2005 01-20
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meetina
Januarv 20. 2005.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Craig Hood,
Joe Guenther, Ted Baird, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X David Zaremba X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X
X Chairman Keith Borup
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. We will open this regularly scheduled meeting of
the Planning and Zoning Commission for January 20, 2005, and we will begin with roll
call.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: The first item is the adoption of the agenda. If there are no objections, I'll
simply adopt the agenda in the order it is.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AUP 04-016 Request
for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day
care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin
by Marina Galushkin - 2843 North Wolverine Avenue:
B.
Approve minutes of January 6, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Zaremba: The next item is the Consent Agenda and, normally, those are items that
require no discussion and can be passed together. However, I have a comment on
each of them, so I will remove them both from the Consent Agenda and, then, we will
vote on them individually. On item A -- the pages aren't numbered, but it is, I believe,
the second page of it, paragraph C, Decision and Order, paragraph one under C says
applicant's CUP and that should be changed to AUP. As an accessory use permit. And
that is my only change on Findings of Facts and Conclusions. I would accept a motion
from --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Pa~e 2 of 72
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba -- or Chairman Zaremba, did you want to -- also want
to change that pursuant to the Planning Commission's authority?
Zaremba: And where is that?
Canning: Just above the AUP.
Borup: Paragraph C also.
Zaremba: Same paragraph C, the beginning of the sentence pursuant to the City
Council should read pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Commission's authority. Is
that the same Meridian City Code number?
Canning: If you can give me a moment I can look it up.
Zaremba: Okay.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, it should be 12-3-3, I think. Let me find it. 12-3-3J.
Zaremba: 12-3-3J?
Canning: Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. So, the three changes are all in paragraph C and the new
reading will be pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Commission authority as provided
in Meridian City Code No. 12-3-3J. The rest of the sentence is as is and, then,
paragraph one -- and a subparagraph one under that says the applicant's AUP. Those,
I believe, are all the changes and I will ask for a motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman? I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law for AUP 04-016.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, I'm sorry, this is embarrassing. That was for a
preliminary plat denial. So, you might want to just hold this over another week and we
will review it in depth and make sure we get all the code references, if you wouldn't
mind.
Zaremba: That would be fine.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I remove my motion.
Borùp: Is there a chance we could maybe have that at the end of the meeting?
Canning: Sure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20. 2005
Page 3 of 72
Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we will delay Item 3-A until the end of the meeting and
we will revisit it at that time. Item B is approval of the minutes of January 6, 2005, and I
have two changes to make on those. On page five of 54 -- we moved around, so we
are giving our recorder a challenge here, but where the first attribution is given to Mr.
Borup, that actually was said by me, Chairman Zaremba. Commissioners, any
questions, was the statement. Then, on page 45, again, the first attribution this time
given to Mr. Freckleton is me. It should be Zaremba. Those are the only comments I
have. I would entertain a motion on the minutes.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes with the recommended
changes by yourself.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes-of January 6, 2005,
as amended. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. The minutes are
approved.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
COMPASS presentation on the Communities in Motion Plan
Zaremba: Next on our agenda is a presentation by Compass. This is the very first in a
series, I hope, of other educational items that the public is welcome to listen to, that are
also geared towards informing us as Commissioners of things that are going on in the
community. As many of you may know, the Community Planning Association of
Southwest Idaho, which is abbreviated Compass, is the federally recognized
metropolitan planning organization for this area. As such, almost anything that happens
in Ada or Canyon counties that involves federal funds has to comply with what
Compass's planning has indicated. They are also the people that do a great deal of
study of our traffic and transportation issues and -- they have other reasons for existing,
but it seems like traffic and transportation are the 800 pound guerilla that wave
everybody around and with that introduction I'll turn it over to you.
Tisdale: Thank you. My name is Toni Tisdale and I'm a principal planner at Compass
and he took my first line there in explaining who we are.
Zaremba: I'm sorry.
Tisdale: That's okay. And, actually, transportation is our focus. so -- we do a little bit
with air quality that's related to transportation as well, but transportation is our main
focus. And I have handed out a packet and that also has a brochure in it that tells a
little bit more about what we do and who our members are and that sort of thing. What
we are working on right now is the long-range transportation plan. It's a 20 plus year
plan and it will have a lot of the demographics for the area and all the transportation
projects that we expect to see in the next 20 years -- or about 25 years, actually. This
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 4 of 72
plan would be the first time that Ada and Canyon counties join together to make a truly
regional plan. In the past they have been -- there has been one plan for Ada County
and one plan for Canyon and, as you can imagine, sometimes when you put the two
together after they have been looked at separately, everything doesn't exactly match up.
And so this is the first time that we are looking at everything regionally and when we first
started talking about this, ITD joined us late last year and said, you know, we are kind of
looking at something similar, but it expands your area into some of the rural counties
surrounding you and so we partnered with ITD and we are also looking at other than
Ada and Canyon county, we are looking at Elmore, Boise, Gem, and Payette counties,
too. So, there is a lot of people that live out in those rural counties surrounding us that
come into Ada and Canyon county to work and to play and so that also affects how our
road system works. And so we are looking at a more in-depth detail at Ada and Canyon
counties, of course, but we are also including those four rural counties that are
surrounding us. And so it's really an exciting process, because it's never been done
before, maybe anywhere in the United States, we are not positive about that, but for
sure anywhere in Idaho we have never had that type of partnership. The reason that
this long-range transportation plan is important is because' -- the main reason is
because federal regulations' quire us to have it. In order to get any federal funding for
transportation projects it has 0 be listed in that plan and so that's the main reason. And
another thing is that it takes long time for some of these bigger projects to be funded,
as you all well know. It can ke ten or 15 or even 20 or 30 years to get some of the big
major projects funded and 0 getting support at this level and keeping that support
rolling through the years is r lIy important. We also have more of a chance, especially
utilizing ITD's partnership, going out to those other counties. When ITD's new
director, Director Ekern, sa what we had been asking for for additional funding from
Congress. he said why are u dreaming so small? He said you should be asking for
lots of money. You're as ng .- I think the last time we applied for congressional
earmarked funds, I think th largest was about 20 million dollars for some -- I think the
Locust Grove overpass was he number one priority and he said you should be asking
for 150 million, because we an actually get that. So, with this type of planning, looking
at corridor level planning ac ss county borders, it's going to allow us to be able to get
some of those big projects u derwaya lot sooner than maybe we had anticipated. Also,
one of the big differences i this plan and in the past is how our growth scenario is
being developed. In the p st we have looked at pretty much one scenario and that
trend on how everything ha been done in the past and where growth has been, where
employment has been, and. his time we are doing something entirely different. If you
have ever heard of Envision Utah, Utah did this really innovative program probably
about 10 or 15 years ago and we have got the same consultant doing that type of
program for us. We have had the first set of workshops in November and what we do is
we've had mass -- we had about 500 people participate and they showed us -- this was
elected officials, planners, business people, regular citizens, come to these meetings
and they told us where they thought growth should go, what type of growth .- it, actually,
ended up most of the time it was just -- employment was disbursed a lot more between
the counties than it has been in the past and getting that jobs-housing balance is going
to be important in the future. We come down to four new scenarios that it's kind of been
boiled down to. We have another set of scenario building in February and so it's really -
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 5 of 72
- we are encouraging you all to be there. It's been a really exciting process and,
actually, a lot of fun. It's a game. They call it gaming. This next time it's going to be
more geared towards the transportation. We did allow people to put in their
transportation ideas on the map before, but this time it's going to be a fiscally
constrained transportation issue and so they only have a certain amount of money to
spend this time, where they could dream as big as they wanted last time, this one they
are going to see how much it costs to do these projects. And so through that we will be
able to see where the growth should be going and how the cities might expect to be
changing possibly comprehensive plans and their planning processes to meet that type
of growth. And this is saying that -- I know there is an age old question what drives
transportation, is it transportation drives land use or land use driving transportation.
This is saying that land use drives it and that's how our consultants look at it and how
we have come to look at it, too. Without the people that live there, the roads aren't used
and so, really, whatever is on the land is what drives where the roads go. Or public
transportation, for that matter. So, our next -- the next step is at the workshops.
November 2nd and 3rd are the dates. You have a postcard in there that -- in your
packet that -- if you fill that out and let us know which date that you would be able to
make it. There is five different workshops on those two days. It's a three-hour
commitment --
Zaremba: February 2nd and 3rd; right?
Tisdale: What did I say?
Zaremba: November. February.
Tisdale: November? Back at the first workshop. Sorry. February. And, then, after that
we expect a preliminary decision on how the growth scenario should work from our
board in March and we will go out to the public and -- to as many groups as want to
hear us and let them know what our board has preferred for the growth scenario and,
then, they should be making a final decision in April and so those growth scenarios will
determine what our needs will be for transportation for the next 25 to 30 years. So,
that's kind of our presentation. If you have questions, which I'm sure you do, I will stand
for those now.
Zaremba: Commissioners? Certainly very important work.
Tisdale: It's very important and we have --
Zaremba: In terms of future for all of us.
Tisdale: -- had great turnout so far.
Zaremba: I, actually, attended the November workshop over in Nampa and it was very
well planned and very well done and a good exercise, a lot of people with some good
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 6 of 72
input, and anybody that can make the February ones -- I believe all the public's invited.
This isn't just us. Everybody is welcome to go to these things.
Tisdale: There is a website that's specifically for this plan. It's called Communities in
Motion. The website is www.communitiesinmotion.org. There is a place where you can
sign up to get information if you'd like it. We have got all the technical data that we have
developed so far on the website and that will be added to -- pretty soon, almost daily, so
you might check those out if you're interested in transportation planning.
Newton-Huckabay: What is your projected attendance so far?
Tisdale: I'm sorry?
Newton-Huckabay: A larger group of people attending?
Tisdale: We have actually added a fifth. We had four meetings in November, so we
added a little more, because some of them are really crowded, so we do expect more
people.
Borup: I think she answered the question I had and that was on the information
available and that is available on the website now, then?
Tisdale: Yes, sir.
Borup: That's got the maps and everything on there?
Tisdale: Uh-huh. It's got pictures of the maps that were developed. At the workshop
there was 500 people and they were divided into about ten people at each table, so we
ended up with 40 different maps, so the consultants had to really do some crunching on
that, but they got it down to kind of ideas of what people had, different -- there was
similarities -- a lot of similarities. It was actually amazing to me how much people were
thinking a lot a like throughout the Treasure Valley and so we ended up with six and,
then, after our consultants talked with our technical committee this week, it was actually
narrowed down to four, because they call them -- the scenarios, they call them crash
test dummies. They said, you know, we don't expect them to be perfect, we are just
doing to catch -- we have a ton of analysis from all of the findings that we got out of
those workshops, based on what the vehicle miles -- the VMT -- what is -- vehicle miles
traveled. It's hard to breakdown when you're used to using acronyms. Vehicle miles
traveled, travel time, and also I forgot to mention this, but for Ada County there is also a
campaign project called Blueprint for Good Growth and these scenario processes are
going on hand in hand. We are working -- they are working with us throughout this
project as well. So, these scenarios will be used for Blueprint for Good Growth and so
in Ada County the Blueprint for Good Growth consultants will have a whole lot more
detailed information on things, other than transportation, but for our purposes and for
the partnering counties, those four rural counties, we have basically transportation, but
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 7 of 72
there is a lot of it and that will be shared during the February meeting, what we have
learned so far.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you very much.
Tisdale: We are always available for questions, if you hear. something or see
something, just let us know.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you, Toni.
Tisdale: Thank you.
Canning: Before she leaves --
Zaremba: Toni, hang on.
Canning: Toni is the one that took this picture for us that we have been using a lot.
Tisdale: We looked out our window and that's what we saw.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. We are ready to enter the public hearing phase of our
meeting for this evening and I will just describe for a moment the procedure that we go
through. Our professional city staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of
time together on each of these items and so our procedure will be that our professional
staff will make a presentation on where and what the application is about and identify
any issues that may be remaining that need to be brought to our attention. After that
the applicant themselves will make a statement about their application and their project
and respond to any details that have been brought up by the staff for our attention.
Following that is when the rest of you get to speak and make your comments, either for
or against or for part of it or against part of it or however you want to phrase it. We have
found that to keep our meetings from going until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, we do
need to put a time limit on some of those remarks. The applicant will be limited to 15
minutes and public testimony from -- is it 15 or ten? Fifteen for the applicant. And we
ask that individuals making remarks limit your testimony to three minutes. We also
welcome people who come up and say I agree with Joe that spoke before me and we
will know what you mean. You don't need to repeat everything. We do ask that since
it's important enough to you that you came tonight, it's important for us to hear what you
have to say, so we do ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone and I
realize a lot of people aren't accustomed to public speaking, but, please, don't be afraid
of the microphone, speak loudly enough that we can all hear what you came to say, and
also loudly enough that our recorder can get all of it down. And when you do come to
the microphone, please, identify yourself, give your name and your address. We have a
handy dandy little light system over here that -- when the green light is. on you have
plenty of time to talk. When the yellow one comes on, we. ask that you wrap it up in
about 30 seconds. And when the red one comes on, please, conclude as fast as you
can. We do make an exception, if somebody identifies themselves as a spokesman for
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 8 of 72
several other people. An obvious example would be the president of a homeowners
association and they can come up and say I'm speaking for ten or 12 other people who
aren't going to speak, we also give that kind of a representative quite a bit of extra time
to state what they have to state. After the general public testimony, we will, then, ask
the applicant to come back again and to have taken notes while you were speaking and
to fix anything that can be fixed, clarify anything that they can clarify. And then, after
that we will have our discussion and, hopefully, conclude with a recommendation that
we will make to the City Council. So, that's pretty much the procedure.
Item 5:
Item 6:
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: 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:
Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: RZ 04-017
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:
Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: CUP 04-051
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Conceptual Planned
Development for commercial/retail uses for approximately 615,430
square feet of building areas in a proposed CcG zone for Ten Mile
Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road
- and East Pine Avenue:
Zaremba: And let us begin this evening with Item 5 and we have three similar items in a
row, but at the moment we are only going to open the Public Hearing on Item 5, which is
a Comprehensive Plan amendment, because the decision on that will impact six and
seven very much. So, we, actually, will deal with one of them first and depending on the
outcome of that we will deal with the other two. So, I am opening 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
Incorporated, southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and we will
begin with the staff presentation.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. Since
you have just this CPA item open, I will go ahead and just touch on a few of the
outstanding items that we talked about at the last meeting, rather than going into the full
explanation, the background, since you did receive that last time. One of the -- there
was a couple of items that came up at your last hearing. You did receive testimony
from David McKinnon, who is representing the applicant in this matter, and from Mr.
Mike Ford, who -- both of those gentlemen raised one question about the subdivision to
the north. As you may recall, I had testified that I did not believe that there was office or
non-industrial uses that were permitted and I did generate a memo for you about a
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 9 of 72
week and a half ago. Did you receive that? Okay. And, again, we are talking about
this -- this subdivision that is identified here where the arrow is at right now. Again, the
property -- overall just a little over 60 acres that's outlined in red is the subject of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment application. As you can see, it does have a mixed
use regional on the frontage on Eagle Road and an industrial designation on the back,
so as you read in the memo, I won't go into that. Yes, there are office -- professional
office uses that are permitted up here with a kind of interesting requirement that was
placed in '91 that said that the city staff and City Council will have design review
authority. So, I think some of that remains to be seen, but I think given that Pine is
intended to be five lanes at that location, you can expect that there will probably be
some fairly very high quality construction buildings there fronting on Pine. You also
received testimony last meeting from Mr. Marv Jensen, who was representing RC.
Willey. He had expressed primarily concern about traffic and traffic mitigation along the
Eagle Road corridor. You should have received a final staff report from Ada County
Highway District. Their commission acted on this matter last Wednesday, the 12th of
January, and they did approve the project with a number of conditions and, of course,
they do not have full authority over Eagle Road in this area, but they did make some
special recommendations to the city and lTD. We also received a letter from ITD that --
let's see if I can give you a date on that. December 17th, 2004. That was sent to Will
Berg, city clerk, and they stated in that letter that no direct access will be allowed to
Eagle Road. They mentioned a couple of other items there regarding noise abatement,
but -- so just in terms of the testimony from Mr. Jensen about traffic and those other
items, that there have been some items into the record since the last meeting on traffic.
There was some direction given to both staff and the applicant last meeting on I think
two main items. One was encourage the applicant to look at some other potential
areas. If you approve this application tonight, it would remove approximately 60 acres
of I-L zoned land and the question was posed I think by Commissioner Zaremba is there
other locations that that could possibly -- we could possibly look at and staff, with the
expert help of one of our new staff, Joe Guenther -- let's see, I'm going to have to place
this up on another -- unless you have excellent excellent eye sight, we are going to
have to get this projected in another manner. Anyway, while they are -- other staff is
getting this maybe in a way we can zoom in on some of that, I'll just go on. Basically,
this map kind of outlines what properties in Meridian are currently zoned industrial and
have services and, then, which properties are designated for industrial in the future and
gives you a little bit of sense there, so I think one other item that was discussed briefly
had to do with kind of this issue of a discrepancy between the assessment -- the
assessed value in the land use and I guess, frankly, we -- you know, at staff level,
obviously, we are going to use the assessed value and the total valuation of the
property is something that the applicant submitted to you some of the Ada County
assessor sheets that kind give you a summary of both of the legal parcels that are the
subject of this application and, you know, we are not tax experts, you know, at staff and
in terms of the assessed value, I think the main thing I would add to that is that while the
valuation may have some bearing in terms of the marketing, I think that one of the
charges for the Planning and Zoning Commission through both the state land use
planning act and the City of Meridian ordinances, you know, is to look, you know, kind of
at this broader vision and certainly while we don't want to zone or plan properties that
, Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page100f72
are going to make them completely infeasible to build, I don't think staff is convinced
that it would be the primary reason for a denial or approval, for that matter. So, I think --
let's see. Do you think that one is easier to read or the prior one? Yeah. That doesn't-
- we'll have to move that one around. Okay. The colors aren't coming out real clear,
but as you can see, there are some red parcels, some yellow parcels, some blue
parcels, and some purple ones. The red ones are vacant parcels that are zoned I-L
today, which you could assume, for the most part, have services that are greater than
ten acres in size. And, again, that's the red. And there are -- there is 339 acres total, if
you add those together. And, as you can see, they are kind of grouped in three areas,
one over here on the west side -- or, I'm sorry, east side. Jabil is this large one here.
