
Rohm: Generator.
Zaremba: And, then, let's say all of those activities have to be conducted between 7:00
and 6:00 p,m,
Newton-Huckabay: What about loading dock hours? Is that in there, too?
Zaremba: Yes. Yeah. Loading docks are mentioned -- well, what it already says is
loading docks, trash collection, out-door storage, shall be incorporated into the overall
building or landscape designs so that the visual-acoustic impacts of said functions are
minimized. After -- let's do this: After trash -- after loading docks and before trash
collection, I would add: Compactor, comma -- that wasn't just generator, it was auxiliary
generator --
Moe: Emergency generator.
Zaremba: -- Emergency generator at that point and, then, I would add a new sentence
at the end that says all of these activities shall be confined to between 7:00 a,m. and
6:00 p,m.
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 41 of 70
Borup: Maybe some -- are you talking unloading -- unloading the -- parking the truck
during those hours? Not necessarily taking the goods out of an enclosed bed truck that
goes directly to the building.
Zaremba: Once the trailer is parked and, essentially, attached to the building by the
enclosure, I am not limiting that activity, but --
Borup: Okay. I just that maybe. Okay. Well, and I -- that's what I knew you meant, but
I --
Zaremba: Do I need to --
Borup: Well, I don't know. I don't think we want to define unloading as being able to
load box goods out of an enclosed trailer.
Newton-Huckabay: I think the idea was to prevent, you know, backup alarms at 3:00
o'clock in the morning.
Borup: Right.
Moe: Which is fine. And not only that, you're giving them a couple extra hours anyway
for the receiving time.
Zaremba: Some of the other issues from the homeowners association about lighting
are, in my opinion, pretty well covered by the existing statutes about how lights can be
placed and light cannot shed off onto adjoining properties and stuff like that.
Borup: Yeah. Those are all standard --
Zaremba: Do we think we can cover those anyhow? Right? Okay. All right.
Transportation policies. Okay. Transportation policies, I, in my mind, would refer back
to page 11, paragraph 3-A, number three, where the real comment is that regardless of
what we say about access points, the City of Meridian is not really approving or
disapproving the roadway accesses, those are -- those are the purview of ACHD and
ITD and whether we agree with this site plan or not, does not mean that we are
authorizing accesses that either ACHD or ITD -- and I think that one covers -- I think 3-
A-3 covers the transportation policy, so I would leave that alone. Does that mean we
are close to a motion? Anybody have anything to add?
Moe: I think you're ready.
Borup: Any comments on the submittal from the applicant?
Zaremba: Well, that's, actually, what I was working off of.
Borup: Okay. Well, you had mentioned on the conditional use aspect.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 42 of 70
Zaremba: He -- I believe the applicant was satisfied with staff's explanation of why it's in
there,
Borup: Right. And I didn't know if we needed to add --
Zaremba: It's really -- should we add the intention is design review?
Borup: Yeah, Design review and not use of -- and not use.
Zaremba: Okay. Okay.
Rohm: I think it's suffice to just leave it the way it is and our verbal commitment that we
are not trying to minimize --
Borup: Well, no, but --
Zaremba: I would begin it the same way, add that any structure over 5,000 square feet
shall be considered a new conditional use for design review,
Borup: Okay. That was a blanket conditional use and that means everything for any
reason, so -- which we have -- that's been a condition in a lot of projects, that anything
within that project needs to have a design review. We have done that in the past on a
lot of annexations.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Are you ready?
Zaremba: I think that covers pretty much that. Okay. Let me give it a stab. Correct me
if I miss something. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 04-009, request for annexation and zoning of 36.93
acres from RUT to CoG zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton, northeast corner of
North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for
the hearing date of May 20th, 2004, received by the city clerk May 17th, 2004, with the
following changes: On page ten, under special considerations, the second bullet, which
is titled proposed uses, paragraph C under that, add the statement: Any structure over
5,000 square feet will -- I'm sorry, Correct that to 50,000. Any structure over 50,000
square feet shall require a conditional use for design review purposes. On page 12,
paragraph D, will be modified as follows: The following standard shall apply to all
development on the subject property, All loading docks -- and add the words
compactor, comma, emergency generator, comma, and, then, continued trash
collection, et cetera. In paragraph D add a new sentence at the end that say all such
activities shall be confined between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Borup: Did - you had mentioned earlier about page 11-3-A.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 43 of 70
Zaremba: I'm sorry; I missed my one little word in there. Yes. Another change on page
11 under annexation and zoning facts and conditions, paragraph three, subparagraph
A, sub subparagraph 2, so 3-A-2, the 12 acres shown as commercial on the north end
of the site shall be required to incorporate some -- I add the word some -- professional
office or another non-retail use, And, then, the second sentence remains as is, Then, I
already mentioned the change on page 12. That still stands. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay, Thank you, And there will be another hearing at City Council in a month
or so. That date, again, will be posted on site and, then, those that -- and, then,
mailings will also go out, just like for this hearing, I think we will probably take a short
break at this time. We will reconvene after the break.
(Recess.)
