2004 10-07
-'-
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
October 7.2004.
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 David Zaremba,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, Commissioner Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Anna Canning, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig
Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Wendy Kirkpatrick, 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 and Commissioners and city attorney.
We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission for October 7th. We don't have a big crowd tonight, so I won't go through a
lot of explanation, but the Commission primarily -- it issues recommendations to the City
Council, so those things we will be hearing tonight will come in the form of a
recommendation that we will make to the City Council and the application before us.
The format is that the Planning and Zoning staff will give us an explanation of the
application, following which some time will be given to the applicant and, then, followed
by public testimony and we do have a timer system, I don't know -- I don't anticipate
that's going to be a big problem tonight, so I think we will just start and see how that
goes. I would like to start with attendance roll call.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: With your indulgence, I would like to take a moment to make a couple of
comments, if I may.
Borup: Okay. I think it may be appropriate.
Zaremba: First, I'd like to welcome Mr. Bill Nary to our group here. As many of you
know, the city has made the decision that we have grown to the point that we need a
full-time city attorney and because of that .- meaning no disrespect to the previous
contracted city attorney, we have -- the collective decision was that we needed a full-
time, in-house city attorney. Mr. Nary has been chosen to be the first person in that
position and to kick it off with a good start. I personally couldn't think of somebody
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 2 of 70
better to be there. He has been a m ember of this Commission before until he was
elected to the City Council. The only sad part of it is that we lose his vote on the City
Council to take over this position, but I think we are getting equal or better to have his
advice, both here and the City Council, and throughout the city as a full time and I
congratulate him on his new position welcome him back to his old stomping grounds.
Borup: Very well said. Thank you.
Zaremba: The second comment I'd like to make, since our last meeting I had the
opportunity to read a staff report from the Boise planning and zoning staff to the Boise
planning and zoning commission and I have never really had a face-to-face comparison
with what our staff was doing before. I have known for a fact that at the' current time
Meridian is handling far more applications than Boise is, with far fewer employees than
Boise has. What I was struck by in reading the Boise staff report was that they split the
staff report up among -- I think there were eight or nine or ten people that are involved
and you could tell that, because they put their name after each paragraph. I n most
cases one person is responsible for one paragraph out of the whole report and the
knowledge contained in that. Our staff is responsible for knowing the letter and the
nuances of the Comprehensive Plan, the ordinances, which include zoning, landscape,
signage, planned development, a whole bunch of ordinances that they must know
everything about in order to prepare their reports, and the two things I noticed is that
there were more people involved in the one report that I read of Boise city than we have
on our staff. So, I have always felt that we get excellent reports, but now I see the
phenomenal work that our staff is doing. I'm including in that Mr. Bruce Freckleton,
although he, officially, is not in the Planning and Zoning Department, has his hands on
every report as well. But I am impressed that any intelligence or knowledge that I, as a
Commissioner, am able to appear to have comes from reading our staff reports and I
feel far better prepared reading Meridian staff reports, than I would have felt reading a
Boise staff report with so many hands on it and I just want to say publicly how amazed
and impressed I am with our staff.
Rohm: Hear. Hear.
Moe: Absolutely.
Canning: Thank you for all of them and I will let them know.
Zaremba: Okay. I'd like to say it while they were all here, but, clearly, they don't have
issues tonight.
Borup: And I have always had those sentiments about Meridian's staff and all the
departments.
Zaremba: When you compare the two, it just elevated Meridian in my mind well beyond
what my -- the admiration I already had. That's it.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 3 of 70
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of September 2, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B.
Approve Minutes of September 16, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
C.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 04-
030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 237 single-family
residential building lots a nd 21 common lots 0 n 76.72 acres in a
proposed R-B zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by
Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road:
Borup: Okay. The next item is the Consent Agenda. Unless we have any additional
comments --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on each of the minutes, some minor things,
but does that mean we need to move them off of the Consent Agenda or can I just --
Borup: Let's just go ahead handle them one at a time.
Zaremba: -- make the amendments? Okay. On the minutes for September 2nd, on
page 34, a little bit below halfway down the page, a vote was taken, motion carried,
three ayes, one absent, then, the next statement is credited to me, however, Chairman
Borup made that statement. So, I would change the -- who is credited with saying that.
Similar situation on page 76, at the very top of the page, Chairman Borup says, okay,
thank you, anyone else and, then, I actually, said the rest of that sentence, I would ask
a question. That is it for the September 2nd. On September 16, a similar -- two similar
comments. On page 30, near the bottom I'm given credit for a statement: Yes, please.
Yes. This is discussion time. That, actually, was said by Chairman Borup, not me. And
on page 41 of the September 16, at the very bottom, Chairman Borup says: 0 kayo
Okay. And, then, I said the rest of t hat sentence in that case. T hose are my only
comments, sir.
Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the Consent Agenda with the amendments
to those two minutes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7.2004
Page 4 of 70
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Recommendation: VAC 04-007 Request for a Vacation of irrigation
easements in Block 1 of Stokesberry Subdivision on the east 10 feet of
Lots 2, 3 & 4; the northerly 10 feet of Lot 2; the southerly 10 feet of Lot 3;
the northerly 5 feet of Lot 3; and the southerly 5 feet of Lot 4, by
Properties West, Inc - west of North Eagle Road and north of East
Fairview Avenue:
Borup: The next item is a recommendation, not consisting of a Public Hearing, but it's
VAC 04-007. This is a request for a vacation of irrigation easements, Block 1 of
Stokesberry Subdivision, a project by Property West. I'd like to begin with the staff
report.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this is Stokesberry
Subdivision. To remind you, it's just south of Carol Subdivision off of Eagle Road. The
school is directly to the west. They came in for a re-subdivision a number of months
ago, you may remember, and they realized at a later date that they needed to vacate
the easements just for irrigation, so that's the request before you tonight. Staff has no
reason to think that you should not vacate this easement.
Borup: Okay.
Commissioners?
Thank you.
Any additional questions or comments from
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I think it's fairly straight-forward and anybody who might have
any interest in the easement has signed a letter saying that they don't have any interest
in the easement. I think that's pretty clear.
Borup: It's just cleaning up the plat, really.
Zaremba: M r. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval ofVAC 04-007. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Since I'm making comments this evening, I will add to the comments that the
planning director has pointed out to me that when we make a recommendation, we don't
need to read the entire paragraph, that just commenting -- referencing the file number is
sufficient to carry it forward, since it's been well noticed and agenda-ed and everything
else, so that's why I didn't read the whole thing.
Rohm: We will all work towards that. Might slip up from time to time, though.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 5 of 70
Borup: That will get us out even earlier.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm guessing about 45 minutes.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
music academy and other future uses as allowed in the C-C zone for
Garland & IIse Goff by Garland & IIse Goff - 1233 North Main Street:
Borup: Okay. Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-036. This is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a music academy and other future uses allowed in a C-C
zone for Garland & IIse Goff. T his is at 1233 North Main Street. Like to open this
hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I think is that not one that's going to be -- a request for a
continuance?
Borup: I'm sorry. I started talking before I opened up my file.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, there should be an e-mail from the
applicant where they were asking for it to be postponed until the first hearing in
November.
Borup: Okay. So, let's -- well, we did need to open it anyway, so that the hearing is
open. There is a request for a continuance, so we need to decide on a date.
Zaremba: Early November, the first date would be the 4th, if that's what they are asking
for. I don't know how our schedule is on the 4th. This probably is not going to be a
lengthy one, even when we get to it. So, I have no problem suggesting that we continue
it to the 4th of November.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree with that.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the Public Hearing on CUP
04-036 to our regular scheduled meeting of November 4th, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? We do have a fairly full meeting, but I
think we will be -- we should still be okay. There is three or four subdivisions on it, but
most of them are commercial subdivisions. So, all in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 6 of 70
Item 6:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-B
to C-C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering
and Planning, Inc. - south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road:
Item 7:
Public Hearing: PP 04-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11
commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C-C zone for Cairns
Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. -
south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road:
Borup: Okay. Our next project consists of two public hearings, RZ 04-011, request for
a rezone, 19.16 acres from R-B to C-C zones for Cairns Crossing Subdivision, and also
PP 04-033, request for preliminary plat approval of 11 commercial building lots on the
same property. I'd like to open both these hearings at this time and start with the staff
report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this -- we have two applications
here this evening. The first one is for a rezone of 9.16 acres. It's currently located in
the City of Meridian and currently zoned R-B. They are proposing a rezone to CoCo The
second application is a preliminary plat for 11 commercial lots. The subject property is
located at the southeast intersection of Linder and Cherry and it's located directly to the
east of the preexisting Linder Crossing commercial development. There are a couple of
issues I wanted to touch on this evening that are pretty significant concerning this
application. Here is an aerial. Both of these refer to access issues. The first of these --
the original - the original plat submitted by the applicant contained three access points
off of Cherry Lane and staff and ACHD have requested the applicant reduce that to two
access points and they have done that, they have gone ahead and revised the plat
since they had their first submittal. And the second significant issue is the stub street
here at 13th Street. Directly to the south of the subject property is a residential
subdivision, which was established in 1975, and called Northgate and that subdivision
has a stub street that stubs directly to the south of this subject property and I wanted to
kind of go through some of the issues there. The applicant is proposing to have
emergency access at the stub street, also pedestrian access. This is supported by
ACHD and also by Meridian police and fire departments, but definitely a point that you
should consider whether you feel this is appropriate, if you think there needs to be a full
access point, and I want to let you know that the agencies that have comments on this
application are satisfied with the applicant's proposal to just do a ten foot pedestrian
access and emergency access and staff would require and ACHD would require
approval from Meridian fire and police on that emergency access connection. This is
definitely a significant issue for you to consider. And this -- you may have seen this
several years ago when there was another Linder Crossing Conditional Use Permit that
came before Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and that was for a
larg¡¡ commercial development and at that point the applicant was also proposing to not
-- to not continue this connection, but the application was withdrawn before Council
made it -- had any conditions on it, so it was brought up for discussion, but no decisions
were made on whether that connection needed to go through at that point. That was
several years ago. And this is, according to the applicant, vehemently opposed by the
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 7 of 70
neighbors. They do not want, actually, any type of connection there at 13th Street, but
we are -- staff is suggesting that we have, at a minimum, a pedestrian and an
emergency vehicle access connection. So, those are, I think, probably the two most
significant issues associated with this application and there are a couple other issues
that we can consider a nd include in the development agreement. We can't through
code require these, but a couple of these - we want a cross-access agreement
between all lots in the subdivision. I think it would be a nice feature if we had the
applicant work with staff and orient buildings towards the street, so you have windows
facing Cherry Street, rather than the buildings being oriented towards the parking lot. I
think there is the potential for that -- the lot to -- to the south and this large structure to --
to turn 0 ut to be like a large commercial building and potentially with a large HV AC
system, which would be more esthetically pleasing if we had them screen t hat. We
can't require that through code, but we can do it through a development agreement.
And we also might want to address operating hours, especially in consideration of the
residential property to the south of the subject property. So, those are a couple of the
issues I wanted for you to make sure and consider, but staff is recommending approval
of this project and do you have any questions of staff?
Borup: Question from any of the Commissioners?
Moe: Just one. Wendy, as far as the access, is the new plan showing that the east
access is lining up with the library per ACHD that wanted that, as well as this letter I'm
reading?
Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the access point on the
revised plan, they have taken out one of the access points and the access point on the
eastern part of the subject property lines up with the library access and we have a letter
-- a comment letter from the library where, basically, they would prefer that there be no
access point there, but acknowledging that there probably will be an access point. They
want to make sure it lines up with the library, so they do meet their concerns.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: On that same subject, the library has one ingress and one egress and I
wasn't clear which driveway we are planning to line up with.
Kirkpatrick: It is egress.
Borup: The east.
Zaremba: Okay. So, it would be the --
Kirkpatrick: Going in,
Zaremba: -- the eastern most.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 8 of 70
Kirkpatrick: The eastern most.
Zaremba: And that's possible, we would be talking about this one that's right along the
property line, I guess, would be the driveway that's going to stay.
Kirkpatrick: We are conferring. Just a second.
Borup: That's my understanding, yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Borup: Which was the -- and that was the one that the library preferred,
Kirkpatrick: Let's go back to the aerial photo.
Zaremba: Yeah. Well, I think for traffic flow that would make more sense. The turning
movements -- yeah. Okay.
Kirkpatrick: Right.
Zaremba: I just wasn't clear.
Kirkpatrick: So, it is -- correction. It is the ingress.
Zaremba: And also on page nine, your sentence four is asking the applicant to provide
more information on the relocation of the Cairns Lateral. Have you got more of that or
do we need to ask the applicant tonight?
Kirkpatrick: The applicant will work with staff and public works on that, but I think it's
been resolved satisfactorily.
Zaremba: Okay. That's it for me.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Mr.
Boyle:
Boyle: Members of the planning commission, Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering
and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa. Home address in
Meridian. It's a pleasure to be in front of the Commission this evening on this proposal
for a commercial project. The developer that is proposing this development also
developed what is known as Linder Crossing, which would be the small development
that sits immediately to the west of this particular site. That was completed recently and
the majority of the tenant spaces in that have been leased out. I believe there is only
one slot that's still available. So, it's been a nice investment for him and has filled up
rather quickly. With that he plans to extend the same theme, the same architectural
character that he started with in Linder Crossing phase one. If you're familiar with that
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 9 of 70
project it does have more of a -- kind of a pitched roof line to it and kind of drops the
scale of the buildings down, makes them a little more pedestrian friendly. The HVAC
units are screened in it. He's certainly willing to make that commitment on the buildings
within this project; it will screen those units as staff has indicated. With this project and
realizing that there may be some sensitive neighbors with the commercial proposal, we
initially met with the librarian, the head librarian Patty Younger with Meridian Library
District, had some good discussions with her on the project. When we initially went in
and met with the -- with the head librarian, we, actually, had three access points, one
that would be in a location closer to the west boundary, another one lining up with 13th
Avenue, and, then, a third access that, actually, split the difference between the two
library drives. That was the initial submittal to the city, the initial plan that we went into
the library with. The library does have kind of a unique circulation pattern there. Their
eastern most access is where you enter their parking lot. The western most is where
you exit the parking lot. And they have signage to that effect for that circulation pattern.
In meeting with the librarian, she did indicate that if there was an access near the
library, that they would like to have that aligned with one of the library driveways, due to
turning movements, et cetera, safety considerations there. So, that was one discussion
that we had with the librarian. Outside of that she had very favorable comments. She
liked the way that there were multiple building sites to kind of break up the bulk of the
site and seemed to generally be in favor, as long as we met that traffic consideration.
Since, then, I believe you have a letter where she shook it to her board. Obviously,
they'd rather have no access points at all across from them, but, however, with the
access points proposed, they are in agreement to having those lined up. So, we had
those comments from the librarian. We also during this process held two neighborhood
meetings. The first neighborhood meeting we invited the residents that were
immediately adjacent to this site, so those people that actually had properties that
bordered t his development were invited, primarily because we felt I ike they were the
most affected, most impacted properties to this site and we had -- had some people turn
out to that and I will dive into some of those points for just a minute, but beyond that I
did want to indicate that the second neighborhood meeting we invited the larger
neighborhood area 300 feet out, as the city would notice, and, interestingly enough, the
second night, which was kind of the broader neighborhood, we had one person in
attendance and it was one of the adjacent property owners that had been to the
neighborhood meeting from the previous night. So, I don't know if that's any sort of
survey. Obviously, the people that are immediately adjacent are the ones that are --
seem to be the most interested in these developments. And I believe Mr. Stubblefield
can correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of notices that went out was fairly significant
for these neighborhood meetings. I believe it was 50 -- 50 plus property owners that the
notices went out to. Totally he's indicating about a hundred notices that went out. So, it
was a pretty broad notification. The first neighborhood meeting we did have neighbors
out at that one that provided some input and comments. It seemed like one of the key
points of discussion at that meeting was 13th -- 13th Street -- if I can hold my arm
steady enough -- would -- stubs into the property in a location that's somewhat central
along the south boundary of the property. It was a street that was stubbed there many
years ago. In discussing this with the neighbors, the developer of this project, Mr.