Here is 1-84 coming through here. On the south side of the 1-84 -- again, this is -- will be
Overland Road on the south side. There are a couple of parcels there, kind of between
Western Electronics and Bodily RV, so you have a couple of I-L zoned parcels there.
And, then, on the north side of Franklin Road. The yellow -- the yellow outlined parcels
are the parcels that are also in the city limits zoned -- zoned I-L, but are greater than
five acres. And, then, the blue area, which this wastewater treatment plant area is not
designated industrial, but it does allow for some industrial uses, so these are -- the blue
ones again, are not annexed, not available today with city services for the most part, but
are designated for industrial in the future and they are -- the ones that are greater than
five acres, there is 377 acres of those. So, the total -- if you add up all the industrial
property -- excuse me -- approximately 1,120 acres throughout the entire city. I think
the point of this map is just to show you also that if you remove idle land, there is a
choice that's being made -- yes, there are other properties available today, for example,
a large industrial user has some options available, if you remove this Elixir property,
which is what you're deciding tonight. If you remove the Elixir and you remove the Jabil
site, which, of course, does have a structure on it today that would probably provide
some limitations, depending on what your type of use is. I mean unless you're high
tech, you know, it would be a pretty extreme adaptive reuse of the property. But if you -
- if you removed both of those, then, you're down to 233 acres of I-L in the City of
Meridian that would be, essentially, available for service today. So, I think, basically,
that's just the facts. There is not necessarily an argument one way or the other behind
that. I mean I think staff is interpreting that certainly to be that if you have -- if you are
looking for the community to be self-sufficient across the spectrum in terms of all
industries and you want potential employers to have options to come in today without
having long waits or having to put in large amounts of utilities and facilities to make their
parcel usable, if you take -- you know, if you take a ten acre -- you have 233 acres.
Now, if you want larger parcels than that, obviously, you get pretty limited, as far as
what -- you know, if they need a 20 acre or a 30 acre -- of course, that number goes
down in terms of the available supply. 'I think with that I'll just -- I'll go back to the other
presentation. I think the remaining items have to do with the rezone application and the
Conditional Use Permit application, both of which are pretty dependent on your decision
on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Should you choose to approve that, there
was -- in terms of the response -- the written response, I think from -- the letter from
Dave McKinnon was largely dealing with those other two applications, so until you open
those hearings, I guess I'll just end my comments there on the' Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 11 of72
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Once, again, your work has been very
thorough. Having to sort through -- it isn't always obvious when you look at something
and say, well, it's zoned this way, your research into what kind of overlays are on it and
underlays are on it and development agreements have been made about it and finding
some obscure document from, what, 15 or 20 years ago, that's a lot of work on your part
and we appreciate that and you always write up a report that makes it clear to us, so --
would you identify, since there are three existing, I recall, different zones on this piece of
property now that we are discussing changing, maybe just outline with a pointer where
each one of those pieces is, the current configuration.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yeah. Again, this map, unfortunately, doesn't show it, but this is
the I-L zoning. There are only two zones on the property. The other one is a small little
-- that's going to be hard to read, isn't it. I need two hands on that thing. There we go.
There is a limited office, an L-O, one acre, that was zoned out of that corner for a
Primary Health facility that was never built, but the zoning did go through.
Zaremba: So, the whole rest of the property is currently I-L and the mixed use is just an
overlay?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. The mixed use is a designation on the future land use
map.
Zaremba: And is the -- the mixed-use part of it is not the entire piece of property; is that
correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Correct. The mixed use is this brown area here. And if I
could just -- I mean I guess one clarification on that. I think this Commission, for the
most part, has seen -- when you have seen a property come to you that has a mixed-
use regional designation, I believe they have all received a CoG zone. For example, the
Eagle Road Ustick intersection where Mr. W.H. Moore - Winston Moore and others
have come in, those are all mixed use regional and did come in with CoG. The
Comprehensive Plan by no means says that these have to be CoG. It does allow for
some, you know, light manufacturing and other uses that, you know, could generally be
designed to be compatible and so just for clarification I don't think that the intent of the
mixed use regional policy in our Comprehensive Plan is -- if it says mixed use regional,
it has to be CoG zoning. Yes, that's what they are asking for and, yes, I think that would
be a compatible zone, but does it mean that they -- that the CoG zoning is the only one
and you need to do retail to really meet the intent of the mixed use regional, I don't think
so. So, just a clarification.
Zaremba: Thank you. We are ready for Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon,
735 South Crosstimber. And like Chairman Zaremba -- congratulations on your
ascension and to you congratulations as well on back. I'd like to thank' staff for all the
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 12 of 72
help they have given us on this project as well. They have been very helpful in
preparing the presentation. Brad's memo was very helpful. I know all the work that
Brad put into it, I know there was work put in by the clerk's office to find some
information in the basement. I know that Mike Ford from the last meeting representing
the Yanke family, dropped off some information as well to try to clarify the issues
revolving around the Gemtone property, which is that property just to the north, as to
what exactly that property could be used for in the future and so I appreciate
everybody's help on that. I promised Commissioner Rohm -- not Commissioner Rohm,
Commissioner Moe and Commissioner Rohm that I would be short tonight. Brad did a
really good job doing the presentation for us tonight. There were several items that he's
already covered for us. You guys sent us off last time with about four items of
homework. You should have all received a letter in response to those homework items
you asked me to do and I assume you have all received that. Just to cover those very
briefly, one was to figure out exactly what was available to be done in Gemtone. Brad's
memo has covered that and it can be used for office uses and other high quality uses
and, as Brad pointed out, with the widening of Pine Street to five lanes, that will be a
high quality office commercial type development along Gemtone and we hope to do the
same on the south side. The second item was to figure out what was going on with
ACHD. As Brad mentioned, we went to ACHD approximately a week ago, met with
ACHD, read their staff report, and we went to the commission and one of the members
of the Hansen-Rice group got up, said we agree with the conditions of approval and we
went ahead and approved it and so we agreed with all the conditions of approval, we
didn't fight with them on any of them and so we don't have any intentions to fight with
you on any of their approvals as well. The third item you asked was to figure out the
value of the land. You should have all received a packet of information from Hansen-
Rice concerning all the different assessed values for the land around the area and, like
Brad, I'm not a tax expert or an assessor, but, needless to say, the value of the land in
this area has skyrocketed, it no longer holds its value for industrial uses, but, rather,
based on the types of uses that are developed around it, such as Blue Cross and the
Crossroads and Presidential subdivisions, this land has become more valuable for
commercial use and so that's basically -- basically what the information that was given
to you states. Finally, there was the comment from Commissioner Zaremba, now
Chairman Zaremba, to find out if there was an area that we could swap land and to
figure out if there was some things and I appreciate Joe's -- Joe's work that he put into
that. But if I could get somebody to grab the Comp Plan -- I did have a chance -- and,
like I said in my letter, to talk to a few people that know a little bit more about industrial
than I do and I spent some time on the phone talking to a few people -- you can just go
ahead and put it on the easel right there. I don't know if you guys can all see that. If
you can just go ahead and turn that just a little bit more. Thanks. In the
Comprehensive Plan there is a number of areas that are highly residential. You can
see basically this whole area is, residential, except for the areas -- the wastewater
treatment plant and that makes sense, because it's farther away from a major interstate
highway that runs through 1-84 and because it's residential you want to see residential
around that. Commercial areas are staying with commercial areas, industrial staying on
the south side of the railroad track and along 1-84. In looking into the future, we have a
large area of industrial designated land south of the railroad track, near what will be the
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 13 of 72
Ten Mile interchange. So, around the Ten Mile interchange area we have a large
volume of commercial uses and, then, right in the middle -- thanks, Brad. Or Anna.
Right back to it. Commercial along 1-84. Then, we have -c right in the middle of
commercial and industrial we have placed medium density residential. The medium
density residential, if it's to access Franklin, would be accessing the same area that
industrial traffic will be exiting and entering and if they want to get out to the Ten Mile
interchange without going up to Franklin, they'd have to travel through commercial land.
This area seems bounded by Black Cat and Franklin, that if we have industrial on one
side, commercial on two other sides, that that site may be more appropriate, rather than
residential, to go to a commercial and industrial designation. So, there is a possibility of
some swapping of some land in this area. As you are well aware, we do have the Ten
Mile interchange study that's begun in this area down here, although it is highly
residential right now, large lot and estate residential, there is a possibility that some
industrial could go in that location as well, because it would have quick interstate access
and there is large lots that could develop in that area. There is a possibility that land
could in the future be developed with some industrial uses. I think that in looking at this
Comprehensive Plan there is a few things that could be changed. I worked on the
Comp Plan, I have a lot of value in this Comprehensive Plan, but there is some areas
that need to be modified and as the city changes and -- the city is a dynamic thing, it's
not static, it changes and it evolves, and we'd like to just point out that this piece of
property at one point, the property that we are dealing with the Comp Plan amendment
tonight, at one point made sense with industrial uses. Eagle Road was not what it is
today, you know, five to even ten years ago. I mean originally we had the Club
Wholesale there and some industrial uses and today we have a huge volume of traffic
using Eagle Road, because of the Eagle Road interchange and just the tremendous
growth that Meridian, Boise, and Eagle, even Star, for that matter, has seen in the past
ten years. I know we have talked a lot about the Comprehensive Plan amendment. We
still would ask for your support in the Comprehensive Plan amendment and ask if you
have any questions at this time.
Zaremba: Thank you for looking around and suggesting other areas that could change.
I certainly think I agree with you on the major one you pointed out. That does make
sense.
McKinnon: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to take credit for
that, but I can't. I had some help with that.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Rohm: Dave, I think you did a good job with your homework and along with Brad's
comments I think we are a lot closer to understanding the needs of the developer and
the concerns of the city, so thank you.
McKinnon: Thank you.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 14 of 72
Zaremba: This is the opportunity for anybody else who has anything they wish to say
about this. Did we have a sign-up sheet? Please go ahead. Come forward, sir.
Ford: Mike Ford, Post Office Box 5405, Boise. 83705. Brad, could you put that other
map back up. There. Thank you. First of all, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, I'd also like to thank Brad and staff for the research they did in finding
what our uses are allowed in Gemtone. Happy that that's resolved. Again, this is our
property. As it's been said tonight, we do plan on doing high end office on that property,
would not like to see industrial there. I'm not anti-industrial. I developed the Layne
Industrial Park there. I developed the rail site industrial park over there. So, industrial
users have bought ground from us when we develop those. They don't want to be next
to retail and office. They don't want to be bad neighbors. And you find that all the time,
where there is existing industrial and, then, you put residential around it and something
and, then, the people start complaining about the industry. And if you put industrial
here, it will be only a matter of time before the retailers here, the office users here, are
complaining to the city about industrial uses there. So, I would just say that I would
hope that you would approve the applicant's request. Anyquestions? Thank you.
Zaremba: We have signed up Judith -- I believe it's Bellcastor? She's declining to
speak, actually. I see hands waving. Anybody else want to speak? Okay. Well, then,
we had just the one statement in favor and the applicant's remarks. Any discussion
from the Commission or further questions to ask?
Borup: No questions.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. The property to the north at Eagle and Fairview,
that mixed use -- do we have anything pending there at Eagle and Fairview, mixed use
on the north? The northwest and the northeast? I don't have a pointer, so -- right there.
Yeah.
Hawkins-Clark: These two?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Hawkins-Clark: No, we do not. Yeah. There are -- I think there is a little over 250
acres, I believe, at both of those -- if you add those together on the north side of
Fairview there that the city has not received any applications on, but it is designated all
also mixed use regional.
Newton-Huckabay: And what about -- is that all the way to Ustick?
Hawkins-Clark: No. I guess we could pull up the other map.
Newton-Huckabay: It's not all the way to Ustick.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20,2005
Page 150f72
Hawkins-Clark: We can pull up a map, Commissioner, if you'd like to see the area north
of Ustick.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm trying to think between Fairview and Lowe's, I'm trying to
remember how -- or the new Lowe's location, how much of that is mixed use.
Hawkins-Clark: So, Commissioner, if this is -- I guess this gives you maybe a little
better sense of -- the east side of Eagle Road -- again, here is Fairview and the
Meridian Crossroads shopping center is the commercial here. So, all single ownership
on the east side and we have -- staff has, I understand, received some preliminary
discussions or rumors, shall we say, that maybe within a year there may be something
happening.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess what I'm getting at, as a Commissioner and more as a
citizen, who drives Eagle Road everyday two times a day and spends 40 minutes,
approximately, getting from the north to south and south to north, that we have this
continuous development of retail -- mixed use usually ends up being retail and I'm -- at
some point we are going to have every store there is to have in this town and you're not
going to be able to get there. And that's my concern with converting industrial -- any
industrial property to more commercial property. So I just -- you know, I can see where,
you know, Lowe's will be opening soon, I believe. I imagine all of that will end up being
-- because they are larger lots and bigger boxes -- just my stray thought.
Moe: Just to kind of follow up with that, though, I think you got to remember that there
is already mixed use that borders Eagle Road in that area. Basically, what we are trying
to take care of tonight is the 22 acres of the industrial to the west; correct? I n regards to
this -- the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. But that will be taking away potential development that isn't
going to cause as much traffic in the area and possibly bring a little higher paying
employer to the area than a retail.
Canning: Dave, that wasn't a question.
McKinnon: I know, Anna. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just to offer rebuttal
to myself, I suppose. I'll take the opportunity.
Moe: Good to see up here, Dave.
McKinnon: Just a couple comments just on your comments, not in the form of a
question I know. Part of the way we are going to see the traffic calmed in that area is
Pine Street to be extended through -- all the way through, extension of five lanes all the
way through, and that's all developer-borne costs. ACHD does not have the money or
the funds to do that. So, this will be all developer-borne cost and it's expensive to build
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 16 of 72
a road that big and that wide all the way through and one of the ways to pay for that is if
the value of the land at sale can help to pay for that. The industrial land itself won't pay
for that expansion all the way through. There is going to be a new north-south
connection soon, the Locust Grove overpass and the connection from Pine to Locust
Grove will open up an opportunity for people to be able to get from Eagle Road to Pine
and, then, from Pine to Locust Grove and over to the south side of the freeway and so
this is, actually, one of the ways to pay for that to make that happen and, otherwise, it
won't happen, because the value is not there to improve that area and pay for the cost
of a 105,000 dollar traffic light at Hickory and Pine and to pay for the widening and the
cost of donating that land and constructing that land. Sorry. Sorry, Anna.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have got some questions for staff. On page 22 at the bottom
where -- your staff recommendations, you speak to recommending a continuation of this
for general site design comments and special considerations, if, in fact, we make a
motion to approve this CPA and rezone. How do you -- how do you do that? How do
you continue the discussion, if, in fact, you have already recommended approval of an
application? I'm curious how you would do both.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, I guess there are three applications that this
report addresses and at this point in time you have only taken testimony and deliberated
on one, the Comprehensive Plan amendment. So, what this recommendation is
addressing is if you, as a Commission, decided to approve the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and, then, moved on to the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit
applications, staff's belief is that the Conditional Use Permit has enough outstanding
issues that would warrant you having -- having a chance to look at another Conditional
Use Permit site plan. Does that clarify--
Rohm: Okay. So, basically, there would be a Conditional Use Permit required on this
property after the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezone -- they'd still have to
gothrough a CUP process. Is that what the--
Hawkins-Clark: Well, for the use that they are proposing, that's -- they chose to submit
a conceptual planned development. That's how they are proposing to develop the site.
It doesn't necessarily mean that there is always going to be a Conditional Use Permit
requirement on this land, because it is zoned today, it is annexed, and there are
certainly rights to development under the industrial zone without a Conditional Use
Permit. But what they are choosing to do does require a conceptual plan to be
approved. For -- yeah. For the CoG zone, so --
Zaremba: The way I interpret the part that you're asking about, staff's recommendation
was strongly in favor of recommending denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and, therefore, it's possible that they didn't spend a lot of time on the following CUP,
because if, in fact, the CPA is denied --
Rohm: There is no point.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 170f72
Zaremba: -- there is no discussion on either the rezone or the CUP. If we go a different
direction, in spite of staff's recommendation, and we recommend to the City Council that
the Comprehensive Plan amendment be approved, then, staff's recommendation is that
we have some discussion of the other two issues, but not make the final decision
tonight, because staff wants another pass at it with the new circumstance of the CPA
being approved. Does that make sense?
Moe: That's how I read it as well.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, could I just make one other clarification, if that --
since you do have on your agenda tonight on that 04-004, another Comprehensive Plan
amendment -- we did talk with the attorneys before the meeting today just a little bit and
one suggestion that was given is that if the Commission does choose to recommend
approval of this one, rather than moving all of these on, before you hear that other
Comprehensive Plan amendment, since they should go together to the City Council,
that you could table this until the end of your agenda tonight Are you recommending
that one be continued anyway? Okay. Well, that may change it, then. I guess just to
bear in mind that as far as closing a hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and formally moving this on to City Council without having your other one dealt with,
that may put the other one in jeopardy.
Zaremba: That's a good point.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Are we at a position where somebody has a strong stance one way or the
other? Mr. Nary, you had something to add.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, just, I guess, to follow up on Brad's last comment, another
alternative is if this Commission does decide to make a recommendation to approve the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, what you could do is direct staff to bring back that
recommendation at your next meeting in February and, then, you will be able to know
whether the other one was completed and you could do the same direction. If it isn't
completed, then, you'd still have a date certain to have that recommendation, but the
whole intent of the statute is that the recommendations are made once every six
months. So, that's another way, rather than just putting it to the end of the meeting, you
could just give it a date certain, say February -- the next February meeting, bring the
recommendation back then.