Item 6:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-005 Request for Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4
to R-8 zone for proposed Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron
Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road:
Item 7:
Public Hearing: PP 04-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 42
single-family residential building lots and four common lots on 9.47 acres
in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron
Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road:
Item 8:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for proposed Larkspur Subdivision with request
for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and
front and street side yard setbacks by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190
and 2240 South Meridian Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and continue with the
next items, Public Hearing RZ 04-005, request for rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8
for proposed Larkspur Subdivision and accompanying that PP 04-011, request for
preliminary plat approve of 42 single family residential building lots and four common
lots and CUP 04-011, request for Conditional User Permit for a planned development
for proposed Larkspur Subdivision. I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and
start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application ,is for Larkspur and
it consists of three parts. The first one is a rezone of 9.47 acres from -- currently it's R-4
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 44 of 70
zoning and they are proposing an R-8 zoning. The Comprehensive Plan designation for
this area is medium density residential, which supports this proposed zone change. We
also have a preliminary plat -- a preliminary plat for 42 building lots and four other lots
and included in the 42 building lots are two lots which would be on the western side of
the subdivision which have existing homes and there is also an application for a
planned development, which is allowing the applicant to request reduced minimum lot
size. These are proposed to be patio homes that will be marketed for seniors, with
smaller floor plans, smaller lot sizes, and they are proposing minimum lot sizes of 4,011
square feet. And these will all be detached single family homes. And they are also
requesting reduced frontage on a couple of these lots to go down to a minimum of
22,18, I'm going to keep this up and I wanted to go through a couple of the issues with
this project. The first of these is that -- currently we have an application for a proposed
Southwood Subdivision, which you all saw two weeks ago and it will be going to City
Council -- I believe it's June 2nd, The access for Larkspur is dependent on that
application going through. If that application does not go through with that road
connection, this project will not have access, so that's an important note to make. I just
wanted to make sure that was on the record. Let's see. Another thing I wanted to go
through -- and, actually, we -- the applicant and I have discussed a few issues I brought
up in the report, The first of these is the two existing access points for the two existing
residential lots on Meridian Road. Since I prepared the -- there we .go. Since I
prepared the staff report, our planning director spoke with someone from -- actually, I
don't have the name. Someone from ITO and I think the developer has that name --
spoke with ITD and they told us that, basically, they were amenable to keeping those
two remaining access points as long as those points were decommissioned upon
redevelopment of the property and we are amenable to that, as long as there is a deed
restriction that's incorporated into the approval, so that upon redevelopment of those
lots, those two access points will go away. The second thing that I want to go through,
the Meridian fire chief has requested that -- actually, requires that there be a secondary
emergency access, so we are proposing that there be an access point -- well, what they
have shown here is showing it through the center part here and I'll go ahead and
address another second issue for that in a moment. And the third issue I wanted to go
through and there is a couple things I wanted to make sure you pay attention to. The
two existing residential lots, staff felt that there was potential in the future for those two
to redevelop, but I wanted to point out that currently there is no push to develop plans
for that and the designation for that property is residential, but because of the L-O to the
north and the location on an arterial, we thought that there was that potential at some
point, so we wanted to make sure that there was access for those parcels, so that they
could be developed in the future and there are a couple of different options for how we
could provide that access. And I'll kind of go through the three options and, then, I'll go
through the third one, which the applicant has agreed to, I'll kind of go through and
explain that. The first one would be to provide a cross-access connection between the
northern existing residential lot and Southwood. In talking to the developer of
Southwood, they are really not amenable to that. That's the first option. The second
option would be to go ahead and pave what we are showing as a proposed emergency
access road in the current location to do a 42-foot road section and a 50-foot easement
and to do a deed restriction on that lot, so that it couldn't be developed as a buildable
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 45 of 70
lot. That's option number two. And, then, the third option, which I think the developer
was most amenable to would be to move that proposed road section to the north -- I'll
go ahead and kind of show where that would be, So, to move that to the north, so that
upon potential redevelopment of those two existing homes in those lots, that would --
you wouldn't -- well, there are a couple things. You wouldn't have those -- you wouldn't
have these two homes to the north wouldn't be -- wouldn't be isolated, surrounded by
potentially commercial to the west and commercial to the north, you wouldn't have that
access road between the two homes, so the developer, I think, was most amenable to
moving that up there and, then, we would also want to work with the fire chief to make
sure that we still had that emergency access that we go through and to that connection,
but we -- staff recommends having the developer go ahead and pave that now, rather
than paving it later, because, then, you run into the situation where there is an
easement there, but five years down the road you go to continue that road and if the
neighbors weren't expecting that road to be in, it's more difficult to put a road in five
years down the road, then, to do it now before the homes are there. So, our
recommendation is that that road segment go ahead and -- we go ahead and pave that
now and it would just be paved like out to there. You wouldn't pave it all the way out to
Meridian Road, So, I wanted to go through that. Let's see, another thing I wanted to
kind of comment in my staff report, I made mention of the buffer between Southwood
Subdivision and Larkspur and I wanted to kind of emphasize that because Southwood is
the more intensive use with proposed light office and multi-family, that the burden of
providing that buffer falls on Southwood and I have talked to the developer of
Southwood and there are just a few places where they are a little bit under the 20 foot
requirement for the buffer and they will address that at City Council, but I didn't want -- I
didn't want you to think that that burden fell on this project. And the next point I wanted
to go through is concerning the open space lots. We have a code requirement that
when you have a -- what's considered to be a micro path , which these -- kind of these
little arms for the open space lots are technically micropaths, it needs to be, essentially,
15 feet in width. You have a five-foot pathway, paved pathway, and, then, five feet of
landscaping on either side, and the developer is just proposing a ten-foot connection. I
think -- I think for all three of the micropaths. So, he's going to go through some
alternatives he has for that. But the code requirement is 15 feet. And the final
consideration I wanted you all to make, we are asking that the fencing along these
pathways be constructed to -- to micropath standards. Now, these aren't considered to
be micropaths, because they are too long, so we don't have any code requirements, but
it's staff's recommendation that to increase the visibility of an area, that they do go
ahead and do micropath fencing, which is a four foot solid fence and, then, you can do a
lattice at the top. So, we would recommend that that micro path fencing be put in for
these residential lots and, then, also for all of the lots that are backing up to the open
spaces. And it's just to increase visibility, increase safety in the area. Let's see. So,
my recommendation for conditions to be added, if you all recommend approval, these
would all be added -- and I can go through these again, but these would all be added to
the preliminary plat and that would include -- oh, and, actually, I didn't mention -- we'd
also like to see a cross-access agreement between these two existing residential lots
and that's to insure that this lot to the south has a cross-access agreement to reach the
access point, so they can get out of their property, So, that's a -- I would like to have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 46 of 70
that recommended as a condition for the preliminary plat. The second condition would
be to -- that the access points along Meridian Road would be abandoned upon
redevelopment of the property. And, then, my third recommendation for a condition to
add would be that there be a deed restriction or some type of restriction on the lot where
they were going to do the road connection, whether that be to the north or to the center,
but we make it clear that that will not be a buildable lot and that that will be a -- that will
be a road at some point in the future. Oh, And, actually, I have a recommendation from
Public Works that he thinks probably the best solution would be to go ahead and
dedicate the right of way and go ahead and construct it as a public street. So, those are
staff's comments and staff is recommending approval of this subdivision. I think it's --
the project is proposed patio home development, it adds diversity to Meridian housing
stock, and it fits with the Comprehensive Plan and staff is supportive of the project, Do
you have any questions of staff?
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to make their --
Zaremba: I do have one.
