2004 12-16
:ð, >L-
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
December 16. 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, and Commissioner David Moe.
Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Anna Canning, Bruce
Freckleton, Josh Wilson, Joe Guenther, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X David Zaremba X David Moe
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm
-2L-Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and start with the
roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: The first item is that of the Consent Agenda. Does anyone wish to remove
anything from the Consent Agenda?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, prior to that, may I make a comment on the adoption of the
agenda?
Borup: Yes. Commissioner.
Zaremba: Items 7, 8, and 9, it's a recommendation on Item 9, which is the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, may have an impact on our discussion on 7 and 8. I
would ask that we move the 9 in front of 7 and 8. Does that need to be in the form of a
motion?
Borup: Do we have a second?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think there has been a revised agenda. I think it's already been
taken care of.
Borup: We just haven't been given that is all.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page2of4l
Zaremba: Well, I best get myself a copy.
Borup: That's exactly what they did do, Commissioner, is what you recommended.
Zaremba: All right. Then I was going to comment that, just for the audience, in case
anybody is here, that we are very likely to continue what was Item No. 12, AZ 04-029,
until January 6th and, then, I was going to ask -- I had in my packet a request from
somebody to change an Ada County ordinance and I wanted to add a final item, an Item
13, to -- for about a two minute discussion of whether we want to make a
recommendation to Ada County or not.
Borup: Good.
Zaremba: Please. So much for the agenda. Okay. I have one correction on the
minutes. Does that mean we should move it from the Consent Agenda?
Borup: Yes, I think probably so. We have a motion for the Consent Agenda and, then,
we will amend the minutes.
Zaremba:
Agenda.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Item B be removed from the Consent
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Adult Business License Application for Paul McLeod
with Valley Video - 433 North Main Street:
B.
Approve Minutes of November 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Borup: We do we have a motion for the Consent Agenda?
Zaremba: So moved.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 3 of 41
Borup: Okay. Item of minutes for November 18th.
Zaremba: I have one very small comment. On page 43, the second time that I speak, I
am making a motion about the third line of that motion it says to -- all staff comments of
their memo for the hearing date November 18th, received by the City Council, that word
should be clerk. I mayor may not have said Council, but it would be far clearer and the
intent is that it should be the word clerk. That's the only comment I have.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the meeting of November
18th, 2004, with the one amendment.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4:
Recommendation: VAC 04-009 Request for Vacation of existing 20-foot
right of way south of the Milk Lateral and vacation of portions of East
Granger Street within Redfeather Estates Subdivision by Packard
Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of Duane
Drive:
Borup: Okay. Our next item is not a Public Hearing, it's a recommendation in file
number VAC 04-009. This is a request for a vacation of existing 20-foot right of way
along the Milk Lateral and portions of Granger Street within Redfeather Subdivision by
Packard Estates. I'd like to start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. As you can
probably tell we are having a little problem with the overhead tonight, so I will just go
ahead and reference your hard copies. Staff did issue a staff report to you that
addressed the applicant's request for the vacation. There is two -- two general areas of
this subdivision where they are asking for vacation of existing right of way. One of them
is along the west boundary and it's a shared right of way with the Perkins Brown Lateral
and -- I'm sorry, the Perkins Brown Subdivision to the west and, then, the other one is
Granger Drive and if you're looking at the reduced version of the plat that was submitted
with their application, these are below the halfway point. The Milk Lateral is shown
there and both of these are on the southern half of the subdivision, so -- and staff did
review this request. Our only condition that we recommended was that they get final
approval through Ada County Highway District for either vacating or exchanging the
right of way before the city engineer signs the plat. So, we recommend approval.
Borup: Comments from any of the Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page4of41
Zaremba: Sometimes with these applications we actually have letters from those that
are interested in the easement already giving them up. Do you have any anticipation of
this being a problem or is it likely to happen?
Hawkins-Clark: No, Commissioner Zaremba, the -- there is no easement -- in this case
it is right of way that's owned by the highway district. They are the sole --
Zaremba: They'll give it up?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they are. I think their staff report for Redfeather Estates --
actually, even, you know, conditioned that they needed to get this taken care of, so --
Zaremba: Mr. Chair, I --
Borup: Your staff report said that was one of the original conditions of the city.
Zaremba: Okay. But I knew it wasn't the city, I was just confirming that ACHD agreed
with it. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of VAC 04-009, to include all staff comments of their memo for
the hearing date December 16th, received by the city clerk December 14th, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Public Hearing: RZ 04-018 Request a Rezone of .74 acres from L-O to
C-C zone for Kinetico Quality Systems of Treasure Valley by Irma Jean
Phillips - 544 West Cherry Lane:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-031 -- or, I'm sorry, it's Public Hearing RZ, a
rezone, 04-018, request for rezone of .74 acres from L-O to C-C zone for Kinetico
Quality Systems. I'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Wilson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the application before you is for
Kinetico Quality Systems of the Treasure Valley, 544 West Cherry Lane, an application
to rezone .74 acres from limited office to commercial, to the Community Business,
which is the C-C zone. The applicant is proposing to use the existing residence on the
property and convert it into a retail -- some retail, some service business. The applicant
has stated that it's a neighborhood friendly business that is retail in nature, but has
minimal site visits by customers. Most of the business activity takes place in a
customer's home, with the business site used for supporting office activity, light retail of
accessory products and storage of the product as installed into the customers' homes.
Bring up the site plan here. It looks like it didn't make it into the presentation. This is a
site plan of the property with parking for customers in the front and, then, parking in the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
PageS of41
rear for business vehicles and employees. As a rezone it does not require a detailed
site plan, only a conceptual one, which they have provided here. A few of the key
concems that staff had was adequate land use buffering in the rear of the structure,
which would be the north, to the left there on the site plan. Meridian City Code does call
for a 25 foot landscape buffer between the retail use and residential use to the north. It
appears from this plan that that would take up about half of that area in between the
house and property line. In speaking with the applicant on the phone today, he did state
that on this conceptual site plan here it does kind of appear that the asphalt is proposed
to go all the way to the fence just the way it's drawn, but he did state that there was ten
to 12 feet of landscaping in between that property line and what would be the asphalt
and there are more trees and shrubs that show up on this plan as well. If it's found that
this is an appropriate use for this site, the applicant would need to work with staff on
alternative compliance for that land use buffer and also the western property line
requires a 20 foot buffer between the multi-family residential that's on the adjacent lot
and this retail business. There appears to be about 18 feet available, so they would
also need alternative compliance for that two feet that they can't provide there as well.
Also in discussions today with the applicant, the question about whether or not they had
adequate room for parking and the applicant will probably speak to this, but I can kind of
go over what we spoke about. They are proposing approximately 225 square feet of
retail space, which would require the -- at one per 200 -- at one parking space per 200
feet, that would require the one parking space and, then, approximately 600 square feet
of office space, which is a space and a half at one to 400, which we would round up to
two spaces. And, then, we also require for storage area, one parking space per 1,000
square feet, plus one for each vehicle used in the business. 'lIlet the applicant address
how many vehicles they do have, but in kind of going over the site with them, it did
appear that they had room for at least eight or nine parking spaces and that it appeared
to be sufficient room to work with. One of the other issues raised in the staff report was
the need for cross-access to the commercially zoned lot to the east. It is a parking lot
currently for an existing commercial enterprise, Excel Hospice. It's a little bit difficult to
see, but to the east of this lot there is a lot with frontage on Cherry Lane, with a lot kind
of behind it that has frontage on it. I believe Crestwood is the street that goes there.
That's the actual Hospice business that exists on that rear lot and, then, that front lot
with frontage on Cherry Lane is their parking lot. Staff has recommended that because
of the commercial use of these -- the proposed commercial zoning and the current
commercial zoning of that lot, that the applicant provide an asphalt drive to the property
line to provide for cross-access and also record an easement to facilitate cross-access
for the future development of that lot commercially. Also, the staff has recommended
that the business hours be limited from 7:00 in the morning to 7:00 at night. With the
applicant requesting the C-C zone, that does open up this site for retail use. The CoN
zone, which the land next to the east of it is zoned, retail use would be a Conditional
Use Permit on that land. So, you know, in anticipation of future commercial uses or--
and in light of the residences to the north of here, we did feel it was appropriate to limit
the hours of operation 7:00 to 7:00. And the cross-access to the east, the restriction of
hours of operation and those would be the two items we'd like to see in a development
agreement for the applicant to enter into with the city and, then, anything else that the
Commission feels like is appropriate. We did not receive the staff report from ACHD.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page6of41
The applicant did mention that they are wanting the drive expanded to the west. It's a
little bit difficult to see in the materials we have here, but there is a street that lines up
with this property across Cherry Lane and in order to line those up better ACHD has
requested that that drive be expanded to the west a little bit and also widened. And with
that I will end staff's comments.
Borup: Anything from any of the Commissioners?
Moe: I just wanted to -- could you go back over and -- just briefly in regards to the
landscape buffer, what would be on the north, I assume?
Wilson: Yeah. The landscape ordinance does require 25 feet along there, because it's
a difference in uses. The applicant could maybe address the exact distance between
the rear of the building here and the north property line, but it does appear that that
buffer would take up at least half of that area, reducing the area that they have
proposed for parking for the business's vehicles.
Moe: Okay.
Wilson: And so they would need to work with staff on alternative compliance on -- for
that buffer for the 10 to 15 feet that they can provide.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: With that, plus the moving and widening of the driveway access to Cherry
Lane, are they still going to have adequate parking?
Wilson: Yes. The applicant represented that ACHD only wants them to expand the
drive about five feet to the west, so it really doesn't interfere with the area that they have
proposed for parking.
Borup: Would the applicant like to add anything, make their application?
Burton: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity to
be here. I'll just stand for any questions or -- I think staff has done an excellent job of
presenting what we had asked for. If there is any clarification about the issues that
have been discussed here, I would be happy to --
Borup: I think maybe the aspect of the buffering along the north side.
Burton: Yes, sir.