Borup: I would rather -- I think I would rather wait until the end of the meeting and try to
handle them all today, rather than pushing it forward to next month.
Rohm: I'm not opposed to that. I would like to say that even though I believe the staff
has done an excellent job with their Findings of Fact and recommendations, I think that
as a Commissioner I'm in support of this CPA and rezone and that is my tendency as
we move forward and open up the other applications and if we want to table this until
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 180f72
the latter part of the meeting tonight, that's fine with me. But, generally, I believe that
I'm in support of this application at this time.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd like to follow up to Mr. McKinnon. I meant I think a
Comprehensive Plan amendment on this piece of property is premature at this time. As
you said, the Locust Grove overpass construction will begin very soon. The city seems
to be in disagreement as to whether or not it's a feasible change. There is a lot of land
available right now for commercial development, I just don't think it's the right time to
jump in and start rezoning or amending the Comprehensive Plan. So, I will lean
towards denial.
Moe: Well, we are going down line, are we?
Zaremba: Yes, sir.
Moe: Quite frankly, I belabored over this thing for a couple weeks now. I have gone
back and forth quite a bit. I think it was Mr. Ford, his comments tonight in regards to
what happens to some of your industrial users when other properties, you know,
commercial and whatnot, come in, that there seems to have a tendency to want to
uproot industrial and whatnot out that gets established. Based on Mr. McKinnon's
presentation tonight, quite frankly, in regards to where there may be some shifting of
some properties and such in the future and whatnot, I'm somewhat -- I am in support of
the Comprehensive Plan change. I just believe with the 40 plus acres in regards to the
mixed use already fronting Eagle Road and whatnot, I don't see that this 22 acres is
going to do much in industrial, especially when they are going to have the cost of
installing the roadway extensions, as well as property values for the commercial
properties are much greater than for industrial. Having said that, I would say that I
would be in support of the change.
Borup: I had an opportunity to have a little bit of information yesterday and probably
one of the public input meetings, I think, is where it came from, that was looking at a
future -- future use of the whole valley, not just -- not just Ada County and I don't know if
-- well, actually, I don't think I do agree with it, but one thing that came out of that is they
had -- had all the industrial --a majority of the industrial area out around the airport in
Boise and, then, over in Canyon county, Nampa-Caldwell area on that, and figuring that
Meridian would not be a high industrial use. That was the input of those -- of those --
sounded like probably several committees. I'm not sure which one of the two it was. I
don't think we want to be completely left out of that, but I think the general -- from that it
looked to me like general opinion that maybe Meridian is intended for a little higher uses
than an industrial area. I do agree that -- I hate to see things -- things losing that type of
-- I we had a nice balance of -- I agree with Commissioner Huckabay, we may be a little
premature on this. I don't know if -- what their time frame is, but I am also in favor -- I
think the thing that was the biggest factor for me was Pine Avenue, a five lane road
there, probably does not really lend itself to an industrial area. I, don't think that exact
location is a good area for industrial land either. I'm not happy what it's going to do with
the traffic at that location. Eagle at certain times of the day is just an area to avoid, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 190f72
five lanes on Pine and an overpass on Locust Grove, hopefully, will help alleviate some
of that. That's alii have got to say.
Zaremba: Thank you. I guess I'm the only one remaining to express an opinion.
Newton-Huckabay: I have another question. I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioner. Speak up.
Newton-Huckabay: Industrial uses would include -- I mean we are not -- we are not
talking about a tire factory here. I mean this could be an industrial use, such as an
electronics manufacturer --
Zaremba: A warehouse operation even.
Newton-Huckabay: -- a warehouse operation. A -- would a call center -- I mean would
be a use -- an industrial --
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, probably not a call center. It probably would be more
geared toward CoG. But to answer your question, yes, there a number of uses that may
-- for example, think of Executive, Emerald Avenue, that area generally between like
Cloverdale -- you know Eagle, Cloverdale, Five Mile, industrial. Hewlett-Packard
probably -- you know, industrial type. It does not imply dirty industry. The allowed uses
are quite broad and it would allow for, you know, a number of manufacturing, assembly
type uses, whether that's high tech, other clean industry uses would be allowed in the
industrial. And, of course, as far as design along Eagle Road, which I think I heard
mention either this meeting or last meeting, those kinds of issues can also be dealt with
in terms of a design review of buildings, but as far as the uses, I think to assume that
this would be, quote, unquote, dirty industry, would, I think, be an incorrect assumption
that it would have to go that way. Bear in mind that there are a number of those uses
that could -- could be submitted in the future for the property.
Newton-Huckabay: Thanks.
Zaremba: Thank you. Well, my conundrum is that I support the existence of industrial
property. Again, Meridian has so little of it designated. I appreciate that there are some
opportunities to perhaps re-designate some other areas that are not identified. But the
conundrum for me is that industrial property is very logical along the railroad. The
opposite piece to that is we have Eagle Road that has a lot of traffic on it and is -- I have
discuss before -- a lot of that traffic is not Meridian traffic, it's coming from other towns
passing through and to have retail along Eagle Road to perhaps get some of those
people to stop and leave a few dollars here, would be an equal benefit, if not better
benefit, to Meridian. The difficulty is we have an intersection of a railroad where I'd like
to see industrial and Eagle Road where I'd like to see commercial and retail and what
do you do where there is two thoughts overlap? My assessment is even if we did
nothing, even if we denied this application, only 22 acres would be developed as
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 20 of 72
industrial, if it ever were developed as anything. The rest of it already can be developed
for retail, because of the mixed use designation, even though the ground is designated
industrial, the mixed used overlay, and probably without an application, would allow that
to go forward. So, my solution to the conundrum, much as I would like to reserve
industrial lands, is a very slight tilt toward approving this application. That's about as far
as I can go, unfortunately. If there is any further discussion, I think we have a sense of
how the Commission would act. 1--
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: I would say we should move ahead.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 04-003.
Zaremba: Is there --
Borup: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say
aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of
CPA 04-003 -- excuse me? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh.
Zaremba: I think the intention was -- because we have another CPA application later,
that we table this one to the end of the meeting. The issue, for those of you who mayor
may not have gotten it, is that we can only make a map change to the Comprehensive
Plan every six months, that's Idaho state law, and we have two such applications before
us and we are trying to keep them together, even though they are totally unrelated to
each other, so that we don't make one decision tonight and, then, the other one has to
be wait six months before it can be considered. So, even though the items are
unrelated. I think the suggestion is that we continue this Item 5 to the end of the
meeting --
Borup: Commissioner Moe is ready of a motion.
Zaremba: -- when we have already made the decision on Item 11.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing -- or the hearing of CPA
04-003 to the end of the meeting.
Rohm: Second.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 21 of 72
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Would we also want to move six and seven to the same --
Zaremba: Do we want to continue six and seven and depending on how we go, then,
we will discuss those?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Zaremba: It doesn't sound like much of the general public is here to hear this issue
anyhow. So, I think if we put -- I would entertain a motion to continue -- I'm sorry, I first
need to open them, because I don't believe we did that.
Borup: Can we just adjust the agenda?
Zaremba: Let's see. Why don't I just open them and we will continue them. Is that
okay?
Rohm: It works for me.
Zaremba: All right. I will open the public hearings for RZ 04-017 and the Public Hearing
for CUP 04-051.
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, there is no reason you can't hear these items now. You
don't have to table these to the end of the agenda. That was my understanding of what
was going to happen, so I'm sorry if I interrupted inappropriately, but you can go ahead
and hear the items, you just can't make -- you can't take action on the Comp Plan
amendment until you know what you want to do with the other ones. So, there is no
reason you can't conduct these public hearings. You don't have to put them off, you just
-- you're just putting off your decision on the Comp Plan amendment. You just can't
make a decision on it. They know how you're going, you just can't make a formal action
on it.
Rohm: Well, we wouldn't be able to make a decision on these either, though, until
that's --
Borup: Until we vote on it.
Rohm: -- until we vote on the other.
Canning: But -- you can't make a final decision. Correct.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20. 2005
Page 22 of 72
Rohm: Right.
Canning: You may need to direct staff to come back with a recommendation or some
item of that, but putting it to the end of the agenda will not accomplish anything tonight.
Borup: Commissioner -- I mean Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I would be interested if Mr. McKinnon -- if we did hear it now, if he would be
staying for the final vote? So, he's going to be staying for the vote anyway, since we
don't have any public testimony. The only thing it would accomplish, we would be able
to move along and maybe get to some of the issues that most of the people are here to
address.
Zaremba: Well -- and that was my feeling. I -- the end result is that we are likely to
continue the RZ and the CUP anyhow for further input and my instinct would be to take
that testimony at the end of the meeting as -- whatever there is to be said about the two
public hearings, to take that at the end of the meeting, since I think we have already
learned that most of these people are not here for that subject.
Borup: I would be favor of that.
Zaremba: I would entertain a motion to continue these two public hearings to the end of
the meeting.
Rohm: I'd like to make that motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend that we
continue Public Hearing RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051 to the end of the agenda.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Motion and second to continue these two items to the end of the meeting. All
in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.63
acres from a RUT zone to a R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo
Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: PP 04-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98
building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian
Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 23 of 72
Item 10:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 zone
for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian
Road:
Zaremba: Next item on the agenda is -- are, actually, three public hearings. We will
deal with eight, nine, and ten together. This is AZ 04-032 request for annexation and
zoning of 19.63 acres from RUT zone to an R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo
Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road. Also Public Hearing PP 04-043, request for
preliminary plat approval for 98 building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North
Meridian Road. Also Public Hearing CUP 04-052, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a planned development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 zone for
Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road. And, again, we
will begin the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. On this first item
number eight, the property is located on the north end of our area of impact. North
Meridian Road is the frontage that this property has. It is approximately 20 acres in size
and recent applications in the area that the city has seen include Paramount
Subdivision, which is shown in yellow here on the west side of Meridian Road, Saguaro
Canyon Subdivision, which abuts a portion of the east property line, and, then, the
Ventana Subdivision, which the City Council just approved last week, is located on this
60 acres here. This map doesn't reflect the fact that it's zoned, but it is zoned with the
preliminary plat approved for it. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property a
medium density residential and they are proposing an R-8 zone for annexation. Staff
has submitted some findings to you and we do find that the R-8 zone meets the intent of
that designation and we are recommending approval of that. The aerial photo is
included in here, largely to help you understand the site. It currently is used for some
agricultural, but there is a large estate type house here in the center of the property, as
is the property -- 20 acres to the south has the same similar design and setup. This plat
is, actually, a revised plat from what was submitted with the application. We received
this about a week ago. The application originally did not include a stub street here to
the east, nor did it include a stub street to the north. That's really the main two changes,
but our staff report was based on this design, just so you know. So, if you recommend
approval with our staff report, you would be recommending approval to the City Council
of this plan, not the one that was originally submitted with the application. There are
125 lots total, 98 of them are build-able, and the remainder are common lots. The
applicant is proposing two access points onto Meridian Road. All of the street system is
public. They have one here on the south and one on the north, which they have shown
generally to be their main entry. It does have a median in the center. There are two
different types of products, a house product that they are proposing with this application,
both detached single family, which is in this area here, generally, along the north and
along the west and in the center are all single family detached. Then, along the south
and the east they are proposing three different structures. There is -- they are all
town homes, as they are defined by our ordinance, attached single family, four attached,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 24 of 72
five attached, and six attached. So, there is, actually, three different types of buildings,
but they are all single family in terms of the ownership. Each, as you can see, have
narrow lots, but the - there is no separation between the structures and these areas,
other than where you see some of these common lots that do break it up. The other
thing that they are proposing is, fortunately, to maintain the existing residence and
would convert that to a clubhouse. They are also proposing to construct a parking lot in
this location off of the southern public street that would cross a common lot here in
order to access the clubhouse. Let's see. As far as some of the features, they are
proposing 14 and a half percent of the site as open space. There is 4.99 dwelling units
per acre. That is a gross number, so net density is slightly higher. The planned
development, which is here, Item No.1 0 on the agenda tonight, the planned
development is submitted for a couple of different reasons. One is they are asking for
an exception to the lot sizes in the R-8. That does affect, of course, the attached
products. You can see the groupings better with this planned development site plan.
You can see these open space lots, how they break up the units. So, the planned
development is asking for an exception -- right now the city ordinance says you cannot
do two attached dwelling units -- more than -- more than two. You can do one zero lot
line per lot and, as you can see, some of these need two zero lot lines. Most of them
actually, in order to be constructed. So, that's one of the waivers that they are asking
for, is to do more than one zero lot line on the lot. Another one is the lot frontage. They
are asking to be reduced to a 30-foot minimum lot frontage and, again, that 30 foot
mainly applies to the 37 attached units. Most of the other detached homes have the
standard lot frontage or slightly under. The stub streets were asked to be created or
provided by the Ada County Highway District when they went to the highway district.
That was one of the requests of them. Staff is supportive of it. The one question -- I will
just go back to the aerial, so you can get a little bit of a sense. This is the Catholic
Church here on the corner of Chinden and Meridian Road. This green area down here
is owned by the church. However, as you can see, their parking lot -- they don't have
any structures, there is no -- there is no uses on that. So, in terms of do you put a stub
street to that or not was a question that was raised by staff and, you know, is certainly
partly dependent on the church. Without -- at this point the record doesn't state if they
intend to do -- what they intend to use that for. It certainly is possible that that ten acres
could be sold off or redeveloped as residential or office or something else in the future
and in that case we really would like to see a stub street there. If it's just a church
parking lot, does it make as much sense, probably not. But it is a little bit of an
outstanding question. I'll ask the applicant to kind of provide us a little more information
on that if they have it tonight. And, then, there is just three other items on page ten of
the staff report that I wanted to call the Commission's attention to. We have asked that
the applicant address the status of the North Slough lateral easement. You can see,
down here on the southeast corner of the site, the existing South Sough -- I'm sorry, the
North Slough, and they are proposing to realign that and bring it up through this
common lot from the south and, then, go underneath the street with it and, then, into
this common area. It would actually be piped for a portion of that, but, then, would be
open near the clubhouse and, then, of course, piped underneath the street and, then,
would be open in that area and the preliminary plat doesn't call out an easement for
that, but our understanding on other projects in this area is that there is a 40 foot
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 25 of 72
easement, so we want some clarification on that. Who claims the easement and is the
width going to change if it's piped. So, that was one question. Another one was they
are certainly showing a gravity pipe irrigation on a common lot here. However, Saguaro
Canyon doesn't show a common lot there, so we wanted some clarification, if that may
involve a change of a common lot if they have to shift that. I already talked about the
north stub street. Item D on page ten is the street section widths and they are
proposing reduced street sections with this project. Standard 50-foot right of way width,
but the loop drive around the whole perimeter -- well, up to this point right here. All of
this is reduced street section. This main entry road -- I think they are calling it Rio Vista
-- would be a standard street section and have parking on both sides. The main reason
I bring that up is that if you approve this -- this plat tonight and this stub street is
approved with a 32 foot street section, rather than a standard 36, it could impact the
property -- the subdivision to the east and they would -- there would be maybe some
transitional issues with the right of way there. So, at a minimum we are asking that that
be 36 up to -- to this north-south street. But as we are recommending to go ahead and
just make it a standard 36 all the way out to the entry, because it is a 50-foot right of
way and they do have the room to do it. Then, the last thing I wanted to bring up was
item F on page ten. That has to do with the clubhouse parking lot and this was, I guess,
mainly, you know, a recommendation for the -- tied to the planned development, not
necessarily a code violation, but we do have just a recommendation that the applicant
consider moving this parking lot up to this lot here or the one on the corner, so that it's
not sandwiched between two residential lots. The police department also made a
comment about that in terms of visibility into that and they'd prefer it to be a little bit
more open. And, then, the last item -- there is a fence, a concrete decorative wall that is
on the -- that currently surrounds the residence. That fence comes within a couple of
feet of this Rio Vista Drive. Staff's original recommendation to them was to, you know,
try to shift the street, so that that wall isn't so close to the back of the sidewalk right
there. They prefer not to shift the street. If possible, we'd still like to see that happen. If
not, then, you would need to talk about that and they would need to request a waiver or
an exception to the ordinance, we believe, unless the attorneys have another way to
handle that, but as a part of that planned development application, that they would need
to do that. So, I think I'll just end staff comments right there. Oh, I'm sorry, I did have
one -- the last slide has to do with -- this is a concept elevation of the townhouse. This
would be a townhouse that has four attached and, as I mentioned, there are concepts
with five attached and six attached as well, but I think they are generally proposing that
design.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I have one. On that stub street going to the west --
Zaremba: Speak to the microphone.
Newton-Huckabay: The stub street going to the -- I really need a pointer.
Rohm: Here, I have one. Remember where you got that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 26 of 72
Newton-Huckabay: This is -- Saguaro Canyon is down here, not right here; right?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: So, this hasn't been developed.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Ah. Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, I'm sorry. This location.
Newton-Huckabay: Thanks.
Zaremba: Let's see. I do have a couple of questions, if nobody else does. Brad, on
page three of your report at the top, while you were talking you told us a number of
things that ACHD wanted and the applicant has had time to redraw their presentation
and that's what your report is based on, but you said the ACHD commission isn't going
to hear this until January 19th, which would have been last night. Do we know their final
decision?
Hawkins-Clark: I do not, Commissioner.
Zaremba: We assume it matches with their staff report, probably?
Hawkins-Clark: I do, but I have not received final word. Actually, we are being handed
something right now. This is magic. It was approved by the highway district.
Zaremba: Okay. Essentially as you saw it?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: One minor -- which may be a typo. At the bottom of page four you say
Ventana is proposing a 35-foot wide landscape buffer and my question is that's the
subdivision just to the south of this. Either your next sentence was going to be this one
needs to match that or was that supposed to be that Hacienda, is proposing the 35?