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just because you said them so fast, I didn't catch them.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Zaremba: I heard them and understood, but I couldn't make the notes fast enough, The
three items that you wanted to add, I think, under site specific comments, preliminary
plat, would be on page seven, where there are four paragraphs. You wanted to add a
paragraph that said, there needs to be a cross-access agreement on the two lots --
Kirkpatrick: Between the two existing residential lots. Correct.
Zaremba: Okay. What was the next one?
Kirkpatrick: The next one is that the two existing access points on Meridian Road should
be decommissioned upon redevelopment of those two lots.
Zaremba: Hang on.
Kirkpatrick: And, then, when this application goes to City Council we should have a
letter from ITD in the files by then. That's why we didn't make mention of this in the staff
report.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, the third one?
Kirkpatrick: And the third one -- and Bruce may want to talk about the best language for
this, but I would -- it's basically to make sure that the lot that we are proposing, that the
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commissicn
May 20, 2004
Page 47 of 70
access road be put on, be deeded as a non-buildable lot. And Bruce will help me with
the language on -- I'm sure there is better language than that.
Zaremba: What's the name that's being given to this section of road here? Do you --
Kirkpatrick: No. I mean I'm actually -- I'm talking about the connection that will -- that
will -- for the new road that will link the two existing residential lots --
Zaremba: I know that, but I was going to phrase it, so that those lots must have a
connection to --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, in thinking about this, what --
we try and play the Devil's advocate, If that does redevelop and we want to be able to
have this connection through here, I don't necessarily think it has to be public right of
way, but I think, you know, a minimum 25 foot width for a driveway should be set aside.
I think it's best if it is constructed now, so that, you know, people that are in here, there
is no question about what's this going to be in the future. It could be set up as a lot, you
know, that is like a common lot in the plat, so that it could be referred to, you know, like
Lot 5, Block 6, is a driveway approach or something like that.
Zaremba: You mean the roadway itself?
Freckleton: The roadway itself being a common lot.
Zaremba: The two currently residential lots, not naming those as a lot, but --
Freckleton: No.
Zaremba: But providing a name for the lot that would become a road.
Freckleton: Correct. Okay, Yeah, Wendy just pointed out that that's South Progress
that comes in right there. The other thing I wanted to point out is, again, I was very
tardy getting the staff report. There is a supplement that I did. We had a family
emergency last week and I didn't get my work done until early this week, so I apologize
for that. In my supplemental report I just noticed that, really, the only thing that is
supplementary to Wendy's original report is site-specific preliminary comments one,
two, and three and the rest of that is duplicated from her report. So, basically, the only
thing that I'm hoping that you will get into the record would be site specific one, two, and
three on my supplement and everything else is redundant. Excuse me. One and two.
Rohm: One and two.
Freckleton: Yes. I'm sorry.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to go ahead?
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 48 of 70
Sergent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Ron Sergent, 4915 West Camas in Boise. And
as staff mentioned, we are proposing to put this development into primarily address the
needs of the seniors in the community. We have done a number of these projects in
Treasure Valley. By far and away the majority of our buyers of these homes are seniors
and even though we don't do age restriction, we find that 60 to 70 percent of the buyers
are seniors and of approximately 250 homes like this that we have developed, we have
only had one owner that's moved in that has had children. So, we find that they -- you
know, people with families typically like homes with bigger lots. We are building smaller
lots, so we find that these owners tend to be very good neighbors, because they are
typically retired and they don't create a lot of traffic congestion during peak hours, I
guess what I'd like to do is just go ahead and address some of the issues. First of all, I
think we'd like to go to the whole thing about the access, And, Wendy, could you go to
the landscape plan? I think it's -- well, maybe the landscape plan doesn't address it
either. Go to the preliminary plat again, These -- this lot here is -- and this lot here is
being retained by the existing owners as two separate lots within the subdivision and we
have had a lot of debate over the -- right now they have a driveway that goes out onto
Meridian Road that Idaho Transportation Department regulates and, likewise, here they
also have an access onto Meridian Road. In my discussions with Dan Kuntz at Idaho
Transportation Department says these accesses can remain as long as the use of this
property is for residential purposes. As soon as it redevelops into something else, then,
ITD will take away that access to Meridian Road. So, hopefully, that clarifies this a little
bit on the access out onto Meridian Road.
Borup: Question on that.
Sergent: Uh-huh. Yes.
Borup: Does that mean any residential use or the existing residential use?
Sergent: I think it refers to existing, so redeveloped -- so, in other words, as long as
somebody didn't come in and build four-plexes, which I think would be considered
redevelopment, as long as they continued with the existing single family homes that are
there.
Borup: Okay. That would apply like if this project, if those homes were removed and
this project extended over --
Sergent: Yeah, Then that would -- that would be --
Borup: It would be considered redevelopment and those access points would be
deleted,
Sergent: Correct.
Borup: Okay,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
May 20. 2004
Page 49 of 70
Zaremba: I would say that I think I understood it the way you just stated it, that what our
discussion has been is preparing for after that.
Sergent: Yeah. After--
Zaremba: Not that it has to happen today, but it needs to be preserved to happen later.
Sergent: Okay. In our original proposal and maybe if we went to the landscape plan, I
think it's a little bit easier to see on there, is this lot here we left open and proposed as a
common lot and that would be the access from off of this street here to those two lots on
the western portion of the property and we have also been requested by the fire
department to do an emergency access from here out to Meridian Road and we have
put a fence right here in this location, we'd put a fire department lock on that fence, but it
could still be used as emergency access into the subdivision if, for some reason, this
road was blocked off up here, Since -- had a number of discussions this week with staff
and some suggestions. We think that it is better that that access to those two lots take
place here, so we are proposing that we move this home down to this lot, make this an
access point to these two lots in front and the reason that we are proposing that is that if
these two lots in front become commercial, we think it makes more sense that this is
commercial, it's going to be located to the northwest, and if traffic comes down this
street, rather than coming into a residential subdivision and, then, going into the
commercial area, it is better that it comes down Progress Avenue and goes directly into
commercial, so it's sort of commercial to commercial. So, that's -- and the suggestion
by staff, I think, of doing that makes a lot of sense. So, if we make this lot the access
point. As suggested from staff, I think the way, I guess, I would like to term it, is
originally we wanted to just build the emergency access required by the fire department
and, then, landscape the rest of the lot. I think given all the confusion that's taken place,
probably the best thing to do is just go ahead and pave that and create a stub street and
I think that staff's recommendation that we do a 25 foot driveway prior would be the
thing that we would support in the recommendation and we go ahead and build that at
this time and we build it from this road to the edge of our, you know, property and end it
there and, then, build the emergency access out to Meridian Road from that point on.