Stubblefield, made the same commitment that he did with Linder Crossing phase one
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7.2004
Page 10 of 70
and that is that he would install a six foot block wall adjacent to the residential area. So,
that block wall would be proposed to tie in where Linder Crossing phase one ends, tie
into the block wall, and extend along our west boundary to the south -- to the southwest
corner of the site and, then, across the entirety of the south boundary. So, this is a fairly
significant commitment by the developer. In Meridian's ordinances they don't
specifically specify that a block wall is required to buffer residential areas, so it could
have come in with something lesser, cedar fencing, vinyl fencing, whatever, but he has
made that commitment, felt like he should do that to promote his wanting to mitigate
some of those issues with the neighbors. He's also providing the buffers, landscape
buffers, that are required adjacent to those residential areas, so they will be provided
with 25 feet of landscape area behind the building and along the west side of the
development as well. The block wall, when we held the first neighborhood meeting,
there was a lot of discussion, again, on 13th Avenue and whether or not to provide a
pedestrian opening in the wall, a vehicular access, actually, into the project, or to just
run the wall straight across without any sort of access and my understanding from
comments and Mr. Stubblefield's from the neighbors is that they were adamantly
opposed to a vehicular access. There seemed to be a few neighbors that kind
entertained the idea of a pedestrian opening there. The majority wanted the wall
running straight through the site. Now, what happened is they had some discussion
during that neighborhood meeting and I think they came out fairly resolute after
everybody had had some discussion that they wanted a block wall just to run
continuously down the property. Mr. Stubblefield in his development really just wants
to, obviously, appease the neighbors, but he also has to meet the requirements of the
city and ACHD in this development. He has no problem running the wall straight down
the south boundary and totally closing off the street and he would certainly do that if the
governmental agencies felt that that was acceptable and warranted. Since that
neighborhood meeting we have had more discussions with the staff of ACHD and
Meridian, we went back and actually revised the plans to remove one of the access
points, line up with the driveway across the street from the library, and had more
discussion on 13th trying to come up with some sort of acceptable way of taking care of
that. ACHD staff, Meridian staff, including the police and fire department, have felt that
it's very important for various issues, including safety issues, for the fire department,
police department, to have an access from the end of 13th into this project and so the
outcome of those discussions and what was approved by the ACHD staff and
commission and what is presented by Meridian staff this evening is that there be
pedestrian access into this site, but with that pedestrian access we need to
accommodate ten feet of pedestrian access. Now, what does that mean? That means
that we are going to have an opening that is either ten feet wide to accommodate that
with some bollards to restrict vehicular access that would be break away, so emergency
vehicles could knock them over if they needed to enter the site, it could be a
combination of crash gates for those vehicular accesses, with just some smaller areas
for the pedestrians to enter, and those are issues that the staff is comfortable with us
working out those specifics with them. However, as the staff report indicates, that is the
requirement to both ACHD and your staff is presenting is to leave an opening there that
would allow pedestrian access and the potential for emergency services to enter the
site. So, with that said, the developer will certainly accommodate that if those are the
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 11 of 70
requirements and it's necessary for safety issues and it sounds like it is from working
with staff. Outside of that, the only other comments that I might bring up this evening --
we are in compliance with the land use map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. It
designates this area as commercial within the land use designations in the Comp Plan.
Under the preliminary plat conditions -- and I believe we can work through staff on this --
they had one recommendation in there that talked about the building orientations. The
majority of the buildings being oriented generally towards Cherry Lane. We will work
with them on that. A s you can tell, this is a conceptual layout of the buildings and,
again, we are presenting that just so that the planning commission and Council can
have some kind of an idea of how we envision the project looking. The main entrances
to these buildings could very well be off of the s ides of the buildings when they a re
developed. What we'd like to do is say we will work with staff -- the developer is
committed to making this look good from the street with windows, architectural
projections, whatever he needs to do to dress those up and he's certainly willing to do
that and work with staff to workout those terms and provisions on the building
orientations. So, I was fairly specific, we would like some time to maybe just kind of
make some adjustments in there in the language with staff, but, otherwise, that's the
conclusion of my comments this evening and he agrees with the rest of the points and
site comments from staff. So, with that said, I respectfully request your
recommendation for approval and answer any questions if you have them.
Borup: Go ahead, Commissioner.
Moe: Basically, then, what I'm hearing you say is -- is that you pretty much agree to all
conditions that have been put forth in this report, but you are hoping to work with staff in
regards to the point of the facilities facing Cherry Lane; is that correct?
Boyle: That is correct.
Moe: Okay. And, Wendy, would you anticipate that staff can work with them on that?
Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Members of the Commission, we could work on it through the
certificate of zoning compliances that are issued for this site. We could maybe have
another potential plan or resolution that we agree on before City Council with the
applicant.
Moe: I just ask that question, because in the report it pretty much, as I read it, you want
everything towards Cherry Lane, but if we are going to try and work with that, I just want
to make sure that that might be done before it goes to Council.
Borup: It looks to me like maybe the only point there is that the applicant is agreeable
to have windows and architectural -- maybe just the fact that it's the main entrance.
Boyle: Correct.
Borup: Is that basically what you were saying?
Melidian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 120f70
Boyle: That was one of the primary issues with that statement is the main entries faced
Borup: Right. That was probably the only thing that you had issue with there is that
term main entrance?
Boyle: Correct.
Borup: Okay. That's kind of the way I assumed, too.
Zaremba: Well, I think I side with the applicant. The purpose of having the entrance
face the street is that it not be the blank back of a building. I particularly don't care
where the entrance really is. You have already said that you plan to make the street
facade an attractive facade. That would be my issue.
Borup: I agree.
Newton-Huckabay: My only comment on that is there is one development in Meridian
where a lot of the buildings face inward at Midtown Square on Cherry Lane and they are
attractive buildings, but it's a very uninviting development, I believe. That's a personal
opinion there. And I think that's where I -- I agree with Wendy that if you -- the more you
have facing the street, the more inviting the development is going to be.
Boyle: And, Commissioners, I'd probably say that I agree with that. I'm sure that Mr.
Stubblefield wants to make this just as inviting as he possibly can for the business. It
was just desiring to have a little bit of flexibility there in the entryway to the street. But I
agree that, yeah, we definitely want to try to make it as inviting as we can.
Zaremba: I would ask a question on a different subject, if we are ready for that, and
that's the discussion of whether hours should be limited and before I go there, let me
ask Mr. Boyle an alternate suggestion, perhaps, and, then, after that see if staff has a
comment. I could see on the one hand limiting the hours on buildings -- or lots, rather,
eight, nine, ten, and eleven which are these ones that back up to the residents. My
alternate suggestion would be that those four lots be limited to uses that are approved
in an L-O zone, which I think would also answer residents' questions about whether or
not there was going to be noise and a lot of car traffic. We done that with others, saying
that the lots that back up closest to the residents would meet L-O and my question is we
probably either will put a time on it or ask that they be L-O and do you have a
preference?
Boyle: I would certainly like to keep the options open, so, you know, if we can do an
either/or -- as far as the hours of operation, I don't know what the planning commission
is necessarily looking at as far as the hours. If we were to restrict the hours of operation
to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 13 of 70
Zaremba: I'm thinking like 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., just not 24 hours.
Boyle: And I was 3:00 a.m. until midnight.
Zaremba: With three hours off for the cleaning crew to run their trucks through there.
Borup: Mr. Boyle, did that come up in the neighborhood meeting at all?
Boyle: They did talk about hours of operation. I've had some discussion with Mr.
Stubblefield on it and, actually, we had just the discussion that Commissioner Zaremba
brought up just now and that is, you know, the potential of restricting it along that
southern tier that's adjacent to the residential, I would say that would likely be the route
that we would rather go, than an L-O restriction. The hours that we discussed were,
actually, one hour earlier and one hour later than what you just described. We talked
about a 6:00 to 11 :00 hours of operation on those facilities and if I don't get hit in the
back of the head with a pen, I will assume that John's agreeing with me on that. And so
those are something that, yeah, we'd certainly be receptive of doing and our preference
would be to limit the hours of operation on those buildings, rather than the L-O
restriction. Unless there is a way to work either/or. L-O uses typically are --
Zaremba: I would be comfortable phrasing either/or. That's fine with me. Question to
staff is do you have a preference for 6:00 to 11 :00 or 7:00 to 10:00 or some other hours
in mind?
Kirkpatrick: I think 6:00 to 11 :00 is reasonable.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Any-.
Zaremba: Then, I had only one other question and staff was asking for a cross-access
agreement among all the subdivision lots. Since -- I believe it's the same developer,
you would be comfortable if we added that we also needed a cross-access agreement
with the existing Linder Crossing?
Boyle: I am glad that you brought that up, Commissioners. There is, actually, an
existing cross-access document in place right now and I believe it's this driveway here
that extends and it provides access into the site right here. We had a discussion with
the staff and the developer is certainly willing to provide cross-access for this
development out to Linder Road, as well as the existing Cherry Lane access. So, yeah,
not a problem at all.
Zaremba: Great. Thanks.
Borup: All right. Did you have questions, Commissioner? All right. Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Boyle.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 140f70
Boyle: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we have any public testimony that would like to come forward at this
time? Come on up. If you will go ahead and state your name and address for the
record.
Shirt: Okay. My name is Jan Shirt. I live at 1522 West 15th, which is just right adjacent
to the development. And you covered a whole bunch of stuff that I was going to talk
about, but I'll skip to the chase here. Mr. Stubblefield did say that he would put the
same size wall that is between the new development and the Linder Crossing
development and with 15th he did state that he would put that same size wall. It's a little
taller than six feet, so I kind of wanted to point that out. It's about like six foot nine
inches, by the way, but -- and, then, I wanted to talk about the lighting in the parking lot.
I don't know if the staff ever said anything about that, but that he did agree also that it
would -- that there is ways that you can make it where it shines away from the
subdivision or shines down, so that it doesn't shine back towards the subdivision. And if
it's approved, I'd like to see that as a part of the conditions. We did talk about the hours
of operation and I was curious as to what is an L-O hour. I don't know what that means.
Zaremba: Yeah. I'm sorry. Let me answer one question first and, then, I'll do that in a
second.
Shirt: Okay.
Zaremba: As for the lighting, it's in the standard ordinance that they must down shield
their lighting and provide it in such a way that it does not bleed onto neighboring
properties.
Shirt: Okay.
Zaremba: So, that's a standard requirement that we don't necessarily have to add.
They have to do that anyhow.
Shirt: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: L-O is a zoning designation, essentially stands for limited office use, which
means that instead of those -- the things that are limited office are not retail, they are
more likely to be an accountant or a tax preparer or maybe a dentist, so that their hours
of operation are limited -- a tax preparer may, you know, for a couple of weeks out of
the year go all night, but wouldn't have a lot of cars coming and going necessarily. So,
the limited office use, that is an actual zone, but we have sometimes said, okay, you
can have the zone you're asking for, but the building right next to the residents have to
be limited office use and in this case we are saying either that or if it's some other use,
like retail, which could go 24 hours a day, then, it can't, it can only be from 6 :00 to
11 :00, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 15 of 70
Shirt: Okay.
Zaremba: -- that's what L-O is.
Shirt: And -- okay. Well, that makes a big difference. I'd also like to say on the 6:00 to
11 :00, that we -- I mean, of course, 7:00 to 10:00 would be more preferable, because
there are a lot of school kids and elderly people in the area and, then, in taking that into
consideration, you have delivery trucks and so those delivery trucks, I assume, would
have to come in after or before and they make noise themselves, so you're looking at,
you know, 5 :00 tom idnight, you're looking at different hours, too, for interruptions 0 f
people --
Zaremba: I think we have generally required that when we establish hours, that that
includes deliveries, so --
Shirt: That includes delivery.
Zaremba: Yeah. Everything that might happen.
Shirt: Okay. Well, this is news I didn't know. Okay. And, then, on the height of the
buildings, I was going to just say that he had said it would be like the corner lot there on
Linder and we think that's a nice looking building, so -- and types of businesses, I wasn't
sure what the C-C zoning was and I kind of looked it up and it seems like it -- it follows
along more like office buildings and quality retail buildings; is that true? And a little bit
more high quality, rather than like a drive-in or that type of thing? Is that what the C-C
zoning is? Or can I ask that question?
Zaremba: They could possibly have a building that would have a drive-thru, but there is
a separate requirement that any building -- even if the building didn't have to come
before us for discussion, if they attached to it a drive-thru, then, that building does have
to come before us, so the requirement is that any drive-thru goes through a public
hearing and a process before us, so --
Shirt: Okay.
Borup: The whole same process again, if they came back and propose a building with a
drive-thru.
Shirt: Okay. That's good. And, then, on your access -- or your entrance into the -- into
the buildings where the front faces on that back building there, is there a requirement
now that you're putting on them that they face forward, that they can't face out to the
side and have entrances on the sides? Because there is -- do you see there is people
on the -- on the west side there that have the -- if there was an entrance on the west
side of that building, they would be coming right in right beside us there. Now, is that
what I took it when you were talking about --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 160f70
Newton-Huckabay: Haven't made that requirement.
Shirt: Haven't made that requirement.
Newton-Huckabay: But that was what we were talking about.
Shirt: Okay. Then, can I just request that that be taken into consideration?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes, you can.
Shirt: Okay. Okay. And, then, one last thing -- this is it, that I was wondering about is
that at the meeting that we had, it was more like this was just a preliminary, but that
within each lot the buildings could be switched around and changed and before City
Council or before you vote on it, once you vote on that plat, will that plat remain the
same 0 r can they take those buildings and move them closer to the sides 0 r to the
residences? Or will the plat be firm when it's decided upon? The map plat?
Borup: Plat is, actually, the boundary lines of each individual lot, so that will not change.
Shirt: But within that lot the buildings could change?
Borup: They could. Right. Right. What they have here is a conceptual plan and there
could be some movement and the buildings could be a little different shaped or
whatever, but they would still have to comply with the other things that have been
discussed.
Shirt: As far as setbacks --
Zaremba: There are certain setbacks that are required that you wouldn't change.
Borup: Right. And the orientation for the design to the front and all that type of thing
would still apply.
Shirt: But we wouldn't have a chance to comment on that once -- I mean they can still
do that without going back up for any other comment? Changing the building --
Borup: Normally. Yeah. They would normally work that out.
Shirt: Okay.
Borup: Maybe something they could work out with staff.
Shirt: And I just -- I'd just like to say we knew this was coming, you know, this has been
an area that's been going into development, so that's why we are so -- we fought
against it the first time very hard, but we knew it was coming in and the development
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 17 of 70
seems -. we are neutral, depending, and we just want also to make sure that the kids
are safe, because they walk along that to middle school and to the high school right
there, so just take that into consideration. And that's it.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to make a couple of
clarifications about the wall to the back. First, I wanted to make -- just clarify that the
applicant is going to have a break in the wall for the pedestrian access and the
emergency access and, then, second, if the applicant is proposing to have the wall be
six foot nine inches, that the code only allows it to be six feet in height, so we should
address that tonight.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, it allows up to eight feet, but
anything over six feet needs to be approved by design review of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. So, if you want to allow them to go up to six feet nine inches, now
would be a good time to let them know.
Borup: And where is that measurement from? On which side of the fence? If there is a
change in grade, that's going to vary also. So, that -- it may only be six feet on the north
side. I mean I haven't been there to measure it, but that's -- okay. The neighbor said
that it was six nine on the residential side. That's why I asked where do you measure
the six feet from?
Canning: You can have up to eight feet. So, if you would like to specify where it's being
measured from, that's fine.
Borup: Okay. You mean eight feet without a -- without a variance?
Canning: Correct.
Commission.
It just needs to be approved by the Planning and Zoning
Borup: Okay. All right. I think we can handle -- that's fairly easy to handle. Come on
up. You wanted to come forward, ma'am?
Zaremba: Well, while she's coming up, I would comment on another thing also. Do you
have the view that shows the surrounding neighborhood as well? Anyone of those is
fine. The comment was made about the middle school students walking back and forth.
They do, of course, use this sidewalk here and at first look, if you put a pedestrian
access, it might make sense to believe that they would walk through this project and this
way over to the school. However, there are pedestrian accesses both here and here
and the number of students might choose to go this way is probably very limited.
Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I discussed this with Wendell
Bigham from the school district, if they wanted to have a pedestrian access point at that
southeast corner and they do not want an access point there for the students.
Borup: Okay. Yes, ma'am.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 160f70
Gaffagen: Hi. I'm Michelle Gaffagen, I live at 1538 West 15th Street and I was one of
the neighbors that did attend. Actually, I was the neighbor that attended both meetings.
A couple points I wanted to bring out is we discussed some of the lighting factors and
maybe try matching how the library does their low lighting below the fence line and I
know I've had a discussion with Patty Younger earlier this week, that was one of her
comments, too, she said she wrote in a letter. So, I wanted to bring that up. I do --
would like to see the times kind of go for the day hours. That L-O sounds really good
for the neighbors, but I don't think it's really going to flow for them. But the 10:00 to -- or
the 7:00 to 10:00 would probably work out a little better, considering you would have the
traffic coming in after the kids are in school and I like the sounds of an eight foot fence.
I didn't know we could have that, but I did notice after our first meeting one night we
went out there from the north -- from the north side down to the fence from where the
Linder Crossing is now and where they start at the bottom of the fence is the bottom of
the drive and the building gradually goes up and so when you get to the top if you're
standing on the other side of the wall, the residential side of the wall, you can still see
the doors of the building. So, I don't know if we can bring the buildings down further into
the land, rather than building up the dirt. And I was wondering about the signage, if it's
going to be a high sign lit 24 hours or if they'd have to turn it off in the middle of the
night, you know, to kind of keep things dim.
Borup: Okay. We will get some clarification on that, on the signage.
Gaffagen: And that was pretty much all. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward?
Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Boyle, any final comments?
Boyle: Members of the Planning Commission, again, Clint Boyle. I'll just dive into some
of the issues that I think were brought up and, then, from there you can pick up any that
I miss, There was some discussion on the buildings and setbacks and where they are
located at and, again, this is a rezone request, preliminary plat request. We did provide
a conceptual layout, again, to show that we have a feasible project that can work on the
site. There is some reasoning behind where the lots are located. Could those building
areas move around within those lots? Yes, they could. Obviously, they are still going to
have to meet setback requirements. My guess is adjacent to the neighbors, just based
on building code issues and the size of the buildings, that there is going to be, you
know, a substantial setback there, not only to allow fire access behind, but just for
building code issues. So, I don't see the buildings getting closer to the residential areas,
I think it would be fairly expensive if they were to do that, to meet fire code and building
code regulations. But, again, it is conceptual. The fencing was brought up, the six foot
nine inch, versus six foot versus eight foot. The block wall that was installed with Linder
Crossing phase one is a six-foot block wall on the Linder Crossing phase one side of
thewall. 0 bviously, there is some grade issues that pick up that extra nine inches,
apparently, on the residential side, but it is a six foot wall. That is what the developer
has committed to with the neighbors is installing that same six-foot block wall adjacent
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 190f70
to the residential areas. If the neighbors -- well, to back up. That's a significant
development cost to install a block wall. If the neighbors desire a height that is higher
than the six foot, then, the developer may be willing to do that, but without a block wall.