Hawkins-Clark: That was a test, Commissioner. You passed. It should be Hacienda.
Zaremba: Hacienda is proposed?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay. Just wanted to be sure. Those were my questions. Anybody else?
Is the applicant ready? Is that Mr. Nickle?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 27 of 72
Nickle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickle, 52 North 2nd
Street in Eagle, representing Doug Jayo. It sounds like we have a lot of outstanding
issues, but we have, actually, been working with staff and most of them are -- have
been ironed out. So, I will just go through them very briefly and, then, stand for any
questions you have. Staff did an excellent job of explaining the intent of the
development. I do have a couple pictures that they are going to put up on the screen to
show you the wall and the drainage ditch and kind of explain our intent on that. With
regard to the South Slough - Anna, could you put back up my plat with the open
space? Thank you. With regards to the South Slough, our intent is, as staff said, to
pipe that ditch to this point and, then, we would like to keep the remainder of it open,
meandering through the open space. Now, that's going to be dependent upon Settlers
Irrigation District and our understanding is they haven't been too kind about leaving
those ditches open in the past. I think Saguaro did have to tile those. We are going to
ask for consideration to that, because it really does lend itself to the atmosphere with
the existing trees and the open space, to leave that open. It's not that large of a ditch.
It kind of meanders through the property. In either event, we have provided for 40 feet
at all spots, so if we do have to -- that represents the easement and, then, we are to tile
it, we would be able to contain that within the open space, as you see right there. But I
guess we are asking for a waiver to keep it open and not tile it, but it's ultimately going
to be Settlers' decision on whether we can leave that open.
Rohm: And so what's your position on this if Settlers says we want to tile it, are you
willing to concur with that or are you --
Nickle: I don't think we have a choice. We are going to have to concur with it, if Settlers
-- we are not going to fight Settlers.
Rohm: That was the question. Thank you.
Nickle: Yeah.
Borup: I think you have got our permission to fight them if you'd like.
Nickle: If you'd like to fight my battles for me, that would be great. With regards to the
gravity pipe location that we have on our plat, we provided that -- and my engineer is
here and he can explain in more detail if you'd like -- don't like my answer, but we are
showing the existing location of that -- of that ditch coming into the property, in the event
that Saguaro was not to develop. Now, obviously, their plan shows it in another
location, so we will provide for that -- for that connection. But we are just showing
where it's coming out right now, because we have to maintain that drainage coming off
that other property and pass it along. So, Dave can come up here and explain where
we would be putting it and how we can adjust those lots appropriately. With regard to
the, stub to the north, I tried in desperation to get a hold of the church, someone at the
church, to find out what their plans were for that north parcel and did not have any luck
doing that. We are assuming that they are going to develop it at some point and extend
. Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 28 of 72
the church and so a stub street in the middle of the subdivision, I don't believe, and
neither does my client, would be appropriate to drain from their parking lot down through
our subdivision. I think it's more appropriate to have it at the entrance to the
subdivision. ACHD concurred with that. That's where they approved the location. It
does split up the block length, as staff has indicated. We would prefer to have it at that
location, we just don't know what the church is going to do, and I'll continue to try to
track someone down there and if we can get a little more concrete decision from them
prior to City Council, maybe we can talk about it at that time, but we'd prefer to have that
stub at that location. We did provide the sub to the east. Saguaro did not provide a
stub for us and so staff felt it appropriate to have some sort of access to the east and so
we did -- we did located that there. Regarding the street section width, it's my
developer's intent to have parking on both sides, so we are going to provide a street
width that will accommodate that. Now, whether that's 33 or 36, you know, I don't -- I
don't know what -- what -- if the city has a preference. The main boulevard will be 36
and, then, also to this point will be a 36 width. What we are proposing is to have I
guess a minimum of 33 to accommodate parking on both sides. That would be in line
with the -- with your fire -- fire department. So, I'll just leave that to staff. We have no
problem building it all to 36. We would like a little bit of latitude on this area right here,
it's just the wider the road the faster the traffic is and the narrower it can be, I believe
that traffic slows down with a narrower roadway. Of course, we have to meet fire district
policy and we will do that. We are going to provide -- we are going to do shared and
common accesses to the townhouse lots. Staff's concern is that each lot would have an
individual driveway, so it is our intent to have those shared. Regarding the clubhouse
parking, we do show it right here. We would have no problem moving it to this location
right here, if that's the preference of the city. We'd prefer it right here, rather than over
there. This is a build-able lot right there, so regardless if we put it here or here, it's
going to be adjacent to at least one build-able lot. Could you put up those wall pictures?
One thing that's unique about this site is that existing dwelling. If you have driven by it,
it's a very nice Spanish style house and the concept for this development, which is why
we call it Hacienda, is to kind of keep that theme going throughout and we are going to
convert that existing house into a clubhouse. There is a picture of it right there. This
wall staggers from six feet and as you can see it goes down to four feet and, then, the
three feet. That's a little bit better of a picture right there. This is six feet at this -- at this
juncture right here. Again, we'd like to -- I mean we can remove the walls, if that's the
decision of the city. We'd like to keep that and incorporate it into our landscape and the
theme of the subdivision. It is a stucco -- bricked stucco wall with brick. I do
understand the concern of the police department. I don't know if we ever got a
response from the police as to their concerns with people hiding behind that wall.
Again, this is going to be a clubhouse with a pool. It's going to be occupied most of the
time. I mean we could gate the front entrance that can be opened and closed and
locked during off hours, if that would help. I guess I'm looking for some -- some ideas
from the city, but we'd really like to keep that. If you look at that picture right there, it
really is a neat layout and we'd like to keep that wall in that location.
Rohm: I believe the staff had commented that possibly adjusting the location of the
road. Can you address that or maybe your engineer?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20,2005
Page 29 of 72
Nickle: Yeah. Dave can. I'll let him.
Rohm: Okay.
Nickle: I think that's all I have. If you have any questions for me, if I didn't answer
anything that staff brought up, please, relay that. Everything else -- we are in
agreement with the conditions of approval. We will provide a revised plan to show
some of these issues that staff has brought up and we are in agreement with everything
else. Thank you.
Borup: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. One of the amenities listed a swimming pool
and I did not see that on the site anywhere. Is it drawn on there?
Nickle: Yeah. If we can go back to the site plan again. I don't believe it is on the plan,
but it's going to be located back in this area over here.
Borup: Well, I assumed it was in that area somewhere, but that's a big area.
Nickle: Yeah.
Borup: But, still, it's still planned for--
Nickle: Yeah. We will build it. There is not a pool there currently and we will put one in.
Zaremba: And that's within the walled area? When it ends up it will be within the walled
area?
Nickle: Yes.
Rohm: Do you have any specific measurements to that pool or --
Nickle: No. I mean it -- I don't. Average size. It will be more of a pool than a pond.
Zaremba: How many openings are there in that wall? Are you expecting to have an
opening only where they would access it from the parking lot or are there other ways to
walk in and out or --
Nickle: I believe the intent is to have it enclosed. Yeah, to have it enclosed and have
that access. There will probably be some access points on the other side that will line
up with the open space, because there will be pathways and things like that, but for the
most part it will be enclosed.
Zaremba: Any further questions for Mr. Nickle? Okay. Is this a tag team? Do we need
Mr. Bailey?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20,2005
Page 30 of 72
Nickle: He will answer the questions I didn't. Thank you.
Bailey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Bailey. My office address is
1500 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle and I'm representing Doug Jayo for the Hacienda
Subdivision. And should I just go ahead and rattle a few here?
Zaremba: Please do.
Bailey: And maybe we will get those taken out. On the streets, the concept was to
keep the traffic -- keep the parking on both sides and I probably missed the mark on
that, because I thought it was 32 feet and we could still park on both sides. So, 33 feet I
understand is parking on both sides, but we do intend -- and when we designed this we
kept this at 36 feet along this south side and down this way and this is 36 feet, so if we
have connections, we are maintaining those as the full width through there. I didn't
adjust the street when we added the stub street, but I think that we will go ahead and
increase the size of this street to 36 feet along the north boundary here to, so where we
have connections we have streets that go through at full local street width to 36 feet.
We would like to keep this portion of this street and this portion around this end at the
33 feet, with the approval of your fire department to park on both sides within that 33
feet. So, that would be my intent or my understanding of how we would proceed on
that. I may cover these, again, real briefly. I think Shawn did, but the door was banging
a lot and I didn't catch if he got it all, so I will. This easement that currently runs through
on here is maintained by the -- by the Settlers Irrigation District and it is 40 feet wide
and we will provide -- actually, the common lots that we have shown through here are,
in fact, 40 feet wide and we would have the easement on top of the common lots and so
-- and I spoke with Nathan Draper of the Settlers Irrigation District before we even
started doing this, talking about pipe size and easement width, we would make sure we
would make that and at the time he didn't seem too opposed to portions of it staying
open and I think their policy has evolved a little bit since then and I think they have
made a decision on an adjacent subdivision since then about piping that ditch and I'm
pretty sure they are going to make us pipe it all the way through and we are amenable
to doing that. I don't know if Shawn addressed it, but I will real quickly. On the east end
here - currently the portion on Saguaro Canyon field drains across and comes into the
east end of the property and, then, dumps into the North Slough down here, so I wanted
to make sure that we recognize that on our preliminary plat, so if they didn't develop, we
have a plan to take care of that water and not let it run across our subdivision here. So,
that was the only purpose for putting that on there. On Rio Vista Drive here, we could
increase the radius of this curb and bring that out a little bit. I guess if we could come to
a number that would be acceptable for that setback and I think we are saying that it
needs to be 15 feet or 20. Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: The ordinance says 20. We have allowed waivers to ten normally.
Bailey: To ten. We could easily make the ten on there and I guess I would point out
that my understanding, anyway, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, that the purpose
for that setback from the road is so that it doesn't create a site distance problem on the
" Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 31 of 72
street and on a corner or between -- between lots and so that you keep a consistent
distance back there and if we bring this back to ten feet, that is on an outside corner and
we are not in this case producing ourselves a site distance problem or I don't believe we
are. So, I think we could easily make that ten from the right of way by adjusting the
street there, if that would be acceptable to the Commission. And the last issue I had
written down here is on the stub street we -- when we met with the highway district --
and I'm talking about this stub street. We certainly agree with this one here. We did
measure the distance from here to the church entrance, which is to the north of this and
there is -- I don't remember exactly what we came up with, but there is more than 600
feet -- a little bit more, it's about 630 or 640 feet. So, that parcel to the north technically
could, by ACHD code, get another access to Meridian Road there and still meet the 300
foot offset. So, we said, well, the highway district would like it, we think the city is
probably going to like it on there and so we would like to go ahead and put it in here, but
in talking with Doug Jayo, the owner, he would prefer this to a mid block, because, then,
if it is a parking lot it's not their parking lot from the middle of the subdivision. So, that
was the decision making process on that. And that's all I had written. I'll answer any
questions you have. I see I'm out of time anyway.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners?
Rohm: Yes. I wanted you to talk about the fencing around the central complex and its
relationship to the road. This -- maybe I missed it.
Zaremba: That's the one where he was talking about he could gain a ten foot--
Rohm: Oh. Oh. Excuse me. Excuse me. I was --
Zaremba: Just by bending that curve a little bit. Is that what you're saying?
Rohm: Yes. Okay. All right. 1--
Bailey: And I think this point here is the only place where that wall fence --
Zaremba: It looks like a very short conflict.
Bailey: Yeah. Gets within that 20 feet there, so if we had the ten there, we could keep
that in place. It looks really nice as seen from the pictures and we'd move that road
back to get our right of way ten feet from the -- from the front of that and I don't think it
would affect this lot too much here and just pull this over a little bit in this area. But I do
want to maintain the 40 feet, so I would push that into this -- this lot in here.
Newton-Huckabay: Are those just lots for a house?
Bailey: Those are build-able single family house lots and the square footage on those --
Newton-Huckabay: Ten thousand plus?
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 32 of 72
Bailey: Yes. Ten thousand square feet. But they are served by a common driveway, in
accordance with your ordinance. They are 15 feet each on the flag.
Rohm: And could you speak to this drainage here just a little bit more? And I'm not
sure exactly how you're going to tie it to the adjacent subdivisions.
Bailey: Commissioner Rohm, on -- what I said on this is that this field in Saguaro right
now currently drains when it's flood irrigated. It would flood across that field and it
comes in at this east boundary of the property and, then, makes its way down to --
makes it way down to the slough here in the center of this. So, my purpose of putting
that on here as far as the pipe location, the intent was if they don't develop, we want a
way to handle that water without it going -- and getting it piped to come here and go into
the slough down this way, to pipe that into the slough without -- without it running across
our subdivision. If they develop that, then, they are going to have roads and lots built
there. We no longer have flood irrigation on that adjacent parcel and that's not needed,
so we wouldn't use that at all. It's just a drain. The North Slough, I guess -- I guess
that's something that doesn't come up here. The North Slough is a -- is a ditch, it
receives runoff from this property and from other properties into it, as opposed to -- in
this area anyway, as opposed to being an elevated irrigation ditch that provides water
out. And so it's low and it's taking water in, so I always -- when I do a preliminary plat
and do an irrigation analysis, I always look at the entire perimeter of the project to see
where water could come in and could go out, so that I'm making sure that we are
handling those issues when we get to that point. Does that answer it?
Rohm: Yeah. Thank you.
Zaremba: Other questions? Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: This is the opportunity; again, for other people to ask and at the moment the
only person signed up is, again, Judith Bellcastor. Same comment. She's declining to
comment. Anybody else care to comment yea or nay on this or add any enlightenment?
Sir, come right up to the microphone.
Beeler: I didn't sign up on the sheet, but my name is Doug Beeler and I own the
property just -- where the stub street goes to the east side. The only question I had --
and, of course, I wasn't able to attend the meeting the other night, is what type of
fencing or separation on the east side is going to happen on that -- on that drawing. I
don't see anything on there.
Newton-Huckabay: The perimeter fencing on the development?
Zaremba: We will get that answer from the applicant.
.. Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20. 2005
Page 33 of 72
Beeler: Okay. Thank you.
Jayo: I'm Cameron Jayo with the developer Jayo Construction, 1323 South Five Mile
Road, Boise, Idaho. On the fencing, we intend to put in a nice upgraded vinyl fence, six
foot fence, on the east border of the development and on the south border of the
development. So, to answer that question.
Zaremba: Thank you. Anybody else care to comment? Mr. Nickle, you would have an
opportunity to wrap up.
Nickle: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickle. I think Dave answered all the questions
you needed. One thing to note, we did hold a neighborhood meeting earlier this week
and we did have a couple people and I think we answered their questions. They didn't
come tonight, so --
Zaremba: We appreciate that. The Commission can tell when a neighborhood meeting
has been held.
Nickle: The system works, I guess. And I'll talk to this gentleman afterwards to see if
there is any other concerns he has and show him the plan. So, thank you very much.
Zaremba: I guess one question I had for staff while the hearing is still open. You
mentioned in your report, of course, that the city only allows one common lot line and,
then, there must be space outside of that. I know in other cities brownstones or row
houses or whatever they are called, quite a number of separate properties in a row
seem to work very well and be very popular. So, in my mind I think, okay, how did we
get this rule to begin with? Is there a fire department issue with access to a backyard or
is there some other driving force that I'm not thinking of that would have caused us to
have that rule?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I don't believe so. I mean the fire department has
asked for the roofing material, because of the length of the structure, to be
noncombustible and, of course, there are some firewall separation issues in the
International Building Code between, you know, two independent living units, but my -- if
I was to wager a guess, I think that the only reason it currently says one per lot is
because, you know, it just really wasn't envisioned that you would have multiple -- and I
think the definition of a townhouse in our code clearly anticipates having more than two
attached, so by no means is it, you know, not looked at, because the ordinance defines
a townhouse as three or more attached single family dwelling units, so --
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, the only other thing that I can think of would be
during the development plan process there may be a requirement for additional
hydrants along those roads to get the spacing tighter, because the fire department does
have certain requirements for when they pull a hose line. They -- it's not as the crow
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 34 of 72
flies, they are going to have to go out and around buildings. So, you have to -- when
you have these zero lot lines, the longer the building, the fewer attack points you have
on the structure. So, that's something that we will be looking at with the fire department
during the development of the plans for the subdivision.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, I feel like that subject's adequately covered. Thank you.
Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close public hearings on AZ 04-034, PP 04-043,
and CUP 04-052.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the three public hearings. All in
favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Do we want to ask staff to go through the staff report and identify items that
are satisfied or are you ready to make a motion?
Rohm: Let's do that. That's a good idea.
Zaremba: It sounds like most of them were satisfied, but--
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it did sound that way. Yeah. Just one clarification. I think the last
comment by Mr. Jayo had to do with -- he mentioned fencing along the east boundary of
the subdivision and the south. The landscape plan that was submitted with the
application does show a five foot solid fence on the north for just -- for just a portion on
the very west end, but, then, it doesn't have any fencing right now currently shown, so --
as well as it doesn't actually call out fencing on the east and the south, so if the
Commission could include it, if that is a concern of yours or you would like to see and
require that vinyl six foot fencing, to go ahead and specify that in any motion you make
tonight, just to clarify that.
Zaremba: I suspect that inclusion would be appreciated.
Borup: Either way, solid fencing is required, isn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, actually, the ordinance does not require perimeter fencing. I
mean, you know, it -- the only place it requires it is along micro-paths. You know,
clearly you do see the vast majority of the time it constructed, but it's not actually
ordinance.
Borup: Okay.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 35 of 72
Hawkins-Clark: On the -- and just to clarify on that, construction fencing to contain
debris is required during construction, but as far as permanent fencing it's not. So, are
you asking, then, Chairman, to just kind of highlight the conditions that would be
affected by the comments tonight?