Zaremba: Again, with a fence that has a fire department lock on it?
Sergent: Yes.
Zaremba: For now?
Sergent: Yeah. And the only thing that the fire marshal suggested is that we have got to
make sure to put a note on the fence that says no parking here, emergency access, and
so that we make sure we restrict the parking in that area. So, that's what we would
propose to do.
Newton-Huckabay: Now, wouldn't that road run into the commercial development that's
proposed right to the north to the new road and have that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 50 of 70
Sergent: This is a public road right here.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. And that's --
Sergent: And, then, this is commercial just immediately to the north that's being
proposed as Southwood Subdivision.
Newton-Huckabay: And your new road would --
Seamons: You're talking about going across my property and --
Borup: Well, excuse me, sir, We need to -- you will have your opportunity.
Sergent: We are just going to build a stub street to the edge of your property.
Seamons: You're not going to do it that way --
Borup: Do I need to repeat myself again?
Sergent: Okay. I thought that's what we had agreed to earlier, but we certainly--
Borup: Yeah. It sounds like you still have things to work out.
Sergent: Yeah. It sounds like we need to workout some things, And, then, as far as --
the suggested is to be cross-access -- I mean there needs to be an easement to this --
an access to this lot as well and so we -- it was recommended by staff that a cross-
access easement and we agree with that. That makes sense, if it's developed at
sometime in the future. Let's see. What other -- okay. So, that -- and, then, the only
other -- I guess a couple of smaller issues is staff reported this pathway here, this one
here, and this one here, we designed as being ten feet. The code requirement is 15
feet. This pathway here we can widen to the feet. I think it would fit in there and we are
not going to fence this portion here, so people can have access here and get up onto
this pathway that, then, goes up along the canal. Down here we are going to -- we'd like
to request as part of the conditional use this pathway and this pathway remain at ten
feet, which would be an exception to the code and the reason we'd like to do that is if
we have to widen these to 15 feet, we might have to just limit it to one pathway road,
than, two pathways. By making it ten feet wide we can have a connection from this
pathway through the entire subdivision in that way. We are not sure if we have enough
room to add an extra ten -- you know, five feet here and five feet here as well, so we
have an extra ten feet that we'd have to find and we were afraid we might end up losing
a lot there. And the last thing we request, not only -- we agree with the staff on having
the four foot fence at the back of these lots here and these lots here, but we'd also like
to -" just add that we also like the option of being able to do wrought iron fences as well,
So, that's the only other thing. Any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 51 of70
Borup: When you say wrought iron, you mean open wrought iron?
Sergent: Yeah.
Borup: At six feet?
Sergent: Or maybe four feet.
Borup: Well, that would be your choice. I think they stated that four feet with lattice --
have lattice on top of that and, again, that would be your choice, so --
Sergent: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. Questions from Mr. Sergent?
Zaremba: Yeah. Actually, I have two, Maybe my first question was already answered.
What I was going to suggest is this pathway and this house switching locations, so that
it was a clearer connection for the pathway across there. But now that you talk about
the difficulty or making them 15 feet, my alternate suggestion is when you make the
shift over here of putting a stub street across there, this looked to me like a pretty
substantial area that was more than would be required for the stub street and my next
question, then, is in order to gain these two sets of five feet, can you shift this -- it's --
I'm not trying to re-engineer the project -- if we are talking a driveway or roadway here
and shifting these two houses down, could you shift this group left and up enough to
gain ten feet?
Sergent: It may be close, because one of the issues is right here. We have to have a
15-foot setback, so if you shift that -- I don't -- the problem is whether or not we can shift
that --
Zaremba: It would shrink this piece of property too much.
Sergent: Yeah. Is that we'd have --
Zaremba: You'd have to have a variance on that to get the other --
Borup: Fifteen-foot setback from what?
Sergent: From the rear yard setback is the requirement, so that --
Borup: Oh, from the existing property.
Sergent: The other property. So, my setback in the backyard has to be -- is a minimum
of 15 feet. And even -- you know, I don't know about -- by the time we shift everything
around, I don't know how much that would take.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
May 20, 2004
Page 52 of 70
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: But aren't you going to shift it anyway -- I mean you're going to be putting a
roadway in approximately a 50 foot lot, but you have got another 25 feet to do
something with, don't you?
Sergent: Well, this right here at the front, this existing lot, is 50 feet and .78.
Borup: Right.
Sergent: Yeah. It's just the right-of-way width that the highway department requires.
Borup: Okay. So, you're still anticipating keeping the 50-foot right of way for your future
access road?
Sergent: That's what we had --
Borup: Originally planned?
Sergent: Yeah, because with the uncertainty, at least, we had the -- we were going to
landscape that, rather than pave it, but --
Borup: Right.
Sergent: But, then, we -- at least we knew we had the 50 foot right of way available for
that, which is a -- you know, sometimes -- you know, there is different right of ways, but
at least there is 50 feet there.
Borup: Okay, And I guess that's where my question is. Wendy, were you anticipating --
on that future access road -- and Bruce had mentioned paving it -- what right of way
width were you envisioning? Or would it be a right of way. It will be a private road, I
guess, is what it would be.
Kirkpatrick: I mean I think we probably would want a 50-foot easement --
Borup: Okay,
Kirkpatrick: And I guess it's up for grabs whether we want it to be drive aisle width -- that
would 24? Twenty-five. Or if we did a road section it would be 42, so that's still up for
discussion.
Borup: Well -- okay.
Kirkpatrick: But we would want a 50-foot --
Borup: Well, the easement is what I was questioning about, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 53 of 70
Sergent: So, we may have room for that 50-foot --
Borup: Well, that shoots down Mr. Zaremba's idea that saves 50-foot easement. Okay.
Zaremba: Let me ask a clarification question, if I can, since it sounds like it may come
up. Tell me the current ownership of the property's that are there and is this currently
one piece of property?
Sergent: Yes,
Zaremba: Of which you're taking part and this is another -- another owner owns that
whole piece?