If it was some sort of fencing, vinyl fencing, cedar fencing, et cetera. Obviously, the
higher that wall goes, the higher the price tag and it's already a significant expense to
make a commitment to do a block wall. It's not something, again, that's required by
ordinance, it's something that the developer wanted to do to show some good faith to
the neighbors that he wants to buffer them to a degree that you may not find in other
areas. Lighting in the parking was brought up and, again, we will comply with the
Meridian ordinances on that. Those ordinances indicate that you -- well, Wendy can
help me here. I don't remember exact the language, but it definitely has specifications
in there on lights being directed towards your development, rather than spillage onto
neighboring properties.
Borup: I think some of the concerns were probably lighting on the backs of the
buildings, maybe even more so than the parking lot.
Boyle: In the backs of the buildings -- and I appreciate that, Commissioner Borup. It's
kind of a difficult situation. On the back side of the building you're going to have
deliveries there, potentially, you could have employee, you know, access points,
potentially, that I would envision back there. So, you end up with a safety issue. If
there is no lighting there, it's going to be a place that --
Borup: Well, you have to have lighting, but --
Boyle: Right. That hides, you know, crime, et cetera. As far as the lighting, the
developer, just like in Linder Crossing phase one, he will, you know, make every effort
that he can to direct those lights back to towards the development, screen them, shield
from the neighbors. There was some discussion about the library's lights. The
developer doesn't feel like that's a feasible option. The lights that I believe she was
referring to are more of a lower bollard style light and those tend to have maintenance
issues from getting hit by rocks, kids, whatever, when they are down low to the ground.
Otherwise, we would probably see streetlights at about that height as well. So, I don't
know that that's a feasible option, but we will comply with Meridian's ordinances as far
as lighting. He realizes the neighbors' concerns. He will direct those lights to the extent
possible back into the development, rather than on the neighbors' neighboring
properties.
Borup: And you already said the intention would be single story, similar to the first --
first building?
Boyle: He intends to carry a theme -- architectural theme similar to the first building,
single story development, so he does not have any two story office building or, you
know, whatever might be proposed on the site. He is looking at single story buildings
on the site. Hours of operation. Again, this is something that isn't in Meridian's
ordinance. At some point in time I actually wish that it was, because it would make my
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 20 of 70
job a little more easy with the developers and with the neighbors, but, unfortunately, it's
not and the developer is requesting that the hours of operation for the back row of lots
adjacent to the residential remain with the 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. He think that that's a
reasonable time frame and one that's been done in other areas of Meridian where there
is similar situations of commercial adjacent to residential areas.
Zaremba: While you're on that subject, I would point out that even though we allow that,
not every business is going to take all of those hours.
Boyle: Correct.
Borup: I think one of the last questions was the subdivision signage. Is there going to
be major signage with the concern about there being glaring lights at night or --
Boyle: As far as the signage, I think that the developer would just request similar
signage to what the Texaco gas station off of Eagle Road has. Big electronic reader
board. Lights up Eagle Road at night. No. I say that jokingly. But as far as the
signage, obviously, the subdivision signage itself for this project is going to be out along
Cherry Lane. We did have some discussion about the illumination of signage and
maybe I misunderstood the neighbor's question a little bit, but I had some discussion
with the developer on the actual wall signage around those buildings and he just
indicated that on the back side adjacent to those neighboring properties that he wouldn't
illuminate signage adjacent to the residential properties on the back side of the building,
those lots that are adjacent to the residential areas. So, signage, I guess alii can say is
it will meet Meridian code. It will be located out along the Cherry Lane Street frontage
for the main project signage and --
Borup: And I think the new sign ordinance addresses most concerns along that line,
too.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think the only one you run into a problem with is if you put a
sign on the west -- southwest side, if you put a building and that's what Mrs. Shirt was
talking about. Right there. A neon sign glaring down into somebody's property there,
which I wouldn't venture a guess that a building is going to be facing north at that point,
front of it.
Boyle: And, again, adjacent to those residential properties, those lots that are adjacent
to the residential -- and I guess that can apply to that little blip of two or three lots that
are adjacent there, that he won't illuminate the building, the wall signage on the building.
He said he may still need an identification sign for the businesses on the back for
employees or whatever, but he will keep those non-illuminated.
Zaremba: And I think there is a provision in the code that says internally lit signs can't
be facing a residence within a hundred feet or something like that. I forget the exact
detail, but there is a provision that covers that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 21 of 70
Borup: Okay. Anything else Commissioners want a clarification on? Have we covered
everything? Okay.
Boyle: I think so.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Boyle.
Boyle: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.
Zaremba: I think I'm prepared to make motions, but let me just ask consensus of the
Commission on the hours.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I had a question on that. Is there a limit on the hours of
operation on the one to the west? The one right beside it?
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, that was approved through a
certificate of zoning compliance, it wasn't a Public Hearing item, so I don't believe there
are any restrictions. But I do want to point out it does have a different zone. It's CoN
zoning for that commercial project to the west, while this is C-C, a more intensive
commercial zone.
Borup: The one to the west --
Kirkpatrick: Linder Crossing.
Borup: I thought there was -- yeah, there was a public hearing -- am I thinking of the
first one?
Kirkpatrick: In 2001 there was a Conditional Use Permit for--
Borup: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: -- for the subject property.
Borup: I was thinking of the first one.
Zaremba: Well, there was a Public Hearing on the drive-thru part of it and we may have
attached some hours to that. I don't remember exactly.
Borup: Clarification?
Boyle: Commissioners, again, Clint Boyle. Just to clarify. That is correct. The Moxie
Java that's there now had a drive-thru request that came through the Commission and
their hours are limited from 6:00 to 11 :00. 6:00 in the morning to 11 :00 at night and the
remainder of it does not have hours of operation restrictions on that first Linder Crossing
phase.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 22 of 70
Borup: I can't think of too many businesses that open at 6:00, other than a coffee shop.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's what I'm thinking. Even if we allow 6:00 to 11 :00, which is
more generous than I was going to be, not every business that's there is going to use all
of those hours. They may be 9:00 to 5:00 and -- it just protects us along time down in
the future for -- as things change.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, just a s some examples of
businesses that do open earlier, some dry-cleaning places open a little earlier so you
can pick stuff up on the way to work and we just recently had a modification to a time
limit with City Council on Tuesday to allow a workout facility, a small workout -- like a
women's only workout facility that was next to a neighborhood and they needed to open
at 6:00 o'clock as well.
Borup: That was the one I was thinking of that could be earlier hours.
Zaremba: But, even then, I wouldn't call those high traffic, like a full blown retail, you
know. I think that's safe enough.
Borup: I agree. Okay.
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 04-
011 and PP 04-033.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: And I would comment that the smoothness of this presentation speaks highly
to having the neighborhood meetings. It's an excellent idea. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I
move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-011, to
include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of October 7, 2004,
received by the city clerk October 4, 2004, with the following changes: On page two,
the first paragraph, second sentence, says the 14,880 square foot commercial building,
parenthesis, Linder Crossing, closed parenthesis, located directly east, t hat, actually,
should be west. And on page eight, at the very top of the page, the first paragraph says
in accordance with the Comp Plan, policy number 12, et cetera, et cetera, staff finds
that the number of vehicular accesses to Meridian Road, State Highway 69, that should
read Cherry Lane, And, in fact, the applicant has complied with that. On that same
page, page eight, special considerations, paragraph one, subparagraph A, add a
second sentence that says: A cross-access agreement will be established with the
existing Linder Crossing. Subparagraph B, I would leave the same, but add an
additional sentence on the end that says these conditions may be modified by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 23 of 70
applicant working with staff to establish street facing facades. Subparagraph C I would
leave the same. I would add a new subparagraph D that said Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 shall
have the restriction that any use that would not be consistent with an L-O zoning, will be
limited in hours to between -- hours of operation to between 6:00 a.m. and 11 :00 p.m.
every day of the week. I would add a paragraph E that says the perimeter wall height,
which the applicant has said will be a block wall, shall be designed such that the top
matches the top of the wall on Linder Crossing, which on one side is measured at six
feet.
Borup: Do we want that in the rezone or in the preliminary plat? The plat talks about
buffers.
Zaremba: We don't want it on the development agreement?
Borup: Oh, yeah. That would probably be the -
Zaremba: That's what I'm reading now is what's in the development agreement.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. That makes sense.
Zaremba: So, the point I'm making is that the top of it will match the top of the existing
fence and knowing that the ground varies in height, we are allowing that actual
measured height may be anywhere between six feet and eight feet, but the intent is that
the top matches the existing fence. End of annexation. Or, I'm sorry, end of rezone.
Rohm: 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 PP 04-033, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date
of October 7, 2004, received by the city clerk October 4, 2004, with the following
changes: On page nine, paragraph five, I will add a sentence that says: Applicant will
work with staff to plan the final relocation of Cairns Lateral. On paragraph six,
subparagraph B, modify plat to show two access points off Cherry Lane and align
eastern access point with the library's -- and I would add the word ingress access point,
so that this says it's aligned with the library's ingress access point. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 24 of 70
Borup: Okay.
Canning: Chairman Borup, before you move on to the next item, I wanted to let you
know t hat tonight is Wendy's last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. 5 he is
going to take a position as a senior planner with the city of Caldwell.
Newton-Huckabay: Good luck, Wendy.
Zaremba: Congratulations. But we will miss you.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.71
acres from RUT to CoG zone for Mountain West Bank by Erstad
Thornton Architects - northeast corner of Venture Street and East
Fairview Avenue:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-035 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
bank with drive up service lanes in a proposed CoG zone for Mountain
West Bank by Erstad Thornton Architects - northeast corner of Venture
Street and East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Okay. Next item, Public Hearing AZ 04-026, request for annexation and zoning
of 1.71 acres from RUT to CoG zone for Mountain West Bank and CUP 04-035, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-up service lane for the same project. Like to
open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Erstad Thornton
Architects has requested the annexation and zoning and a Conditional Use Permit
approval for a new 4,550 square foot full service commercial bank with three drive-thru
teller lanes on 1.71 acres in a proposed CoG zone. The proposed bank sits on an un-
platted parcel. It's approximately two-thirds of the -- within two-thirds of the black
outlined parcel there that Bruce is pointing to. It's located on the northeast corner of
Fairview and Venture, approximately a third of a mile west of Cloverdale Road. To the
north of the subject site is Venture Subdivision. That subdivision is in the county,
currently zoned RUT. To the south is a cemetery zoned RUT also in Ada County. To
the east is the Peddles and Stems floral shop and zoned C-2 in Ada County. I just
would like to point out the -- just on the other side of that parcel -- or that parcel that is
adjacent to the subject parcel just to the east has recently been released by the City of
Meridian to the city of Boise. It has not been officially moved, but earlier this year,
excuse me, that property owner -- it's about two acres -- owns the adjacent 16 acres
and requested that his whole 18 acres be within one jurisdiction, so, the city has
released that. Therefore, the eastern property of this subject site will be the city limits if
it is annexed and zoned as requested tonight. To the west of this site is agricultural
land. It is currently zoned R-6 in Ada County, The situation -- just kind of a side bar.
The situation is similar to the last development application you saw a commercial zone
adjacent to residential and I'm blushing a little bit, because I told the applicant in the hall
just before this hearing that there aren't a lot of properties within the city where you have
Melidian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 25 of 70
commercial adjacent to residential and that isn't the case for a lot of the city, it just so
happens we have back to back commercial zones adjacent to residential, but I did just
want to point out that that is a similarity with the last one and based on some of the
testimony that was provided before, it is going to be applicable, not quite the same
situation, there are some other factors that do make this site a little bit different than the
last one. One being the site plan. As you can see before you, there is the proposed
bank building on the western portion of the site. What the applicant has proposed has
been modified a little bit through the Ada County Highway District. If you recall in the
staff report at the time it went to print I did not have anything from the ACHD
commission. Lori Denton-Hartog from the highway district did contact me today, I have
received the staff report reflecting the action of the ACHD commission last night and
what they have approved is a shared access point with Mr. Thueson, who is the
property I was just talking about that is in Boise or will be within Boise city limits along
this eastern property line. He currently has a driveway on Fairview Avenue that's just
off of the eastern property line of this subject site. Just to further comment, I guess, on
the highway district, since I'm on that point, they did have a special recommendation on
the site plan. You probably can't see it on this overhead. They are showing a future
split 0 f this site. They were concerned with something that's usually d one at a staff
level, a lot split, something like that. Usually, the highway district is not forwarded that
application, it is done just at staff level, and the property owner has two lots, so they
were concerned that if, in fact, this property was split here, this parcel would be land
locked if no access was granted, and their hands would be tied and have to grant,
basically, a driveway to Fairview. So, one of their special recommendations to the city
is that cross-access be provided here and if there is a driveway here, that this parcel
can get out to Venture Avenue as well. So, I just wanted to bring that to your attention
as well. That is covered in the staff report somewhat within the annexation and zoning
portion on page nine. It's condition number five. It's somewhat a general condition, but
it says the access points approved with this Conditional Use Permit are the only access
points approved for this site and this site is the entire site as shown with approximately
an third of it being undeveloped at this time. So, I believe that's covered. We do not
need to require cross-access at this time. If a lot split does happened, we will require
that the access points be shared amongst the two parcels, if, in fact, they are divided or
even further subdivided, for that matter, a third lot or more. Back to the proposed site
plan. The three drive-thru lanes are located on the west side. They do have two
additional access points to Venture Street. Again, this one to Fairview Avenue has not
been approved and should be located in this approximate location here. The landscape
plan you see before you, did want to give kudos to the applicant, pretty dense
landscaping along the north property line. Our Meridian city code does require a 25-foot
buffer between commercial projects and residential projects. They have provided the
full 25 feet with, again, pretty dense landscaping at full maturity. The landscaping along
Fairview Avenue -- Fairview is an entryway corridor. Again, the city limits begin in this
location, we do require a 35-foot wide landscape buffer and the applicant has provided
that, with 0 ne tree every 35 a nd they have even got some a dditionall andscaping in
here. Even for the developed portion they are showing our minimum requirements, that
width, and one tree per 35 feet of lineal frontage is being provided, so it is a tree per 35
feet along the eastern property line. I'll just go to the other side, I guess, of the
Mertdian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 26 of 70
development, the ten foot wide buffer along Venture has been provided as well. So,
very happy with the proposed landscape plan. I just wanted to give you a little bit of the
history on this site. It is in the staff report -- I hope you all had a chance to read that.
Just quickly, there is the elevations for the building. In 2002 this property was denied
annexation, mainly, in part, because that applicant did not have a site plan, didn't know
what businesses were going to go in here, didn't know where access points were going
to be. This was a major point of contention for neighbors and the City Council, blindly
approving a commercial development. Therefore, they did deny the application. So,
just a little bit of history there. I did want to make comments on the response letter from
the applicant. I don't know if you all received that. I just received it later this afternoon,
so I don't know if you all did get a copy of that or not. I'm going to touch on the items
that the applicant has brought up and if you want to ask me questions later on about
that and I'll let the applicant talk about them, too, but I'll touch on -- we already touched
on the first one, I guess, the access point to Fairview. Number two that is addressed at
a later time with the building permit. I have yet to see a comment, really, on addressing.
I told the applicant, you know, out in the hallway before the meeting, if your building is
facing Fairview, it makes sense for emergency services and everyone to have it
addressed off of Fairview, since that's the direction your business is facing. I don't think
that should be a problem. Number three, this does -- again, I don't want to reiterate
what just happened, but the staff recommended for this development limiting the
business hours to hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. That was just kind of a
- off the top of my head something I thought would be reasonable for a bank type use
and the adjacent residential uses. I imagine there is some people in the audience here
that would like to testify tonight to that effect, too, but if you do elect to modify those
hours slightly or even significantly, that condition is number five on page nine. It's the
first bullet. And just to kind of tie that one in to the previous meeting, again, in 2002,
that's really why staff came up with this. I did review those minutes, the findings for
denial, and that, again, was -- the uses not being known at that time and the hours of
operation were something that were testified on at that time. The building elevations --
and I will go back to those real quick. It's number five in the letter from the applicant.
They need to substantially comply. If we are adding additional stories, additional
buildings, things of that nature, any elevations, to tell you the truth, will substantially
comply. Generally speaking, I -- we do not want to see this application again for a bank
if it's just a bank and it looks like a bank, we don't want to waste anyone's time. So, just
to be clear, that's how that condition is worded we don't -- again, we don't want to see a
CUP if we don't have to. The parking stall sizes real quick. The parking is okay as
shown, just a condition that it does need to be constructed that way. And number seven
has to do with landscaping and, again, the landscaping looks great. So, I don't think we
are asking -- staff isn't asking for any changes. It looks fine. Number eight I did talk
with Bruce just for a second before the meeting, Bruce Freckleton in Public Work
Department, and he believes that can be addressed by the City Council, rather than this
board, having to do with the latecomers agreement and he didn't think that that would
be a problem, it's just that the City Council should probably be the one that adopts that
condition. One final note. I did receive a letter from the Moores with some concerns. I
did want to make sure that that made it into the record as well. Their concerns were
regarding traffic, lighting, and request for an eight-foot wall along the north property line.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 27 of 70
So, I'll let you review that. If you don't have it, please, let me know and I can make
copies for you as well. I did want to go on record with that. Staff is recommending
approval of the application and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Newton-Huckabay: Is this the one with the picture?