Zaremba: It sounded like the discussion solved a whole lot of the issues that you
identified and if our motion could include those at your direction --
Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think the -- on page 12, the site specific conditions for the
preliminary plat, item number four deals with the North Slough lateral. That was
addressed tonight. I think the testimony was that they would be piping it, so that,
actually, is a moot condition now, because that only deals if it was going to be left open.
If the Commission wants to voice an opinion on that and you'd like to still see them try to
keep it open and we could keep number four in there, it doesn't hurt anything, but -- and
maybe you could do that. Yeah. Okay. If they are going to keep trying for the open
ditch, then, maybe just keep four in there. I don't think it hurts anything.
Zaremba: We could add our support to that idea.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Zaremba: It sounds like a nice amenity to me to leave it open.
Rohm: Now, where is that again?
Zaremba: Assuming that it doesn't become a liability of children falling into it.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, that was why staff had recommended that the slopes be no
greater than four to one. It's very gradual.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Hawkins-Clark: Item number six, they did confirm the location of the gravity irrigation
line and at this point in time it sounds like the correct location is there, so that could be
deleted. I think the rest of the items on the preliminary plat are okay as written. The
site specific conditions on the Conditional Use Permit start on page 17. And item
number four is talking about that decorative wall and if you support an exception, then,
they are going to have to submit a revised application basically formally asking for that
waiver, so--
Zaremba: I think the offer was a compromise. They can tweak the road just a little bit
and --
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Okay. So, if you could clarify that maybe right there, so you
would -- that the Commission would like to revise the preliminary plat to provide a
minimum ten foot setback for the fence. The one item that really was not discussed
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 36 of 72
was the townhouse elevations, all 37 units at this point in time do appear to be the same
materials and the same center scheme and the Conditional Use Permit right now there
is not, actually, a condition that said that -- that requires that. If that is a concern of
yours, that would need to be a condition that's added in there to provide some variation
in the 37 units, so -- and the applicant's nodding their head that they are in agreement
with that, so if --
Zaremba: I remember that you put that in the discussion, but it was not --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It was not actually added as a condition; so that would --
probably be appropriate as item number ten under conditional use. So, I think that
would be -- that would be it for the conditions of approval.
Zaremba: We also didn't discuss -- I had marked it and forgot -- one of the fire
department positions is that the existing residence, which is going to be the future
clubhouse, shall be brought up to an assembly occupancy and the second part of it is
comply with the IFC, which is obvious, whether they said it or not, but have you had any
discussion with the applicant about assembly occupancy requirements?
Hawkins-Clark: We have not. We have not.
Zaremba: I would just comment, so that we know that the applicant is aware that that
condition is in there. I see heads nodding again. Okay. That condition already exists,
but we didn't talk about it.
Hawkins-Clark: Also, I guess the last change would be on page 19, the police
department conditions. They have a condition that reads: Any interior fencing shall
allow visibility from the street or shall exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used.
And, again, that pertains to the common lot there in the center of the project and we did
not receive any further comment from the police department on that. I think if you're
comfortable with the change that's made tonight, then, that should either be deleted or if
you want to ask them to get more clarification for the police department before the City
Council hearing, that might be another way to go.
Rohm: Deletion works.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, you appear to be prepared.
Rohm: I'm not sure, but I'll make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we
forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-034, to include all staff
comments dated January 18th, 2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, and for
this motion I don't believe there was any changes required.
Moe: I would second that.
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 37 of 72
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we forward on to City Council
recommending approval of PP 04-043, requesting preliminary plat for 98 building lots
and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision
by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road, including all staff comments dated
January 18th, 2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, with the following changes
-- I'm not as good at this as you.
Zaremba: You're excellent.
Borup: Page 12? Is that what you're looking for?
Rohm: Okay. On page 12 -- thank you, Commissioner. Item four, we need to add a
sentence at the end that says the Commission lends our support to the open ditching
and that's just for their -- lending support to the developer. Number six is to be stricken
in its entirety. And we will add an item 13, which states the perimeter fencing of six feet
will be required as is acceptable by staff. And on page 17, item four, a revised
preliminary plat will be provided before this is heard by City Council, depicting the
minimum ten-foot setback along the interior roadway. Item ten will be added that says
there shall be a varied color scheme within the townhouse development that is
acceptable to staff. End of motion.
Newton-Huckabay: The elevations as well.
Borup: Yeah. Wasn't that part of the CUP, rather than the--
Rohm: Oh. Strike that one and -- but all other revisals to be included. This is part of
the CUP.
Moe: On page 17 -- both of those on page 17.
Rohm: Both of the items on 17 will be included in the CUP motion. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Last motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council
recommending approval of CUP 04-052, including staff comments, dated January 18th,
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20.2005
Page 38 of 72
2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, with the following changes. On page 17,
item four, a revised preliminary plat to be provided prior to City Council, depicting the
minimum setback of ten feet and an additional item, number ten, be added that there
shall be a varied color scheme within the townhouse development that is acceptable to
staff and -- was there something on the elevations as well?
Borup: Item A under special conditions, just -- you could probably just include that in.
Just include that in as a motion -- I mean as item -- item ten.
Rohm: Adding Commissioner Borup's comments. End of motion.
Borup: I'll second that.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Traditionally, around 9:00 o'clock we take a short break to stretch our legs,
walk a little bit, and we will do that. We will recess for about ten minutes and, then,
reconvene.
(Recess.)
Item 11:
Public Hearing: CPA 04-004 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map from Low and Medium Density Residential to a
Commercial designation for a 2.298 acre parcel for Maverick Country
Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc. - 201 West Ustick
Road:
Item 12:
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:
Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene our session and note that all Commissioners have
returned and the next item on our agenda -- again, we have two items that deal with the
same subject, but since one of them is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, I'm only
going to open Item 11 at the moment, so we will have a public hearing open on CPA 04-
004, request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, future land use map, from low and
medium density residential to a commercial designation for a 2.298 acre parcel for
Maverick Country Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc., 201 West Ustick
Road, and we will begin with the staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to start off by saying it's good to be back in the
saddle again. I missed you all, but we are doing staff reports again, so with that I will
maybe jump right to the chase, since we did have another CPA on the agenda this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 39 of 72
evening. I will give you the amended recommendation, other than what the staff report
said that you have in your packet today. Christy Richardson from the Ada County
Highway District sent me an e-mail late Wednesday stating that she had not seen the
traffic impact study from the applicant. They haven't addressed any of the traffic
concerns, ACHD hasn't generated any response to this application, so without having all
the facts, we hesitate to have you make a decision on this until ACHD has had a chance
to comment on the traffic impact study, which they are requiring, because of the change
in the Comp Plan and there are access issues surrounding this property, which are
brought up in the staff report. But, in fairness to some of the neighbors, surrounding
property owners, they were here December 16, I believe it was, it was tabled from then,
we thought we should go ahead and have the hearing, but if you would, staff is now
recommending that you table any decision to a date certain after I give this -- the rest of
this staff report. So, with that I will jump into the details of the subject Comp Plan
amendment. It does propose to amend the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. What I would
just like to touch on real quick -- and we have scanned in the wrong site, but -- see if
there is another on that -- I guess that works. It's got some property lines there.
Disregard those. There are two parcels, actually, on this site, that were combined into
one. In 2003, I believe, they were combined. Just after the Comprehensive Plan was
adopted. So, that's why the Comprehensive Plan shows the northerly 1.2 acres being
medium density residential. And I don't even have that now. And the southerly portion
is public, quasi-public, the green designation. So, again, a record of survey has been
done post the adoption of that 2002 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing to
change all of this 2.3 acres located on the southwest corner of Meridian and Ustick to C-
C or commercial designation. Excuse me. Currently zoned R-4 in the county. There
are two homes and an outbuilding on the site currently. Surrounding the property
Settlers Park is that big purple property there on the map. It's zoned L-O. There are --
to the south are single-family residences in Strasser Farms Subdivision. That's a
county sub, zoned RUT. To the east are single-family homes in Eastbrook Village
Subdivision, that's also in the county, zoned R-6. I'll come back to that subdivision in
just a moment. To the west are the Presbyterian church. They are zoned R-4 in Ada
County. The church originally -- with that parcel -- that record of survey that was done,
did an L-shape kind of around the exact corner or 1.2 acres. That's since been
combined. I'll touch on that in just a little bit more. Again, the surrounding properties
know they have a comp plan up. You can see a little bit better the subject -- see if I can
zoom in here. It's going to be this half here that's yellow and the half there that's green.
Again, the church owned all of this in 2002 when the Comp Plan was amended, that's
why the whole L-shaped thing is all green and the very corner was in another holding.
Medium density residential is what the yellow stands for. Public, quasi-public, is the
green. Thus, the park across the street and the church that owns the subject parcel and
the church day care that's adjacent to it. The property is directly to the north again. The
park and the church as both designated public, quasi-public. The east and the south
are both, as you can see, medium density residential. But as part of the Sundance
subdivision, which is right on the opposite corner, the northeast corner, to the subject
site, they did set aside four acres of L-O. It's not zoned L-O, but there are four acres set
aside for office type uses that has not currently been constructed. We were working on
the residential portion today, but as part of that PD they did request a 20 percent use
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 40 of 72
exception and that was granted on the. merits of that office being incorporated to the 80
percent of the residential subdivision. In 2003 -- andl already touched on this a little bit
-- the -- the designation as shown today, primarily when churches, schools, parks, any
public, quasi-public uses were owned by those entities, they were just on the
Comprehensive Plan map based on ownership. So, as that changes we see a couple
of these that clean up, where a church doesn't need a remainder parcel, they sell part of
it off to be developed. That's the case you see here. If the current Comp Plan
amendment is approved, the applicant does intend to construct and operate a
convenience store, gas station, on approximately 1.2 acres, so approximately what is
shown in yellow here would be a convenience store, gas station. The remainder 1.1
acres would be for some other type of future retail use. The applicant did not submit a
conceptual site plan with the application. However, on Friday -- late Friday I did get an
e-mail from the applicant, one, stating that they hadn't done a neighborhood meeting, as
requested by this body in December. And, two, they brought a site plan in, provided
staff with a site plan that Friday, of conceptually how this would layout. They did not
show anything for the southern retail area, but access points were at least conceptually
proposed, a building was shown, parking, et cetera, et cetera. So, I don't want to dwell
too much on that site plan with this application. We are going to talk more about the
merits of a Comp Plan amendment than a gas station, necessarily, and if commercial
works in general for this site, rather than a gas station, but we can talk about that if we
need to later on. There are existing residential uses directly to the south and east and a
neighborhood center is planned along Ustick Road. As you can see here in that -- the
circle that's there in the mid section on Ustick Road. Those are the primary reasons
that staff doesn't believe that a Comp Plan amendment is appropriate at this point in
time. Something that wasn't discussed earlier is that the Comp Plan amendment is
fairly new. 2002. Obviously, 2002, I don't think that's enough time to see that come to
fruition. I don't think there is enough time, you know, for -- this neighborhood center
hasn't developed yet. We have seen some uses on the north side of this. We recently
approved the -- that development there. That car wash. Some other competing type
uses with commercial and we do want to give some of these neighborhood center
concepts a chance to really develop and if they don't work, maybe, then, you go back
and you change it to the more traditional commercial at the corners. But I don'tthink
that a little over two years, two and half years, is enough time to fully realize that and
start saying, ah, this didn't work, let's go to commercial at the intersections. So, just as
an aside, kind of, the potential for this to develop single family residential as is across
the street in that Strasser Farms Subdivision, they are approximately the same size, you
could get approximately the same density, eight to ten to eleven dwelling units, similar
type residential, you know, densities, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I don't
know -- that's obviously not what this applicant intends to do, but it is feasible and could
work on this site with one access point to Meridian Road, a Gul-de-sac street, you
wouldn't have any access close to the intersection there of Ustick and Meridian Road.
And that's a primary concern with any commercial user that goes in there, they are
going to want to have access to both arterial streets and there are only -- there is limited
frontage on both roads that is planned to be signalized in the future, creates traffic
conflicts, you're, obviously, going to have more traffic with a commercial user than an
eight to ten, eleven, dwelling units, estimated at a hundred trip -- or about ten trips per
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 41 of 72
day per dwelling unit. So, again, the main reasons that may adversely affect the
existing residential uses and the future residential uses to the south, it was mentioned
there are a couple of larger accounting parcels. If they are developing to residential, as
the comp plan shows, that's directly abutting commercial now. Those land uses --
generally, we don't support commercial directly abutting residential uses. It's make it
difficult. You do like to have the transitional zone and L-O, some storage units,
something like that that's a little less intense in the commercial, a little more intense than
the residential. Generally, not preferred, though, excuse me, to have two directly
abutting. The Cedar Springs professional center, I'm sorry, that's the name of the -- the
neighborhood center portion that was recently approved this last year. Within that
portion of the neighborhood residential there were four office buildings, a car future
wash, two field pumps and a drive-thru coffee stand on the 5.51 acres. Thank you,
Chairman. That's -- whoever that was in the neighborhood center. And the intent, as
the Comprehensive Plan calls out for these neighborhood centers, is to serve all
residents with a one to two mile square area. So, the intent is that it will draw people
from the area we are talking about today, will go to those areas for those types of
services. I believe that I touched on pretty much all the -- the issues related to the
Comp Plan amendment and staff's recommendation. I did want to reiterate a couple of
things that the applicant did submit a letter stating that they did c- they did meet. I'll let
them talk to you a little bit more about that. I had a chance to speak with the applicant
this past week -- or, actually, in the past few weeks, about that. We can talk about the
site plan if need be, but, again, we would ask you, depending on how this goes,
anyways, if you make a recommendation -- if you're leaning towards a recommendation
for approval, that you at least put this off a little ways, so we can get all of the facts from
the Ada County Highway District. But with that I will stand for any questions you may
have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Rohm: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: Craig, did you say that there are currently gas stations within the community
centers at other locations within the area of impact? Not this adjacent one, but -- it
seems to me that gas stations are -- they are not well received in most locations and if,
in fact, they are not going to approve a gas station down the road in an adjacent
community center, then, I'm just wondering where you put them.
Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I did not say that there were any in the
area of impact or north Meridian even. I can't think of too many off the top of my head
within a general area here. I was just stating that there has been one recently approved
for construction, not in operation yet, about a half a mile away. But the correct location
for those -- I mean these core commercial areas of these neighborhood centers,
according to the Comprehensive Plan, are where those types of uses are supposed to
go. I can let you know, however, that just down towards the wastewater treatment plant
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 42 of 72
-- it's not constructed yet, I don't know if you remember McNellis, it's right on the corner
there, they have at least conceptually they talked about putting a -- I believe it was a
Texaco station even in at that intersection. Now, again, we haven't seen that
Conditional Use Permit. They would have to come in. There are some arterial
intersections where a convenience store gas station would make sense. This one just --
there seems to be too many conflicts with this location. I hope that answered --
Rohm: Well, no, I was just wondering about gas stations in general. There seems to be
an exception to them regardless of where you put them and so I just was wanting to get
a little clarification on the community centers themselves. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman. Craig, are you talking about the corner -- the Ten
Mile and Ustick, the northwest corner? Wasn't it specifically stated that there would not
be a gas station there in the -- that that was not a -- we didn't zone it C-G.
Zaremba: And the Ten Mile and Ustick one in their development agreement it was
supposed to state some things that even they would normally be approved in a CoG, it
would not be there.
Newton-Huckabay: It was not an allowed use.
Zaremba: And we specifically listed that there would no gas station or convenience
store in that one.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, after it went through this body, the City Council
decided that they would, with a Conditional Use Permit, allow convenience stores, gas
stations, on the two lots that are zoned CoG. So, it's CoG right on the corner, L-O kind of
surrounding that, and I-L around that.
Newton-Huckabay: So, they went ahead and approved that. Okay.
Hood: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: And there is one proposed?
Hood: No. I'm just saying that that -- we haven't seen that Conditional Use Permit,
which the City Council did require, but at least in the preliminary stages it has been
discussed at an intersection not too far down the road. I mean it is not in this
neighborhood, but at least in the north Meridian area another gas station and a grocery
store. But we just haven't seen those type of things happen yet, but according to the
Comp Plan --
Zaremba: But one which is approximately where the C is has been approved?
Hood: Yes. On the north side.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20. 2005
Page 43 of 72
Zaremba: We recommended approved, City Council --
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: -- did act to approve it.
Hood: And that's just what staff was -- you know, we gave that approval, not that it's not
a free market society, but just to give that a chance to have that come to fruition. It
doesn't seem fair that we tell these people this is where those type of uses are going
and, then, we approve a Comp Plan just down the road for a competitor when they look
at this map in possibly choosing that location to go. So, I don't know that, but that's just
some things to think about, anyway, when reviewing this application.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward?