Borup: If you could -- how much distance you have between that and the building
and --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page 7 of4l
Burton: May I use a pointer pen here to illustrate? What we have, if we take the north
boundary here, if we start in the northeast corner, from that northeast corner to this
shed, about three or four feet off the fence line there is already a grape arbor in there
that stands about seven feet tall.
Canning: Excuse me, sir. Chairman Borup, we need to get the gentleman's name.
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. State your name and address.
Burton: My name is Don Burton, I'm the owner of Kinetico Quality Water. Home
address is 1949 North Pear Tree Avenue in Meridian. So, we do have a grape arbor
along here and, then, from the shed here for, I don't know, probably 10 or 15 feet the
arbor extends on that side as well, so it's a nice buffer and the fence back there. In
addition to these two trees here, there are other shrubs, landscape shrubs, that are in
this area right here. As staff has said, 25 feet would severely curtail our ability to just
use the area for parking. Our purpose or this area is simply to park two company
service vans in this area overnight when they are not in use. They go out in the
morning, return late in the afternoon, and just to simply park them there. So, we are not
talking about any traffic back there to speak of, just simply parking the company
vehicles. This area in here will remain in line with the trees to maintain a nice -- just a
nice atmosphere and environment for company and employees everyone else that --
there will be much of that left around the property in the plans. Does that answer the
question on that north boundary? What we just asked for, as staff has alluded to, is
some sort of -- I don't know what you would call it, I don't know the terms, variance, if
you will, if we leave the asphalt, you know, that 10 or 12 feet off the back line and our
purpose is simply to park those company vehicles during the nighttime when they are
not in use.
Moe: But I guess what I -- the question I would have is if you did have to put the
landscaping, you would still probably have enough room to take care of both your
service vans; right?
Burton: If we leave about 10 or 12 feet. As it is now, the asphalt line will probably run
right about in there. If we take 25 feet that would severely compromise our ability to
park those vans back there. And, then, what we would like to do over here on this side
is just have two parking spaces there in front of that grape arbor and that would be for
office staff parking, principally myself and my office manager.
Rohm: I think that it's suffice to say as long as you can work with staff and come up
with alternate compliance, then, that is what we are looking for here.
Burton: Absolutely. In fact, the request to extend the asphalt over to the contiguous
east parking lot over there is -- I had no idea it was going to come up in the staff report.
It was something I had hoped to do, to work with the neighbor over there to be able to
do that, so I'm certainly amenable to doing that. In fact, that's desirous for us.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page 8 of41
Borup: And you had mentioned that alternate compliance. What that normally would
be, rather than the ordinance standards on the amount of landscaping, with the
reduction in that setback it would be an increase in the amount of vegetation and stuff
there.
Burton: If that is needed.
Borup: Yeah. Depending on what you have already got there. That's what you would
need to work with staff to see what's there and if there is some area that would need to
be an increase in the amount of vegetation, that's how it can accomplish some of the
same things with that buffering.
Burton: Certainly. Yeah. Let them review what is there, if it's not sufficient, if there are
deficiencies in the landscaping, I have no problem with adding to that to extenuate that
buffer, but we'd like to keep that a little wider than what we would have if we had to give
up 25 feet for parking back there.
Moe: And, then, on the other conditions here, you have no problems with any of these?
Burton: No, I have no concern with any of those.
Rohm: The cross-access agreement and associated easement for that cross-access?
Burton: That's very desirable to me.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: And I will pick the ACHD question. I'm sure you have read and you agree
with their site specific condition, which is remove the existing eight feet -- 18 foot wide
curb cut driveway approximately 25 feet west and reconstruct the driveway to be a curb
return type that is a maximum of 36 feet in width and in alignment for Crestmont? Do
you understand that you're required to do that?
Burton: I do, I understand -- well, I didn't understand it at first. I spoke to Mrs. Tunning,
who is the contact there at ACHD, to get some clarification, because I didn't understand
it and -- because, basically, what I was seeing as I drove out of the property, as you
drive out of this driveway, you're looking right at the cars that are egressing onto Cherry
Lane from Crestmont straight across. That's why I asked her how far do you want to
move the east edge of the driveway and she said, oh, five feet. But we need to widen it
and I needed to widen that anyhow. So, we will move the west edge five feet, widen it
on down here to make it about a 24 foot wide driveway, put in the 15 degree radials as
required and that's very workable.
Zaremba: That's doable with your plan?
Burton: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 9 of41
Borup: Okay.
Burton: Thank you, Commissioners.
Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Any
questions or comments? Thank you. Seeing none --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 04-018.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Before I make a motion, I guess I do have one question, which would be I would
assume that we should, probably under special considerations, add a number four in
regards to working with staff for alternate compliance for the area of the landscape
buffer.
Wilson: Yes, I would agree. That, actually, should have been in there.
Moe: All right.
Zaremba: Actually, on page six my suggestion would be to add it as another bullet
under the development agreement.
Wilson: Okay.
Moe: Okay. Put it there. We can do that. That's where we'll put it. Okay. In that case,
Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-018,
to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated for the hearing
date December 16th, received by the city clerk's office December the 10th, with the
following changes: On page six, under the site specific conditions, I would like to --
paragraph three, I would like to add another bullet point, after any other conditions
desired by the Commission and Council, I would add another one stating to work with
staff for alternative compliance for the area of the landscape buffer. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page10of41
Item 6:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-031 Annexation and Zoning of 8+ acres from a C-
2 zone to a proposed CoG zone for Meridian Gateway by White-Leasure
Development Company - SWC of South Meridian Road and West
Overland Road:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-031, annexation and zoning of eight plus
acres from a C-2 zone to proposed CoG zone for Meridian Gateway by White-Leasure
Development. I'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a 9.0-acre site, as referred to by the
survey submitted by Roylance and Associates on October 15th. There was a letter in
the application that came in from an attorney, who did reference that the submitted deed
was inaccurate, so the legal description should refer to the survey, not the deed. And in
saying that, the property is -- is located on the southwest corner of Overland and
Meridian -- Kuna-Meridian Road, State Highway 69. This area is designated as -- for
future commercial by the Comprehensive Plan and it's currently in Ada County zoned C-
2. The request is to make this a General Commercial and there has not been a detailed
plan submitted with this for a planned unit development project. The conceptual plan
shows a large box retail site, something around the order of 50,000 square feet, with the
existing nonconforming gas station also being included on that site plan, which is listed
as item number six there. And with that proposal being conceptual only, staff feels that
with the additional conditions that -- or the comments that have been made by the
Meridian fire department, as well as within the Comprehensive Plan, that this project
can go forward for an annexation if those conditions are met. Now, the comments that
were received by Meridian fire were generally pointed towards the existing gas station,
which predated the Ada County ordinance, as well as when being annexed into this
project would not be in compliance with the Meridian City Code, due to setback issues,
as well as placement of certain materials on site. In speaking with the Ada County code
enforcement officer, there is also an undefined junk yard on the site that, upon
annexation and prior to issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance would -- staff
would like required to have been cleaned up. Now, with this we are requesting that the
development agreement address these issues, as listed by the fire department and
staff. That is what I have to say. I'll stand for questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
complying use, even with the county?
At this time you said this was a non-
Guenther: It's a nonconforming -- it's a legally nonconforming. As far as the records
that Mr. Williams, the code enforcement officer from Ada County has indicated to me,
the use predated the Ada County ordinance and, therefore, is legally nonconforming.
Borup: Okay.
Guenther: The junkyard is what Mr. Williams has indicated is not in compliance with
Ada County code, nor is it allowed in the CoG district, i.e., illegal.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page II of4l
Borup: Right. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Huber: Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Jeff Huber, I represent
the applicant. My address is 416 South 8th Street, Suite 200, Boise. We have been
working with this property owner for, oh, about the last year and a half to come up with
some plan and devise some plan to develop this property in the future. The first step in
doing that, in order to attract any tenants -- major tenants or medium size tenants,
would be to have this property annexed into the city and zoned as per the city zoning
designation. So, that's why we are here before you tonight. We -- this is purely a
conceptual plan that we added to the application. We realize that we would have to
come back before you for each use that would go into this site. Currently the -- there is
the existing gas station and the convenience store that's operating on site. There is
also an approved DEQ remediation that's going on on this particular site. As far as the
junkyard goes, I'm not aware that it's actually an operating junkyard. I think there is just
-- that Mr. Howell has acquired some junk over the years and he does allow some of the
trucks -- truck drivers that he knows, oh, from his past years working there, he allows
them to park there sometimes. We would like to -- we believe that the staff report is
accurate. We would -- we are in agreement with the staff report. As far as the
development agreement goes with the city, we want to keep continuing to operate the
convenience store for now until -- because there is this remediation that's going on from
the DEQ that has to continue. Once we do have a major tenant for this site, then, we
will come back before you and we will -- we would have a particular use at that time that
we could show you and we would work the access points out with ITD and the Ada
County Highway District, but if this annexation is going to trigger a closure of the
convenience store, then, we would not want to go forward at this time. But I don't think
that that's staff's intent, it's just that it says that's it's not an approved use in the CoG
zone and I have a question for staff on that. Is the convenience store not an approved
use in the CoG zone?
Guenther: A convenience store is a conditional use in a CoG zone.
Huber: Okay. Well, however the Commission would like to treat that, I'm all ears. Any
questions?
Zaremba: Is there a time frame for removing the junk that mayor may not constitute a
junk yard?
Huber: Currently we do not have a time frame for that. And we do not have a tenant
yet. Again, as I stated earlier, the very first step in redeveloping this property -- and I
realize this is a key commercial corner, it's one of the gateway corners into the city, is
that it become part of the city. The tenants just won't look at it unless they are sure that
they can have water and sewer and proper zoning and be in the city. The time frame in
getting annexation and rezone tends to turn off a major tenant. They want that done
first before they will even consider the site. So, that's why we are here before you
tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 12of41
Zaremba: I'm not sure which is first. I would think compliance with existing laws would
be first.
Huber: For the tenant?
Zaremba: For the property.