Hood: That appears to be the one, yeah.
Zaremba: We do have the letter from the Moores.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Hood from anyone?
Rohm: Could you go back to the site plan, please? Is this where they want the access
into the property on the east? Is that --
Hood: Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Commission, yeah, it's correct. There is an existing
driveway just off site that goes into -- it comes back and feeds a parking lot -- I think it's
on the aerial, maybe. No, you can't really see it. There is a parking lot on this site that
kind of comes back and feeds that. It's just off the property line, so it would be a shared
access. That portion of the driveway I can imagine will stay and they will just basically
add some pavement width to that, another five, six, seven, ten feet, whatever, to make
that existing drive a little bit wider and share that with the property owner.
Rohm: And so would we still have this one as well?
Hood: T hat one has not been approved by ACHD. It does not a lign. There is an
existing driveway with the cemetery on the other side of Fairview Avenue. It does not
meet their policy for offsets and the widening of this driveway would meet their policy
and that would align, but it's not further -- far enough away from either the street or the
existing driveway on the other side, so -- no, that one does not exist.
Borup: And could you explain item number one on the comments? I realize maybe you
don't have it. They said that it was approved last night at ACHD.
Hood: No. I'm sorry. And the applicant was there, I believe, so he can further clarify,
but my understanding from the staff report -- and I do have that -- is that this access
was not approved, but what ACHD did approve, their commission did approve, was the
shared access to Fairview.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: The eastern property line.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 28 of 70
Rohm: And that access does not have to necessarily be developed at the same time
that the bank is constructed.
Hood: That's correct. They could construct that access now and have that driveway
come in and the bank could utilize that access. Is that your question?
Rohm: Well, what my point is is if the bank is using this portion of the lot and this is yet
to be determined, then, there is not a need for that access at this point in time. It
doesn't appear to me that a nybody would use it, because this is all vacant, there is
nothing there, so why develop it.
Borup: But the applicant would like to use that access.
Zaremba: Well -- and the alternative is that this needs to be paved -- some
assumptions need to be made a bout where that building is going to go, so t hat this
could be paved across --
Rohm: I guess that was ultimately the point is if, in fact, you have an access on that
east line, then, there needs to be some way to get from that access over to the bank
development.
Borup: I think maybe they could clarify that a little bit, the applicant could. Any other
questions?
Zaremba: Yeah. I think you mentioned it, but clarify again for me. Since this is
currently one lot, they would have to do something like come back for a lot split or a
replat in order to get a second building on it; is that correct?
Hood: Yeah. Up until about three months ago, Commissioners, we didn't have the
ability to do a one-time division, if you will, a lot split on any parcels. We now, for
commercially zoned properties, do allow a one-time division with certain provisions with
those. I mean we basically want to see subdivision improvements made to those once -
- even if they are doing just a one-time division, but they do not have to submit a
preliminary plat. Excuse me.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. And that's approved by the planning director without coming
before the Commission and the Council?
Hood: That's correct. If it's -- if it is -- has not been platted before, it would need to
come before t he City Council with a miscellaneous application to apply f or a lot line
adjustment to do a one-time division, but both of those applications, the miscellaneous
application and the lot line adjustment, ACHD typically does not comment on, because
they aren't generating any trips and so that was -- this was the highway district's
opportunity to comment on this site, the current CUP and annexation and zoning, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 29 of 70
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else any questions? Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Andy Erstad, 848 Fulton
Street in Boise. 83702. I wanted to thank staff for working with us on this. It's been
kind of an interesting scenario as we were at ACHD last night, a little bit terrifying, the
room was packed solid with people for the fourth item. We were the third item. By the
time we finished I think everyone in the fourth item was ready to have at us, but we are
in agreement with all of staffs recommendations, with the exception that we really would
like to have an opportunity to discuss the two points in the staff recommendation and
those are the time limitations and, then, the requirement that any further buildings come
before this Commission in a CUP application and I'll address the CUP application right
of the bat. We are rezoning this land and we feel that the -- any of the uses allowed
within the G-C zone -- or I always mix that up -- CoG zone that would be allowed, should
be allowed, in essence, and that if there is a special requirement, i.e., a drive-up window
or whatnot, then, you will have an opportunity to see it, but we don't really see that the
land use is going to generate something that is -- that would create a substantial
hardship 0 n t he adjacent neighbors. 5 0, we just feel that that is something that we
would like to talk about, see if there is a way we could move around that one. And,
then, the time limitation, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., in the -- in the purest of theory, I guess,
if, ,in this case, the bank is running something that requires staff people to be there until
10:00 at night, they are, in theory, in violation and could stand to lose their Conditional
Use Permit, so --
Borup: Maybe could -- I don't want to -- I don't mean to interrupt, but maybe some
clarification on that. And I guess maybe it's a definition of hours of operation. If it's not
open -- if it's a public building and it does business with the public and if it's not open to
the public, is the business in operation?
Hood: We have not i n the past, M embers of t he Commission, Andy -- the h ours of
operation are when it's open for business. If there are employees there doing their job
or working after hours, that's not -- you wouldn't be in violation of those hours of
operation. It's when the doors would be open for business.
Borup: And that was my understanding. Otherwise, the janitor staff couldn't even come
and --
Erstad: Sure.
Zaremba: Except in the discussion with the previous applicant we were saying that
deliveries and stuff would not -- they are considered business operations to me and
would have to fall within the hours. Was I in error?
Newton-Huckabay: I think that's a little different.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 30 of 70
Borup: So, I mean I don't think the hours of operation would affect employees staying
after work or janitorial staff or anything like that. Are you talking about the bank or a
future building?
Erstad: Well, I'm talking, actually, about the bank on the future building.
Borup: I mean that's one where if the concern was for the future building more so than
the bank. That gives a whole new definition of banker hours here, 7:00 to 7:00 doesn't -
Erstad: Those are 9:00 to 4:00, so -- the other reason that we would like it -- we would
like it either eliminated or greatly expanded on is that just as a scenario, if the bank
were to decide to move down the street and Kinko's wanted to come into this place,
Kinko's is really a relatively innocuous 0 ccupant, it's allowed within the z one, and its
hours are 24 -- 24/7, but it's not really generating a lot of noise that would impact the
neighborhood. So, I think we are looking at it from a little bit longer position, if you will,
or a little bit broader position and that's why we'd ask that the hours of operation be
eliminated. So, those were the two points, really, the request -- or the requirement that
subsequent structure on the undeveloped parcel right now comes through with a
conditional use regardless, we just think that that's sort of a -- I mean it's almost a little --
a waste of time, if you will, for staff and for the Commission to s it there and review
something that's allowed in that use. So, I stand for questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah, I was just going to suggest that the Commission, if you want to put hours
of operation and there is a concern about deliveries, as Commissioner Zaremba has
indicated, that you just simply could clarify that in your motion, so that there is no
question that you're talking whether -- in this particular business you're not really as
concerned with deliveries, maybe, but since there is the potential for other businesses
here, that might help the staff and help the Council see the direction that you wanted it
to go.
Borup: I'd comment on your -- on the -- allowing anything in a CoG zone, that -- I mean
that does -- granted, the site is not going to maybe accommodate -- it's not going to
accommodate a large shopping center or something like that, but a service station or a
car wash is one of the allowed uses -- permitted uses in a CoG zone. That may be
appropriate for some input from neighbors and this Commission, but, you know, maybe
a couple others in that -- I mean that's a pretty intensive use and maybe not what's
intended, but that's -- I think that's one of the reasons for the statement from the staff for
that. Now, the other thing that has happened in others, maybe some clarification from
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 31 of 70
staff, there has been a list of permitted uses -- I mean going down that list of permitted
uses and eliminating some of those that would not be approved without a conditional
use and everything else that was not eliminated would, I assume, be approved. That
may be another option.
Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think we would be agreeable to
looking at it from that perspective. I think one of the things we are trying to do is
eliminate the -- I don't want to use the superfluous need for an extra set of meetings and
applications, if it's protected - if the neighborhood is protected, we have got 25 feet of
buffer that's heavily landscaped and we are giving up a lot of site to protect the
neighborhood and we are also, actually -- I think we are actually creating a greater
buffer by putting a building in between the neighborhood and Fairview Avenue and,
you're right, there are some uses that might be a little bit more intense than others, but
the .62 acres that's remaining is a tight piece of property. We now have a cross-access
easement on there that's going to take out quite a bit of -- again, quite a bit of land mass
just for the roadway and -- so you keep whittling this parcel down and I think it's really
going to -- ultimately, it's going to greatly limit a lot of the uses that could go on there
that the Commission might find troublesome adjacent to the neighborhood.
Rohm: Speaking of access, would you like to speak to how you propose to get from
here over to here?
Erstad: We have got -- we have got a dozen D-8 bulldozers ready and standing by and
they are just going to push a big old hole right through there. As staff indicated, ACHD
last night nixed this entrance despite our valiant and legitimate argument. A little
editorializing. But the thought -- and since we don't have a -- since we don't have a
specific development agreement on there yet, somehow we are going to have to
connect over and tie into this circulation system and at this point, to be quite honest, we
are s till sort of kind of weighing a n umber of 0 ptions. What we do know is t hat the
shared access would take us 15 feet off of our property line and bring us into the site.
Now, if it brings usa II the way in a nd down to the north s ide of it, t hat's one of the
options. P art 0 fit a Iso depends 0 n what - - how t hat a djacent landowner would feel
about that shared access going that far into -- into the shared parcels. In other words,
we haven't had a dialogue with the adjacent property, but we do know it's a 15-foot side
to side off of that center property line and, then, it comes in. I can't give you a better
answer than that. I apologize.
Rohm: Well, I'd like a better answer.
Erstad: Well, we know for one thing that we have -- we have a setback that exists with
this line right here, so from this point south to the road is all going to be setback
landscaping.
Rohm: So, it's appropriate to assume, then, your access east to west will be north of
what your setback would be, so one would presume that to get over to this development
you would -- your pavement would be along that line, then?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 32 of 70
Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think you're absolutely right. The
term assume or presume is always one of those dangerous things, because until we
know what's going to happen in this area, I'm nervous that we are locking ourselves into
a specific solution when ACHD h as allowed us these two access points immediately
and the shared access point here, it may be that we don't develop that shared access
point until further down the road.
Rohm: Well, see, that was my point early on before your presentation.
Erstad: Mr. Chair, if I can further discuss that point. At this -- at this current situation,
this shared access is really -- would only benefit access onto this property. It doesn't
increase access or increase car parks or traffic flow, because the current property right
now is a -- what I would almost call a back access to a back parking lot on this -- on this
property. It's not -- it's not a -- and I'm not speaking from knowledge at this point, I'm --
it's conjecture that that point and that parking lot back there, really, is more of a staff
parking for the flower shop. So, we would have to balance whether or not the benefit
and -- the cost and the benefit to this parcel that's in front of you right now warrants an
immediate development of that.
Rohm: Well, it doesn't a ppear to me that it's necessary for t he development oft hat
access to move forward with the bank and that was my point from the get go, is that
access on the east line doesn't have to be constructed until you know what that -- the
balance of the property use will be.
Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think -- I understand your logic and
where you're going with it. The reality is that we sat until about 8:30 at ACHD last night
discussing the offsets and all of the access points and ultimately ACHD said here is
what we will grant you. We would -- we would like the flexibility that's been written into
sort of staff's report and ACHD that we could develop that, if our -- if our bank client
would like to have that access point right there at this immediate point and there has not
been enough time for us to resolve that issue.
Rohm: I don't see any problem with that either.
Erstad: Thank you,
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I would like to make a comment about traffic pattern. Whether or not this
access to the east happens immediately or at least -- I mean I would want to be assured
that it's going to happen at some point and I guess I'm comfortable saying it doesn't
have to necessarily be in place the day the bank goes in, but need know that it's going
to happen. The other thing that I look at is traffic flow over in this area. My assumption
would be that the drive-thru lanes are lined up so the traffic would come in this driveway
and stack this way and, then, exit here. My difficulty with that is that all of the exiting
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 33 of 70
traffic, then, has to cross the incoming traffic and if residents of the subdivision have two
or three cars here, this is a very short throat to get out here and my suggestion is to
reverse that idea, make this the in, move the islands to the other end of the building, so
that traffic flows in through and out and doesn't ever have to cross itself. This also gives
it a longer length to line up. Is there a possibility of doing that?
Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we've actually looked at that and part
of what's driving it is the client and the bank and their internal flow of systems and so as
you -- as you look at the layout of the internal portions, that's one of the things that they
have requested is that you actually come from behind and move towards Fairview. That
was actually -- I appreciate your comment, by the way, because that was one of our
discussion points with ACHD and this is over 300 feet long putting the access point for
two parcels in the middle and the conflict we had was that the cemetery was the
offsetting drive, but we felt that it provided a much better flow for traffic all around,
because it reduced flow onto Venture Way as well. But that didn't happen. And, again,
I can't tell you whether or not the access point off Fairview is an immediate or shortly
after the structure gets built, but I think ACHD has insured that that cross-access
easement is there, because they recognize the fact that that ground will be split and
they didn't want to have that parcel land locked. So, it will have to happen.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Okay.
Erstad: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair, before you begin public testimony, I just -- a couple of points of
clarification and the most recent one that Commissioner Zaremba brought up with
cross-access. We don't want to get into a situation where we require this applicant to
construct a driveway that requires third-party's approval. Encouraging those types of
things are great, but if we require him to knock on the neighbor's door and drive across
his property, the city could get into trouble. So, encouraging those access points -- and
that's what the highway district just says, hey, we will allow you this access point, they
are not requiring to construct that with this application. If that guy says he wants ten
million dollars for it, they're stuck. So, just as a point of clarification, if you want to
modify that condition, that's fine, but we should probably stay away from requiring them
to construct off-site improvements, i.e., a driveway, even it is partially on their property.
So, I just wanted to bring that up. And just-- I've kind of glazed over it in the initial staff
report, but the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit - and we are working on
getting you a list of potential uses that could be prohibited on this site, rather than
seeing a CUP, because it is somewhat a waste of statrs time in certain instances when
you have, you know, 20 lots and they all have to come back in for detailed CUP
approval, again, based on previous history of this site, it's a similar situation, they have
an undeveloped portion, you don't know what's going in, the City Council denied that
exact same thing just two years ago. So, that's kind of where I was coming from when I
said, you know, the neighbors want to see what's coming in here, even if it's an allowed
use, we may not be looking at the use so much, but, you know, how does the building
look, you know, where is the parking on it, those types of things that contribute to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7.2004
Page 34 0170
use, So, that's just kind of some of the background and why that CUP requirement has
been put into the staff report. Again, we are working on getting you, you know, 20 or 25
uses that will be just straight out allowed uses - okay, excuse me. Allowed uses not
requiring a Conditional Use Permit and, then, everything else would be per the zoning
ordinance, so if they wanted to do something not this list, it would require Conditional
Use Permit approval, but these are the things they could do without having to pull a
CUP in the future.
Zaremba: I would just express the opinion that I think the two subjects that you brought
up, your first subject supports the second subject. If we are not going to know the east
boundary access, then, I think it's fair to whatever goes on that second piece of
property, that will be our opportunity to straighten out that access, and I -- even though
on every project we don't want to hear from every building, I can only see that there can
only be one more building, there is not a big envelope, and I would support the
contention that we do need a CUP for the second building, if, for no other reason, than
to settle the access issue at that point.
Hood: And that's fine with me. In that scenario, ACHD would get to look at this site
again and could, if their policies changed and, you know, and everything changed at
that point and they could do a 180 and they say, hey, you get an access point here, you
don't have to share that at that time. So, there are -- you know, that public hearing
process, there is maybe some benefit to the applicant of going through that procedure,
because you do -- we would -- even if, again, in that scenario, you know, we don't
approve access points per se, we need ACHD's blessings on those as well. So, you
know, that's another -- that's a great point. Something else just with access points, we
were talking about that, is Venture Street and, again, previous history with this site,
there are homes that use Venture Street and that's their only access. If that's the only
access for this bank, these people now are sharing that access with a commercial
business. I definitely support the access to an arterial street and giving, you know,
patrons of this business another way out, rather than using what has historically been a
residential street and backing up and I can only imagine turning, you know, east out of
this site on Fairview at rush hour and having that back up. But, anyways, I will digress.
But that's -- that's in the staff report, too, so I think that access point is great.
Zaremba: Well -- and I know that issue is probably going to come up, but my personal
opinion -- can we go to a more expanded view that shows the subdivision to the north?
Maybe an aerial. That works for me. The temporary situation is that this is their only
way in and out. It looks to me like somebody's thinking originally was that at some point
this cross street is going to continue on over to something that would connect here, as
would this, and there is a signal here, I believe. So, there is -- it looks to me like
somebody has thought through that this probably is going to have access to a signal at
some point even though it's a temporary problem, that this is the only way in and out, I
don't see that as being a forever problem, but I could be wrong, but my assumption
would be that there is going to be other connections and even to a signal.
Borup: Any other discussion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 35 of 70
Newton-Huckabay: I just -- so are you recommending that any use have a CUP?
Zaremba: I believe so. Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. That's alii --
Zaremba: I think that's what staff recommended --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And you're sticking with that?
Zaremba: -- and I support that.
Newton-Huckabay: And you're sticking with that? I just wanted to make sure. I thought
that's what you were saying, but make I was following --
Borup: And I would interested on public input on that subject, too.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Commissioner Rohm?