Murray: Dan Murray with the Maverick Country Stores. I appreciate the opportunity to
visit with you tonight. And let me apologize for a couple of things. Number one, with
ACHD. ACHD did request of us a traffic study, but I didn't realize that that traffic study
needed to be submitted prior to this hearing. I thought it was a separate issue that I just
had to address with ACHD. Let me also apologize for not -- it probably would have
saved some confusion had we have included in our submittal a site plan. Many of
staff's comments deal with the site plan. Of course, the Comprehensive Plan
amendment is more of a zoning issue than it is a layout issue and it's not requested that
a site plan be submitted. We probably should have had the foresight just to provide
that. I think that it would have addressed many of their concerns relative to lighting,
relative to berming along street frontages to mitigate lighting even further relative to
buffering along our south property line. Also, relative to the size of the property,
because this is, actually, a very large piece of property. It would be the largest of our
stores, our facilities, in this area, which facilitates us moving driveways substantially
further away from the intersection than you will see on most similar uses in the city. Let
me address some of staff's comments, if I can. Many of their comments dealt with our
specific use here and the lack of a buffer for the adjoining residential. I have two
comments in that regard. Number one, the property is a little bit unique in that as it's
situated it is largely buffered. So, to the west of the property we have the church
property. I'm not sure how many acres they sit on, four to six acres, something of that
size. Of course, to the north we have the city park. Kiddy corner across the street we
have our acre that was held out of the Sundance development for office development,
and we actually face the residential across the street and on the south. So, on our other
frontages it really is buffered. In addition to that, in many of the communities that we
deal with they actually look at placing commercial at the intersections; so as to buffer
residential uses from the traffic of these busy intersections. Here the view, obviously, is
a little different. With regard to the concept of the neighborhood centers, as we -- we
use a sales forecasting model that's through a company called Prediction Analytics and
as I run the two scenarios, the location of Meridian and Ustick, and as I run -- I assumed
-- I didn't know exactly where this neighborhood, center was, so I used Cooper and
Ustick. I hope I picked the right street there. There is a 30 percent difference in sales
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 44 of 72
forecast between the two scenarios. I think that the city's goal -- I was on Eagle and on
Fairview this evening at 5:15 and so I appreciate the traffic there and I appreciate the
city's goal and I think there is some wisdom to it, to provide some of these services
within the neighborhoods and not require that anytime anybody needs any service, that
they go to Eagle Road or to Fairview., Certainly those roads are about as busy as they
can get and it's not a pleasant experience to be on them. But I think the challenge
comes in that for many retailers that are destinations, a neighborhood center concept,
which is at an artery and a half-mile intersection, that's fine. For a destination it doesn't
matter. But for a convenience retailer it matters to us. And, you know, it matters to the
degree of 30 percent difference in sales. We certainly don't have those types of
margins at the projection that we had on the half mile intersection a store isn't
economically feasible. Certainly, if I thought that it was a viable alternative for me, this
is never a pleasant experience, I wouldn't want this experience, number one, and,
number two, I would pay less for property at a half mile intersection than I would at the
intersection of two arterials. I think it's important, because, again, for destination uses I
think the neighborhood concept works well, but for convenience uses, I don't think it
serves our needs. From a retailer's perspective, it -- from this retailer's perspective it
doesn't make economic sense to us and we can't build at that type of a location.
Comments have also been made about a 2.3-acre residential subdivision. In my
conversations with ACHD, the Eastbrook Subdivision, which is to the east of this
property, wouldn't be permitted today, because of the location of the streets relative to
the intersection. And our driveways are actually -- both, as proposed on the site plan,
are further from the intersection than that roadway is. But I'm not sure how desirable or
how really functional a 2.3 acre residential subdivision would be at this intersection.
That's really the sum of our comments. We have an existing store here in Meridian.
We appreciate the patronage. We have plans, as you know, to build a second store at
Overland and Locust Grove. We are excited about that. And we are also excited about
serving the north end of the community. Many of the concerns I know are site plan
related. We are more than happy to address those. If you have specific concerns on
site plan related issues, I'm more than happy to address those. But that's really the sum
of our comments this evening, so I appreciate your consideration.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Then, this is the
opportunity for other testimony. The first person that I have on the list is Allen
Anderson.
Anderson: Allen Anderson. 10012 Ironclad Court in Boise, Idaho. I'm representing or
am a committee member representing the Presbytery of Boise, the owners of these
properties. Initially, just for background, both properties were purchased and the old
home that was -- that's on the property was used as the Snake River Missionary offices,
while the current building that's on the other parcel was built. It was now the intent,
then, once that function of that building is over with, that we seek the highest and best
use for that piece of real estate and how we can best support the church development
on that site on the other side. That's the intent of selling the property. The Presbytery
meets in committees, it's -- you understand how committees work and how long things
can take, is very supportive of Maverick and we don't feel in conflict at all with the use of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 45 of 72
our facilities there, that there would be a problem there. In fact, we embrace it, we think
that it's appropriate. We really seek the highest and best use for the benefit of the City
of Meridian and for the development of the other property that we have available.
Additionally, we understand the concerns with regard to traffic. That's a -- you know,
the headlines in the Statesman are pretty clear. It would seem to me if we could save a
few dozen trips downtown to get gas and milk that maybe we could ease some of that
by having those folks being able to use the retail facilities at Ustick and Meridian Road.
And, again, we do support it and I guess that's about alii need to say.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Judith
Bellcastor. Is this the item you actually came to speak about?
Bellcastor: Yes.
Zaremba: Would you, please, come forward.
Bellcastor: My name is Judith Bellcastor. I live at 3165 North Meridian. The home
that's on this property, my children, my husband and I rent it. We are not the owners.
We don't have a lot of say. However, we are surrounded by neighbors. We have
watched all the old farms be torn up and subdivisions built. A gas station at this location
would have a tremendous impact. There are small children that run and play through
the neighborhood. There are many families. The traffic on NQrth Meridian Road and
Ustick -- I have to wait sometimes 20 minutes to pull into my driveway, which is off of
Ustick. There is no entrance on Meridian to the home. It's only on Ustick Road. I also
have neighbors, the Sweets, they have built family homes, they are an extended family,
they would be severely impacted by a gas station and thousands of cars coming in and
out of that property every day. I'm not fighting to stay in that house, I realize it's for sale.
We need to move. No one has mentioned the fact that home is an historical landmark.
That house was built in the 1890s. There is birds of prey that have come to live in our
trees that are 150, 200 years old, because all the other farms are being ripped apart.
There is a lot going on there and I just don't understand the reasoning behind putting a
slab of concrete and gas pumps and all this more traffic there at North Meridian and
Ustick Road. If anyone wants to try the traffic out there, go there between 3:00 and
5:30 and see how long it takes you to travel just to get to Linder. I mean it's a terrible
traffic impact place. I can't imagine how the families will be affected by a gas station in
the cul-de-sac that the previous speakers have mentioned. They are all families. They
have little kids that run and play. It would be an endangerment to those families. There
are people that are living there. They have lived there for a long time. No
neighborhoods coming up. I just -- I can't understand how it could be logical to put a big
gas station right in the middle of where people live. The gas fumes, the traffic, the
dangers, they have had to lower the speed limit to 35 because of the traffic problem at
the intersection of North Meridian Road and Ustick. It would be a travesty to lay a slab
of concrete and have the gas fumes coming up. Cutting down those old trees where the
bird have nowhere else to live -- and, as I said, I have neighbors, the Sweets, they are
an extended family, we have watched them, learned from them over the years, how
they live, how they keep their place, what a family is. That's alii have to say.
. Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 46 of 72
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Okay. Thank you. James Bellcastor. From the
audience he says the same thing. Okay. I believe it's Roger M. Hucks. Is that close?
Huckins: How are you doing? My name is Roger Huckins. I reside at 112 East
Eastbrook Court, which is Eastbrook Village, which would be directly across from this
establishment that they are trying to put in there. I'd just like to state that, number one,
the traffic being a major issue is something I'm really deeply concerned with, being
number one. And as the gal that was just up here, I support her as far as the children in
our neighborhood. I live directly across the street there in the cul-de-sac. Everybody on
that block has children that do play in that cul-de-sac. That intersection alone it -- in
probably just a little over a year I have been there, I have seen probably over five
accidents. People coming through the back -- parts of our backyard and through the
fences. The gentleman here from the Presbyterian church says, yeah, the convenience
store would be nice to have for milk and groceries and that thing. Well, then, you have
alcohol that comes into playas well to sell and use for someone to come purchase
alcohol and end up in my cul-de-sac, run into one of my children or someone else's on
the neighborhood lot there and just -- to me I just -- I don't agree with it and I'm opposed
to it and that's pretty much alii have to say. Okay? Thank you for your time.
Zaremba: Thank you. David Beck.
Beck: Commissioners, I'm David Beck. I reside at 6901 West Victory Road in Boise.
I'm a Presbyterian minister representing Boise Presbytery, where I serve as one of their
trustees. It was our intention from the beginning and the philosophy of Boise Presbytery
that owns the property, that Maverick being there would be an asset to the area. I,
myself, am a bit surprised. I live two blocks from a Maverick and I think of it more as a
convenience store, because that's how I use it. It's open every day of the year,
including Christmas. It's open 24 hours a day where mine is. In the middle of the night
if somebody gets sick I can get cough drops two blocks away. When my wife comes
home with a car that just has fumes, I've got a gas station two blocks away. And we
haven't had one of those big blizzards everybody tells me about, but when that day
comes I can get groceries walking two blocks away from my home. And I saw it from
the beginning as an asset to everyone. Watching the traffic on Victory, which is very
very busy and more busy now that it's been widened, I can't recall any great problem in
terms of entrance and exit from the Maverick Station there and I would not really think
that would happen here either. The church wants to do what's best for the community.
We had intended to use the proceeds where we would sell it to bring down our
indebtedness on that property and be in a position to develop a major church for
Meridian there to serve you, hopefully, in the next century. That's our plans. And it was
with that that we have engaged in this effort and is why I support it. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Seeing no questions, Cindy Hicks. Okay.
Hicks: I'm Lonnie Hicks. I live at 185 East Eastbrook Court. I'd 'like to put a couple of
numbers to the traffic thing here a little bit. In the public meeting they had, they --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20. 2005
Page 47 of 72
Maverick indicated there would be approximately 1,000 to 1,200 cars per day in and out
of there. That's 2,000, 2,400 additional traffic interdictions at the road cuts. If it was left
as the Comprehensive Plan says now, you would have 90 to 100. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out what's the best. I'd also like to talk a little bit about the
impact on the property values. Talked to a number of real estate people and they,
basically, indicated that a convenience store is the kiss of death on the property values,
at least for the first three to four years. Typically how it works is the first year you will
take that one percent hit with no appreciation. The second year the property values will
stay the same. The third year it will stay the same. The fourth year you will start to pick
up some appreciation. So, over the four-year period you basically are taking a 20
percent hit. There is approximately three million dollars worth of property in the -- in the
impact area, not including the property in behind the church. Twenty percent, that's
approximately 600,000 dollars. Most of it -- if that were to be reimbursed, most people
would take that as ordinary income. They have to add the 28 to 50 percent. Basically,
it would take about 900,000 dollars to make people whole in this project just from the
economic impact. And what I want to know is who's going to pay it? Is the church
going to pay it? Is the developer going to pay it? Is the city going to be involved in a
takings claim? I don't know. We just need to see if we can come up with a couple of
answers here. One other item. When the -- this is sort of a side light thing, but when
the property turned over to the church from the farm, oh, here four or five years ago,
there was a discussion in the neighborhood about rusting drums and five gallon cans of
stuff that was spread around and they were going to check the DEQ to see if they could
have that tested for pesticides or oil or whatever and we don't know if that happened, so
we have a current request into DEQ to research their complaint to see things done --
has been checked on that and if it hasn't, you know, we would expect that, you know,
the owner would do an environmental assessment. That's alii have got.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. May I ask did you sign up after your
wife? The signature that follows your wife is not one that I can read. That was you? It
actually looks like it may be the initials T or J.W.w. or M.w. Okay. I will assume that--
if we get to the end and someone wants to testify that I haven't called, you will come up.
Carrie Sharp would be next. I believe it's Sharp. Or Shaw. Chase? Robert Tharpe.
Tharpe: Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for hearing me. I'm not a very good public
speaker, so I apologize.
Zaremba: Please start with your name and address.
Tharpe: My name is Robert Tharpe. I live at 83 East Eastbrook, right on the corner
facing the lot there. You know, we have beat the traffic issue to death. Obviously, that's
the main concern. And I don't know a lot about numbers, but I can't see this being good
for our property value. And along with the traffic pollution there is also going to be light
pollution, there is going to be smell pollution, there is going to be an increase of crime,
where nobody has robbed a house that they are renting now, I could see somebody
robbing a convenience store. I think all of my points that I would want to make I will
leave up to Ted, because he's got this big thing we all got together and drew up, so I
. Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20. 2005
Page 48 of 72
just wanted to come up and express my concern for the Maverick County Store. Thank
you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Seeing no questions. Scott Avery.
Avery: Scott Avery. 347 East Santiago Drive. I'm currently living in the Sundance
addition. All the issues -- we have heard from all the other ones -- is pretty much the
traffic, the noise, light pollution. But just in consideration, I would like to -- just also in
consideration is those conveniences that are saying they are offering is -- we currently
have Albertson's at Meridian and Cherry or Fairview and, then, we have Fred Meyers
there, too. All the conveniences within five minutes from the house already. So, it
doesn't necessarily -- the only thing they would be offering is fuel that's not as close
where we currently can go to Albertson's at -- what is that --
Zaremba: McMillan and Eagle, probably.
Avery: Right. Exactly. That Albertson's there or -- so, we are still -- there is still -- the
conveniences are still really extremely close by, so I don't -- to me I don't see the real
great benefit of this, other than on top of all the other issues that have been addressed.
Appreciate it.
Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Ed Sweet. Okay. Ted Williams is next on the list.
Williams: Good evening. I'm Ted Williams. I live at 3880 North Meridian Road. And I
appreciate your time. I'm aware of the time and I know it's late. Appreciate your service
to the community. I'm representing the families that live in the direct impact area of this
proposed development. And we have gone around and talked to quite a few folks in the
surrounding areas as well and we have collected 40 or 50 signatures here and I will
submit those to the clerk and also some extra topics that I probably won't get to, a lot of
which has already been touched on, so I don't want to belabor some of these points. I'll
just submit those in writing. But a couple points that I did want to touch on. If you
notice, all those that are for this project so far have -- they are either from out of state or
from out of town and so we just want to make it clear and reiterate what we want is --
you know, our request to you is that you deny the amendment to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and we also oppose the annexation and rezoning from R-4 to CoCo
And one point that Dan had mentioned with his sales, you know, they did forecasting
models based on traffic flows and he's saying that, you know, where we have already --
the city's already approved this other gas station, they couldn't survive there. Now, if we
go ahead and put in a gas station here, that's just going to really not give the other gas
station a chance and that was a plan that the city came up with and that's why we make
plans and I think we need to give that a chance. Also, some of the data that he
collected may not be accurate. He invited us to an open house. I looked at this plan. If
a traffic light does go in at this facility, based on the traffic codes' that we have and
where the cutouts have to be, the Meridian Road entrance slash exit would be a right-in
right only -- right-in, right-out only entrance and exit. And so that would cut down on 25
percent of the traffic that I'm sure that he included in his traffic report. Also the minister
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 49 of 72
from the church spoke and his comment was the church wants what's best for the
community and so now the community is speaking and we are saying that we are
opposed to this project. I had another point here.
Zaremba: The timer is about to go off, but several people gave up their time to you, so
we will extend your time, even though the beeper is going to go.
Williams: Okay. Thank you. We have concerns, if this project did go through, like I
said, we did meet with Dan at his open house and the purpose of the meeting, as he
stated on his card that he sent out to us was that so we could give input on
improvements to his project. And so we went there and we listened to his proposal and
the first very small piece of input that we gave to him, which we felt was just a very
small point regarding buffer -- mounds of dirt that he had proposed to be three feet high,
we simply suggested, you know, is it possible to go four or five feet high to block
headlights from going down into the subdivision and to quote what he said: I don't think
we would be interested in doing that. That's not something we would be interested in
doing is what he said. So, from that I don't feel like it would be very -- it's not very open
to our suggestions on this project. So, again, I think all the major points have been
touched on, traffic and safety being the number one issue, and we are opposed to this
project. That's alii have.
Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Thank you.
Williams: May I submit this?
Zaremba: Yes. Please hand it to the clerk. Did you count how many signatures there
are on there?
Williams: About 48.
Zaremba: About 48? Thank you. Brian Sweet.
Sweet: My name is Brain Sweet. I reside at 82 East Eastbrook Court, right across the
street from the proposed Maverick store. Mine is actually the closest, right on the
corner, on the impact, so I see the traffic. I also don't want to beat a dead horse.
Everyone stated most of the things. And I understand Maverick wants to come in and
have a profitable store. That's why they want to go there, they want to have a profit. I
understand that the church wants to sell it to Maverick, because they are going to pay a
lot of money, they care about their profit, that's the whole purpose they are selling. But
all of us in that subdivision who bought there in the last couple of years have bought
based on the Comprehensive Plan, based on -- I mean we had people who just called,
who just moved in last year, who called before they purchased their property, basing
what is it they are designing for what's going in here, what the road's going to do -- I
don't know one of us who would have bought our home there if we knew a gas station, a
Maverick County Store, was going to be right across the street and the impact that
would have on our families and on our -- on our property values. Again, talking to real
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 50 of 72
estate people, it will affect our property values. In talking to Dan at -- I also went to his
open house and we asked questions, you know, about many different things, about, you
know, the crime rate, the lighting, the hours of operations, how it's going to affect
property values and basically every question we had he just said that he didn't know
and that we'd have to contact someone else. And I understand he's not -- you know, he
doesn't -- he didn't have the traffic zone, he didn't know how that -- he didn't have, you
know, a bunch of other things, he's just a real estate guy, but when we specifically
asked him about how it was going to affect property values, he just said that he didn't
think it would, but he didn't know. So, I mean the meeting was nice that he put it on, but
it really -- it really didn't help us, because there wasn't hardly any questions that he was
able to answer of the concerns that we had. So, obviously, I'm opposed to this based
mainly on the fact that it wasn't zoned that, it isn't zoned that, it wasn't proposed to be
anything -- and this is probably the highest impact commercial building you could put
there. It's not like it's a low impact office building that's going to be open during the day,
this is a 24 hour, you know, operation and, again, he said they don't know, sometimes
they are open for 24 hours, sometimes they are not, it depends on, you know, how the
demand is going to be. Well, most of the gas stations around here are open 24 hours.
You get traffic coming in and out of there. It's a family neighborhood. It's a family park.
There is more neighborhoods going in, more houses being built, almost everything
around there is zoned and being built as neighborhoods and this is not a neighborhood
friendly place and I think there is better places, that the zone -- the approval for the
pumps in the NC area has already been approved and it's an area that they can go, but
they chose not to based on profits and I understand that, but I also want to understand
how it's going to affect us and we have heard how it has, so thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you. That's the end of the sign-up sheet. Anybody else care to add
comment? Actually, you have the opportunity to have the last word, but I'm just making
sure that there isn't anybody else that wants to speak.