Huber: Well, true. I -- we don't have a time frame to remove the junkyard and I don't
know what the Commission's pleasure is on that.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that -- trying to think out loud here just for a moment. To move
forward, obviously, you'd need to clean the junk up, number one. The existing use of
the land for the existing convenience store, gas station, would remain until you
submitted a redevelopment plan for that property after it's been annexed and accepted
and rezoned. That seems to be the order of the day. But the first item would be as
accepting -- being accepted into the city, the cleanup would have to take place between
now and when it goes before City Council. That seems to be the order from my
perspective. Buy that, Dave?
Zaremba: I could see that.
Moe: Well, if I might just point out, basically noting in the -- as far as for the
development agreement, how it's incorporated, there is already notation on the second
bullet point on page ten that pretty much -- you know, prior to the issuance of any
building permits on the subject property all existing uses shall be properly abandoned or
brought into compliance.
Rohm: And I don't think that that necessarily means that they have to take the existing
gas station and close it down, as I read it. It's just anything that's to be redeveloped
would have to be in compliance with the new ordinance -- or existing ordinance.
Huber: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. That's fine.
Zaremba: Let me ask a question on the --
Huber: The applicant's in agreement with that.
Zaremba: On right of way, the discussion of the future right of way, as identified by ITD
for Meridian Road, State Highway 69 --
Guenther: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: I'm not sure how wide that would be, but doesn't it go about where the gas
pumps are?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 13 of41
Guenther: And that's -- that was the concern of staff, is that ITD has a standard 120
foot right of way designated for that area for future acquisition and that is going to be a
significant portion of that gas station and with the existing uses, as well as the existing
speeds of Meridian Road, it is staff's opinion that prior to release of any building permit
that the nonconforming uses come into compliance -- full compliance with the City of
Meridian Code, which if that means removal of the convenience store or relocation of it,
then, that's what this development agreement should state.
Rohm: And I think the applicant concurs with that.
Huber: Yes, I do.
Rohm: Yeah.
Zaremba: So, essentially, its continuation as its current legal nonconforming use could
continue that way until the right of way became an issue and, then, it's already
understood by the applicant that some day it's going to change, even if we said it's okay
today.
Huber: Correct.
Zaremba: Some day it's not okay and that doesn't mean that you can stop the right of
way.
Huber: That is correct.
Zaremba: Okay. As long as that's the development agreement and everybody
understands it and is happy with it. Did I misstate something?
Canning: Well, I'm not hearing the same things from the two people. We are saying
prior to release of any building permit that that nonconforming use should be brought
into compliance. Is that what you stated? Because what I heard was that it would
continue until they redeveloped that portion of the property. But what we are saying is
any portion of the property, if they want a building permit, it needs to be redeveloped --
brought into compliance.
Rohm: Well -- and that's the way it states in that -- on page ten is that prior to issuance
of any building permit on the subject property, it has to come into compliance.
Zaremba: I guess my question is compliance with what? Compliance with Meridian
ordinances is obvious, but also compliance with a future right of way?
Canning: Yes. Both of them. So, you would have the right of way and, then, you would
have the landscape buffers.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 14 of 41
Canning: Okay.
Moe: Well, not only that, you're right into the subject of the conditions of the county and
lTD.
Rohm: Does that all make sense to you?
Huber: Yes.
Rohm: Okay. I thought it did.
Huber: Okay.
Borup: Then, are you comfortable -- one of your earlier concerns was that the business
would be able to continue to operate and I don't know if we have addressed that.
Rohm: Yeah. Right. The business would continue to operate until they requested a
building permit on the property and at such time that convenience store or gas station
would have to cease operation.
Huber: Or come into compliance.
Rohm: Or -- right.
Borup: But just -- has that been with -- does that handle that as being one of the
conditions of the annexation or do we --
Rohm: I think by ordinance.
Guenther: It would be by a development agreement.
Borup: Be by which?
Guenther: By the development agreement.
Borup: The development agreement can handle that. Okay. That's -- I mean we need
to do something more than just state it now. Okay. I'm fine.
Zaremba: Development agreement works for me.
Borup: And that's what I wanted clarified. We didn't need to talk about a conditional
use at this, if the development agreement will handle it.
Moe: And it's noted in the development agreement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 15 of 41
Zaremba: So, my other question: Were you satisfied that there has been a resolution
to the question about 24.20 feet of the property?
Huber: Well, that's for the man in the black robe to decide, I think, the 24 feet that's in
dispute. That will probably -- that will be worked out between the attorneys, between
the two property owners.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: So, that was -- okay. That was a dispute between the survey and an old deed?
Huber: Right.
Borup: Any other questions?
Huber: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that wanted to testify on this application?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close Public Hearing AZ 04-031.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ
04-031, to include all staff comments of the hearing date December 16th, received by
the city clerk's office December 13th. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Public Hearing: CPA 04-003 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to change approximately 48 acres from Industrial to Mixed-
Use Regional for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. -
SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue:
Borup: Okay. The next item is Public Hearing CPA 04-003, a request for a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change approximately 48 acres from
industrial to mixed use regional by Ten Mile Development by Hansen-Rice,
Incorporated. This is located at Eagle Road and Pine. I'd like to open this--
Item 7:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page 16of41
Canning: Chairman Borup, before you finish that sentence, we forgot to ask you to deal
with Maverick Country Store, which is going to be tabled. Are there people here from
Maverick?
Borup: Oh.
Canning: Yeah. So, we probably need to deal with that. We are sorry that we made
you sit through that last couple confusing ones. We should have dealt with it sooner.
Borup: Yeah. That was from -- oh, that's right. That was not continued, it was just
moved to this, wasn't it. We probably should have had that earlier on in the agenda.
Canning: Yes. Sorry, sir. The applicant did not post the property, so we are going to
have to table it to the 20th.
Borup: Oh, this was not posted. Okay. I was not aware of that. You know, just -- we
can open the hearing, but we will not -- is the staff ready for a report or --
Canning: Sir, I think we need to get some direction from the attorney.
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, since there had been some notice
issues, my recommendation would be to simply set the matter over, so it can be
properly noticed. If there are people here tonight, they certainly can submit their
testimony in writing, so it can be part of the record, but there isn't going to be a hearing
tonight, because it hasn't been noticed properly. So, you shouldn't be taking testimony
at this juncture, you should take testimony when it's all completed, because, otherwise,
there isn't any staff report, there isn't any report tonight, because, again, it hasn't been
completely noticed properly. I know some of the folks received notice, the mail notice
has gone out, they don't send another mailed notice, but the posting is required as well
to have a hearing, so to properly hold a hearing, you need to have all the notices
completed. So, they can submit written testimony if they want to, that can become part
of the record, but if they want to testify in person, they are going to have to come when
we can hold a hearing properly.
Zaremba: Do we know the hearing date that's going to be posted on the posting notice?
Nary: I think that's what you decide it to be.
Zaremba: So, they haven't even started to be posted yet.
Nary: Right. They have ten days -- they have a ten-day window to post it. I think this
was one they didn't post it. I don't think they posted the wrong date, I think they didn't
post at all.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Pagel7of41
Canning: Chairman Borup?
Borup: The 20th would be the next available date?
Canning: We would suggest the 20th. The 6th agenda is looking pretty light, but you
have already kind of pre-committed to putting the last item on the agenda to the 6th and
we were trying to keep to the Comprehensive Plan amendment ones, so you will
probably have Ten Mile on the 20th also or -- we were afraid of putting all three of them
on the 6th, I guess is what it comes down to.
Rohm: And you will be talking to the applicant about that posting?
Canning: He was in this morning -- or this afternoon.
Rohm: You might suggest that they have a community meeting.
Borup: A neighborhood meeting?
Rohm: Neighborhood meeting, just to give these people an opportunity to talk to them
before we come back before this Commission on the 20th.
Canning: And, Chairman Borup, with your indulgence, if those folks can raise their
hand, I will take a quick hand count, so that they have some idea.
Borup: Yes. All those that are here for the Maverick application? I count seven.
Canning: Seven. Thanks. Seven. Thank you.
Borup: Would you like to make that a little bit stronger and say we would like to see that
meeting before --
Rohm: I would. I'd like to see a neighborhood meeting before it's brought back before
this Commission.
Zaremba: I definitely support that idea.
Borup: So, at this point it's not a recommendation from this Commission, that is a
requirement.
Canning: Chairman Borup --
Borup: Can we do that before the hearing?
Canning: I think you can. It says you can do that. It doesn't say you have to do that in
a hearing, but can they take an action without a hearing being open?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 18of4l
Borup: Yeah. I was wondering that, too.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, probably not. I tell you what, make
a very strong recommendation that when you hear it on the 20th it would nice if you had
a neighborhood meeting, but I don't know how you can make them do it.
Borup: I was just going to say, I think we can do it that way and, then, on the 20th if it
hasn't happened, we can make a decision then.
Zaremba: I would convey to the applicant that if they don't want to risk having it
continued again from the 20th --
Canning: I will --
Zaremba: -- be prepared with a neighborhood meeting before that is a good idea.
Canning: Sounds like a good spin.
Borup: January 20th. Sorry.
Zaremba: 2005.
Borup: Our meetings are the first and third Thursdays of each month. So, this is our
last meeting for December. Sorry we didn't get that earlier for those that were here.
Zaremba: So, to make sure I'm clear, Items 10 and 11 are moved to January 20th,
2005; is that correct?
Borup: Yes. It's my understanding, January 20th on 10 and 11.
Moe: If they get their notice out.