Rohm: If a CUP is required for the development of the balance of this property, would
that ingress off of Fairview, then, be subject to review again by Ada County? Isn't that
what I just heard? That that which they are allowing not -- not telling them they have to,
but they are allowing as part of this application, ingress off of Fairview, that would be
subject to discussion, once again, through Ada County, if, in fact, we required a CUP for
the development of the balance of this property.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I can give you the most likely situation -- if that
were to happen and if, you know, it's years before something comes in, those things will
change, but today if something were submitted tomorrow for that other site, a CUP,
what the highway district would do is photocopy this staff report you have today and
say, hey, we have already acted on this, this is your access point, unless, when they
came in with that building they said we want another driveway, something that wasn't
consistent with what they approved October 6, 2004. So, if they wanted to do
something different, then, their Commission would have to react on it.
Rohm: I guess what my point was - is if, in fact, you require a CUP and they have to
go through that process once again, that parcel of ground could be landlocked, if, in
fact, they didn't grant the access and -- but what you're saying is that will grant the one
that they are proposing as part of this application. That's -- that's a known.
Hood: And, I'm sorry, right how it's all one parcel, so if they do a lot split and access to
Fairview was never constructed. There is access across the other portion of this parcel,
but the city will say, hey, you need to provide access to this new lot you're proposing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 36 of 70
and it's going to be to Venture, because there aren't any other access points. So, it
would be a cross-access amongst the two new lots internally, basically, rather than
across someone's property.
Rohm: If, in fact, Ada County denied --
Hood: Any access.
Rohm: -- additional applicant.
Hood: Correct.
Erstad: Mr. Chair may I --
Borup: Quickly, because I was thinking -- I mean you're going to have sometime at the
end here, too, but -- unless it was really critical. Okay. Let's go ahead and continue
with the public testimony. Do we have anyone here that would like to testify? Come on
up.
Earl: My name is Renn Earl and I live at 4203 Venture Circle, which is the second circle
in the back. I would like to first comment that, yes, there is a reason to restrict and/or
have a CUP is because --fort he use of that adjoining plat, is because that insures
government by the representation of the people, which is us, because we live there. My
first notes as to what I had, I looked at your July 2002 comprehensive report and I noted
that on Chapter one, page three, it states -- and I quote: Land use policies, restrictions,
and/or conditions do not violate private property rights, adversely impact property
values, or create unnecessary technical limitations to the use of the property. My point
one is, yes, there is a very big technical property -- or technical property -- problem that
exists for and by the use of the egress on Venture. I would like to see that all of the
egress or ingress on Venture be removed. We do not have -- and you can say future
use however you want that they will eventually go to Record Street, which is the stop
light that exists there for the PAL soccer field. It doesn't exist today and, in fact, there is
a two foot cement ditch and so we can't get there from here and since it does not exist
now, allowing a full commercial use onto our street, which is the only way we have in
and out, especially emergencies, you know, you cut off your finger and you got to go to
the hospital, if they are blocking that intersection, we can't get out. That's point one.
Also Chapter two, page seven, it states: Commercial areas will be located to minimize
traffic congestion. We would -- as I agreed with the highway district last night, that the
use be put expressly on the eastern most section where Ada County Highway granted
that, that would be where I would like to see a big loop made around and that's just a
small notation. Chapter 7, page 102, it states: Located new commercial areas -- and
this would be new commercial areas -- on arterials or collectors, near residential areas
in such a way as to compliment with adjoining residential areas. That brings up in
putting in a development agreement with a three foot berm and a six foot block wall and
the reason I state that is because that is what Wal-Mart has in order to protect them
from the other areas around them and that fits within the neighborhood, as well as -
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 37 of 70
Borup: That was your time.
Earl: Sir?
Borup: That noise was your time was up, but --
Earl: He was granted longer. I clocked.
Borup: Sir?
Earl: Yes, sir?
Borup: Yes, he was. That's part of their regulation. That's part of our -- he had 15
minutes.
Earl: Oh. Okay. Well, then, I'll --
Borup: So, you need to summarize read quick.
Earl: Yes, sir. In the development agreement, to add that six foot block wall, which fits
with the adjoining and, then, you have already stated, as to the light orientation is
already required by the City of Meridian, but I would emphatically require that the hours
of use be kept in -- this is our neighborhood and as your -- in your book, it's Chapter 7,
page 102 -- and it needs to compliment and having an open use of that land would not
compliment our neighborhood.
Borup: Thank you. Come on up.
Hall: I'm Bill Hall, I live at 4225 Venture Place and I -- my lot joins -- abuts this property
in question. I know Mr. Borup was here at the 2002 meeting -- I don't remember if the
rest of you were here or not, but one of the main reason that was denied was because
of the two cuts going into Venture Place. The first plan he had when he came in here
was to build a pizza parlor, a gas station, anything he could think of, and the only way
he could get in and out was through there. So, the Council said to him -- says, well,
how else can you get in here without using that street, because you weren't going to let
him do it, and he says, well, I got a gentleman's agreement with the property next to me
to -- I'll have access to that property. So, they told him to come back with a plan. Well,
he come back with the same plan, he wants to get into our street again. I -- that was --
it was in the meeting. You didn't that bring up. I'd like to challenge any of you and you
to go out there and try to get out at 5:00 o'clock in the evening. Anytime between
Saturday, go out there right now -- you put a bank there and the only ingress and
egress is on our street and we will never get out. It's a mess. And you folks got a
responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen and I really ask you to do that. The
other thing I'd like to say -- he talks about the lush landscaping at the north end. I have
got a stand of trees there that's been there for 30 years and I hope you don't cut them
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 38 of 70
down. I put those there for a purpose and this type of thing. This really angers me,
because this wasn't what we were told. This guy is always coming back with something
different than what we originally agreed to and it really bothers me. I wish all of you
would go out there and try to get out. It's impossible, because sometimes you look to
the right and with this PAL soccer field, it used to take us sometimes seven lights to go
down the street. So, what you're trying to do here is going to really mess up our
neighborhood. I'm not opposed to the bank, I think it's a wonderful idea, I'm all -- I'm a
hundred percent for it, but I'm not for the way they are trying to get in and out. We need
to -- he needs to come in like Mr. -- like Renny just said -- on that one part and they
need to make a loop. I'm sorry it takes up some of their property, but what they need to
do is think about that, they may need to move bank over or do something different, but
what they are trying to do is make us pay, because he wants to subdivide that lot and
that's not right. Okay? That's alii have to say. Oh, by the way, CoG, I just looked at, it
says it's not for strip development. That's strip development. So, it should probably be
L-O and I hope you folks will reconsider that. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Hall?
Hall: Yes.
Borup: Just a quick question. You had mentioned trees and you were hoping they don't
cut them down. Were they -- trees are off your property or --
Hall: They are on my property.
Borup: They are on your property.
Hall: They go right along the property line.
Borup: Okay.
Hall: They are 30 years old.
Borup: Okay.
Hall: And they are high trees.
Borup: They are on your property?
Hall: They are on my property.
Borup: Okay.
Hall: And, I'll tell you what, they have grown so big they are probably hanging -- the
limbs are hanging over on the other property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 39 of 70
Borup: Okay.
Hall: I mean I will be serious about it, but when I planted them I had no idea they would
get that big. They are Ponderosa pines and they have a tendency to spread out, but
they are good looking and I'm sure the bank would like to see trees like there. It does
look nice, but I don't want him cutting my trees down.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Hall: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Come on up.
Moore: I have a poster that kind of explains our neighborhood a little bit. Mr. Chairman
and Commissioners, my name is Janene Moore and I live at 4292 Venture Place. This
is -- and I agree with my two neighbors, we have been meeting and we have strong
consensus on these issues. So, I won't go over some of the things that they have gone
over. But I do want to talk about what it's like on a day-to-day basis on this intersection.
First off, our neighborhood is park like. It's like a bird sanctuary. It's beautiful. We have
invested a great deal this year in our property and we are continuing to invest more to
improve our property. It's -- we feel like we are in a refuge. It's a wonderful place to
live. We plan on getting animals for our pasture and barn. This is kind of a blowup of
the intersection. This is the site in question. This is the drive area that they are talking
about making common. And this is what it's like to get -- come out of our neighborhood
and go east. We go into a median, so I think it's a wonderful decision that ACHD did not
allow an opening right here, because there is just not room. What hasn't been taken
into consideration is that this is a four-way intersection. We have a bay here that --
okay. We are cruising down Fairview and we have got to zip -- zip in here and stop.
This is a dedicated bay just for a left-hand turn. There is a concrete barrier here, so it's
not a common median that you can go in any direction, it's a dedicated barrier. This
blocks the traffic coming north from this intersection, so they dodge us and -- to get onto
Fairview going west. This bay currently holds two cars or one trailer. And, yes, it is a
rural subdivision and we do have horse trailers and a variety of trailers to accommodate
the rural subdivision. This bay barely accommodates our subdivision and to put
additional load on that for a commercial business is -- we would be -- would be locked in
and locked out. So, this is our only ingress-egress and these two exits and entrances
do not work with our subdivision. A suggestion would be to come in here, loop around,
and come back out. Have this be a wide ingress-egress. That would be my
recommendation. As far as this unknown business, it's important to us, we are all very
busy and it's -- we appreciate the opportunity to speak, but it's worth it to us to have
input on what's going to be built there. And I would recommend this be an L-O, instead
of a CoG, and the hours of operation are extremely important. As far as a barrier wall,
landscaping is very nice, but it doesn't -- it's not a sound barrier, it doesn't have the
density for a sound barrier, and more light from headlights and whatever else is going
on in that business, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 40 of 70
Borup: You need to sum up. That was the time.
Moore: Okay. I appreciate it and I'd appreciate L-O zoning and thank you very much
for your time.
Borup: Thank you.
Dykstra: Good evening, my name is Scott Dykstra. My address is 4260 Venture Circle,
which is straight through on Venture Street. You'd run into my house if you kept going
and sometimes people do. I have four main concerns. I'll try not to repeat what's
already been said. However, there are a few points that are so important they bear
repeating. First of all, the traffic pattern is a critical issue. As we are exiting from our
subdivision on Venture, it's not unusual to wait five minutes to turn left and travel east
on Fairview. We do have a center turn lane. The speed limit on Fairview at this point is
40 miles an hour, so you are trying to gauge pulling into this narrow turn lane with cars
coming at you from both directions at 40 miles an hour. Traveling to the west, same
thing, as you're pulling out of the subdivision you have to immediately get in the flow of
traffic that's traveling 40 miles an hour. As we approach Venture coming from the east,
traveling west, you've got cars on your tail, you turn on your turn signal right about here,
you start slowing down and they start catching up with you and you take this going
about 35 miles an hour, so nobody runs over you, and if there are cars parked right here
waiting to turn out, you're going to get run over, especially if you've got a trailer.
Coming from this direction, I cannot stress how bad this intersection is right here. There
is actually a median right here, so you cannot jog over until about a hundred feet from
the corner. It was designed so that people coming out of here would not -- would not
get into the center lane here, but what it creates is a - just a real dangerous situation
right there. There have been times with our trailer when we are traveling east and we
have to pass the intersection, turn around, and come back and approach it from the
east going west. Noise is, obviously, an issue. A bank is going to have an ATM, I'm
sorry, there is no hours for an ATM, it's 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If you look
at the site plan, there is a dumpster located right back here, those guys don't
necessarily care what hours they are picking up the trash. The drive-thru is going to
have speaker noise and a certain amount of volume there. Lighting, of course, we have
already discussed the lighting issues. And, then, zoning -- obviously, you mentioned C-
G zoning. If it was CoG, we could have a Kinko's or a 24-hour operation right here. We
would prefer, as has been stated, that the only access come off of Fairview, there are
no accesses to Venture, and that the zoning be at the most L-O, rather than CoG.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Dykstra, maybe a couple -- and perhaps we will have the
applicant answer this. I was just curious -- comments of ACHD. Did they -- did they
discuss the intersection and access points and stuff at the ACHD meeting? Were you
there or do you know?
Dykstra: I wasn't there, but, Brad, did ACHD say anything about this access here?
Borup: Okay. I thought maybe you were there. We will just ask them that later.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 41 of 70
Dykstra: Okay.
Borup: Thank you.
D.Moore: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Don Moore. My
family and I live at 4292 Venture Place, which is the first cul-de-sac there in the
subdivision. I feel a bank at this location would be a minimal impact to our
neighborhood, except for the associated traffic and noise. We are very concerned, as
you have heard, about the traffic, That intersection is very treacherous. To mitigate
some of that traffic, I believe we should see a de-acceleration lane in front of the bank
on Fairview so traffic running west would be able to pull off and slow down. I think that's
a safety issue. The other issue that was brought up earlier is the de-acceleration lane
coming to the east that would -- that is very short right now and it's a very treacherous
situation. We also have a lot of traffic that comes in from the south side. There is a
subdivision -- several subdivisions back in there that that's their primary entrance into
Fairview, so that intersection is really really getting busy. I'd also like to address the
additional noise created by putting in a solid brick block wall along the back there,
probably eight -- at least eight foot tall to minimize the noise that would be created there
and create a barrier between that property and ours. I would also like to request the
modification of the zoning plan to L-O from CoG. This would -- this change would insure
a compatible business use would be eventually built there. We are real concerned that
with a CoG that a lot of different products -- for example a gas station could be put in
there and that would not fit in with the neighborhood at all. That would be devastating.
As you can probably see, there was - - they didn't have any neighborhood meetings,
because I think a lot of -- as mentioned earlier, I think a lot of these things might have
been able to be taken care of if we had that kind of cooperation. Thanks for your time.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come forward, sir.
Thueson: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, my name is Greg Thueson, I live at 4263
Nystrom in Boise. I have actually been one of the owners of the Peddles and Stems
property next door for about the past 12 or 13 years and the old produce barn and there
area few things that I have learned tonight that I was not aware of, but, generally, I
believe that a bank is an absolutely excellent use for this site, because of the limited
nature of the access requirements for time. I was under the impression that the bank
was buying the whole site and not just part of the site before this meeting tonight, but I
do have an understanding and compassion, definitely, for the neighborhood. We have
tried to deal with the neighborhood as positively as we can, owning the other property
that backs onto it and the property is beautiful back there. I have actually -- my parents
lived there until just a few years ago and it is a very quiet solitude area that's just
beautiful. So, I'm understanding of the neighbors' concerns and their plight relative to
the access, but I know that a bank use limits quite a bit of traffic and I can't think of
many commercial uses that would be a better neighbor than a bank in a situation like
this. I, actually, am in real estate and spent many years dealing with issues like this and
I think they are a very good neighbor. We would be delighted as neighbors next door to
Mertdian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 42 of 70
have the bank here, we think that that's an excellent use. We would much rather see
something improved than the weed lot that's there now and I think that we would want
you to definitely consider seriously the annexation and the rezoning and I would
encourage that, but the access issue, I understand the concern and plight of the
neighborhood, but I still believe that it is only fair and right that the owner of the property
have at least one access onto the roadway there on the side and wewould be open as
neighbors next door to see if we could work out some kind of a shared access using our
driveway a nd widening -- adding some of their ground, but It hink we would want to
know what type of use that extra piece of ground would be used for as well. So, that
would be my only concern. I think that if access can be worked out, possibly, I am a
hundred percent behind t his and think it would be an excellent neighbor for us, sol
would just encourage your consideration and I would like to go on record for thinking
this is a good thing if that access can be worked out. So, thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Thueson. May be just a question while you're up there.
Thueson: Sure.
Borup: Have there been any discussions between you and this applicant on that
driveway?
Thueson: We have had preliminary discussions. We see that as a possible benefit to
the access that we have as well. Our access roadway there to the rear of the property
is not a fully developed access roadway and I think it works in both property owners'
favor if we can do that. Not particularly all the way to the very back of the property, but
at least maybe halfway back to have them have an easement on our property and we
have an easement on theirs. Now, I have another partner that owns that property and
haven't really -- I can't speak a hundred percent for him, but I think I can speak for my
wife and I that for our part we see this as a real positive asset and I think he would, too.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Thueson: Thank you.
Borup: I don't know of anyone else. That's everyone that signed up. Was there
anyone else here to testify? Okay. Would you like to make some final comments and
maybe we will have some other questions.
Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Andy Erstad, 848 Fulton Street, Boise.
I think a couple of points that I'd like to make. As all you are very aware, ACHD really
tells us where we can and can't come into properties. I mean, ultimately, ACHD is the
one that analyzes the traffic flow on Venture and Fairview and makes that
determination. So, our -- we are somewhat bound and I - while I understand the plight
of the neighbors, it's a public right of way, it's paid for by all of us, and that.access onto
Venture is the access that ACHD is granting us. We are encouraged by Mr. Thueson's
comments and, as he indicated, preliminary discussions about the cross-access
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 43 of 70
easement at the east property line and we agree that it's -- that it would be a great thing
and this was one of the points I was going to make earlier, is that we cannot force a
third party into an agreement, we a II have to come to the table mutually, a nd so it's
encouraging that I think we can get there. One of the concerns that the bank is going to
be a bad neighbor, you know, our site plan has 25 feet of buffer against Mr. Hall's
probably 30 feet of plantings on his property site. It's going to be a veritable forest back
there. It will have a significant impact on the noise that currently travels from Fairview
back up into the neighborhood. We are not in agreement and don't think it's prudent to
be building an eight foot tall wall there. We are putting a building in front of -- a building
between Fairview and the property and I think that's going to be a significant sound
barrier, more so than any block wall is going to be and it's almost a double -- a double
whammy when you have 25 feet of expensive, heavily planted landscaping. We still
would like you to consider the hours of operation. We just feel that that's a restriction
that we'd like you to look at and we'd like it to be -- to be eliminated. And, then, the final
thing is that the CoG zone is really what we are -- what we are told via the Comp Plan.