Hood: Mr. Chair, as the applicant comes forward, if there is no other -- I just wanted to
touch on a couple of things, kind of some issues that were brought up and, then, I'll let
the applicant have the last word, but the traffic study, everyone mentioned traffic, even
just in passing. I don't think anyone's going to be surprised with any traffic study that it's
going to say that a commercial use on this property is going to generate more traffic
than a residential. I don't know exactly how a traffic engineer is going to analyze access
points to this property, but frontage is limited for this. They have about 230 feet of
frontage on Ustick Road and about 340 feet of frontage or so on Meridian Road. You're
looking at -- according to ACHD policy, you're looking at right-in, right-outs on both of
those, maximum would be -- you know, if that's a signalized intersection and, as
mentioned before, the subdivision across the way is really close to that intersection, it's
about 100 feet south, wouldn't be approved today. A median is probably the most likely
scenario for that. Unfortunately for these residents, in the future they are going to be
unable to make a left turn out of their subdivision in the future is probably what's going
to happen, just because of the traffic conflicts. Now, some of that would come out in a
traffic study. I don't know how much of that is going to be really applicable to the
application you have here tonight. It would be more information, one way or another,
. Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 51 of 72
though, I don't -- we already know the traffic is bad out there. I don't think the traffic
study would come back saying that this would make it any better, I guess is what I'm
trying to say. But just to get that out and kind of let folks know that's probably what the
highway district is looking at is a right-in, right-out, or a median, if not both. And, then,
just, finally, the neighborhood center, for the applicant -- actually, I have got two things.
The neighborhood center concept is a little bit different in that you do have the core
commercial, but, then, you have the office stuff kind of around it to buffer your
residential and it kind of goes out from there from the most intense commercial uses to
a light office and kind of -- that transitions outward. It's kind of a -- it is a lot different
than a lot of other jurisdictions and what you see a traditional commercial at the corner
and that's where some of the words that we use, these convenience versus destination
uses, we are looking at these as being convenience uses. I can walk there and get my
gallon of milk, not necessarily I'm driving home and want to stop and get gas on those
type of things, but they are convenient for the folks that are within that area to use, but
they aren't intrusive and to their lifestyles at the same time. There is walking paths to
these types of places. I think those are just the kind of a clarification. The last thing for
-- and this is really for the church benefit, depending on how this goes, but according to
our most recent Comprehensive Plan amendment, these parcels that are less than
three acres that have frontage on an arterial street, are eligible for office uses. So, if it
doesn't go commercial, a separate application in the future for light office -- and maybe
that works better with the neighbors -- just to throw that Qut there, that that's kind of an
in between that the city has said in certain situations like this, high traffic volume areas
where a residential subdivision mayor may not work, they can apply. So, I'm sorry, I
just wanted to get those couple of things in. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Murray.
Murray: Thank you. Just to clarify a few things. In our neighborhood meeting the
neighbors did pose questions about valuation. I felt in that meeting that it would be
awfully bias of me to tell them that this would have no effect on their property values. In
passing out invitations to the neighbors, one of the residents of the Eastbrook
Subdivision is a realtor and my suggestion to them was to go to national realtors
association publications that would address that issue. So, rather than give them my
bias opinion, which they obviously know what bias I'm going to have, they were better
served by trying to get some facts. When it came to the issue of the berm, the
suggestion or the request was actually an eight-foot berm, which we weren't really
interested in putting an eight foot berm around the property. When it came to the
customer count that we shared with them, that's actually a customer count and not a car
count. There is a big difference between the two. The other thing that's important to
understand, even about car counts, is the reason why the -- why the intersection of two
arterials is important versus an arterial at a half mile street, is that for our type of a use,
the large, large, large portion of our business comes off of people who are passing by,
live within the neighborhood, and are passing by the site. There certainly is a
percentage of our sales where we are the destination and they come home to us and
return home. But much of the traffic is already on the street. Certainly, the argument
can be made that we increase movements. We do when they pull into our parking lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 52 of 72
But I think you would find in looking at our site plans, that our driveways are further from
the intersection than most any -- if you look at our site plan, the drives that we have
proposed have been pushed as far away from the intersection -- the 256 feet of frontage
along Ustick, it is pushed to the west, and the 340 feet of frontage along Meridian, it is
pushed to the south. On issues such as crime, my suggestion to the neighbors in the
meeting was that I would ask them to look at their experience -- in our society today we
typically buy gas at a convenience store and my question is -- to them was do you feel
threatened by crime. I mean certainly our stores -- we know what our trade area is, so
largely the people shopping at that store are a reflection of the residents and the traffic
on those streets in this type of a location, where it is not a through highway, most of the
patronage is going to be from residents a mile, mile and a half around that store. So, is
there the potential for crime? Is the -- is your experience at a convenience store as evil
as we sometimes -- I mean I have done this for 22 years and so I know that people -- as
a rule people are concerned whenever change is proposed around them and
convenience stores, I think because of the number of them, also draw a lot of attention.
But I'd ask you just to reflect on your experience, you know, as you shop for gas and
shop at a convenience store, is it as terrible of an experience as we paint it to be. So,
that's all. I appreciate your consideration and, believe it or not, I even appreciate the
concerns with the neighbors. Thanks.
Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners or staff? Thank you. Discussion time?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, 1 recommend we close the Public Hearing on CPA 04-
004.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you close the hearing, if you're going to continue the matter
to get the traffic study, you may not want to close the hearing, because you may have to
reopen it to get a traffic study, so just -- since that was brought up by the staff.
Borup: I'll second that motion.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
to close the Public Hearing carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Further discussion?
Moe: Further discussion? I guess what I would --
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Thank you, sir. You know, I shop at Maverick all the time. Get gas there, too.
Great place. But I'm going to -- but I got to tell you, I know that the city worked long and
hard and many many hours putting together the Comprehensive Plan and there was
lots of discussions in regards to the neighborhood center concepts and whatnot, I, for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 53 of 72
one, when this came up, I -- even before reading staff comments and whatnot, I am very
much wanting to see the neighborhood center concept come to fruition. We do not
have one as of yet built out think. I think it's very important that we move forward to try
and get a neighborhood center built out, so that the concept can be reviewed.
Therefore, I will be opposing approval of this. That's my comments.
Zaremba: Thank you. Other comments?
Borup: I don't think I have anything really different from what Commissioner Moe said.
You know, my feeling is probably it's premature at this site. It may be viable some day,
but I don't know, but I don't know, so maybe a location further to the west may be more
appropriate, but that's not what we are here to talk about.
Zaremba: Well, I would add, you know, certainly I have shopped at Maverick stores.
The one on Overland was a very easy approval for us and the whole point was what
surrounds it. In a case where it is surrounded by neighborhood and future
neighborhood, and as some of the other properties developed to be residential, people
are going to be walking to the park. I'm not convinced that this is the right location for
that business. And seconding the idea that the neighbor center concept needs to have
a serious -- a serious try before we start fracturing it and I think this would fracture it.
There is a convenience store gas station car wash already a half a mile from here. As a
matter of fact, I think there is a Maverick that's at Linder and Cherry Lane, which is -- I
believe that's a Maverick that's there. So, there is already a Maverick in this
neighborhood that's well patronized, but I -- my instinct with the bthers that this area is
not of that nature and the designated neighborhood center near by needs to be the
focus of commercial activity at the current time.
Borup: Well, one difference between the other one we approved was that it did not
necessitate a Comp Plan change.
Zaremba: That's also true.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, as I have said before, I live in north Meridian, the estimate is
there is going to be approximately 55,000 people living in north Meridian in a very short
time. Those 55,000 people, in my opinion, need a place to -- convenience stores to go
to. I have not bought off on the neighborhood center idea, but I'm not seeing one put
together. I want to see a neighborhood center put together in the city to see if it will
work. I live very close to this area, I wouldn't mind having a convenience store. I lived
close to convenience stores before, I find them to be very -- as they say --
Borup: Convenient.
Newton-Huckabay: -- convenient, but I strong -- I have a stronger feeling that I want to
see a neighborhood center come together with the paradigm that the city set forth and
we had one on -- on Locust Grove -- on Locust Grove and that's not really coming
together like I had hoped it would, so I'm hoping that this one will come together and
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 54 of 72
that it will prove to be successful as the city hoped. So, for that reason I would vote
against a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, anything to add?
Rohm: No. I think they have pretty well said it.
Zaremba: I suspect we are ready for a motion on this item.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending denial for
CPA 04-004.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: It's usually good to -- is it usually good to include a reason for the denial?
Zaremba: On some applications that is a good idea.
Borup: I don't know that this was --
Zaremba: On a Comprehensive Plan amendment, I don't believe we are required to do
that.
Borup: Okay. Okay.
Moe: Reasons as I stated before.
Zaremba: I think the opinions have been expressed during the discussion.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, the staff does have to prepare that recommendation for denial and
if you could at least assist the staff by condensing down your reasons succinctly, so
they can forward that, that probably would be more helpful.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup appears to be prepared to do that.
Borup: And it's very condensed. I would say the denial would be based on the staff
analysis, staff report, and public testimony.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 55 of 72
Zaremba: That works for me.
Moe: That's great.
Rohm: Well, I would like to add it that also does not support the development of the
neighborhood center and that's what we are here for.
Borup: The staff report said that.
Rohm: Okay. Fair enough.
Zaremba: Then, the issue is what to do with Item 12. I suppose we open that public
hearing and recommend denial of that as well or since it's not a possibility under the
current situation, do we even need to deal with it? A question for our attorney Mr. Nary?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think you have to take some action on this agenda item and
since -- I think you can simply -- I guess you could probably open the hearing. I think
you're going to have to make a motion to do something with it. Your recommendation
can be based upon the fact that it isn't possible under the current Comprehensive Plan,
it's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan that this currently is.
Zaremba: All right.
Borup: Or we could have 45 minutes of testimony.
Zaremba: All the same people are signed up to talk on this. We can go through the list.
Hood: Mr. Chair, in fairness, I think you do have to open up the Public Hearing again. It
is a separate issue, but --
Zaremba: We will do that. I am now opening the Public Hearing on AZ 04-032, request
for an annexation and zoning of 2.298 acres from county R-4 zone to a city C-C zone
for Maverick County Store by Dan Murray, Maverick County Stores, Inc., 201 West
Ustick Road. Do we even need the staff comments?
Rohm: Yeah. I don't even think we need to do that. I think we can --
Zaremba: I think we are prepared to close the Public Hearing and make a motion.
Rohm: Yes. I think so.
Zaremba: I would entertain such a motion.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 56 of 72
Hood: You need to open the Public Hearing first.
Zaremba: I did.
Rohm: He already did.
Canning: You need to ask them if anybody wants to testify.
Borup: That's true.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Yes, I will. Would anybody like to add anything? All of the
testimony from the previous issue was recorded and is public record. It appears that
people are in agreement with what they already said, so we will -- we will go with that.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Good. With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the
Public Hearing on AZ 04-032.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to the City Council
recommending denial of AZ 04-032, based upon previous concluded CPA 04-004.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Thank
you very much. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 04-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
office lots on 4.65 acres in an R-8 zone for Verona Subdivision No.3 by
Primeland Development, LLP - NEC of North Ten Mile Road and West
Milano Drive:
Zaremba: All right. We will open the Public Hearing for PP 04-044, request for
preliminary plat approval for six office lots on 4.65 acres in an R-8 zone for Verona
Subdivision No.3 by Primeland Development, LLP, on the east corner of North Ten Mile
Road and West Milano Drive.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the second time you will actually have
seen this one. The site is in the existing Verona Subdivision. The applicant came in --
let's see, when was the original date of this? It was an '02 application for three -- they
. Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 57 of 72
are called office lots under the R-8 planned development. They were given an
exemption for an office lot in an R-8 district. They were -- originally in their configuration
of one, two, three with the same access points as what are explained here with the
existing roads. This is Milano Drive here accessing Ten Mile Road. The applicant has
requested that six lots be created out of the original three. Staff's recommendation is for
approval with the condition specifically to request that the applicant bring us an L-O
designation for a rezone for this property. The R-8 is -- with the exemption, would
require that all of the properties receive conditional use approval for any operation and
staff feels that with an L-O designation, with the understanding that the condition that
only office uses be allowed on these sites is appropriate for this site and as well as with
limiting it to just office uses, we would not need to see six separate conditional use
applications. And I have discussed this with the applicant and they are in agreement as
well. If you have any questions, I'll try and be quick here.
Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? I would only comment that in the
past we have struggled with the 20 percent use exception and' the decision has gone
back and forth and if I remember at the time that this project came through, the current
thinking was that the whole project should be zoned the same and, then, with
development agreements and other conditionals, we defined that use area. The new
thinking is that it's much easier to administratively actually -- we say, yes, this is
available under the 20 percent use exception, but let's really zone it the way it's going to
be used. And I think this is just a move to do that and it doesn't -- it seems to me it's an
administrative correction. Is that what we are doing?
Canning: Yes, Chairman Zaremba. And it's not necessarily administratively, it's a little
easier for us, but it actually facilitates their lending also, because the lenders get a little
confused when they see a residential designation on an office lot or a commercial lot or
sometimes we get residential lenders asking us why this property has an office zoning
on'it and can they still build a house if the house burns down. So, it's of benefit to the
property owners as well just to have that consistency.
Zaremba: So, the point is we are not really changing anything in the original concept,
we are just --
Canning: Only the fact that they previously had three lots and now want six lots.
Zaremba: All right. Any other questions? Would the applicant care to comment?
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. Just
want to state for the record that I have reviewed the staff report and we are in full
agreement. I think that's the least I have ever said here.
Rohm: I'm pretty sure it is.
Borup: You waited all night for that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20. 2005
Page 58 of 72
Zaremba: Let's see. Once, again, Judith Bellcastor signed up for this one, but since
she has left the audience, I believe we will go with the fact that she spoke in the issue
she intended to speak on. Commissioners? Well, let me ask. Does anybody else care
to speak on this issue?
Borup: I have none. I think -- we have already looked at the project in the past. Gone
to smaller lots is all.
Zaremba: I believe a motion to close the Public Hearing would be in order.
Borup: I move we close Public Hearing PP 04-044.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and two seconds. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We moved several items to the end of the agenda. Let's--
Borup: Do you want a motion on that?
Moe: We just closed the hearing is all we did.
Zaremba: I'm sorry, we have another motion to go.
Borup: I would move that we recommend approval of PP 04-004 with all staff
comments for the hearing date January 20th.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you
very much. That motion carries as well.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AUP 04-016 Request
for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day
care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin
by Marina Galushkin - 2843 North Wolverine Avenue:
, Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 59 of 72
Zaremba: Okay. Let's revisit Item 3-A, which was the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law. Does staff have a comment on that?
Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I do believe we need to
have a little time to review this and make sure that the code references are accurate.
So, I would ask that you table it to your next meeting.
Zaremba: Okay. Sounds appropriate to me.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table Item 3-A to our next scheduled P&Z
meeting.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: 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:
Zaremba: Let's see. Now, we are ready to go back to Item 5, which is Comprehensive
Plan Amendment 04-003. We have denied the other CPA issue that was on --or we
have recommended denial of it and I'm not so sure that there is the need to keep these
two together anymore.
Rohm: I see no reason to keep them together.
Zaremba: Unless the City Council did overrule us, but I suspect they will at least agree
with us on the -- on the one we just recommended. So, if there is no discussion on --
let's see, did I reopen the hearing. I'm reopening CPA 04-003 and for further
discussion.
Well, the staff comments were all geared toward denial.
Borup: I think each of the Commissioners had a chance to express their views, unless
there is anybody that had anymore to add.
Zaremba: Would we like to review those again?
Rohm: I don't think so.
Newton-Huckaday: I think I was the only dissenting Commissioner.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 60 of 72
Rohm: Commissioner Moe, did you want to take this one?
Moe: Well, basically, yeah, I mean I was going to make a recommendation earlier and I
was told that's a time out, until the end of the meeting, so I guess basically I -- I don't
know if there is any need for discussion, I just -- Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward
-- I just move we forward to City Council recommending approval of --
Rohm: We have got to close first.
Zaremba: We need to close the Public Hearing first.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Moe.
Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 04-003.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of
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, Incorporated, southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East
Pine Avenue. End of motion.
Borup: Second
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
Zaremba: We have a motion carried by four in favor and one against.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE AGAINST.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: RZ 04-017
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:
. .. .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 61 of 72
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: 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:
Zaremba: Okay. In that case we will open the Public Hearing for the remaining two
items, No.6 and 7. This is RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051. We have a request for a
rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L and L-O to CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC, by
Hansen Rice, Inc., southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and
CUP 04-051 is a request for a conditional use permit for a conceptual planned
development for commercial, retail uses, for approximately 615,430 square feet of
building area in a proposed CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC, by Hansen Rice,
Inc., southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and not to put staff
on the spot, because we assume we are going to end up continuing this, but we will
start with the staff report if there is anything to say.
Hawkins-Clark: I can add just probably a couple items that we hadn't talked about
under the CPA application. This -- item number five, the rezone, does apply to the
entire property, whereas the CPA application only applied to the 22 acres to the west.
So, just for that clarification. The legal description that they submitted that was
prepared by a surveyor does include that all that area that's outlined in black and the --
the main point that I made in the staff report on this, I think, is that their application did
not clarify the fact that there is, actually, one acre of this that's L-O. So, I think to make
the legal description correct for the public notice, we need to, you know, make sure that
that happens and I didn't have a chance to ask Mr. Nary, but if this -- if this body can
actually recommend approval when the notice was incorrect, because the application
was incorrect, or if we can just fix it before it goes to City Council.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it wasn't noticed properly for this
hearing, then, they can't hear it, then, they have to -- they will have to table it or continue
it and set it over. If it was just -- it was just the radius notice that was incorrect, then?
Hawkins-Clark: No. It's the description.
Nary: Oh.