Borup: Yes. Okay. Thank you, director. I was not aware of the notice. I think where I
left off was ready to turn our next hearing -- if I didn't open it, it is open at this point and
start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The
application before you is combined, as you read both this staff report and the staff report
from Maverick, the one you just moved to your January meeting, they are both
Comprehensive Plan amendments and I think both of our staff reports reminded you
that as Comprehensive Plan amendments, the state talks about this body needing to
recommend changes to the land use map only once -- only twice a year and I so just
clarify that up front, that the staff is recommending that you not close this hearing. We
have talked briefly with the applicant, too, and I think they are in agreement with that,
too. So, it doesn't seem like there is an issue, but just a reminder on that front. And we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 190f4l
had also requested, even though there is three applications associated with this project,
we are focusing on just the Comp Plan amendment and that's what my staff report --
Borup: That's the only one we opened.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Thank you. We will deal with -- the property is kind of formerly
known as the Elixir property and I guess could still be known as that, since they are the
property owners today. Eagle Road fronts the property on the east. Union Pacific on
the south. Gemtone Industrial Park on the north and there is some county property,
along with Layne Industrial Park to the west. There is two different projects there on the
west that would abut this project, so -- the application is requesting a little -- about a
third of this property that you see highlighted here to be removed from the industrial
designation and put into the mixed use regional designation. As you can see, it is today
already annexed and is zoned light industrial as the gray color indicates. This aerial
photo gives you a little bit of a sense for what's on the subject property and what some
of the surrounding uses are. Blue Cross Insurance headquarters is located here
immediately to the north. A future Pine extension. Pine is constructed to approximately
this point and would be extended to the west in the future with development -- private
development dollars. ACHD does not have that extension built in as far as public
funding, so that -- that would be anticipated to be in that alignment, but would be reliant
on development there. There is a warehouse -- well, two warehouses. One larger one
and one smaller one on the property here in the southeast corner. The Coors building
and some other industrial uses on the opposite side of Eagle Road. Olson Bush
Industrial Park is on the south side of the railroad tracks there and as you can see the
Layne Industrial Park that I mentioned is largely built out. Here is a shot at the
Comprehensive Plan that incorporates the area. The red outline here is the same
property. As you can see, it's split with the designation that's in the Comprehensive
Plan. Mixed use regional is on approximately 40 to -- 40 acres or so and, then, there is
about 22 acres that is on the back western half that is designated industrial, which is
what it's zoned. So, the application for the Comp Plan amendment really is dealing with
this, even though the other two following applications that you will deal with in January
do propose a rezone of this entire area that's outlined in red from the industrial to a CoG,
General Commercial, and, then, they have a conceptual plan for a retail project on the
site. So, I know we have a few new commissioners since -- I think since we have had a
comp plan amendment, at least to the land use map. These are a little bit unique in that
you -- you're almost kind of putting on your planning hats and taking off your zoning hats
as far as Planning and Zoning Commission with these Comp Plan amendments. In
some ways you're almost thinking as economists and I don't know if we are asking you
to fully be full fledged economists here tonight, but there is recently some of the issues
as we talked about in the staff report and as Dave McKinnon talked about in his
response, you know, some of the issues in thinking about land use and, you know, do
involve some projections and a lot of crystal ball work, frankly. So, you know, there are
no required findings in the ordinance for Comp Plan amendments. The Land Use
Planning Act doesn't say that there is specific findings, so this is really just does the
Commission feel that the industrial land and/or commercial or some other use is most
appropriate here and in 2002 when this map was adopted the Commission and the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page20of41
Council and the community at large felt that what's represented here was a reasonable
shot at a mix of uses. So, I think I will just go ahead and just basically touch on the
broad categories that were addressed in the staff report. The applicant on page four, I
just summarized, and, hopefully, you read the application itself, but I did summarize.
There is kind of four areas that they feel warrant this area industrial being changed.
One of those is high visibility. The next one is ease of accessibility. The third one is a
potential future transit station. And the third one is just a general positive impact to the
city and the valley because of jobs and revenue that would be generated with the retail
project. I, then, went on to highlight some of the specific Comprehensive Plan policies
that I felt were applicable to your review of this and generally found that there are --
there is definitely some policies, as with any analysis that we do of the Comprehensive
Plan, that support a project and some that don't. I guess in this case I felt that there
wasn't enough to warrant the change and as such we are recommending denial of the
change. The issues that start on page six of the staff report, the first one I have
mentioned was industrial land base and this is a -- basically a look at what the
Comprehensive Plan designates. I'm just going to change screens here real quick and
show you -- I guess I got that even more crooked, didn't I. This is from our
Comprehensive Plan and it is -- was generated by Intermountain Demographics, which
was one of the consultants for the team that put together the Comprehensive Plan. This
is the 1997 to 2020 Ada County employment forecast and, again, most of the data that's
available for economic analysis is county based, so recognize that there is, you know,
some guesswork, if you will, when it comes to going to a city area of impact, because
normally these numbers are county, but for -- and, again, this is countywide, but it does
show that the 1997 employment for industrial is 36,922, the 2020 forecast was 67,964,
with an increase of 31,000. And that, again, is in Ada County over the next 15 years or
so. In terms of how does job growth translate to land use, you know, certainly when it
comes to industrial land you are normally going to have -- take up more land to have an
industrial use than you will most any other use and the way that it's shown here on page
six, I mentioned, is 4.3 percent of our area of impact that's designated for industrial.
That compares to Boise's 9.2 percent. There is approximately four percent -- I'm going
to switch this Comprehensive Plan here for a second. This is the breakdown of land
within the future land use map that you can see for office a hundred -- almost 200 acres
in the area of impact, which is about three-quarters of a percent. The industrial about
4.35 percent, a little over 1,100 acres. Commercial -- straight commercial takes up
about 5.4 percent of the area and, then, the mixed-use areas are shown here as well.
We do already show 8.35 percent of the area in mixed use regional, which is what 40
acres of the property already is and what they are proposing to add to. So, I guess why
I'm showing these, just let you see that there is -- you know, there is -- these are just
what is shown on there. There is a lot more office land that's actually used for office
than what's shown here, because office uses are allowed in commercial districts. We
also have some projects, you know, at Bridgetower, for example, that have residential
zoning, but have office uses in them. So, that, you know, these numbers are going to
change a little bit. But generally this is the ratio and our feeling was that we need to
plan for the future industrial areas. Whether or not they are here today, it's somewhat
sacred territory that if it's well placed we need to hold it so that once those industrial
demands do come, whether they are here today or not, there is a place that serviced
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page21of4l
that they can go and have good access for the large trucks, et cetera, that are part of
that use. This next item that I pointed out was just a -- was a contiguous block of
industrial land and the point there being that normally the industrial uses -- the goal
being to operate them in a block that is going to help to mitigate some of the noise and
vibrations and truck impacts, et cetera. As you can see, the industrial use here on the
north and the south and the west, you would have the retail basically punch in into that
area, you also have this southern area which is vacant today, is not a part of the
applicant's application, but remains industrial on the Comp Plan, they have not
proposed to change that, so the -- there is some benefit we feel to having a block that is
large enough to operate some industrial uses that will not negatively affect others.
Residential-wise you really don't have much affect in this area. As you can see, there is
really no residential uses, except for Crossroads Subdivision, which is the closest, about
a quarter mile across Eagle Road. Eagle Road is probably going to mitigate any kind of
impact that industrial uses would have here, since it has its own barrier, if you will. The
third area we talked about -- or I talked about in the report was on page seven. That's
the oversupply of mixed use and the commercial land. There is a lot of land that's in our
area of impact that's already designated for mixed use and/or commerciaL We question
whether or not we should be adding more to that. The transportation issues, there was
a traffic study that was presented -- or that was submitted with the application. Ada
County Highway District has asked the Funkhouser -- Gary Funkhouser, who prepared
the study, to go back and do some additional analysis. I believe they are in the process
of doing that. They are going to come back to ACHD with some revised numbers.
Generally, though, what his estimate is right now is that approximately 30,000 new
vehicle tripß would be generated with the 60 plus acres of straight retail and, you know,
we -- staff doesn't need to tell you about Eagle Road or about Pine in terms of its
impact. Normally, though, I think you find that the industrial -- most industrial uses are
going to generate far less impact on the system than the retail will. Now, all this to say,
as was pointed out many times in Dave McKinnon's response, much of the property is
designated mixed use regional today. That does not mean that it has to go that. I mean
the land today has a right to develop as industrial land without changing this map,
because they already have the zoning. The other thing is that mixed use regional would
actually allow for some light industrial uses. It doesn't all have to be commercial. Their
concept that they submitted does not show any mix of uses, it is straight retail. They did
clarify that that doesn't necessarily have to be the case, but just wanted to point out that
the mixed use, again, is different than the commercial, which you see up here at the
corner of Fairview and Eagle and that's something that especially with a future transit,
should that happen -- and, again, that doesn't mean that it's on the east -- or west side
of Eagle Road, it just, you know, potentially somewhere in this area. This is, obviously,
probably the side that it's going to go on, because the east side is largely built out at the
railroad tracks, but -- and, then, there was just two clarifications that I wanted to make.
In Dave's reply he mentions about the Gemtone subdivision to the north being office
park. The Blue Cross building, obviously, is office, but there. is Tri-City Meats, Food
Service America, and Yellow Freight, among others, that are already in Gemtone today
and operating. So, it is designated for industrial uses. Let's see. I guess that was the
main classification. And, then, just to clarify on the staff report, again, on the last page
we do just reference the Idaho State Code section there for your guidance, which,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 22 of41
again, just references the Title 67, Chapter 65, that states about recommending
amendments to this. So, generally, to summarize, I think staff feels that the industrial
land is an important element of our total mix in our land uses and as Meridian grows
there is a lot of benefits, we think, to having a designated area where it's existing built
out, where there is good access to the 1-84 Interchange and makes a pretty compatible
use for the Union Pacific and other areas in this area. So, I think that kind of
summarizes where we are coming from.. If you have got any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commissioners at this point? Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. Brad's given you a lot to chew on. I'm going to give you more.
So, let's just jump right into an overview of the site. And Brad just finished up with a
clarification that he said and I'd like to address right away with Gemtone. This is
Gemtone industrial park and he said this is industrial. He talked a little bit about
contiguous land and making sure that all the industrial is kept with the industrial zone. I
have talked with Mike Ford of the Yanke family and also worked with the City of
Meridian Gemtone -- this phase of Gemtone came in. As recently as last month in the
Idaho Business Review Mr. Yanke representing -- Mr. Ford representing the Yanke
family spoke to the paper saying this would all be high end office use. So, this whole
area adjacent to the north side of our property will be an office use. It will not be an
industrial use. Again, as Brad pointed out, you have the office use immediately north of
you, so on the north side we are completely bounded not by industrial, but by office
uses. As you remember, those of you that were on the Commission when Gemtone
came in, this rail spur piece that runs down to the railroad, this small triangular shaped
piece with this funny arch in here, was also approved for an office use. There actually is
a building lot within the subdivision for an office use. There is a 25-foot wide strip that
runs all the way down to Machine Avenue. This small little stub street right here is
Machine Avenue and that connects with this piece of property with the 25-foot strip that
leads all the way down to there and this piece of property as well is part of Gemtone.