It's not that we came in asking for CoG, it's when we submitted for the rezone that's what
the Comp Plan said should be applied for and that's how it's designed all down
Fairview, so we are in agreement with it, by the way, and it's one of those tough issues.
Thank you.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. Oh, maybe I do
have a question, Mr. Erstad. Previously staff had put a list up on the board. Was that --
I mean on the screen on the -- Mr. Hood, was there some comment on that? There was
no explanation and I didn't know if there was discussion or--
Hood: These were the uses that the applicant I believe came up with that Anna has put
down on a piece of paper that would be allowed or at least that they would be proposing
that they be allowed to come in with one of the uses shown here without having to
obtain CUP approval. Anything else that's not on this list would, then, be subject to
Meridian city code, as far as either being a prohibited use or requiring Conditional Use
Permit approval.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That just hadn't been discussed. That's why I --
Erstad: And I think everyone is aware the intent here is that if -- if anyone of these
uses wanted say a drive-up or something that actually requires a conditional use, then,
that would clearly come back in front of you, so we wouldn't be taking that away, by any
means.
Borup: No. That's understood. Commissioners, discussion?
Hood: I did -- Mr. Chair --
Borup: Yes, Mr. Hood.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 44 of 70
Hood: Just a point of clarification. It was asked during the public testimony about
access points to Venture Street and what the highway district approved.
Borup: Right.
Hood: They did approve both access points to Venture Street as proposed. I guess I'll
leave that at that. And, then, as far as the business hours, that would restrict it for all
uses 0 n this site, 0 bviously. I f someone -- a gain, s taft's kind of thinking with this, if
someone did want to come and this bank does turn over to be a Kinko's -- that example
was used, an option always is to come in and modify the development agreement, why
we are changing the use, we need to change the business hours, similar to what
happened last week at City Council with that -- the women's fitness center that wanted
to go in or is coming down the line. They are going to change use again -- you know,
that's kind of a protective measure, at least that I thought restrict the business hours and
uses both. If not one or the other, then, both, I guess. So, that's just a little bit of -- and,
then, just a final note to neighbors. A lot of the issues that were brought up tonight, the
highway district, as far as the medians in Fairview and maybe changing those so you
have a little bit wider turn bay or having an accel or decel lane on Fairview, it's really
going to be up to them. The city has very little input on those type of traffic-related
issues. Their traffic department, you can work with them and maybe get some of those
issues addressed, but I just wanted to make that a little bit clearer, that access and any
roadway improvements on Fairview are, really, the highway district's jurisdiction, so --
thank you.
Borup: That's understood. Okay. Commissioners?
Zaremba: The changes that would have to be made to the drawing to eliminate the
access on Fairview, are those major enough that we would need to continue it and see
it here before we moved it on or -
Hood: I do not believe so, Depending on -- if you wanted to further restrict any access,
that may become significant, but as far as -- that's something that staff recommended in
the staff report, was that this -- we aren't real supportive of that driveway location as it's
shown, so anticipating a change would have to be made, so that eastern property line
I've kind of played it out, not knowing how far back it's going to go and how it's really
going to function internally, but if that driveway were just constructed that one goes
away, I would say that's not a significant change, no. If your comfort level of approving
or moving this on or doing whatever with it is not satisfied, then -- I mean you can table
it until we get a new drawing and any analysis you'd like me to do. That's fine, too, but I
personally don't believe that's necessary.
Borup: Okay. Mrs. Moore, did you have a comment on the ACHD meeting? Is that
what you wanted to discuss? Yes.
Moore: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thanks -- my name is Janine Moore at 4292
Venture Place. Thank you for this comment. We were not notified that there was a
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 45 of 70
meeting at ACHD, because, trust me, we would have had our -- we would have input
this information. Obviously, ACHD doesn't know what it's like to enter and exit our
property and please remember it is our only entrance and exit and this is -- this is all we
have and we already spend a great deal of time waiting to get out and oftentimes it's
under very treacherous situations. So, you know, there are -- I think a bank would be
great and there are -- we could loop the traffic around and come in on the approved
entrance on Fairview and it would preserve our -- it would be infringing on our private
property rights if we cannot access -- access and exit our own property. And if you
approve these two entrances on Venture -- if you approve this arrangement, you will be
denying us access to our own property and --
Borup: Okay. Thank you. I thought you had some additional information on the ACHD
meeting.
Moore: No. I just wish we had been there.
Borup: Okay.
Moore: Okay.
Borup: Real quickly.
Hall: I'm thinking --
Borup: State your name again.
Hall: Bill Hall, 4225 Venture Place. T hank you for letting me just add this. Just a
thought. If you're going to go ahead and use that east access, why not go ahead and
pave this area right here and come on in this way. You have an entrance here and you
could have one out -- going onto Venture Place, because you're going to have to pave
that sooner or later anyway. So, I don't know why not do it right now and make it better
for everybody right now.
Borup: Because that would be adding a new access point that ACHD has not approved
yet.
Newton-Huckabay: No. He's talking about the east access.
Hall: Excuse me, Mr. Borup. The one they did approve.
Borup: Well, but that's on -- that's off site. They have got to work that out with the
neighbor, though, because it's on his site.
Hall: Okay. Thank you. That would be a point.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, how would we like to proceed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 46 of 70
Nary: Mr. Chairman, you need to be sure the applicant has the last --
Borup: Right. That is true. Mr. Erstad, since there has been some more public
testimony, is there anything else you wanted to add?
Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Andy Erstad, 848 Fulton Street, Boise,
Idaho. The only comment is - going back to the access points, ACHD has approved
the access points. The layout of the property and the layout of the banking -- the drive
aisles is such that as a customer comes up to do their banking via the vehicle, they can
look out their door and see the window and see their banker as they do their
transaction. So, the layout of the property, as we have shown it, is very -- is a functional
layout and it works. The access point -- elimination of these access points is -- it can't
happen and this is a public right of way and this same parcel of ground has a similar
right to access onto Venture Way. So, I appreciate your patience.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners? I think the public testimony -- well, if we have a
motion for that. I think we are done with public testimony.
Newton-Huckabay: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-026 and CUP 04-
035.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do we want a little discussion first or was someone ready for a motion?
Rohm: Well, I think we should have a little discussion here.
Zaremba: I think there is some discussion to be had.
Rohm: I think that, to start off with, we should probably take a look at the past to
determine -- help determine where we go with this into the future and last time that this
parcel came before the zoning commission and, then, onto City Council, it was
ultimately rejected, because it wasn't clear as to what the total development of the
property would be. I'm not sure that we are any closer to having a clear understanding
of what the total property development will be with this application anymore so than it
was last time that it was brought before the Planning and Zoning and, then, ultimately,
onto City Council. That being said, it seems to me that before we can move forward
with this application onto the city with any recommendation at all, it would betothe
applicant's benefit and everybody else's if, in fact, there was a little bit more clear
understanding, if, in fact, only by limiting the number of -- or the types of activity that can
go on to the balance of the property, something along those lines, so that at least the
Mertdian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 47 of 70
City Council would have some understanding of the direction this body sees this
development going.
Borup: Are you saying your preference would be to limit that, rather than a CUP?
Rohm: Well, I kind of like that list of uses that Anna had placed and I like that approach
myself. And I think that that would at least bring it into a little bit clearer focus than
without anything, other than the fact it would have to be brought before this Commission
again as a Conditional Use Permit and if you do it with a Conditional Use Permit, the
city doesn't have any clearer idea of the balance of the development than what they do
already and that's my concerns on that.
Borup: That part's true, but there is more control. Any other comments?
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I just want to clarify how this
list was constructed, just so you know. I handed the applicant the zoning ordinance and
they just penciled through some of the principal permitted uses that -- and I guess I'm
not sure exactly what the penciled out meant, but I went through all the other principal
permitted uses that were left and they are here. Now, I'm not sure whether the
applicant wanted those other principal permitted uses to be conditionally allowed or if he
was willing to just restrict himself to these lists of uses. So, if the Commission is
heading that way, you might want to confer with the applicant on -- on that issue.
Borup: Okay. I think we will wait and see if we are heading that way first. We have
closed the hearing. Commissioner Huckabay, you have a comment?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, my concern is that wee an't g rant accesses; wee an't take
accesses away on a piece of property. The only thing we could do would be to deny, if
I'm understanding -- I'm thinking out loud here -- is deny -- or recommend denial of this
development, which still doesn't take away the accesses, as I understand it, so that if
another development came up, they still have the accesses on Venture Street. So, my
thought there is that a bank is probably lower impact use on Venture Street than say a
video store or --
Borup: Gas station.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Or a restaurant. And you do have the limited hours and, you
know, a lower noise level and so I -- but I understand the quandary with the access
issue, but I'm concerned that, you know, we -- if I understand all this correctly, which I
was trying to get Commissioner Zaremba to confirm for me off the record, our only
option is to recommend denial of the whole thing, which I'm not necessarily -- think that
the whole development is -- I think that a bank is not a bad -- a bad choice for that -- for
that piece of land. I -- although I am in favor of a CUP on any development that would
go in next it. I do have to say that I think that would be appropriate given the concerns
of the neighbors, the type of development they'd like to see go in there that would
compliment their -- and that's my complete thought.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 48 of 70
Borup: Okay. Any other comments?
Zaremba: Thank you for saying that on the record and my comment would be that I
agree with you. ACHD is the one that decides accesses. We can help support their
decision and even if we were to deny this application, ACHD has established their
philosophy that there would be access to Venture and there would not be access onto
Fairview this close to Venture. I don't believe that attitude would change with the use
and I also agree that a bank is probably the lowest impact. I also support the idea that I
think the other piece does still need to be a CUP regardless of what's going to go there,
so that if it does go through the hearing process - and, again, we have the opportunity
to discuss the access shared with the neighbor and, hopefully, by, then, they will have
gotten together and made some decision on the -- I also would be comfortable sticking
by the hours. Again, the idea there is if there is some other use that requires longer
hours, I think that needs to be heard. So, even though I was waffling before I started
talking, I think I may be coming down on the side of leaving everything the way the staff
asked for it and possibly moving it along.
Moe: Well, since I'm the only one that hasn't said anything yet, I will. Quite frankly, I
would have to agree with Commissioner Huckabay and yourself as well. The only thing
that I'm concerned about, if, in fact, number one, ACHD has granted those access
points and there is nothing we can do about that, I am definitely not in favor of a denial
based on that. I guess the only thing that I'm still -- that -- what I would rather do, if
anything, if I really had a real concern to this, would be I would be looking for a
continuance to get some information on what, in fact, they are able to do with the other
access point onto Fairview Avenue. But having said that, again, ACHD has granted
those access points and I'm in favor of the 7:00 to 7:00 time frame, as well as requiring
the CUP on the other property -- on the other piece if something's put there.
Rohm: And with that being said, the access will be addressed as part of that CUP when
that additional property is developed, so that --
Moe: I mean my whole point being is that -- that access doesn't really -- they are getting
-- they have already been given the access points onto Venture by ACHD, so -- I mean
that's just another access point to take care of the one they were denied on Fairview
Avenue.
Rohm: Yeah. And I think the real point for the people in the audience that have spoke
against this is, in fact, regardless of what development were to go in on that property,
they are all going to take access onto Venture and that is a given. We wouldn't have
any way of changing that even if we wanted to and -- okay. I think we have kicked this
one around.
Zaremba: Did we close the Public Hearing already?
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 49 of 70
Zaremba: Want me to do it? Okay. Mr. Chairman - let me¡ just look real close here at
my notes. Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 04-026, to include all staff comments of their memo for
the hearing date of October 7, 2004, received by the city clerk October 4, 2004, with
one change. On page ten -- and this is a continuation of a paragraph that begins on
page nine, but on page ten, the last bullet says: Business hours for the property shall
be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I would add that that also includes deliveries.
No other changes,
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: M r. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval 0 f C UP 04-035, to include a II staff comments 0 f their memo for 0 ctober 7 ,
2004, received by the city clerk October 4, 2004, with no changes.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: All right. Thank you. Thank everyone for being here. We will take a short
break -- short recess break at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods
Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the
City of Meridian - NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove
Road:
Borup: Okay. The Commissioners are here ready to continue. If anybody else is.
Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting for this evening and continue with Public
Hearing AZ 04-025, it's a request for annexation and zoning of 121 acres. Essentially,
this is an annexation and zoning of Vienna Woods and Edinburgh Place Subdivision. I'll
go ahead and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I would have not believed
about four or five months ago when I started this process that we wouldn't have anyone
signed up to testify on this item, so I am -- Mr. Nary must have scared them way. We
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 50 of 70
had a neighborhood meeting on July 21st and we did have probably -- it was pretty full
in here, people were standing and out the door, but we did at that time disclose to them
that the city was talking about submitting this annexation and zoning of two platted and
developed subdivisions in the northeast portion of our area of impact, Vienna Woods
and Edinburgh Place Subdivisions. There are 389 Jots within the two developments,
362 build-able lots and 27 common lots. They are shown as medium density residential
and low density residential on our comprehensive future land use map. Just briefly on
the history, the first development application in 1997, the city agreed to provide sewer
and water to the property and in exchange the developer was told that you have to
disclose to future homeowners that you will be annexed once you're contiguous. That
time has come. Earlier this year Settlement Bridge Subdivision, which is in the yellow
there, was annexed and zoned in the City of Meridian and thus we have submitted this
application to the city for their approval of the R-4 county zone to the R-4 city zone. For
the residents within this development there are going to be very few, if any, noticeable
changes. No one's here to hear my calculations, but if you had an assessed home at
200,000 dollars, your taxes would increase for the year approximately 170 dollars.
They would notice that, I guess. Also, they would notice that there is -- the people that
are picking up their garage is going to change, because the city has contracted with
SSG, rather than BFI. There are some other implications. I will not waste anymore of
your time. Staff is recommending approval of the city-initiated annexation of the 191
plus acres. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Well, I think what we see is an indication the city did a good job at the
beginning and preparing to cover our bases.
Newton-Huckabay: You had a neighborhood meeting.
Borup: Yeah. Okay. Questions from any of the Commission?
Zaremba: I just want to verify that the property was posted. Somebody here is
certifying that it's going to be.
Borup: There is a photograph of it.
Hood: There should be four photographs, I believe. And Dean can verify that -- our
court reporter, actually, does live out there and he can testify that those are --
Zaremba: I have a signature saying that they are going to be there, so -
Newton-Huckabay: No. That's when it expires.
Zaremba: Oh, yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Her notary expires.
Borup: Do we have any public testimony on this hearing? Okay. Seeing none --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 51 of 70
Zaremba: I fully support the idea that this is a clean-up process and that it would have
been annexed the day that it was approved in the first place if it had been contiguous to
property -- to city property at the time, so I see no issue with this. They have had the
benefit of saving 170 dollars a year for the last several years, as opposed to this
being --
Borup: That's a little more correct way to look at it.
Zaremba: Yes. That being said, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on
AZ 04-025.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we forward -- I move that we forward to the
City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-025, to include all staff comments of their
memo for the hearing date of October 7, 2004, received by the city clerk October 1,
2004.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11:
Public Hearing; PP 04-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 8
commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 3.86 acres in a CoG zone
for Central Valley Corporate Park No.6. This is a re-subdivision of Lots
21 and 22, Block 2, Central Valley Corporate Park No.6 by Steve Wensel
- 929 South Industry Way:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-032. This is a request for preliminary plat
approval of eight commercial building lots for Central Valley Corporate Park No.6. I'd
like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for a preliminary
plat for two lots in Central Valley Corporate Park Subdivision. The property is located
directly to the east of Winco, so it's just behind Winco and to the east. And the cross
streets are East Central and Industry Way. The application is for the creation of eight
commercial building lots and one common lot on 3.86 acres and the zoning out here is
CoG. There are currently two existing lots and the applicant recently did a lot line
adjustment to allow them to -- through a certificate of zoning compliance place two
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 52 of 70
structures on the property and they have already completed that process. And what
they are proposing to do is to go ahead and create an extra six lots, which will allow
them to put eight units on the subject property. While they are only proposing four
structures, several of the structures will have zero lot I ines a nd they will -- there will
actually be eight lots, but just four structures. And there are a couple of issues
associated with this plat. The first is in the -- let's see. The northeast corner there -- on
the subject there is an existing park, which was voluntarily established by the applicant
-- or, actually, by the previous property owner and the applicant is proposing to shift that
park and we are asking that the applicant relocate as many of the trees as possible.
There is a number of trees there on the northern edge of the subject property and to
work with the parks department on mitigation and relocation of those trees. And staff
would also like some additional information on amenities that are going to be provided
on the relocated park, because we don't really have a plan for that yet. The second
issue is there is a trash container over here that's located in the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District easement and the applicant will be required to obtain a license
agreement with Nampa-Meridian for that. And, then, the third issue, the applicant -- in
the CoG zone there is, actually, a 15 foot front setback that's required and while the
proposed structures meet that setback, with the proposed lot lines they don't meet the
setback. So, the applicant will need to -- and I already spoke with the applicant about
this -- but they will need to expand their lot lines, just to kind of encompass -- probably
just like a row of parking spaces along here and up here, so that they expand those lot
lines and meet the 15 foot setback. So, those are the only issues associated with this
preliminary plat and staff recommends approval. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant like to --
anything they'd like to add? Nothing at all? Any other questions from the Commission?
Maybe I've got one and that -- it's probably not important, but has that park ever had
anybody use it?
Kirkpatrick: You know, I have, actually, never seen anybody use it.