Hawkins-Clark: Because the description said it was -- you know, all of the property is
currently I-L, when, in fact, one acre is L-O. So, it's --
Nary: So, all of the notices would have probably been incorrect?
Hawkins-Clark: Incorrect.
. -' .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20. 2005
Page 62 of 72
Nary: Okay. Yeah. Then, they should notice it -- then, they should continue this matter
and -- or they could table this matter, either way. They have to re-notice this hearing.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay.
Nary: Because you have to notice it properly for this hearing, as well the City Council.
Borup: Even though the property -- the amount of property didn't change.
Nary: Right. The notice still has to be right under the state code. Whatever the notice
says you have to provide, has to be correct, has to outline the proper -- the property
correctly and has to have a property description.
Borup: Of zoning.
Nary: Of zoning. Correct.
Rohm: I don't think that's a significant issue, because we are going to --
Zaremba: Yeah. But, technically, that means we can't even have the public hearing
tonight.
Nary: Correct.
Moe: So, we need to decide when we do want to continue it to.
Zaremba: Well, if it needs ten days notice -- it can't necessarily be our next meeting, it
would have to be the meeting after that, 'I believe. Is that correct?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I believe that mailed notice is 15 days. I think the posted notice is
ten. So, you're probably best -- I guess we have made it more complicated than it
needs to be. We probably didn't have to open these hearings at all. I wasn't aware of
this issue, but you could probably just continue this matter to your second hearing date
in the month of February and, technically, they are still going to have to notice it
anyway.
Zaremba: And require re-notice.
Nary: And require re-notice anyway.
Zaremba: All right. So, a motion would be in order to continue both of these hearings
to February 17th, requiring full re-notice.
Rohm: Okay. I think they are actually seeing if their schedules can --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 63 of 72
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, Commissioner. I was just checking -- we have two different
issues in the application here. Could we have -- Machelle, do you happen to have the
notice that was actually sent with you at the dais there, the public notice? In my review
of the file, I -- there was one location where it did not identify the L-O, but I see now on
the cover sheet of their application they do identify an L-O. So, I just wanted to see if
the notice itself -- which one it went off of.
Zaremba: While she's looking, let me ask an opinion of whether there is any need to
keep the CPA application together with these two applications or can the CPA go
forward on its own?
Hawkins-Clark: I think staff is of the opinion that it could move on.
Rohm: I think it's, actually, preferred to move on.
Zaremba: Knowing the rest of the materials that are come up kind of helps in the
decision. I mean we all read the materials on these two items, even though we,
technically, weren't considering them as part of the CPA, and that did have an affect on
my decision I know. I just wondered if--
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the L-O was mentioned in the public notification?
Zaremba: We haven't determined that.
Borup: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: What I'm wondering is whether we shoot the CPA recommendation in the
foot by not keeping the other two applications together with it.
Rohm: Yeah. I don't think you do myself. I think it could move forward and, then, once
that's acted on by the city, then, these other two can catch up with it and the
development after the developer is working with staff, bring them back together again.
Borup: So, will City Council have all the same information that -- they should. If they
have the same staff report, then, they should.
Canning: Commissioner Zaremba -- sorry, Chairman Zaremba, Commissioners, if you
only take action on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, then, only the findings will go
forward for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, so they won't have all the information
for it, so it's really up to you. If you want it to go forward so that they consider it by itself,
similar to what we have tried to do at the hearings, then, you can do that or if you want it
to kind of all go up as a package, then, you can do that.
Zaremba: Well, we technically did consider it by itself, but we had all read the two
following applications and had those in mind, even though they weren't, technically, part
of the decision and I just wonder, you know, if -- if the City Council got the CPA
,", ~ ! Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 64 of 72
application absent the other two pieces of information, are they likely to disagree with
us?
Canning: Apparently it's a moot point, because the notice does say L-O.
Zaremba: I was just looking at it, so that means we can discuss it tonight. The written
notice of hearing does say from I-L and L-O to CoG. That's the one that's been sealed
by the city. Thank you very much. In that case, the hearings are open, we did not close
them, and we will proceed to -- does the staff have comment?
Hawkins-Clark: I think on the rezone we do not have any further comments. Yeah. I
mean, obviously, the findings as they were presented in the staff report, do recommend
denial of the rezone, largely based on our recommended of the CPA application, so I
think I would ask that the Commission direct -- if you recommend approval, that you
direct staff to -- to make findings for approval and provide us a little guidance on that, so
I guess I would ask for that.
Zaremba: In a rough pass, are you likely to want to add a lot of conditions that we
ought to see before making a recommendation to the City Council?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, not on the rezone itself, other than --
Zaremba: It's kind of unfair to you to say -- the assumption was that we were going to
recommend denial of the CPA and I understand you, therefore, would not have done a
thorough study of the two. Do you need time to do that?
Hawkins-Clark: For the rezone probably not, because there is, really, only one -- there
is really only one comment on the rezone that would be applicable and that is a
recommendation that you require a development agreement and we do have a few
bullet points of what might be in a development agreement between the City of Meridian
and the developer and there is just maybe a little tweaking on that. Other than that, I
don't think that there is, really, a lot of issues from the staff's perspective, other than
cleaning up a couple of those.
Zaremba: The CUP?
Hawkins-Clark: On the CUP that's another matter and we do have some concerns that
we would not be comfortable moving it on.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think that the right thing to do with this is to go ahead and
continue these until -- if one meeting is sufficient, that's fine, or if two is better, we will
just continue it and, then, let staff work with the developers on both the rezone, which
there is not significant issues on that, but the CUP, so that the staff can interject the
conditions to the developer to make this thing work cohesively and we will just continue
it -- one meeting is sufficient or two? What's it going to take to bring you together on
this do you think?
,-- ..
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
January 20,2005
Page 65 of 72
Hawkins-Clark: If I could ask that we have -- get some feedback from the applicant,
because they would be the ones to actually redraw it and --
Zaremba: The Public Hearing is open, so, Mr. McKinnon, if you just want to come to the
microphone after a slight discussion.
Hawkins-Clark: And I think we would also appreciate at least some feedback. I mean
do you agree or do you not agree as a Commission with some of the concerns that
were raised in the staff report about the concept, because, you know, it is a conceptual
planned development, but they do have an entitlement that goes with that. I mean it
doesn't mean that it's -- it's just sort of not worth anything, if you will. You know, I mean
they do have -- if it's granted, they have 18 months that this conceptual plan
development is good and eligible for another Conditional Use Permit to be submitted
later on and I think that was our main concern. We have a couple -- one is there is a
significant -- there is an easement across this property that significantly affects the lay
out that needs to be addressed, in our opinion.
Rohm: Well, let's hear from the applicant.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, David McKinnon, 735
South Crosstimber. We have been at this for a long time now. I think we submitted in
October and we are pushing into February if we continue this one more time. It's a big
project, we know. We know that staff's had it for a number of months and at the last
public hearing we asked them to prepare a staff report that would cover all the other
issues, including the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit. Staff has done that. In
fact, I have got a copy of the whole staff report and all of our correspondence and it's
really condensed to go through all issues with you. The one thing I'd like to point out is,
of course, we'd love to move forward with this tonight, this is a conceptual Conditional
Use Permit that we are dealing with. You will see this again. The entire site plan -- if
you can go back to that site plan, Brad. That site plan that you see is conceptual in
nature and because it is conceptual in nature, you will see this whole site plan come
back to you again for approval. The layout of the buildings is subject to change,
everything is subject to change, just like the other conditional use permits you have
seen for planned developments, they come back and they change as they come back,
because we don't know who the retail users are going to be in here. So, we'd like to
move forward tonight with a full staff report and if there is a need after that point to
continue it, then, that's your decision, but we would like to move forward tonight if that's
a possibility.
Rohm: The staff report was not in support of this development and so everything that is
contained in that report is in disagreement.
Borup: Well, Mr. Chairman, how I read the staff support is both of them -- it says if the
Commission does approve the Comp Plan change, then, these are the conditions that
staff would recommend. So, they are in the staff report. But under special
'. ~.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20,2005
Page 66 of 72
considerations, there is a number of things that's mentioned that asks the applicant to
address and I don't think that has happened. And that may be the reason to continue it
is for an opportunity address those issues. But I'm talking about specifically the issues
on page -- starting on page 16.
Newton-Huckabay: I think that continuing it for one or two meetings is a good idea at
this point. I have said before I think this is premature, the Comp Plan amendment. I
think in Meridian we have -- you know, we have a duty to make sure we do this right if
you're going to do it and Eagle Road is a very critical area right now and I would think
that most any member of the public would want to make sure that a lot of time was
spent reviewing it and making sure that all the issues are being addressed and that's -- I
mean I'm not a professional at that, but I have an opinion that I would want to make sure
that the right amount of time was spent and if that includes delaying this another 30
days, I think for the public good that's probably time well spent.
Borup: I count about nine issues that need to be addressed and I don't know that -- are
you prepared to address all nine of those issues?
McKinnon: I don't know that I have got the same nine, but I've got a stack.
Borup: Staff hasn't had a chance to review those is all.
McKinnon: I guess I'm under some confusion here, what -- if you got nine issues that
staff has brought up that -- are you talking about all the bullet point items on the --
Borup: Well, I'm talking about -- yeah, the easement, the amenities, and, then -- and,
then, A, B, C, D, E, F. And the fencing.
McKinnon: Okay. I actually --
Moe: What about the rezone as well? You have some conditions there.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think that there is a significant enough number of issues that
are still just out there and I think Dave has done a good job encapsulating those and I
think if the staff and the developers can get together and review that list and come back
at the next meeting, we will just continue it to the next meeting and you can work with
staff and it's a lot easier for us to act on something that the staff has had an opportunity
to provide feedback and back and forth between you and the staff and, then, we can
make a much more informed decision at that time. That's better for both you, the
developer, and for us as a community.
Borup: I would agree with that comment and even though the applicant's been working
on this for a long time, this is --
Rohm: I think two weeks is --
..; .. .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 67 of 72
Borup: - really the second hearing. If you compare this with Crossroads project across
the street, this is zooming right through.
Zaremba: And it's a large project. It needs to be --
Rohm: I think -- I think we have made great headways tonight and I think to stop short
of going all the way is not in anybody's best interest and so with that being said --
Borup: Just one thing if I may -- you know, with that being said, I think the applicant
should leave with an understanding of what we are expecting, so I don't know if there is
-- if that's understood --
Zaremba: And staff, too. They all need to know. I would say, in concept, I -- by my
vote on the Comprehensive Plan I have already stated that I'm in favor of retail here.
Whether it's this configuration or not, I have a little difficulty with a major anchor that's
buried in the west end of the property. I have seen in other cities retails that are laid out
like that and a major anchor usually wants more frontage towards the street, I guess I
would -- towards the major street, which would be Eagle. I don't know. I'm not the
expert on that, I just have seen enough shopping centers where a major that deep in
was suffering. Whether minors that deep in would be better or whether turning that one
property 90 degrees and replacing it with parking or something, I don't know. Not to get
into the engineering, that's just a personal opinion.
Borup: Well, I feel that should be up to the developer. I mean they know what's going
to work. I really like -- I'd like -- personally like the layout. I think it's going to have a
more attractive view from Eagle Road. Are we going to be seeing landscaping and
hopefully the back of the buildings will have some character to them, too. And this is a
real isolated interior. That's definitely going to be destination, not --
Zaremba: And Pine in a five lane road and --
Borup: Well, that -- it is open to Pine. Yeah. It looks like that's where they are
expecting it to be.
Zaremba: And even though Pine is kind of a back road now, if you consider the -- all
the way from EI Gato, I think it is, though Pine, Emerald, Executive, something else. I
mean it changes name ten times, but this is a long arterial thoroughfare through the
valley and there may be a lot of traffic on it and this orientation may work very well. I'm
focusing on Eagle, but Pine could very well be just as busy at some point. That's scary
for downtown.
Rohm: Well, it's going to be five lanes anyway.
Zaremba: Yeah.
.... ~ .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20,2005
Page 68 of 72
Rohm: You know, I have a lot of faith in staff a d the developer to be able to work
together to workout the issues that are obvious an we can hear this again on --
Zaremba: On February 3rd.
Rohm: -- on February 3rd and come to some con usions, so --
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, if I could ju t add -- I do think that that's highly
highly optimistic. If the Commission is in agree ent with the nine bullet points in the
staff report and you are asking us to encourage th applicant to make the changes that I
have listed here --
Rohm: We are.
Hawkins-Clark: Then, for us to have a chance -- e need to get, you know, a site plan
back in one week to get you comments back in 0 weeks and I don't know, I mean I
haven't heard enough tonight from the applicant t at they can come back and redo this
thing and work out the easement with the neighbo and, you know, redesign based on --
if ACHD commission -- you know, that -- they ha e several conditions that affect this
and to me I just don't see that that's realistic.
Zaremba: Are those significant enough that all t is needs to be distributed to all the
departments that want ten days to look at it, too?
Hawkins-Clark: Probably not. I mean I think it's a continued Public Hearing, if that's
what you do, and I guess -- and just for, I guess the benefit of both the Commission
and -- you know, and Dave, I mean, yes, he -- yo know, he says that it's a conceptual
plan, but if they get approval for this, whatever yo r concept is, they can come in with,
you know, a detailed Conditional Use Permit on 0 Iy one building and, you know, they
don't have to change anything else on this plan in he future and, first and foremost, it's
not a mixed use project today, it's only a retail c mmercial project, it's not mixed use,
and they haven't addressed that either.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Com ission, we can make it by February
3rd. We can get it back to staff within a wee. Some of the issues that Brad's
addressed and, you know, some of the concerns t at are in there, you know, is the site
large enough, you know, is there enough parking talis, and the special considerations
concerning Commercial Court and the easement, hose sort of things, are fairly easy to
workout, you know, the pathway or the amenitie. Among those five bullet points A
through E under site design, the only one that we ad any comment on was C and that
was just the transit design, we just don't know e actly what the transit design is yet,
because we don't have a transit system, so we d n't know what the demands are yet.
But those are all things that you can place as co ditions as well. upon the conceptual
site plan. It doesn't necessarily say that you ha e to see all those changes prior to
going forward, you can make those as conditions f approval towards the site plan and,
by and large, we agree with all of those comment. That's what I was going to tell you
". .. .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 69 of 72
tonight, we can, absolutely, get a site plan revis d and back in to the staff for their
review within that time frame.
Rohm: It would be nice if you could give them a little -- a little bit more than just the
bare minimum for sure, because this is a big unde aking for the City of Meridian and we
don't want it to fall short of what it can be at this ju cture, so --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, just a question for Brad. Will he 17th be long enough time to get it
taken care of by do you think on your end?
Hawkins-Clark: That would be more comfortable r us, yes. If I could at least get one
statement on the record about where the applican 's at with the easement, because we
haven't heard anything on that.
Zaremba: Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Co mission, we have contacted McCall
Properties that owns that piece of property back t ere and weare in negotiations with
them. Could you show the site plan -- just he overall with Commercial Court.
Commercial Court apparently runs down right the e. We are in discussions with them.
There hasn't been anything set up just yet as to ow that's going to play out. He may
want to take access through our property and b come a part of this project is in the
future, so he may want to have it taken care of th way. Secondary to that, if need be,
we could allow that to remain open through ther to retain his easement, his 50 foot
wide easement through there and design around it so he would still be able to have his
access back to his property and we would be willin to put that on the record. So, that's
-- we have been in contact and we will continue to e in contact with him.
Zaremba: I would suspect that ITD would come d wn on the side of closing his access.
It would be difficult to control who used that acces .
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of he Commission, that was one of the
same comments that we had, but it's -- it's an ea ement that he has with the express
rights to do that and so the development that --
Zaremba: Am I hearing you say that you might 0 er him a rerouted easement in trade
for that.
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Zaremba: So that he could use, for instance, the rive aisles that you're going to have
through your parking lot anyhow.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Zaremba: That's what you're planning to offer.
"" ... .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 70 of 72
Hawkins-Clark: Absolutely.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Well, it still takes input from a third party. It's not something that's just you, the
developer, and the staff to work out, there is another party that's going to have to jump
on board to make this happen and with that being said, I think that we are over zealous
in trying to move to the 3rd and I think that it's in everybody's best interest if we can just
take it to the 17th and that would be -- that would give you folks the time to work your
easement issue and give the staff more time to get a settled take on the conceptual plan
as well.
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, was that a motion?
Rohm: Yes. That would be a motion. I think we have to close the Public Hearing,
though, before we can --
Zaremba: No. We are continuing it.
Rohm: Oh, excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I move that we --
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that -- did you have one last comment?
Zaremba: Further comment from Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Just a point of clarification. Is the Comprehensive Plan application moving
forward? You guys have already made the recommendation --
Rohm: Yeah.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: We are not holding that. Yeah.
Borup: I would be interested to know what the applicant -- if they have any comment on
that. If that's their preference.
McKinnon: I would love it to go forward.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. You don't feel that it's threatened by not having this information go
along with it?
~~ ~, .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20,2005
Page 71 of 72
McKinnon: I wouldn't say that it's threatened, but I think that they are going to look at it
and say -- they are going to get the same packet you did originally and there was a lot
of discussion that took place --
Zaremba: And it's a public hearing and in your comments you can tell them all the other
plans that they don't see yet.
McKinnon: That's correct. Thank you.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051 to the regularly scheduled
P&Z meeting of February 17th.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question after we close the meeting.
Borup: Don't we still need one more motion?
Newton-Huckabay: Can I make a motion to --
Borup: No. No. On Item 5. On No.5, the CUP. Did we already do a motion on that?
The CPA.
Moe: Yes. That's done.
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Sorry about that.
Zaremba: Five, six and seven are dealt with, 3-A is dealt with, and I believe a motion to
adjourn would be in order.
-.....
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 20, 2005
Page 72 of 72
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I --
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: -- move that we close the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting of January 20th.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: All in favor to adjourn? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We are adjourned at 11 :15.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
~1.Jl12QQ5
DATE APPROVED