And that was all approved for office uses, so on the north side it's all office. On this side
it's mixed use and this will be coming to you soon, it's called Pinebridge Subdivision, it
has been applied for by Dennis Baker, and this piece of property is going forward with a
commercial designation off of Pine Street. Pine Street is not going to be your basic
collector, Pine Street will be a 96-foot right of way. It's going to be a five-lane road. The
initial projections from Ada County Highway District were to be -- for Pine Street to be
70 feet wide after you get off of Eagle and continuing all the way through to Locust
Grove at three lanes, with a 70-foot right of way. In recent discussions with ACHD they
have revised their numbers, because they realized the traffic counts that they were
looking at were inaccurate and revised it to a 96-foot wide right of way for five lanes of
traffic. So, this is going to be an actual five-lane collector coming off of that. Bigger in
size than most of the section line roads and the arterials that you see in Meridian, so
this is going to be a big street. They recognize traffic is going to be on this street and
they have prepared for that. As Brad talked to you about the contiguousness of the
industrial zone, this piece of property right here is adjacent to a railroad. The piece of
property that we are dealing with tonight we are asking to be changed to the mixed use
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page 23 of 41
regional has no access to the railroad. The only access that this piece has to a major
thoroughfare is coming off of Pine Street with the office to the north, commercial to the
west, and some commercial to the east on Eagle Road. So, they would have to go --
with industrial traffic through office, commercial, office to get to this site or they could go
through the commercial site to get to it. So, Brad talked about contiguous blocks. Well,
this is actually an island within -- it's an island of industrial within commercial, office, and
commercial. It's not a large contiguous block, because this will be going to a
commercial zone, we are asking for the CoG zone. The Comprehensive Plan supports
this CoG zone, which would be the commercial zone. Office to the north. And, again,
commercial to the west. This is actually an island of industrial. There is no access to
the railroad. The only access that you could get to this site would be if you came off of
commercial through Layne Industrial Park to get to this site and so if you wanted to
keep industrial with industrial, you would have to be bringing it in through this site,
otherwise, you're having this piece in between everything else that's industrial. So, I'm
going to jump on to the issues that Brad had. I noticed you guys received my letter
tonight and as Anna and Brad pointed out earlier tonight, Mavericks had to be
continued. We realized that you will probably want to move both of these forward
together and we are more than happy to move to January 20th, but we'd like some
feedback from you tonight as to how you feel about the Comprehensive Plan
amendment that we are requesting. And on January 20th we'd like to discuss with you
at that time a Conditional Use Permit for the conceptual site plan for this to go retail and
at that time we'd like to discuss the annexation. So, if that's something that you guys
are agreeable to, I'd like your feedback with that. If I could have you all go ahead and
grab the response letter I had prepared for you. As far as the order if Brad Hawkins-
Clark's presentation and his staff report, I'd just like to go through that briefly, as I know
you haven't had a chance to review it, because I gave it to you tonight. Do you guys all
have that? Just on the project summary, Brad, can you go back to the first slide that
was on this presentation? Item number seven, when you make your motion, if you
make a motion to approve or deny this in the future, the request of the Comprehensive
Plan map amendment as noted on item number seven here, it says approximately 48
acres from industrial to mixed use regional. The actual request is for 22 acres from the
industrial to the mixed use regional. As Brad pointed out, we are dealing with basically
one-third of this site to be requested for the mixed use regional as its shown in industrial
on the Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of this site is shown as mixed use regional
on the Comprehensive Plan. So, the majority of this site is already shown as
commercial. And so in the future we might get that corrected if you make a motion to
continue it, you may make the motion to continue it with the correction to the item in the
packet that you have in front of you. It's also in the staff report under the first bullet item
on page one, request for Comprehensive Plan, it says 48 acres. That needs to be
revised to 22 acres. Regarding the location of this, that's the site. Brad got that right
on. This is exactly the piece of property we are talking about tonight. The surrounding
properties -- I have been through the surrounding properties with you. What we are
talking about is taking the island of industrial and making it part of something that's a
larger project. Within the Comprehensive Plan they talk about contiguous blocks and
developing them all together. I have been drilled by City Council saying why can't you
get everybody together and do a development all at once and that's what we are trying
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page 24 of4l
to do, we are trying to develop this site as one large project, rather than a chunk of it
one-third that is industrial and the rest of it is commercial, we are trying to develop it as
one project, rather than separating it out. What we are doing is taking one project that's
got a little bit of industrial -- a third of the area is industrial and saying based on the idea
that this is expensive land, it's on a very highly traffic corridor, we are not talking about a
general industrial type of use that you see out by the airport that has large wide lanes
and roads for truck traffic, we are talking about the most highly traffic north-south
corridor in the state of Idaho. Eagle Road is that road, it's very high traffic, and right
now because of that, the land values have gone up and it makes it more profitable to be
used for a commercial use, rather than industrial use. The actual amount of traffic and
the value of the land starts to price out the industrial users, because it is that valuable at
this time. If I could get you to go on to page two. The proposed and potential uses of
the property. Again, the majority of this site is already -- Brad, if you can go to the
Comprehensive Plan map. The majority of this site is already set aside for the type of
use that we are requesting. It's for the mixed-use regional zone. I have put in three
bullet items that are found on page 98 of the Comprehensive Plan saying there is
limited on upper -- no upper limit on nonresidential uses. Over 200,000 square feet of
nonresidential buildings are forecast in these areas and so we already -- the City of
Meridian at one time already planned for this area to have the large nonresidential
buildings and have a lot of commercial uses in this area. And, number three, that this is
a major employment center and that you can have all the uses and other mixed uses
here. If the 63 acres -- or 62 acres are all brought together, this would be a major
employment area for the City of Meridian. It would be for the retail sector. Brad showed
you some numbers that were there, you know, showing that retail is on the rise. Eagle
Road is great for retail, because of the amount of drive-by traffic that is on Eagle Road.
There will be some trip generation. I'll talk about trip generation in a minute. Eagle
Road is a busy road and we will talk about that and talk about some of the mitigation
efforts that we are working on there. Moving to the applicant's justification. Brad talked
about already. We believe that this is a highly visible piece of property. I'd rather see
this with the commercial types of uses, rather than industrial uses. We feel that this is
more appropriate now at this time to go with the commercial uses, as it's surrounded by
office and commercial. In addition to that, the way -- we are not talking about the
conceptual site plan tonight. I don't know if Brad has that as a slide for you to look at,
but if you have taken a look at it -- if you look in your packet, you can just envision this,
the back of those buildings will be facing the railroad. The back of the buildings would
be facing the only other existing industrial uses. So, in effect, the commercial uses here
would act as a buffer to the office uses and you're dealing with the back of a building,
rather than the front of the building, facing on the industrial uses. If this is to go
industrial, you typically have large buildings back in here, backing up to it, with no buffer
before you get to Pine. With the commercial use the back of the buildings would be
facing against the industrial uses, providing a buffer for the commercial use and
providing a buffer from Pine Street, from the noise from the industrial to the south and
providing a more attractive appearance on Pine Street. Industrial -- industrial buildings
are not the prettiest buildings. If you have driven up and down Eagle, Brad mentioned
you have Coors across the street, if you have driven by Coors, the truck site, they
typically have large open areas that are chain link fenced with barbed wire to keep
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page 25 of 41
people out, because that's what the industrial use is, it requires the land -- it's not the
prettiest and, again, I'd emphasize that Pine is going to be a 96 -- it's going to be a 96
foot piece of right of way, it's going to be five lanes, and we'd like it to be attractive,
although it's not necessarily a gateway like Eagle, it will be a highly trafficked roadway
and it should be attractive in the City of Meridian. Down to the Comprehensive Plan
analysis. As Brad pointed out, there is items for good and for bad. One item I'd like to
point out just at this time is that the transit station, the developer is in agreement with
the transit station on the site plan. You don't have it in front of you, but in this area they
did put in an area for transit, a transit station. We agreed with the city that this is a good
spot. We think that right now would be the time to set aside that area and decide that
that's the appropriate location for that. We are doing that in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and we agree with that. We realize we will be generating traffic,
but if we can put a transit station in this area, we have a way to mitigate for some of the
traffic that is created. Onto the items that Brad talked about, the industrial land base.
Talking about that is almost a sacred cow. There is a lot of area in the City of Meridian
that is already industrial zoned and not being used for industrial uses. Case in point
Gemtone Subdivision. It's all office use. And we have a lot of industrial uses in
Meridian and there is a lot of industrial areas outside of Meridian as well. If you were to
take a look at Nampa and Caldwell and Boise, a majority of their industrial uses are on
the outskirts of town. You have them by the airport with the avigation easements, they
won't allow residential uses there. Most commercial businesses don't want to operate
near an airport. They have a great amount of land out there that can be used for
industrial types of uses. Meridian doesn't have that. What Meridian has in this area is a
very heavy traffic flow on Eagle Road, which would support a retail development, rather
than an industrial development. The next item that Brad talked about was the
contiguous block. Again, this really is not a contiguous block of industrial -- industrial
zoning. I have said that a few times. The oversupply of commercial uses, commercial
property, Brad showed you a map -- I guess a graph from the Comprehensive Plan
saying here is all the different types of uses that we have got and the land that's
designated for that. There is a number of commercial sites in Meridian that are
designated that have no ability to be serviced right now. In Brad's staff report there is a
couple mentions of the Ten Mile interchange that in the future that will be an area that
we will see a lot of commercial growth. However, that area is not in play right now, is
because the Black Cat Trunk hasn't been constructed out to that area to provide sewer.