Sergent: Correct.
Zaremba: And your proposal is to purchase and develop the back part of those two
properties and not touch the front two?
Sergent: Correct.
parcels --
And the existing owners would retain ownership in those front
Zaremba: And not be rezoned and not be included -- so, they are not block or lot within
your subdivision, they are totally separate?
Borup: Yes, they are.
Sergent: They have to be a lot and block to make it a legal lot.
Zaremba: Okay.
Sergent: So, they are not part of the PUD, but they are part of the subdivision.
Zaremba: Okay.
Sergent: We when you look at our acreage -- if I can remember this -- about 9.47 acres
for the entire subdivision, but our Conditional Use Permit is for seven -- a little bit over
seven acres.
Borup: So, you do not own the property at this point?
Sergent: No.
Borup: So, your purchase would be contingent upon this application being approved.
Sergent: Yes,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 54 of 70
Borup: I see,
Zaremba: I sort of thought that was the way I understood it, but I just wanted to clarify it.
Sergent: Yeah. No, You're correct.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: We have been discussing the drive. It's our feeling that 25 foot paved is the
minimum standard. There would need to be a five-foot buffer on each side of it, so a
total of 30 would be adequate, instead of 50.
Sergent: As an easement?
Moe: What do we do, then, once the property, then, redevelops down below and you're
going to use that as an entrance into that area? That 30-foot is not going to be enough.
Freckleton: Twenty-five is the minimum driveway width for that access,
Borup: So, it sounds like you could do -- you're saying he could do something less than
a 50 foot the other way?
Freckleton: Yes.
Borup: I mean you could go to 40 and have more than enough and give your ten feet, if
wanted.
Sergent: My only issue is, really, how all these kind of shift, because this property line,
you know, is where it's located,
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if I might address a question to the applicant. Is that property line
set, Ron?
Sergent: Yes.
Freckleton: Okay, So, there is no chance of lopping the corner of it off right there?
Sergent: No. Not -- well, I should say there is always a chance, but under our
agreement that's not the case.
Freckleton: Okay.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 55 of 70
Borup: Okay. Well, that would be up to you how you do that. It looks like you have got
maybe more than you need for the road and you may be able to gain something, so I
think that's something your engineer would have to work out. Okay. Any other
questions from the Commission? Commissioner Zaremba asked the one that I had, so
-- on the ownership aspect.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: I don't believe I adequately answered your question, thinking about it. I
believe that that stub would need to be in a common lot. If you made it an easement,
what --
Borup: Well, yeah, I didn't really mean easement.
Freckleton: Yeah, I think a common lot would be the best way to handle it. That way, it
could be addressed by lot and block in the covenants and just a lot cleaner.
Borup: Yeah, I was, I guess, more referring to the size of the common lot, not
specifically an easement.
Freckleton: Okay.
Sergent: Mr. Chairman, yeah, we also agree a common lot, I think, would make the
most sense.
Borup: Well, yeah, I misspoke when I said easement. I think the same purpose was in
mind,
Sergent: Maybe you were referring to an easement with the common lot.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Sergent: Okay. Thanks.
Borup: Okay. Now is the time for public testimony. Do we have anyone else that would
like to testify on this that would pertain to this application?
Seamons: My name is Jack Seamons, I live at 2190 South Meridian Road, and you
want to have an access across my property, I will let you have an access across my
property where I want it.
Borup: Okay. No, sir. Let me clarify that, if I could. Right here.
Seamons: Okay.
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Commissicn
May 20, 2004
Page 56 of 70
Borup: What we are saying is to have a future access -- I mean as far as this
Commission is concerned, to have that go to the property line. Now, anything beyond
that was what they were talking about having with the fire department, so it sounds like
that part may be a problem, but what this Commission -- besides a fire, the other thing
we were concerned about is making the assumption, maybe right or wrong, that your
property someday would probably redevelop to commercial property, and at that point
there would need to be some access to the road or you would have a worthless piece of
property.
Seamons: You're right. That's just what you're doing to me right now, making my
property a worthless piece of property.
Borup: Well, no, we are trying to protect the value of your property in the future.
Seamons: See, right here, on this right here, we've come to an agreement that they can
bring the access road right down there and through that piece of property.
Borup: And they are showing now on the plat, I assume,
Seamons: Yeah. As it's shown right now, I'll agree to that.
Borup: Okay.
Seamons: But I'm not going to agree to a road that goes over to here through my
property, It will just ruin my property and I'm not going to let an access road to come to
this property.
Borup: Okay,
Kirkpatrick: Yeah, This is Wendy Kirkpatrick, planning staff, and I was just going to kind
of go through and show him actually where it will be located, just so it was clear. So, we
would be -- if this went through, the stub would -- instead of being located here, this stub
would be paved -- it would be right here.
Seamons: And what's that going to do to my property?
Kirkpatrick: Well, the stub will end -- will end at this property line and, then, the
emergency access easement would continue up here to that stub. There wouldn't
actually be -- there wouldn't actually be --
Seamons: You can't make that turn right there, because that's 25 feet from the fence
line right there where they are trying to go through and there is a building right there and
I'm not giving my building up for a road.
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 57 of 70
Kirkpatrick: You know, and we -- I mean the developer and you can work on the
engineering, but that would -- it, actually, would stop there at that property line.
Seamons: Uh-huh. And now you want to put -- it's two gates right there, right? To have
a gate through there, so the fire department can get through?
Kirkpatrick: Well, we would talk to the fire chief, but I just wanted to -- I just wanted to
show you that--
Seamons: I realize just right what you're doing. And, then, you said you wanted an
access to this property through my property.
Kirkpatrick: Well, and that would just be --
Zaremba: Not currently.
Kirkpatrick: We would want to make sure that there is --
Borup: Yeah, Maybe it needs some explanation of what that -- what that was, sir, and
that was what -- they call it a cross-access agreement that --
Seamons: I'm not going to give it.
Borup: No. No. There is no access, What that's doing is saying when your property --
if your property develops --
Seamons: Okay. Now, if I agree to this, I can't sell my property to anything but
commercial property.
Borup: No. No.
Seamons: I can't sell it -- you just said that. You said that I could not sell it. As long as I
lived there it was okay, but I could not sell it to anything but commercial.
Borup: No. No. No, I said you would have that opportunity. My understanding, you can
sell it as residential just as it is now.