Borup: I have been by -- I don't drive through there real often, but I have never seen it
used at all. I was just curious. But maybe it will now if there is buildings closer by.
That's probably more --
Kirkpatrick: Yeah. I mean potentially -- I mean right now there is kind of that business
park just to the east across the street, but I have never seen anybody walk over there
and use the park.
Borup: And play basketball.
Kirkpatrick: Play basketball, no.
Borup: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: But it is a nice amenity.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 53 of 70
Borup: Yeah. It's nice to drive by. Commissioners?
Zaremba: The issues you raised are they being resolved or do you expect them to be
resolved? If we move this on to City Council they will be resolved before it gets there or
do we need to throw a hammer in here somehow or--
Kirkpatrick: Well, we could go ahead and throw in a condition that they are, you know,
required to work this -- with Elroy Huff of the parks department on relocation of trees
and mitigation for trees. I think we want to go ahead and condition that they do have to
obtain that license agreement with the irrigation district and I have already spoken with
the a pplicant a nd they will be revising the plat a nd probably will have a revised plat
before Council showing the expanded lot lines.
Zaremba: Okay. I know the license agreement was mentioned in here. Was that a
condition already?
Kirkpatrick: Let me check if it was a special consideration or if I actually had it as a
condition.
Moe: Page four.
Kirkpatrick: Yeah. These are actually--
Zaremba: I remember reading it.
Kirkpatrick: -- as special conditions. You will have to drop them down and make them
conditions of the preliminary plat.
Zaremba: Okay. If I added on page five a paragraph 15 that said all special
considerations from paragraph -- from page three are made conditions, does that work?
Borup: It's on page three and four.
Kirkpatrick: We are figuring out logistics over here, so just a moment.
Borup: Might just --
Zaremba: If we wanted a comment from the applicant, is the applicant not here or --
Borup: No. He's here,
Kirkpatrick: Okay. Chairman, Members of the Commission --
Zaremba: Well, I will assume by the applicant's silence, since he is here, that he has no
objection to what we are suggesting.
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 54 of 70
Kirkpatrick: Okay. I wanted to go ahead and add -- we have determined -- we can go
ahead and under special considerations, these following three considerations we can
add as conditions on the plat. The first one refers to parking, entitled future parking.
The second is entitled trash container, referring to the trash container and the irrigation
district easement. And the third, building setback. Those three conditions or
considerations can all be added as conditions of the preliminary plat.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: And I also wanted to go ahead and clarify on the existing park it was added
-- it was added after the -- the previous -- or the -- after the property owner had finished
their approvals for the previous subdivision, so it was all done voluntarily by the
applicant, but we are encouraging them to go ahead and provide another park. It was
not a condition of the previous plat done voluntarily by the applicant.
Zaremba: I noticed that and I appreciated that. The applicant went above and beyond.
That's appreciated. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 04-032.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of PP 04-032, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date
of October 7, 2004, received by the city clerk October 4, 2004, with the following
change: On page five, which are the conditions of the preliminary plat, we will add a
paragraph 15 that says the special considerations on page three, referring to future
parking, and on page four, referring to trash container and building setbacks, are made
conditions of this approval.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-037 Request to modify the existing Conditional
Use Permit (Planned Development) approval for the construction of a 96-
unit apartment complex to a 65-unit assisted living retirement facility in an
R-40 zone for Devon Park II (Fairview Lakes) by Fairview Lakes, LLC -
824 East Fairview Avenue:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 55 of 70
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Our last item CUP 04-037, request to modify existing
Conditional Use Permit for a 96 unit assisted living center in Devon Park, Fairview
Lakes. Like to open this hearing and start with the report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The
application before you --
Zaremba: Excuse me. Thank you, Wendy. We will miss you. I'm sorry.
Hawkins-Clark: No. That's fine. This Conditional Use Permit is before you mainly
because they are modifying an existing conditional use and I won't spend too much time
going over the property itself, since I think all the members of the Commission have
seen it a few times, but it is under construction. The property, as you can see --
actually, it doesn't reflect, there are three zones on the property. This corner here has a
- I believe it's a CoN. The northern third of the property or so is R-40 and that is the
location of the application tonight. The aerial photo, the one thing I would point out that
is addressed in the staff report, is the Jackson Drain, which you can kind of make out on
this photo, which cuts across diagonally the north part of that R-40 zoned property and
I'll touch on that in just a minute. This slide shows the entire concept for the 24 acres or
so, with the new site plan overlaid here on the north portion. The current approved use
for that northern portion is an apartment complex and this shows the proposed
retirement center slash assisted living facility in the center, along with the independent
living units on the east and a future use building on the west. And, then, here is the
more detailed site plan blown up for that northern area. There is a proposed 40,000
square foot building here in the center that is proposed to have 65 assisted living units.
The site plan came in showing two future phases. This was the detailed portion was
this center as you can see, there is two real nice common open areas in the center with
their main entry drop off point here. They did show this independent living area as
future, as well as this building as future, but as I mentioned in the staff report, since we
do have elevations and floor plans for this independent living area over here, we are
recommending that that be a part of this detailed approval and, then, the other --
anything else would be conceptual and come back to you later on. The schedule of use
control in the zoning ordinance does list nursing homes as prohibited in the R-40 and I
think I mentioned that in the staff report. I was faxed over today some language out of
Idaho Administrative Law, Title 3, Chapter 2 2 a nd Title 3, Chapter 2 , and t his Idaho
administrative rule does talk about how the state defines an assisted living facility and
what Mr. Tamura, who is representing the applicant, who sent this over, what they are
arguing is, basically that -- that this is not, technically, an assisted living, it's more of a
retirement center. There will not be professional health care providers 24 hours on the
site, it will be -- all the residents will be capable of self preservation, meaning that they
can -- they are ambulatory, unlike a situation where some of them may -- may need
assistance to evacuate the building in the case of an emergency, so -- and I think based
on -- based on what I received -- I understand the Commission didn't receive it -- we can
get more information on that from Mr. Tamura, but based on what staff has read and as
long as that is, indeed, the tenant -- the type of resident that will live there, we are
comfortable with -- you know, with this not being classified as an assisted living, rather a
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 56 of 70
retirement center. A retirement center under Meridian code is, actually, allowed in the
R-40 with a Conditional Use Permit. So, that would be up for discussion. As this report
is written tonight, there is a condition that says they have to rezone the property before
they actually can get a building permit. Obviously, they are opposed to that, since it
does take another three months for them and that's the reason for them submitting this
Idaho statute. On page -- well, I guess I just mentioned that. On page three of the staff
report is where some of that discussion that I just mentioned took place. There are two
other findings that the Commission has to make in order to approve this application that
I wanted to mention. The first one is on page four, paragraph E, and that's just the fact
that -- that you do have to find that the Sanitary Service Company and solid waste
services can adequately be provided, but the information that we received in the
application is insufficient for us to make that finding, so we are asking for that to be
clarified tonight, since trash pickup is somewhat of an uncertainty right now. And, then,
the second finding that I wanted to point out that you need to make is I, Finding I on
page five, and that finding states that the proposed use will not result in the destruction
or loss of a natural scenic feature considered to be of major importance and since they
are proposing to eliminate the Jackson Drain as an open amenity, we just wanted to
have that as part of the record, that that is a new proposal that is a change from the
current Conditional Use Permit, which, actually, proposed to leave the Jackson Drain
open and use it as more of an amenity. The big question there is is it of major
importance and it is piped further to the east already, as I mentioned in the staff report.
So, those are the two findings that we wanted to be sure were addressed tonight by the
Commission before you can approve it. The two special considerations that I
mentioned on page five, the first one is the construction phasing and we are just asking
the applicant to clarify which part of this plan that they are showing us is proposed to be
constructed with the 65 unit facility. And, t hen, the second special consideration on
page five is the realignment of the pathway. I 'mjustgoingtogobacka slide here.
There is a - - in the Comprehensive P Ian a regional multi-use pathway that is shown
basically to get people through this property. As it's currently approved it comes up off
of Fairview to this public street right here and, then, comes along the north side of this
public street and along the backsides of these residential units here and, then, it was
shown to go along the Jackson Drain and, then, connect up to Trailway Subdivision,
which is constructing the pathway right now. As a conditional use, it is - the whole site
is eligible for discussion tonight and we just wanted to see if the Commission was in
support of relocating that pathway, instead of jogging over to the east, just continuing it
to head straight north, be more a direct shot for the pedestrian and, then, they would
pick it up and still end up at the corner there. So, that would be a change of an
alignment to the pathway and we just wanted to make sure that that was dealt with in a
Public Hearing. And I think that ends staff comments. Number three is the site-specific
condition about the rezone that if -- if the Commission is agreeable to the retirement
center definition, then, you could strike that. That's all we have.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 57 of 70
Moe: Yes. Craig, the letter - are you --- the letter you received in regards to the
explanation, you say that you are in agreement to the letter that it would be more suited
as a retirement center?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yes. It's a little bit of a question -- and maybe Mr. Nary can speak
to that, but, you know, I mean there is -- the city ordinance as it defines a nursing home,
is -- could certainly include what they are proposing here. I mean it's basically a place
where residential facilities are provided for either the chronically ill or the -- or seniors.
But I think t he a rgument that there is a distinction ins tate law between a retirement
center and an assisted living facility is a fair one, it's just our code doesn't make that
distinction, so --
Zaremba: Would we want to clarify that as a part of the CUP, make the condition that
all residents must be ambulatory? That seems to be the distinction.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Commissioner.
conditions already.
Actually, it's one of the fire department's
Zaremba: Okay. I missed that. Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. It's item number -- condition 12 on page eight. The fire
department is saying that all patients must be capable of self-preservation.
Zaremba: That works for me.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: If I may ask a question on the multi-use pathway. I'm losing track of how
many iterations this has gone through. We have seen this several times on different
things and sometimes it's been improvements and sometimes I wonder, but my
recollection is that at least in this area where they were using sidewalks as the multi-use
pathway, didn't we require that they actually have a wider sidewalk than standard and
would we not -- if we go along with this ending up being the new pathway, would we not
want to continue the wider sidewalk requirement?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Thank you. That is a good point. It is ten feet in width of hard
surface is what we want to see on those and if we could ask the applicant to address
how they are going to handle that. There have been situations where the city has
approved segments of the regional pathway at six feet, only because in order to get
through a residential subdivision, to put a ten foot wide path in somebody's front yard
just hasn't been considered reasonable, so we have let it go down to six feet in some
locations, like Saguaro Canyon and Lochsa Falls. In a commercial setting like this, you
know, obviously, the preference is to keep the tenant to keep it consistent where ever
possible, but we -- I think since we haven't seen detail submitted with this application on
that it would be good to clarify that.
Mertdian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 58 of 70
Zaremba: Okay. The second question on the same subject, since this pathway is going
to go through a commercial development, I wonder if it might be a good idea to have
signage. I don't remember requiring signage on any other portion of the pathway, but
they are usually pretty evident, because it goes along a drain, ás this originally did. I
mean there isn't much question about where the pathway is going, but this is going to
be sidewalk among other sidewalks and is there a way in the ordinance that we can
request signage? Would we have standing to ask for that?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Well, certainly as part of the Conditional Use Permit I think that it
could be something that the Commission and Council could do. The master pathway
agreement that the city has with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, which granted us --
with them it's only going to be along their facilities, but it does say that the city parks and
rec department is the one that's going to be doing most of those signage -- you know,
the signs, because for -- just for consistency sake, you know, to have a consistent sign
at these pathways, so that you can make your way through the regional system and it
all looks the same as recommended, of course, just for the ease of the user, so -- and
since the parks department doesn't have a standard sign at this point, I guess that's the
main question that comes to my mind, we may be better off to let the parks department
sign this system when they come up with a standard size and what they want to say on
these signs.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: I think, also, just the fact that it's a ten foot wide pathway differentiates it from a
standard sidewalk. If we keep the wider width that does set it apart.
Rohm: I just had one question of Brad. On item 12 of the Meridian fire department's
comments, it says all patients. If there is not an assisted living or a nursing home, can
we change that to residents? I think that would be a better designation. If you don't
have any problem with that.
Hawkins-Clark: Sounds like a good move.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Tamura, you have got some things you'd like to add in
our ongoing saga her~.
Tamura: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug
Tamura, I'm one of the owners and developers of Fairview Lakes. Kind of an overview
of where we are at -- I don't know if you have been by there, but the Hastings just
opened up the last week or so, we are completing our signage, we have got pretty much
the Fairview landscaping in, we are just -- we are just getting -- Brad, can you put up the
overall site plan? Yeah. We are just completing the office infrastructure here and we
are planning on having the rest of the street frontage completed this fall. We have got
our streetlights, our landscaping and, then, we have got two of the office buildings, we
are getting ready to build another three offices buildings in here and in this next
application we are going to submit for another large tenant in here and a bank on this
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 59 of 70
location here. So, we are hoping by next spring we will have this next phase completed
in here. One of the issues that I was going to visit with you is this pedestrian path. One
of the things -- with the city's policy it was going to follow the Jackson Drain, but one of
the things they discussed with staff is that when the Jackson Drain crosses under
Fairview, the only really logical place to cross would be at this stoplight. So, we thought
it made more sense to bring the pedestrians down here, cross across Fairview, bring
them up h ere, a nd, then, we built a ten foot sidewalk that goes a long here, crosses
here, and comes across here. Well, we got ready to start building this sidewalk in here
and the neighbors just came unglued that that pedestrian walkway was going to be on
the other side of that fence and so I talked to Planning and Zone and I said, well, you
know, just from the neighborhood opposition, would it make sense for us to resubmit a
concept back to Planning and Zoning and City Council. The other thing that happened
is that we already installed all the infrastructure of both Carol and North Lakes Place up
to this cul-de-sac here, so we have got ten foot sidewalks here, we have got ten foot
sidewalks where, and we have got five foot sidewalks that wrap around this cul-de-sac.
We are just putting in this infrastructure, so I called Planning and Zoning and I said,
well, the logical place of where we should put this sidewalk would be where it just
follows this North Lakes Place all the way up to the retirement center, cross across
here, and, then, tie back into the Jackson Drain drainage. When we put in the
infrastructure for our office complex, we went ahead and installed this section of
sidewalk at ten feet. You know, I guess the question mark is, you know, can we live
with a little section in here of five feet, since all that infrastructure is in place, both
landscape and sidewalk. So, that's what we have infrastructure wise. In regards to the
trash, maybe - show them the retirement center and I'll show the -- this area right here
is the kitchen facility, so this would be kind of a large gathering activity room. This is the
dining room and, then, this is the commercial kitchen right here. So, this dotted area
here is designated for both delivery and trash, so we got kind of a special trash
designation that probably wasn't pointed out. I can get that clarified and we can work
out the dimensions with the trash as far as our location on that. As far as our phasing,
the other thing that we are planning on doing that I didn't provide Brad is that -- one is
there is a -- there is like a retirement center boom right now of this kind of -- you know, I
don't know, four or five years ago there was a big push on retirement housing, but I
think it was before the wave and, then, what happened was after 9/11 the financing for
these retirement centers kind of dried up, but the thing that's happened is that all these
baby boom kids and their parents and stuff are all aging where there is definitely a
demand in this valley for retirement housing, you're starting to see that this housing is
coming and so one of the things that's critical or important for us is to be able to get our
project under construction. The other thing is the phasing of this is that marketingwise
is we need to have our facility completed by next fall. You know, you get in this kind of
holiday black hole as far as fill up once you start getting into that kind of October,
November. So, our goal is - it takes us eight months to build one of these facilities and
so we'd like to be able to start construction sometime the middle of this winter in
January, so that we could have the project completed by next fall. As far as our
phasing, one of the things that we are looking at -- and, again, I will show you our -- I
didn't -- I didn't show this to Brad, because I didn't know if it was going to make it too
complicated, but one of the concerns that we have is I think Meridian in the next six
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 60 of 70
months is probably going to see two or three applications on retirement centers. I know
there is one that's approved on Meridian Road right now and I believe there is a couple
others that are potentially going to be coming in. One of the things that we thought we
would do to kind of cut our exposure on this would be only to build, you know, two-thirds
of our main phase and so approximately around four units we would construct there.
The other thing that we are going to submit, along with our shopping center this next
application, is we are going to go ahead and submit a conditional use for this facility
here and so we will have a clear picture what it is, but what we would like to do is press
ahead to get 0 ur approval on this -- the first assisted living facility and, then, again,
submit for building permits this winter and start construction. We concur with staff's
conditions of approval and the only exception that we had was the issue over the
nursing home versus retirement center and in the city ordinance they have got a matrix
that outlines what uses are allowed under what zones. A nursing home is allowed
under an R-8 or an R-15 zone -- or R-8, R-15, or L-O zone, which are, actually, less
than dense uses than an R-40. A retirement center, for some reason, is allowed in an
R-40, but not in an R-8 or R-15. My partner Linda Hines is -- she's the operations
person of our group and so what I will have her do is get up and explain what an
assisted living facility is. One of the thoughts that I had is -- is one is our facility,
potentially, would have non-ambulatory people, just like an apartment complex, there is
potential that you're going to have people in a wheelchair, but one of the ways I think we
could get around that is that when we come in for this second facility, if it's deemed
necessary, we could go ahead and down zone our whole property to the R-15, that
would make it compliant. So, as a condition of approval now, I could see that we could
go ahead and have it so that we have all ambulatory people as a requirement of what
we are going to build and, then, we will build it to a higher standard and, then, we will go
ahead and do the rezone, you know, that will follow behind. 50,1 don't know if that's too
complicated for what I was trying to explain to you. But what we'd like to do is have the
ability to go ahead and submit for building permits, start construction and, then, we will
go ahead and do a rezone that would allow us to do a -- you know, potentially a higher
use. But I'll have Linda talk to you about the difference of how the state looks at nursing
home versus retirement centers.