Water is not there yet. Plus the Ten Mile interchange hasn't happened, so there is not
the vehicle count there to support the retail uses. We have the vehicle count here to
support the retail uses and so this is the appropriate place for this type of use that we
are requesting. As far as transportation, it's a busy road. I drive it every day. My office
is just off of -- actually, it's just off this map right there. I drive up and down Pine Street
every day onto Eagle Road. It is a busy road. Pine Street needs to be continued. Pine
Street, once it's continued to Locust Grove, will, then, be able to provide a second north-
south access within this area. As I said before, coming soon to a P&Z commission just
like you, this piece of property will be coming through with Pine Street to be extended all
the way. With the construction of Pine Street at 96 feet wide, it will be able to take a
traffic flow off of Eagle Road over to Locust Grove. The Locust Grove overpass is
scheduled right now for construction in the next few years. If you have driven up and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page26of4l
down Locust Grove lately, you know that Franklin Road improvements have included a
new large traffic light with a road widening on Locust Grove in anticipation of the Locust
Grove overpass. In addition to that on the opposite side of the freeway they have
already installed the wider lanes for Locust Grove overpass to come through. So, a
secondary north-south road is coming and so traffic will be able to be pulled off of Eagle
Road through Pine Street, through Pine Bridge, over to Locust Grove and so there will
be an additional north-south route as a part of this subdivision. This subdivision will be
entitled to that, because this portion of the roadway will need to be constructed with this
site and this is the time to do that. We are talking about 22 acres. It's not the 48 acres.
Overall in the City of Meridian in the area of impact there is over 26,000 acres in
Meridian. We are asking for a Comprehensive Plan change for basically what would be
one tenth of one percent of the land available in Meridian. It's not a great deal of land in
Meridian. It makes sense. It's a highly visible area, there is a heavy traffic flow, it's a
great deal of traffic that will be generated and carried on Pine Street. We feel it would
be more appropriate for this land to be commercially zoned as a part of that, so that it
would be able to be a more attractive streetscape for Meridian. We'd ask for your
support at this time to change the Comprehensive Plan for these 22 acres to allow a
mixed-use regional designation to be placed on the Comprehensive Plan. Do you have
any questions?
Moe: Just a couple. Basically, you speak of mixed use regional, but I keep hearing
nothing but commercial coming up, so I'm assuming you're just looking to do all
commercial within that zone.
McKinnon: The conceptual site plan that was generated was for -- was for retail uses,
but in my letter and as Brad pointed out, that is a conceptual site plan.
Moe: And, then, the only other thing, I'm still a little bit unclear of, the property to the
north, which was stated, is planning to be office. Has that already been approved to be
office?
McKinnon: Yes, it has.
Rohm: I was -- I was, actually, still working for the city when that happened. It was
Becky McKay Bowcutt that brought that through and I have had discussions with Mike
Ford from the -- representing the Yanke family that that is to be office.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just clarify. I believe that that's wrong
information. The land is zoned industrial today. There was no planned development to
allow an excepted use. The Comprehensive Plan designates it industrial. It would take
a Comp Plan amendment and a rezone to do anything but industrial uses.
Borup: Maybe we need to clarify which property we are referring to. Let's just clarify
which property we are talking about. Is that what you were referring to, Commissioner?
Is that what you were wondering about?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 27 of41
Moe: Yes, it is.
Borup: Just the property directly north of Pine.
Zaremba: Well, I remember some discussion about this odd shaped piece. I don't
remember exactly, but I thought that was going to be an industrial use. I thought what
they were proposing was a paint manufacturing facility or something like that.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just spoke with Mike and
when he came through with that, he was assured from Becky that that could be used for
office and it was an office use.
Borup: Without re-application?
McKinnon: Without re-application. If you remember -- Brad, can you go back to the
Comprehensive Plan? There we go. We have got a Wendy's going in right here. This
is industrial zoned. That's Wendy's. Right now in the industrial zone you have ShopKo,
you have Applebee's, that whole Corner in Crossroads currently is zoned industrial.
This whole subdivision is zoned industrial, yet we have Krispy Kremes and we have got
Blue Cross, Blue Shield, the main center there. That's zoned industrial, it's not zoned
office at this time. This was all part of a larger planned development many years ago
and when this project came through, office uses were discussed and that's what the
Yanke family has intended to do for this area is the office uses. There may be
something that we can clarify with staff. We are asking for this to be continued, but this
was to be office uses here and the office uses were -- the way it's subdivided, these
long, narrow pieces, actually, don't fit well with an industrial use. You typically see a
large land user, rather than small narrow pieces for industrial uses. It's right next to the
Blue Cross, Blue Shield. This is an office site. And we can go through that with staff.
Again, this is something that we are asking to be continued, but -- and just talking with
Mike just now, the intent was for office use there.
Moe: Then one other question I have. On the aerial photo is there not -- you know, the
buildings there on the south property, are those planning to stay or are those going to
be removed or something when you start development?
McKinnon: These buildings right here?
Moe: Those two, yes.
McKinnon: I believe, actually, that they are going to be scrubbed. They are all going to
be scrubbed. Just as a side note, this was, actually, one of the retail buildings, for those
of you that were old timers, that's the old Club Wholesale. The precursor to the Costcos
and the Sam's Clubs. This was a warehouse retail site initially. It wasn't an industrial
site initially, it was warehouse retail.
Borup: Do we have other questions from this Commission?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page28of41
McKinnon: Okay. I think there is some other people signed up to testify here, but I
guess I would reserve the right for rebuttal if you have any questions.
Borup: Okay. This is the time for other public testimony. Who -- do we have anyone
here that would like to come on up at this time?
Ford: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike Ford, Post Office Box 5405,
Boise. I represent the Yanke family that owns what is Gemtone Subdivision, which will
be called Crossroads Professional Park. Before buying the property several months
ago, first of all, the seller of the property assured me that office could be built there. I
asked Becky Bowcott McKay to clarify that for me to make sure. She assured me that
we could get a building permit and build office without any kind of design review,
anything else. In reviewing the covenants for the subdivision, Blue Cross has a
covenant that there will be no industrial built back there on Gemtone. Only high quality
office. That's in Blue Cross's covenants when they bought their property. So, if I went
back there today and started building industrial, I'd get sued by Blue Cross. If the city --
Borup: That's part of the same subdivision?
Ford: Same subdivision. Right. If the city tells me that I can't build office, then, I guess
I go back and ask for my money back from the seller, because that's what we were
assured. Now that's my problems that I'm giving here during these folks' hearing. As
far as these folks' hearing goes, I would much rather see the west end of that property
in some kind of retail office, other than industrial. Industrial is not going to be attractive
to what we plan on doing on the north side of Pine. I just -- if you look at Blue Cross's
property, I believe Blue Cross's property is one of the most attractive, well maintained
properties in the City of Meridian. I'd hate to think of what they spend on maintaining
their landscaping. To build industrial buildings around that, I think would certainly not be
fair to Blue Cross and I assure you Blue Cross didn't think that that could happen. As
far as the other industrial to the north, I don't have one of those fancy things, but -- this
property right here today is industrial, that little strip right there, that's Diamond Lines
Trucking. We own that property. Diamond Lines is begging me to find them properties
somewhere else to build them a facility, so they can get out of here. They do not want
to have to have their trucks coming in and out of this traffic and stuff that is generated
there. I know an individual that is talking to Yellow Freight right now about the same
things. Yellow Freight wants out of there. Yellow Freight does not want to be having
their truck drivers coming in and out of there with the traffic that's going on. Ada County
assessor, you know, he's really proud of this property. You can't afford to do this
property industrial. I'm not sure what industrial user that they can find that can afford to
go in there and do property -- to buy the property. The development that's gone on
around there has driven these property values so high that it makes no sense for
industrial to go in there. Any questions?
Borup: Questions for Mr. Ford?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 290f41
Ford: Thank you.
Borup: It does sound like maybe you need to clarify. At this point you -- the zoning is
industrial. It is zoned industrial? And was there a conditional use? Sir, you need to
get on the microphone.
Ford: They are telling me that a number of years ago -- and I'm not sure -- I wish Sheri
was still here, because she would have remembered.
Borup: Well, it doesn't really matter what someone remembers --
Ford: I think it was of record.
Borup: Right. It needs to be on the record.
Ford: It was of record and -- so I don't know. I mean, again, we have got a real mess
here if that is the case.
Borup: But it's all public record, so it should be able to be clarified. Thank you.
Ford: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Who is next? We didn't have anybody sign up, so I don't know if -- Mr.
McKinnon said there was several that wanted to, so this is your opportunity.
Jensen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff, I'm Marv Jensen, 476 West 1000 South
in Orem, Utah.
Borup: Right. You were the only that did sign up.
Jensen: I'm here representing R.C. Willey. We are pleased to see additional retail
come into the area here, but the one thing that we are very very concerned about is
traffic and I think that speaks for itself. You're all concerned about traffic and we are
impressed that some effort is going to be made on Pine Street to carry some of that
traffic, but it's going to not solve the problem. If there is going to be 30, 40 thousand
additional trips created by this property on that road, you have got to do something or
cause Ada County Highway District to do something on that road to even handle it. And
so we are going to be interested all the way through in the hearings on the traffic issue.
We want something to be done on the traffic issue. We have customers now that turn
around and go back, they can't get to us from either direction, and we just need to face
that. You know, I have been coming up here for six years now on this building and Ada
County tells me every year I come up, we are going to do something. We are going to
do something, but it's always in the future and those roads are still highly congested and
this will just add to it. We are glad to see it come, the retail, but not the added
congestion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page30of41
Borup: Don't they come together?