Seamons: Okay.
Borup: It would have to remain as residential; it could not develop into any high use.
Rohm: Jack, it's only if it is redeveloped into something else, then, the cross-access
agreement would come into play, but as long as the property remains residential, that is
a moot point, it's not an issue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissicn
May 20, 2004
Page 58 of 70
Seamons: Well, it's a moot point to me, because you want to make an access back that
will ruin my whole property.
Rohm: The cross-access is only at such point in time that that property changes from its
current residential use, whether it's you living on that parcel or someone else that you
have sold to, As long as it remains residential, it's -- the cross-access isn't an issue. It's
only under a redevelopment as in if you were to sell that parcel to somebody else and
they want to put something commercial on it, then, that person would, then, be required
to provide access to adjacent property. Not you. Not you at any point in time as it's
residential.
Borup: Okay. So, the cross-access agreement wouldn't really affect you either way, but
this other road, obviously, does, so that's something that needs to be worked out
between the parties.
Seamons: Well, I mean to the party right now is that it would just ruin my property as a
homeowner right now. I mean to have that road come through there the way you want it
to come through just ruins my property, period.
Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to explain to the
property owner that -- I mean the whole reason we have been concerned about access
to the property is because we have, actually, been thinking of the property owner and
we wanted to help you maximize your property when you sell it off or want to redevelop
it. I mean we don't have allegiance to anyone. We, really, were thinking of the property
owners in helping you get the most value out of your land if you want to redevelop it in
the future.
Borup: Does that make sense?
Kirkpatrick: It was our professional opinion that --
Seamons: The way you're wanting to put that road over to there --
Borup: Well, no, but do you understand what she's saying, that it's going to increase the
future value of your property?
Seamons: Maybe.
Borup: You think you can sell it at a higher amount as residential than as commercial?
Seamons: I really don't care. I don't want to sell it.
Borup: Okay.
Seamons: And I mean that's beyond the point right now whether I do sell it or not sell it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 59 of 70
Borup: Exactly. No, it's your property, you can do with it whatever -- you don't have to
sell it to this -- to these people.
Seamons: I mean I'm to the point right now if that's where that road's going to go, I'm
not going to sell it.
Borup: Okay. And that's your right and I don't -- again, this city or the Commission is
not telling you where it needs to be. I think you need to work that out with the person
buying your property.
Seamons: Well, I just -- because you guys are saying this is where the road should be
and I'm saying no.
Borup: No, we are just saying, there needs to be --
Zaremba: It was a solution that -- it's not my place to make the solution, but let me make
a make suggestion and all it would mean is that the applicant is not able to develop
what eventually will be a buildable lot. For the future purpose, this stub street does
need to happen, For current purpose, this emergency access needs to happen and the
issue is you don't want the emergency access to connect to the future street, so the
current solution that I propose is that the developer, temporarily not develop this lot and
it continues to be the emergency access that everybody's agreed to, He's still going to
stub the road to the edge of his property here, but not connect it to this. Is that
workable?
Seamons: That's workable, but it sure ruins one city lot. Why can't they leave it just --
Zaremba: Well, eventually, when the use of your lot changes, if it ever does, then, he
can build a house on that lot, because he doesn't need the emergency access. It just
delays him building one house. And I can't speak for him, but I'm just saying that may
be a solution.
Borup: Well, I think that is and that would solve it, but I think the real solution is Mr.
Seamons and Mr. Sergent are going to have to work that out to whatever works best for
them.
Zaremba: We want everybody to be happy.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to testify? Okay. Any final comments, Mr.
Sergent?
Sergent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, there is one other element, I think, to this and
that's this street here, is that we have acquired an opportunity to buy this land down
here, so we may be developing this on this direction. There is a public street that
comes in off of Meridian Road, Roseland, I think, is the name of the street. We -- this
Meridian Planning & Zcning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 60 of 70
street here would connect to this other public street eventually. When that happens,
then, there will be no need for that emergency access and we can eliminate it, so --
Zaremba: You could develop that piece of property, then,
Sergent: Yeah, So, that means that this emergency access across Mr. Seamons'
property would be eliminated, so sometime, you know, in the foreseeable future that,
hopefully, will take place and that emergency access would not be necessary.
Borup: So, it sounds like that may be the direction you're leaning, hopefully, anyway,
Sergent: Yeah. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Final comments from staff? I know the city -- looking at the overall
development, technically, does there even need to be access? I mean what that would
me.an is that the property could never develop to any other higher use, it would have to
stay as a single -- one single family residence on that property forever.
Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I, actually, checked earlier this
week with legal counsel, talked to Chris Gabbert about this, and whether we could
actually require -- require access and propose -- you know, assuming that that would
develop commercially and he was very leery about us requiring. it, because the Comp
Plan designation is residential. So, it's a consideration, it's a suggestion we can make,
but I don't know if we could actually require that, because they don't have a commercial
application and the designation for it on the Comp Plan is residential.
Borup: So, it could stay as it is and never be able to develop anymore beyond one
single-family residence.
Kirkpatrick: And the reason we were proposing this is because we see an area where
there is potential for redevelopment and we wanted to maximize that potential, but -- I
mean because it is -- it's on a major arterial, it's going to have L-O to the north, but I
mean currently the Comp Plan does not support commercial development.
Borup: Yeah. And if Mr. Seamons does not want that, I guess it's up to him to
determine the value of his property to that extent. All right. That answers -- well, maybe
a question or discussion from Commission? And, really, the main discussion point has
been access -- or future access roads.
Zaremba: Well, I think the applicant has agreed to the adjustments that have been
suggested, I appreciate that eventually the problem of the emergency access is going
to go away and it sounds like it may go away sooner than later, if the applicant is able to
connect through the south property on the east end.
Kirkpatrick: But, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did want to emphasize that a
requirement of our fire chief if that we do have that second emergency access, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 61 of 70
Zaremba: Yes. It would have to exist for now, but as soon as the -- as soon as the
applicant is able to develop the next piece of property, it could go away; right? If there is
a public road -- a second public road access, then, this is not needed.
Borup: Is that correct?
Kirkpatrick: I believe it is. I would want to ask -- I would want to ask Mr, Silva, but I
believe that's correct.