Borup: And, Doug, so you would anticipate that as the needs arise a patient could be
moved from -- to another building with more intensive care or is that not what you were
saying?
Tamura: Well, I think potentially what we'd like to do is if we can get the approval to go
ahead and submit and issue permits as a retirement center and, then, in the meantime
we will go ahead and down zone the property to an R-15 that would allow for a nursing
home. It's technically not a nursing home with what we are building, but we potentially
could have non-ambulatory tenants that would live there.
Borup: And they would just stay in their unit they were in?
Tamura: Yeah. And so, you know, knowing that we might have those types of tenants,
the majority of the people are all ambulatory that, you know, hopefully, will be able to
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 61 of 70
walk down to Hastings, go out for coffee, those kind of things, but at the same time
there is the possibility that we may have non-ambulatory patients --
Borup: Are you saying as the years go by some of the people may be getting older?
Tamura: Yeah. You know -- and that's part of the process of what we are doing is that
we want to have a facility that we can accommodate their aging process through the
whole process and so if part of that is going to require a rezone to do that, we'd like to
accommodate that. But, at the same time for our phasing and timing of construction,
we'd like to do that as we are building it, so -- let me have Linda kind of explain to you
the differences.
Hines: Hello. My name is Linda Hines, I live at 4356 North Nines Ridge, Boise, Idaho.
83702. I have some definitions for all of you. The first page has your definition of a
nursing home, which is to care for the chronically ill and the second page has the legal
definition of an assisted living. These are taken out of the state licensing facility
standards law for assisted living and nursing homes. So, basically, in the first page a
legal definition is -- in the assisted living is we are supposed to protect house safety and
individual rights by assuring adequate nutrition, supervision, and basic activities. So,
basically, it's a custodial type care and in the nursing home, which is the next two
pages, it's actually -- they actually have 24 hour nursing - skilled nursing care and -- on
a 24 hour basis and they are actually providing rehab and nursing to a patient. So,
basically, the regulations say -- and you don't have all the regulations for assisted living,
but all that's really required in an assisted living facility is to have a nurse, like an LPN,
come in 0 nee a month and do a n assessment, their blood pressure, their heart, just
make sure everything is okay. So, basically, we are providing custodial type assistance
to somebody to just kind of keep their activities of daily living going, as far as bathing,
you know, maybe some help with showering, maybe helping them take their own
medications -- it's assisting. We do not like give them or dispense medications. In a
nursing home it's -- actually, a licensed nurse is there 24 h ours a day and they are
providing skilled nursing procedures 24 hours a day. And as far as the ambulatory, the
assisted living will have some people in wheelchairs -- I mean it's just -- it could actually
be somebody that could walk to the dining room, but chose -- and they can walk around
in their apartment, but they could choose to be -- wheel themselves down to the dining
room, because t hey are insecure a bout falling. F or different reasons we will have a
small population that could actually be in a wheelchair or a walker, but if you go into any
retirement facility around the whole county or across the country that's not an assisted
living, that is congregate retirement, you will see wheelchairs and walkers in those. It
would be unreasonable to think that there would be a population of elderly of any sort
that would not ever have a wheelchair or a walker in that population and that's not really
what differentiates retirement for assisted living and from a nursing home, it has nothing
to do with whether they have the ability to have a wheelchair or not. It really boils down
to the nurse -- and whether they need skilled nursing procedures and require a nurse to
evaluate them or to give them treatment or do they just need somebody to help them
maybe in and out of the shower or, you know, help with dressing or whatever, which is a
custodial more assist. I know I'm rambling at this point. So, I'm open for questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 62 of 70
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commission?
Rohm: I don't know, but it sounds to me like this assisted living or this residential
development at some point in time may transition into a nursing home type situation
down the road and what you're doing -- and it just sounds like you're trying to get your
construction permits and, then, you will make your zoning change, so that you can
convert it to a nursing home down the road; is that --
Hines: No. We will never get a nursing home license ever. In order -- I have built
assisted living now for the last -- have built -- this is my 10th facility and they are all
licensed assisted living with the state of Idaho. I will never get a nursing home license
with the state of Idaho. J mean that - you're dealing with the state and federal and
you're dealing with nurses, physical therapists, you're dealing with -- you know and all
assisted living is -- all that we are required is we have CNAs or care givers that come in
and a nurse has to come in once a month. I will never apply for a nursing -- or a nursing
home license with the state of Idaho.
Rohm: Does the assisted living have the same zoning requirements as regular
residential development?
Hines: Usually in the past in all the other facilities I have done, we have been able to
come in with anything above an R-1, like even an R-2, like duplexes, apartments,
anything like that we have been approved for, we have looked at more of a
congregation care zoning and we have never been put in a nursing home or commercial
zoning before.
Rohm: And I guess what I was confused about the R-40 to the R-15 and the -- moving
away from the R-40 to the 15 for the type of development that you're putting in, what's --
what's in the R-40 that -- that's not allowed -- maybe that's a better question for Brad.
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The R-15 would allow the nursing home assisted living with a
Conditional Use Permit, whereas in the R-40 it's prohibited.
Rohm: The assisted living is also prohibited in the R-40, is that what you're saying?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Hines: I thought you said retirement was okay in the R-40.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. The retirement is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 63 of 70
Hines: Okay. So, we are seen more as a retirement facility, R-40 is okay? If we are
seen as a nursing home, we doWn zone our zoning to -
Rohm: Okay. Then, let me modify my concerns, then, from -- it sounds like you really
want an assisted living facility, so you want to get started on your construction process
now as a residential development, but ultimately it will transition to an assisted living
once you have made your application for a rezone to R-15.
Hines: Yeah. I mean -- and we can do that with restrictions. If you want us to just
deem this as a retirement home with those restrictions until we down zone, that's fine.
We just want to get going with our -- with our building permit at this point. I mean you
can see the discrepancy with the lot here, you want us to down zone for something that,
you know, it's just -- it's more of a zoning issue than --
Tamura: You know, as a clarification, I think the only -- the only condition that throws us
off is the fire department's item number 12 of ambulatory versus non-ambulatory
patients. Because, technically, we are a retirement center, but at the same time we
potentially could have non-ambulatory tenants and as a house cleaning procedure, if we
moved it to an R-15 z one, then, it potentially would give us the ability to have non-
ambulatory people under that zone, as far as, you know, even though we are down to
nursing home, you could give us a nursing classification versus retirement.
Zaremba: So, let me interpret. You're comfortable with having that requirement exist
now --
Tamura: Yeah.
Zaremba: -- and you will comply with it now.
Tamura: Yeah,
Zaremba: -- while you get your ducks in a row to change the zoning.
Tamura: Yeah. Just make that a condition of approval that if we are going to have non-
ambulatory people, that we down zone to an R-15 and we could live with that condition.
Zaremba: Well, the condition is that you can't have --
Rohm: Until you do.
Tamura: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Zaremba: They must all be ambulatory and, then, you -- it's up to you to take the action
to change the--
Tamura: Yeah. No. That's correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 64 of 70
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't know that this will be of any assistance to the Commission, but on
condition number 12 that Tamura has pointed out by the fire department, they haven't
cited -- and I haven't had an opportunity to look -- if they have cited a specific Uniform
Fire Code provision for that, because I would be very concerned at having a condition
that might also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and these people couldn't
provide a facility for -- on a public facility to a patient -- or a resident who may be
temporarily disabled, because of that condition. And I don't know -- I mean there may
be a Uniform Fire Code provision, I'm not aware of it, but that would concern me as the
city placing that condition upon -- on this particular development and that wouldn't allow
certain types of people to access the facility.
Rohm: I think that the issue is not the ambu -- ambu -- I can't even say that. That's not
the issue. The issue is the services that are going to be provided at the facility on an
ongoing basis once it's been built out and it sounds to me like in the short run this is
going to be a residential development until the application has gone through for a
zoning change to an to R-15 and once that has taken place, then, they will be able to
utilize it as they fully expect as an assisted living facility and it really doesn't have
anything to do with an individual resident's ability to get around on their own.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I believe that our fire marshal's
comments are coming from code issues in the construction design, egress points,
number of egress points, type of construction, the ability for people --
Newton-Huckabay: Not handicapped accessible.
Freckleton: Well, it's, really, to get the people out. I think that-- I mean I can kind of
see the direction that they are wanting to go, but I guess my concern would be that if we
move forward with trying to get a building underway that -- and, then, with the intent of
trying to go a different direction with a rezone, that you may have kind of got yourself
into a corner because of building code. So, the fire department needs to be consulted
on this for clarification on their comment to make sure that their points are touched on.
Rohm: Well, they would not be able to get their -- I don't know, is there a license for an
assisted living? Wouldn't get licensed if, in fact, it was constructed to those standards,
which would also be in concurrence with your fire marshal.
Tamura: You know, as a clarification on Commissioner Rohm's comment, one is even if
-- you know, even with the assisted living we would never be considered a nursing
home. We won't provide medical care for the patients. The only issue is the
ambulatory, non-ambulatory. We are just building a facility in Nampa right now and we
have worked real closely with Nampa's fire department, but what we will do is the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7,2004
Page 65 of 70
design of t he structure as far as both a larms, corridors, sprinklers, all of t hat will be
designed around a non-ambulatory facility that -- you know, that some of these people
may need aid in exiting the building. So as far as the fire department's concerns, we will
go ahead and meet those higher standards of construction that will satisfy the fire
department. And, again, I think the ADA issues will come up as far as, you know, how
we handle that, but I think that's something that we can work out with the fire
department as far as what we submit for construction, because we will go ahead and
design it at the highest standard building permit wise, so that won't become a conflict.
Rohm: Okay.
Rohm: And the only thing that I'd say to that is when you're discussing that, it can't be
as a condition of approval for the type of residence it is today, it's what it may be down
the road and --
Tamura: Yeah.
Zaremba: Well, nothing prevents you from overbuilding it --
Tamura: Yeah. That's exactly what we will do.
Zaremba: The temporary restriction is that they must be ambulatory. You're going to
overbuild it for your future intended use and, then, have the zoning paperwork catch up
with that. I don't have a problem with that.
Rohm: I don't either.
Moe: But just -- I want to clear -- Brad, can you clear something up for me here? We
are still in an R-4 zone right now --
Zaremba: Forty.
Moe: Forty. Excuse me. And we still have to do something about that, if, in fact, we
are going to call this an assisted living facility right now, do we not?
Rohm: Well, we are not going to call it an assisted living now, because they are all
going to be ambulatory.
Zaremba: It's a retirement community for the moment.
Rohm: Yeah. It's a retirement community.
Hawkins-Clark: Bruce is turning the mike off here. If you make the finding that this is a
retirement -- you feel that the definition of what you have heard tonight on the public
record is -- you're comfortable with that, I don't think there is any need to rezone the
property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7.2004
Page 66 of 70
Rohm: Well, I don't even think we can address that. If the application is for a residential
development, then, that's what we are going to move forward to City Council with. If, in
fact, they want to build it to other standards and at a later date make an application for
assisted living via a zone change, then, everything follows its own paper route and we
don't address something that mayor may not happen in the future.
Newton-Huckabay: What's the definition of retirement home under code?
Hines: In my mind a retirement -- it's not like --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I was asking Brad.
Hines: Oh. Sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to hear the Meridian code.
Zaremba: The city code.
Newton-Huckabay: City code. Yeah.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, there is no definition in our code.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, undefined.
Tamura: You know, maybe one easy solution is -- maybe it makes more sense just that
we amend our application so it reads that we are applying for a 65 unit retirement center
and that we eliminate the assisted living at this point when it goes to City Council and I
think that may clarify it.
Borup: Okay. I mean it doesn't sound like there is any objection on, really, any of the
concepts from the Commission, is there?
Rohm: No, I just -- I agree with what Doug just said, that as long as they eliminate the
reference to assisted living in the application, then, it's just a residential installation and
if they want to construct to a different standard, so be it.
Moe: I guess I'm a little bit confused when you talk about residential, as opposed to
retirement.
Rohm: Well, no, I'm -- they are synonymous in my comments, resident and retirement.
The definition changes --
Borup: Well -- and maybe that's where some work needs to be done is some definitions
and things could be changed in our ordinance as it is. We do have one person I think --
you have been patient here all night, so we would like to hear from you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7. 2004
Page 67 of 70
Bernard: Good evening. My name is John Bernard, 'live at 946 Clarine Street. When
this thing got going' believe it was three stories, 196, and most all the neighborhood
didn't like that and, then, it went d own to a 98 or whatever apartment deal and that
made everybody's mood better, but everybody likes this idea that I have talked to and
the mention of the pathway down along those people's fences, I know that ruffled some
feathers, so I'm sure all of them would like to see it down the middle. And there was a
comment on the scenic ditch or drainage, whatever - well, that's never been scenic, so
anything will help that. So, it's a go for everybody I know around there, They like this
idea more than anything in the past, so that's alii got.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: He brings up some things that I was going to comment on. I remember a
lengthy discussion about whether -- if the pathway was there should it be up on a berm
or not up on a berm, should there be a fence on one side or the other side, also the
issues long this back property line, if they were going to be three story buildings, then,
there was going to be carports, then, driveways, then, maybe more carports, but,
anyhow, the buildings were going to be a long way away. These being one story, it
looks like they are just the standard setback and those are all changes that I --
Borup: Yeah. I think everybody agrees this a less intensive use, no matter how you
look at it --
Moe: Oh, absolutely.
Borup: -- as far as traffic and --
Zaremba: Appreciate hearing from the neighbor.
Borup: Have you got a comment, Mr. Rohm?
Rohm: Oh, I was just asking about the notice here. It's a CUP for a 65 unit assisted
living and if, as a motion recommending approval, we just read the whole thing, less the
assisted living retirement -- or assisted living, then, that would eliminate the concerns
over whether this is a - whether it's assisted living or not.
Zaremba: Call it a retirement --
Rohm: We are just going to call it a retirement facility.
Zaremba: I think the applicant agreed to modify the application in that manner for now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 68 of 70
Rohm: And I was just asking counsel if we can actually make that change without it
being re-noticed. That was my question, so --
Nary: Mr. Chairman --
Zaremba: What was the answer?
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: The answer is I think you can do it without re-notice, because it's -- because it's a
use that is -- I guess -- and you can make the decision that the use is less of an impact
than what the assisted unit would have been. You can also -- I would recommend if
you're going to do that, though, that you also include as findings some of the
suggestions Mr. Hawkins-Clark made in relating the state code and what the state code
looks at in these types of facilities to be able to have some better findings to be able to
show what your reasons were in supporting Mr. Tamura's request to simply delete that
assisted living at this juncture until they were able to get some other -- other, I guess,
information together, but I don't believe you need to re-notice it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Boy, until you said you had to include the reasons for it, I
was all with you.
Nary: You always have to have a reason for what you do.
Rohm: I was right there.
Canning: Chairman Borup?
Borup: Yes.
Canning: I just -- the only problem is that staff made the determination that an assisted
living facility was a nursing home. It just seems to be infinitely more clear if the
Planning Commission just makes a finding that, no, an assisted living facility is a
retirement center and, then, our notices are good and, then, the staff report is good, it's -
- it just seems a lot more clear to me to do it that way. It's just staff made an incorrect
interpretation based on lack of knowledge is all it was. We have been given more
knowledge tonight, so it just seems a lot cleaner, then, there is not the question -- just
from the conversation tonight it really sounds like you're not approving the assisted
living facility, because you want to take it out of the description and I'm just afraid that as
the record goes on that ten years from now no one will have an idea that -- knowing this
piece of property. Sorry, Doug.
Zaremba: I personally think that what we are trying to do is be supportive of then;¡
breaking ground and getting building without breaking any current law.
,.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 69 of 70
Borup: I think the director's comments handle that and I don't think it's maybe
necessary lack of knowledge; it's lack of information in the zoning ordinance, isn't it?
There is no definitions and it's just not addressed either way, so --
Zaremba: Do we need to add that to the new one?
Borup: Yeah. That's what I would recommend.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Canning has raised a different way of interpreting it and that's
certainly fine. I mean either one of those situations you could do. As I said, I don't
believe you have to re-notice it either way. But, certainly, if you do it the way Mrs.
Canning suggested, it's clean and you can move it onto the City Council that way.
Rohm: Fair enough.
Newton-Huckabay: And it's a lot easier for your motion.
Rohm: What makes you think I'm going to make the motion?
Zaremba: I have made virtually every other motion this evening. I'm going to be silent.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing be closed on Item Public Hearing
CUP 04-037.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. So, maybe just -- maybe a recommendation how to include that in on the
motion? And I'm not sure what point that should be, but it sounds like just that we would
interpret that assisted living is not considered a nursing home. That would be --
Rohm: Yeah. Anna,couldyougivemesome direction as to where that should be
inserted?
Canning: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Rohm, it's not a condition of approval, you
will just state that you're making that finding, I believe, and then -- in your motion.
That's all you need to do.
Rohm: Okay. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council
recommending a pproval of C UP 04-037, including a II staff comments for the hearing
date October 7,2004, transmittal date October 4th, 2004, with the following change: On
page eight, item 12, change patients to residents, and further note for the record that we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
October 7, 2004
Page 70 of 70
do not construe an assisted living facility as one and the same as a nursing home. End
of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you. One more motion.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 10:53.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:53 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
~lfup ~N
LI-1Llh
DATE APPROVED