Jensen: They do and so that's our request is that you really consider strongly before
giving approvals additional mitigation for the traffic and we will be interested to see the
new traffic study, the addendums that come out to that and what they propose. Pine
Street is one thing. A transit station might be something. But you have got to do
something on Eagle Road and Franklin Road to alleviate the horrible traffic mess that's
there. Or, you know, the retail zone -- the retail that you're going to get there will create
a lot of jobs and it will create a lot of sales tax revenue for the city. We realize that and
we look forward to having additional retail and competition in the area, but if people
can't get there, they are going to go somewhere else. They are going to find other
places where they can get to and not to have to wade through so many light changes at
every light to get where they want to. So, that's our concern is, please, consider very
carefully -- I know you already are, but we just want to echo it, the traffic impact of
additional retail right now in this area. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you? Questions from the Commissioners? Do we have anyone else?
Thank you.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Dave McKinnon,
representing the applicant tonight. Traffic is a big issue. Hopefully, some of the
mitigation efforts we are making will work to help alleviate the conditions that are there
right now. Just for your edification, the traffic has been extremely bad recently, because
of a number of different issues, partially with the fact that there is a large sewer line that
is going in on Cloverdale, the north-south lane of traffic on Cloverdale has been closed
recently in the last few months to keep people from driving across it, because they are
doing a large amount of work there, everybody was having to come to Eagle. In
addition to that, Franklin Road has been going through a widening process that has also
forced a lot more traffic to come onto Eagle Road that wasn't dissipated to other areas.
At the same time, infrastructure, of course, always comes after the people. The Idaho
Transportation Department is working on the Eagle Road study. The City of Meridian
has not yet adopted the most resent study. However, I know that the Mayor and Steve
Siddoway, the transportation planner, have a meeting with Idaho Transportation
Department to work with them on mitigation efforts on Eagle Road, similar to like you
will see on State Street soon with barriers or center medians on Eagle Road. So, there
is some effort being taken by ITD to mitigate the traffic friction that's caused by people
pulling off and on. In addition to this, this site is actually going to be a little bit easier to
reach than what you would see on a hard corner, because it is mid block, which is
where the City of Meridian wanted to see a mid mile -- the City of Meridian wanted to
see commercial accesses with the Comprehensive Plan. Because it's not at the hard
block, there is a traffic light right there, people can get to it from different locations,
rather than having to make a turn through traffic. I'll just address Mr. Ford's comments.
I was working for the City of Meridian at the time when Gemtone came through. There
is notes of record and it was represented at the P&Z meeting and at City Council that
this property would be office. I'm more than happy to work with staff to talk to them
about that and to eliminate any concerns that Mr. Ford has tonight on behalf of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 31 of41
Yanke family. I would ask for your support tonight. I know that you're going to continue
this, so we can move this forward with the Maverick piece of property, but I would love
to have some feedback to see what your opinions are with the requested
Comprehensive Plan amendment before we go to continuance until January 20th and
meet again.
Borup: Any other questions, discussion, while Mr. McKinnon is here?
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Comments from the Commission at this point or do we --
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, my first comment would be the most compelling testimony that I
heard out there was the land value. If, in fact, you have Ada County assessing it at one
value based upon its neighborhood or the neighboring properties being retail and you --
and their assessment is at that level and, then, you require these people to develop as
industrial, their tax base and land use are not in agreement and it seems that the
applicant and their testimony has a pretty good point in that regard. I don't know that
that's the final thing that we should be looking at here, but I think that that is a real
significant issue.
Borup: Commissioner Moe?
Moe: Yes. I guess I would tend to agree with Commissioner Rohm, but my biggest
concern is, reading through the staff reports and whatnot, I do have a concern that we
don't have enough industrial property in this area, but at the same time, after hearing
testimony tonight, I have got some concerns I would like to know for sure what is going
on with the properties to the north of this property to verify that office is possible or
planned, as well as I would like to know what Blue Cross does have in -- I'd like to know
exactly just what the status of that is, because I would hate to see that we lose a great
neighbor in Blue Cross, because of something that we want to do as far as going
industrial. So, having said that, that's what I'd like to -- definitely before the next hearing
that we get some closure on those issues, so we know exactly what's going on.
Borup: Yeah. My understanding on Blue Cross that was covenants within that
subdivision. This would be a different subdivision, so --
Rohm: Wouldn't there have been a -- in the development agreement at the time that the
original subdivision was developed, some language speaking to what can be
constructed within that entire subdivision, though? I would think that that would have
been addressed not only for the Blue Cross -- for the entire area. Wouldn't there have
been some discussion? 1--
Moe: We are still in Public Hearing.
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page 32of41
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Would you like some comment from Mr. McKinnon?
Rohm: Yeah. Go ahead, Dave.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, actually, it's just the Gemtone site.
The whole entire property that you outlined from the railroad north to Fairview, that
wasn't all part of one subdivision. However, this was part -- this area was basically a
part of a larger subdivision. Blue Cross is a part of it as well. There was a -- there used
to be a file sitting on the file cabinet back in Meridian and Brad might remember this, it
was -- it's in tatters and it's kind of falling apart, it's an old application and there was a
whole bevy of uses that you could put on this site. You know, Krispy Kremes was one
of the uses that the previous planning director Sheri Stiles said was one of the things
that could be approved on this site. Recently you guys have approved a drive-thru for a
Wendy's in the industrial and you have also approved a medical office building in the
industrial. Those are all under construction at this time. There were a number of uses
that were allowed there and Gemtone, when it came through, there was discussion
about Blue Cross and Blue Cross's CC&Rs requiring that this all be developed as office
and there is a record of that. The development agreement for this site may be
somewhat hard to piece back together, based on my recollection of the file, but there is
testimony at the hearing for Gemtone in regards to Blue Cross.
Rohm: Well, I would think that it would behoove you to reconstruct that to some degree.
McKinnon: I would be happy to.
Borup: Yeah. Because just the straight zoning does not -- as mentioned, does not
allow for that industrial zone, so there would need to be another -- in the development
agreement or some other agreement.
McKinnon: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, keep in mind when
the Comprehensive Plan was adopted it's a conceptual idea and they took the basic
land uses that were there. On the Comprehensive Plan they didn't show this whole
area as industrial, but that's what it's zoned. This is conceptual; it doesn't necessarily
match the zoning. Zoning doesn't have to match this. This is based on the existing land
uses and as Brad put it, you know, your best guess looking at a crystal ball in the future
saying how is it going to happen in the future and how does it impact the city
economically and for design.
Borup: But Gemtone is zoned.
McKinnon: It is zoned, it is annexed, and it is approved for office uses, to the best of my
knowledge, and I guess if we are moving forward until January 20th, we have time to
get that straightened out and we will be able to present that to you at the next meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page330f41
Rohm: My only additional comment is along the lines of the staff report. You know, it's
our responsibility also to make sure that we maintain a certain amount of industrial land
available and so, you know, we have got to take a look at both sides of that coin, Dave,
so, you know, it would be nice for you to bring some of that additional information back
when we continue this hearing.
Borup: Anything additional, Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Interestingly enough, we have an I-L zone to struggle with here. Always my
bugaboo. Staff did an excellent job of summarizing. Some of the thoughts that came to
me first and -- and I always struggle with Comprehensive Plan amendments in that the
Comprehensive Plan went through a lot of public hearings and a lot of thinking and a lot
of hearings, a lot of Angst, a lot of research and to make changes to it for me requires a
pretty high threshold of they were wrong.
Borup: But by that same logic, we would never change it. It would stay like the way --
Zaremba: I don't know if I'm at that threshold. With it already being so stingy on
industrial properties -- and maybe this is one more assignment to hand Mr. McKinnon
before it comes back on the next one -- if there were some trade, if there was an ability
to couple this kind of Comprehensive Plan amendment with saying here is where I think
the Comprehensive Plan ought to be changed to include industrial that it currently
doesn't somewhere in our area of impact -- and I don't know if it's fair to leave that on
you to go looking for that, but I certainly hear the argument about the value of these
pieces of property and that retail or office uses are more likely to be what's supportable
in that area, but industrial has to be somewhere and I don't know if it's a requirement,
but if you had any suggestions about somewhere else in our area of impact that we
ought to be doing industrial that we are not, I would be more comfortable about that kind
of a trade. Just a personal opinion.
McKinnon: I'll do my best.
Zaremba: Thank you.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, do you have any homework for me as well?
Borup: Probably not. My comment -- I mean when I read the staff report, I agreed with
everything. I mean it all made sense. And Commissioner Rohm said there was one
thing that struck him the strongest and me it's probably Pine Avenue. This is where --
this is a mile section where we have a signal light. If there is any place that the traffic is
going to be helped it's at that light and with Pine Street extending through -- I mean after
thinking about that tonight, this is making more sense to me, and mainly because of
Pine. I'm still very concerned about the traffic on Eagle. I don't know what we are going
to do with that. But Pine Avenue with existing signal light probably lends itself more to
some type of commercial than industrial, but --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16,2004
Page34 of4!
Zaremba: I'm known for sideways moves in discussions, but I will just make a comment
on Eagle Road. My recollection is that the latest traffic count in this area of Eagle Road
is something like 54,000 vehicles a day. A year ago I asked the motor vehicle
department if they could tell me how many vehicles were registered in the City of
Meridian. They could not, so I turned to the Air Quality Board, figuring they may have
information like that. They could tell me in the 83642 zip code, which includes much
more than the incorporated city, it goes -- I believe the southern boundary is Hubbard
and nobody knows where the heck that is. It's way below everything that anybody
thought of and the northern boundary is the bench north of Chinden.
Borup: Especially for our impact area.
Zaremba: Well, it's much greater than our area of impact. And, basically, from
Cloverdale to the county line. So that entire area there are 39,000 vehicles registered,
54,000 of them are driving up and down Eagle Road. My point being this traffic is not all
Meridian traffic. The majority of it we have no control over. It's coming from Eagle,
Star, Emmett, Horseshoe Bend, probably trying to access the interstate. Eagle Road is
the only road -- north-south road in Meridian that has all three elements of access. It
has a river crossing, it has a railroad crossing, and it has an interstate interchange. The
majority of the traffic that's there isn't us, it's other people, because we aren't everyone
of us, 39,000, driving on Eagle everyday. I don't. It's other people. And the effort to
control that, you know, shouldn't be laid on Meridian's projects, your project, or other
projects across the street from it. Yes, something needs to be done, but we can't say
that Meridian isn't going to have economic growth because everybody's traffic is going
through here. We can't just stop that. Yes, it needs to be solved, but it is not entirely
us. So, that's just a sideways comment.