Borup: Again, for Mr. Seamons, we are not saying a road has to be a certain location
through your property.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? So, if I hear you right, Commissioner Zaremba, the --
if Eagle Road -- from what the applicant has stated, if it does redevelop to something
other than residential, those -- all access points to Eagle Road are going -- I mean to
Meridian Road are going away.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: But we are talking about two different things, We are talking about a stub
street that will solve that problem eventually and we are talking about separate from that
current emergency access, The stub street will go along the north property line, but it
will stop at the fence of this new property, The emergency access is going to stay
where it was previously proposed and also stop at a fence, but as soon as the applicant
has an outlet to the southeast end of this property, which will, eventually, snake back to
Eagle Road --
Rohm: Meridian.
Zaremba: -- then, the emergency access goes away.
Hawkins-Clark: I think what Wendy is saying --
Zaremba: But the stub road never does go away and, eventually, if the residences
become anything else, that stub road will be used,
Hawkins-Clark: I think staff's main concern is that -- yeah, that those two aren't forever
blocked off from that access to the east and it sounds like -- I misunderstood. I thought
the Commission was headed towards closing both the emergency and the --
Borup: No,
Hawkins-Clark: -- common lot.
Zaremba: The stub is --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 62 of 70
Borup: Even though Mr. Seamons would prefer that, it sounds like.
Hawkins-Clark: Right, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Are we just talking about leaving it as it was proposed, except for
this first block here will become a stub street?
Borup: Right. But that was by choice of the applicant.
Zaremba: Yeah,
Borup: And he may have another solution, but I --
Newton-Huckabay: Can we just --
Borup: That's assuming that the future solution is not going to radically redesign this
plat; is that correct? Did you have a comment, Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: Yes, Mr, Chair. One other thing I just wanted to point out is that is also the
access to the sewer for these two lots. These two lots get their sewer service over to
this road, whether it be in this access -- or this emergency access road or whether it be
up here, it's got to get out to this road. We do not have sewer in Meridian Road on this
side of Meridian Road, so --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: It was so simple,
Borup: Well, no, I think that -- I assume that, too, that --
Moe: Realizing we don't want to put those two lots in on their own island right there, why
would we not want to just go ahead and make that access right where it's shown right
now, then, and, then, you know, extend it if the two lots did change later.
Borup: Again, I think that may be up to the applicant if he wants to have that future road
to the north, so it doesn't -- so that traffic would not drive through their division. I mean
he should have that option to do that. I think that's up to -- Mr. Zaremba's solution
would solve it now or he may work out something with the neighbor. So, let's leave that
up to them.
Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean, actually, when I went
through the three scenarios, the third scenario was just to go ahead and leave it as
proposed, but we were suggesting that they do pave that stub, just so it's not a surprise
to the property owners later on if that property redevelops, but that was suggestion
number three was that we go ahead and keep it in that location as proposed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 63 of 70
Borup: Okay. I think we can move with it leaving those options -- leave it up to the
applicant.
Kirkpatrick: And you can condition it where this is something to be resolved before
Council. I mean acknowledge that there are two options and it's something for Council
to consider.
Zaremba: Okay, In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on
these three items,
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of RZ 04-005, request for rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for
proposed Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, Ron Sergent, 2190 and 2240 South
Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date May 20,
2004, received by the city clerk to May 17, 2004, with no changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of PP 04-011, request for preliminary plat approval of 42 single family
residential building lots and four common lots on 9.47 acres in a proposed R-B zone for
Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, Ron Sergent, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian
Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 20, 2004,
received by the city clerk May 17, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven,
under site specific comments preliminary plat, we will add a paragraph five that says: A
cross-access agreement shall be required on the two lots that are remaining -- currently
remaining in their residential use, A cross-access agreement shall be required to cover
any future development of those two parcels. Add a paragraph six that says at such
time as those two current existing residential parcels are developed to anything other
than their current use, they will abandon their access to Meridian Road, We will add a
paragraph seven, that this project will provide a permanent access to the two current
residential lots that will connect them to South Progress when they are developed and
that that access shall be platted as a common lot of the subdivision. This is discussion,
not motion. That still allows the applicant and staff and the current owner to establish
the reallocation of those, Is that correct? Do I need to specify that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Ccmmission
May 20,2004
Page 64 of 70
Freckleton: Mr, Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, the only concern I had about that was, I
believe, you stated that the access would be to both the lots. If the access is built up
here, technically, it's only to this one lot.
Zaremba: Yes, but with a cross-access agreement it gets them both.
Freckleton: Right. Right. Okay.
Zaremba: The only issue would be if the south lot developed first and the north lot
remained a residence.
Borup: It couldn't develop, then,
Zaremba: What?
Borup: There is no way for it to develop.
Moe: Yeah,
Zaremba: It can't be done, because they'd have to abandon their access to -- they all
have to agree whenever that's going to happen, so --
Borup: Since we are on discussion, does a cross-access agreement need to be on the
plat or could that be done at the time the property developed?
Zaremba: Mentioned on the face of the plat?
Borup: Does that need to be part of the platting process I guess, is the question? I mean
I think it makes sense to do it now, but I wonder if that's mandatory.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, we feel that it would be best if it were noted specifically on the
plat, that there would be cross-access between the two lots.
Borup: I agree. I just didn't know if it was mandatory, I guess that depends on what -- I
guess it depends on what the motion says.
Freckleton: Yeah. Well -- and also the--
Zaremba: I would add that to the new paragraph five. I would just say that it needs to
be recorded on the plat or noted on the face of the plat.
Freckleton: Yeah. We are kind of talking about final plat type issues here, but that
common lot would also be covered by a blanket utility easement, because we are going
to have sewer and water in there, too.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20,2004
Page 65 of 70
Zaremba: Okay.
Freckleton: But, like I said, that's kind of final plat stuff.
Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chair, I will continue with my motion and the continuation is to
back up to page seven. Site-specific comments preliminary plat. I added a paragraph
five and I'm going to add a second sentence to that paragraph five, the cross-access
agreement shall be noted on the plat. That concludes that motion.
Rohm: 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 CUP 04-011, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for
proposed Larkspur Subdivision with the request for reduction to the minimum
requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front and street side-yard setbacks by
Larkspur, LLC, Ron Sergent, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road, to include all staff
comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 20, 2004, received by the city clerk
May 17th, 2004, with no changes,
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES,
Borup: Okay. Thank you, That includes the hearing on this item. Any final comments?
One bad -- sad news for Commissioners. Our June meeting -- we do not have any
agenda items for our second meeting in June.
Zaremba: I noticed that. That is so sad.
Borup: Unless we want to divide up the first week and spread it out.
Zaremba: Well, I would suggest that we --
Borup: Leave it like it is?
Zaremba: -- calendar some workshop items that we have discussed and just have some
discussion and maybe it will be a short meeting.
Borup: Do that, rather than the fifth --
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 66 of 70
Zaremba: Or are you proposing that we are -- it didn't look to me like the June 6th
meeting had -- or June 3rd meeting had all that much stuff on it. Or is it a heavy
meeting?
Borup: It's not -- oh, someone put it away. It was -- no, there were about four or five
commercial and one mixed use residential commercial on it, so --
Zaremba: Have they already been noticed?
Borup: Yes. Well, no. I don't know, Well, they are, really, fairly -- one, two, three, four,
five -- there is six, if I counted right. I mean there is 13 items, but there is six or seven --
and there is only one that even has residential on it, the rest are all commercial.
Newton-Huckabay: Backing up to any residential?
Borup: I don't know. I-L zones, Well, no, here is a little residential of two lots. A two-lot
subdivision.
Zaremba: I have heard that there was a project that the City Council remanded back to
us and I haven't seen that show up yet. Can that be done, then, or --
Borup: Yeah, Wasn't that the -- was that the apartment one?
Kirkpatrick: You know, actually, it was Packard Acres No.3, believe it or not. That little
20 lot in-fill extension above -- on Wingate Lane.
Borup: Really?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. But that just happened this Tuesday night, so I don't know --
Jessica, is it possible to -- no, they haven't even resubmitted anything to us, so it
wouldn't -- we are too --
Zaremba: I thought there was one about three weeks ago that was --
Newton-Huckabay: Out off Ten Mile.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Or Black Cat and --
Zaremba: I think there is one hanging.
Borup: Oh. No. Wait a minute. I'm thinking of --
Newton-Huckabay: It's all the little houses squished together. By EI Gato.
Meridian Planning & Zcnlng Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 67 of 70
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, right. Castlebury or -- no.
Newton-Huckabay: You know, it's Castle or Creek, I can guarantee it.
Borup: That was a while ago,
Newton-Huckabay: That's the one Anna mentioned,
Zaremba: The one I'm thinking about is three weeks to a month ago that it was
mentioned,
Newton-Huckabay: That's the one I'm thinking of.
Borup: That's the one I was thinking of.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: So, I wouldn't mind dealing with that and maybe some workshop issues,
Maybe no applications will show up, but --
Borup: Well, the cutoff has already happened, hasn't it? Or are we --
Zaremba: Or would we like to take a week off? I mean, you know, that's --
Hawkins-Clark: I think it's really up to you. I mean as the Commission. You know, we
certainly -- there is some items that we could probably, you know, have for discussion
related to north Meridian, possibly, related to the follow-up on, you know, like we
discussed a couple weeks ago about the lunches, but I think the lunches may take care
of that, if we continue to have that monthly or, you know, every other month or
something, so -- and July -- July meetings are very very full. We have got--
Borup: So, we may want a break,
Hawkins-Clark: -- many applications for the July cutoff. Both the first and second
meetings in July are --
Zaremba: Well, just as happy to say a break and I'm -- there are things that we might do
with a free meeting, you know, between Brad and Anna and I, we might be able to offer
a progress report on the ordinance update.
Rohm: I really like that idea. I'd like to have --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commlssicn
May 20,2004
Page 68 cf 70
Borup: The ordinance thing. If we did anything, I'd like something on the ordinance and,
again, have we decided whether we are going to do them all as a whole or maybe we
can group them?
Zaremba: The ordinance changes?
Borup: Yes,
Zaremba: Well, what eventually will be presented is a whole new ordinance from
scratch, so --
Borup: But we got some things that have been -- need to have been changed for four or
five years.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's why I think a progress report would be good, because we
need your feedback to say, well, are you remembering to add this or are you
remembering to add that. I have a pretty substantial list that, actually, was started by
Tammy de Weerd when she was a Commissioner here and handed to me --
Borup: Another option would be is if the next meeting got over early enough, we could
do that from whenever it was over until 10:00 o'clock. And, then, leave it at -- I mean
that -- we mayor may not have that time. But if we did that, we wouldn't need to do the
next meeting.
Rohm: We don't have to make that decision now.
Zaremba: I was going to say, we could make that decision --
Borup: No. That's something that --
Zaremba: I'm sorry. We are all -- okay. Everybody talk at once. Since no applications
can be added to that meeting, we can decide at our next meeting whether we are going
to have that meeting or not. Right?
Rohm: Good answer.
Hawkins-Clark: Special workshops only have 48 hours, I believe. Is that right, Jessica?
Johnson: Yeah.
Hawins-Clark: Forty-eight hours to notice, so that would work,
Borup: Well --
Zaremba: But it wouldn't be open to Public Hearing or anything, it would just be a
private -- the public can come and sit, but it's not testimony or anything.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2004
Page 69 of 70
Borup: Yeah, Our next meeting is the one I was talking about adding that report to.
Zaremba: Okay. Well -- and, then, we could continue--
Borup: Can that be put on the agenda if we have time? If we don't, we can continue it to
the next meeting, Or continue it for whenever. That way it's noticed, Would that cover
the legal requirements?
Hawkins-Clark: We could add it on the bottom of your next meeting agenda that would
say special zoning ordinance update or --
Borup: Yes,
Hawkins-Clark: -- special discussion items?
Borup: Yeah, And if there is not time to get to it, we won't.
Zaremba: We would continue it to the next meeting and if we don't continue it, we don't
have a next meeting,
Borup: I like that solution.
Newton-Huckabay: How many agenda items are on the next meeting?
Borup: Well, there was --
Zaremba: On June 3rd.
Newton-Huckabay: Because we only had eight tonight and it's 10:35.
Borup: That's it. There were six or -- well, there were more agenda items. There were
six or seven hearings. We only had three tonight. I have noticed that. We have a
tendency, if it's a short agenda, we like to stretch it out, just so we can't get home too
early.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: I second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? Meeting adjourned at
10:34.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20. 2004
Page 70 of 70
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:34 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
~U~~AN
'/ LL_I~
DATEAPPROVED
-