Rohm: Well -- and to continue that, I think as development continues you're also going
to see Locust Grove develop and you're going to see Pine go all the way through and
you're going to see Franklin Road improved from Eagle Road east and all of the things
that are currently on that wish list will all help calm some of this issue on Eagle Road.
Even as they finish Cloverdale's expansion, that's going to calm some of this. So, all
that being said, this isn't something that's created today and it's not going to be solved
tomorrow, it's a continuing effort as the area develops, so --
Zaremba: Of course, the other piece of it is how do we capture that through traffic to
make them stop in our shops and buy stuff and to put a nice retail center in a location
like this, in addition to the other retail things that are happening up and down -- if they
are driving through here we may as well stop them and have them leave some money
here if we can.
Rohm: Thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page350f41
Borup: Okay. Any other discussion? Are we ready for a motion to continue?
Moe: Probably need to close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Well, not if we are going to continue it.
Moe: I'm sorry. You're right.
Borup: This is on the Comp Plan amendment.
Moe: Yeah. That's right.
Zaremba: I'll do it. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the hearing on CPA 04-003
to our meeting of January 20, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to continue. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: RZ 04..()17 Request for a Rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L
& L-O to CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc.
- SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Conceptual Planned Development for commercial I retail uses for
approximately 615,430 square feet of building areas in a proposed CoG
zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of
North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue:
Borup: Okay. So, we probably ought to open and continue the other two, which are
going to be dependent upon this one -- positive results on this one for them to proceed.
I'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 04-017 and Public Hearing CUP 04-051 at this time.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051 to our
regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: CPA 04-004 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map from Low and Medium Density Residential to a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 36 of 41
Commercial designation for a 2.298 acre parcel for Maverick Country
Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc. - 201 West Ustick
Road:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-032 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
2.298 acres from R-4 zone to C-C zone for Maverick Country Store by
Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc. -201 West Ustick Road:
Borup: Okay. That takes care of 8 and 9. Ten and 11 we have already -- now wait a
minute. Yeah. We have already continued it to the 20th.
Zaremba: I believe we stated we were going to. Did we physically do it?
Moe: No, we did not.
Borup: Okay. Then, this might be a good time to do that.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we either table or continue as appropriate
CPA 04-004 and AZ 04-032 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 20, 2005,
with a requirement that it be property noticed.
Borup: I didn't open these hearings yet, did I? So, if the motion is to table it, I don't --
we don't need to open it, I believe. If we continue it -- and it wasn't noticed, so that
would be fine. We can table this -- Mr. Nary, would that be correct?
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think what the issue -- if my recollection
is --
Borup: It's not noticed.
Nary: I thought part of it wasn't noticed. Part of it was noticed for tonight. Isn't that
correct, Mrs. Canning? Wasn't this the issue on the sign?
Canning: Yes. Just the posting was not --
Nary: Just the posting. So, you should probably continue the matter tonight, because it
was noticed properly with mailed notices, that's why some of the folks were here, so
continuing the hearing from tonight would be the most appropriate.
Borup: Is that -- no, I understand. Is that the way our ordinance reads is that it does
have to be posted or -- at one time it used to just be one of the three, didn't it?
Nary: Yeah. The state law requires all three.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 37of41
Borup: It does require all three. All right. Okay. I don't think I opened these hearings,
so I'd like to open Public Hearing CPA 04-004 and AZ 04-032. And now we need a
motion.
Zaremba: In that case, I will eliminate the ambiguity about continuing or tabling and, Mr.
Chairman, I move that we continue hearing CPA 04-004 and AZ 04-032 to our regularly
scheduled meeting of January 20, 2005.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-029 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of
8.58 acres from RUT zone to CoG zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom
Holliday/Cottonwood Lane Partners - 985 East Freeway Drive:
Borup: Our last item, I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-029.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 04-029 to our regularly scheduled
meeting of January 6, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Okay. So, motion and second. All in favor?
opposed?
Any
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
Ada County Ordinance Change Discussion:
Borup: We now have Commissioner Huckabay with us and we have -- any other
motions?
Rohm: I move that we close --
Borup: One more --
Zaremba: We asked to add -- or I asked to add an agenda item discussing the Ada
County ordinance change. Does staff have an opinion on --
Borup: Yeah. That was on the agenda. I left mine home, but --
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba, can you let me know what you're talking about? Is
this the day care one?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page38of41
Borup: No. It was a general one for the whole county pertaining to -- well, go ahead,
Commissioner.
Zaremba: Ada County Development received by the City Clerk December 3 and I was
given a copy of it. This is a zoning in Ada County. Not Meridian City, but Ada County
zoning text ordinance amendment -- or ordinance text amendment and the subject --
this is -- the applicant is Shawn L. Nickle of SLM Planning and -- see if I can summarize
what they wanted to do. The subject was riding stables and the question is, essentially,
if uses around something changes, can somebody that has a riding stable rebuild their
riding stable.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I had not seen that one. Can
you look -- can you give the exact code reference and Brad will bring it up on the
screen. I spent a full day going around looking at riding stables before I wrote what is
now in the Ada County code, so I will be prepared to speak on it, but I need to see the
original code.
Zaremba: This is -- the application apparently is 04-09 ZOA. Does that help?
Canning: I need the title eight dash two or -- it's probably eight dash five dash
something or other.
Borup: It sounds like they want to change their code.
Canning: How dare they.
Zaremba: They are wanting to amend Section 8-2-A-3.
Canning: 8-2-A-3?
Zaremba: And 8-2-B-3. And 8-5-3-107.
Canning: Yeah. The 8-5-3-107 is probably the more important.
Zaremba: 8-5-3-107. I guess my main question is do we need to have an opinion?
The thought being that at some day we may annex some of things into the city.
Hawkins-Clark: Normally, what we do as staff when we get Ada County applications is
we do review them and make a comment if we think it's appropriate and/or take it to
either you or the Council. I know we haven't had one for quite some time, but --
Zaremba: Well, that may have been in my box by accident, but --
Moe: No. I got one as well.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 39 of4l
Zaremba: Yeah. We all got them. While that's being considered, may I broach another
subject. December 30th would be a fifth Thursday in this month and we sometimes do
workshops and stuff. Are we not having a meeting on December 30th?
Borup: Didn't we talk about that last time?
Zaremba: I don't remember the answer.
Borup: We said because of the holidays -- no?
Zaremba: I didn't remember the answer.
Borup: Commissioner Moe, was that correct?
Moe: That would be my suggestion.
Zaremba: Even if we didn't decide that, I would support that resolution. So, no meeting
on 12/30.
Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, from
what I can tell from this, what they have done is just kind of clarified that -- there is -- the
issue was -- we will go back to why it was drafted. The issue was there is some riding
arenas out there that were becoming basically commercial uses. They were all on
private property and it was hard to draw a distinction between what was commercial and
what was private. We originally kind of zinged all riding arenas and I got a lot of flack
for that, so I got dragged all over town to various riding arenas and with the help of the
horse folks tried to come up with a definition of what a commercial riding arena was and
those are kind of grouped in that first one under A where it says commercial. It looks to
me like what they are doing is just saying that in the absence of being a commercial
arena, you're a private arena. Now, one would think staff could make that distinction,
but Ada County staff is clearly limited in their thinking sometimes and if it's not exactly in
the code, they don't want to go there. So, I think that this is just a way of clarifying if
you're not commercial, then, you're private is all that it's doing. So, it seems pretty
innocuous to me. It still requires commercial conditional use, so --
Zaremba: Doesn't really have any impact on the City of Meridian or some future
annexation is what you're saying?
Canning: I don't think so. The private ones, really, all they are -- you know, they are
about the size of this room and they are a little dusty. The good ones they keep it
watered so it doesn't get too dusty and likely if the property is being redeveloped they
are just going to divvy off that portion of the property anyway and put another building
lot there. So, I don't see a redevelopment issue surrounded around these. I think a lot
more of them are getting covered and so they are larger structures, but, again, there is
not a whole lot of investment in those, necessarily, so I think that as the land value goes
up they would probably be redeveloped with residential uses-
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page 40 of 41
Zaremba: Would Ada County care to hear whether we support that or don't support
that?
Canning: Sure. Yeah. I - this is actually - these changes are all to the -- oh, it is --
some is in the RUT. Most of them are in the R-R and the R-P, so sometimes I don't
comment on those, but if you'd like me to comment, that's fine. We can just say we
don't have a comment -- we don't see that it's a problem, but -- I try not to say too much
on --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we respond to this issue with a no comment.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: So, does that mean -- that doesn't even require a letter, does it?
Zaremba: No.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn.
Borup: Yeah. Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think this is the last meeting in December and I think you have a new chairman
in the month of January and --
Borup: We elected him last week.
Nary: And I just wanted to make note of that, because I know you have been the chair
a long time and I, along with the rest of these Commissioners, had the privilege to serve
on this Commission with you as the chair and I know it's not very easy to do, so I just
wanted to --
Canning: You mean it's not easy to serve under him, Bill?
Nary: Thanks for catching that, Anna. It's not easy to be the chair. So, I just wanted to
say thank you for your service and --
Rohm: And a great job you have done.
Moe: I agree as well.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Canning: Here. Here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
December 16, 2004
Page41of41
Borup: I will still be here.
Zaremba: An excellent job and --
Nary: Well, I didn't think you would be dying, I just wanted to note that you weren't
going to have to be the one corralling people, since we were talking about horse corrals
here.
Zaremba: Absolutely.
Borup: And Commissioner Zaremba is going to do a wonderful job.
Zaremba: Well, you have set the bar high and I will do my best to -- to follow in your
footsteps if I can. And I also wish everybody happy holidays.
Canning: Yes.
Rohm: Do we have a motion?
Borup: I did.
Moe: I gave a motion.
Zaremba: There was a motion. I'll second it.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED