2005 07-07
"-'"
p
,c,'
Meridian Planning and Zonina Meetina
Ju!y 7.2005.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of
July 7,2005, 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, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, Joe
Guenther, Mike Cole, Steven Siddoway, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Keith Borup X
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay 0
X Chairman David Zaremba
David Moe
Michael Rohm
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this regular meeting of Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission for July 7th, 2005. We will begin with a roll call of
attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: Next on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we will take all of
these items in order, but I have two comments to prepare you for. Item 4 is listed as a
presentation on the downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan and, in fact,
we will have a presentation, but the actual point of that is to make a recommendation to
the City Council. That, like the other recommendations listed after it, are not public
hearings. We will have some discussion among ourselves and, then, make a
recommendation to the City Council on each of those items and the City Council will
hold public hearings on them, but we will not. But Item 4, actually, is a change from
presentation to recommendation. Items 17, 18, and 19, which involve the Hollybrook
Subdivision, the applicant has requested that we continue that to our next regularly
scheduled meeting, which is July 21 st, so that they can make some changes that they
have learned from residents, neighbors that they have been talking to. Hopefully, that's
a piece of pleasant news, and also some changes that ACHD has been requiring, they
want the opportunity to make those changes and, then, pass them along to staff for
staff's comments. So, in fact, when we get to Items 17, 18, and 19, the only thing we
will do is continue them until the 21 st. So, anybody that's here for those, we will not
discuss them tonight. Thank you for coming. All other items we expect to take in order
and discuss thoroughly tonight.
Zaremba: The next item is the -- and hearing no other comments, we will, then,
consider the agenda adopted as is. Okay. It is so adopted.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7,2005
Page 2 of 110
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
Zaremba: Next item is the Consent Agenda and having no items on it, we don't need to
deal with it.
Item 4:
Presentation on Downtown Meridian Transportation Management
Plan by Steve Siddoway:
Zaremba: So, we are now ready for the recommendation on the downtown Meridian
Transportation Management Plan and, actually, this will be a presentation by both Steve
Siddoway, who is Meridian's transportation planner, and Bruce Mills, who is Ada County
Highway District's liaison to Meridian. So, they will both provide this presentation.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I have several
slides to click through, so I'm going to do it over here where I have access to the
keyboard. Tonight, as you just mentioned, we are looking for a recommendation from
the Commission to City Council. For anyone in the public wishing to testify on this
matter, there will be a public hearing held with the City Council on July 26th. We have
titled this presentation Where the Vision Meets the Road and as you remember last
year, the City of Meridian went through an extensive process to establish a vision and a
marketing strategy for downtown. It was a very involved and very good process that
had a lot of participation. We -- through that process we were able to create a vision for
downtown that our Urban Renewal Agency is currently implementing. Also, would
mention that, you know, downtown is experiencing heavy congestion and it has for
years. At the same time, up near the freeway, the Waltman Lane area near the
intersection of 1-84 and Meridian remains vacant to this day because of poor access.
So, the issues with downtown congestion and access to Waltman Lane were two driving
factors going into this. There has been debate for years -- more than a decade over
what to do with downtown traffic. ACHD has been asking the city for a decision on what
we would like to see, how we would like to have it handled, so they can move forward.
And so last year, in an attempt to move forward to a decision, we initiated this study,
The Downtown Meridian Transportation Management Plan. Tonight this presentation is
going to go through some of the -- a little bit of the background and history, we will talk
about present conditions that we are facing and, then, talk about the future opportunities
or alternatives and, then, we will present to you what we feel is the preferred alternative
and ask for your feelings on that as well. So, the Downtown Meridian Transportation
Management Plan study. That's a mouth full. It's a partnership between the City of
Meridian and ACHD. That's important, because the two have been working
independently of one another for years and have been at odds for years on what to do.
We have funded this study 50-50. We went through the consultant selection process
together -- it's been a partnership through the whole thing and it's been a great
partnership and it's brought the staffs of both agencies together and in agreement on a
preferred alternative. The consultant team that was hired for this study included the
Hudson Company, who worked on the marketing strategy, and for the transportation
analysis Fehr and Peers, Transportation Consultants, were part of the team. We
initiated this study back in August of 2004. We completed the plan just last month and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 3 of 110
we are bringing it forward to you tonight. The main goal was to identify a circulation
system that addresses three priorities. Community priorities, transportation priorities,
and fiscal priorities and I will get into those in a little more detail later. This is to get you
familiar with the corridor just a little bit. It's roughly a two mile corridor stretching from
Interstate 84 on the south, this is Main -- or this is Meridian, sorry, and Main Street cuts
here. The north edge of this is Cherry Lane Fairview. Franklin Road in the middle. We
have the Meridian Road interchange here is the second highest volume interchange in
the state, with about 43,000 vehicles per day entering or exiting from the freeway at
Meridian Road. We have Main Street, which, as you know, bisects downtown.
Meridian Road runs along the edge of downtown and that becomes critical as we look at
the traffic volume down Main and what they mean for the redevelopment revitalization of
downtown as a pedestrian-oriented destination. There is a critical five-legged
intersection down here. This is where Main and Meridian split, where KFC is right in the
center. You have got Central that goes over to the Winco, Home Depot area, You also
on the west side have Waltman Lane, which has very poor access at this time. Then,
we have two different missions. ACHD's primary mission is to move cars. The city's
primary mission for this area has been to revitalize downtown. A truly context sensitive
design would do both and what we have tried to do is come up with a solution that
addresses the needs to both move cars and mesh well with the goals for downtown
revitalization. So, those are the issues we are dealing with. There is this issue of to
versus through traffic. There is a lot of through traffic in this corridor and the volumes of
through traffic are preventing some of those who might otherwise be downtown
destination shoppers from coming, because, frankly, they just don't want to come if it's
too hard to get in and out, find a parking space, too congested. So, we are trying to find
solutions to make the corridor work for -- to get through traffic through, that are just
commuting from the freeway to home, and make it work also for destination traffic that
wants to come and be downtown. For all the disagreement that's out there on how to
solve it, one thing everyone seems to agree on and that is that it's time for a decision
and we need to move forward, which we hope to be doing tonight, And, then, the -- the
five legged intersection, which we mentioned, is one of the big issues. There was a
study initiated in '92 to start to look at how we deal with Waltman. It's been ongoing
since then. I'm going to turn some time over to Bruce Mills and he's going to walk us
through some of that history and, then, talk about some of the present conditions.
Mills: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me to be here. I just want to start
by agreeing with Steve. This has been a very good process, I think, for -- our staffs
have really become close working together on this project and, hopefully, it's a sign of
many good things to come in the future. Time line -- oh. Okay. It's going to fill in?
Okay. As Steve mentioned earlier, there has been a lot of studies and a lot of effort put
forth in the last 13 years, roughly, starting in '92 when we first did some studies in this
corridor and without going through every single one of those, let me just suffice it to say
that in '97 we finally did a very major transportation study of the corridor. One of the
things that came out of that particular study was looking at a one-way couplet. It was a
very polarized issue. Let's just say that it became hot enough that in the end nothing
occurred on that and ACHD has been -- as Steve mentioned, kind of waiting to see
where Meridian wants to go with this. We realize that there are congestion problems
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7,2005
Page 4 of 110
with traffic, but we want to find a solution that is going to meet both of our goals. We
have looked at several other alternatives after the '97 study and in 2003 we revisited
that study, updated some costs, looked at some alternatives, we even prepared a
design of the Waltman intersection that was going to be constructed in 2004, but that's
about the same time that the City of Meridian was working on their marketing strategy, I
believe, for downtown and we felt -- we felt it was best to put that construction project on
hold until we received some decisions on where Meridian wanted to go and that's when
we began this study that we are just -- that has just been completed, which in hindsight
it's a good thing we stopped. The project we were going to do on Waltman was a minor
project and it would not necessarily have fit with what we are looking at for a result of
this study. As Steve mentioned already, there are the challenges of the to versus the
through traffic in this corridor and this whole corridor really has different land uses. It's
very specific. The yellow area here really -- is really auto oriented. There is a lot of
people that go to the big boxes, I guess, that are out there in that area, shopping for
groceries, all that. And as you get further in downtown you have other uses that are not
as auto intensive. That's just the downtown area with the merchants and the
businesses there and City Hall. There are also other residential areas in this corridor
and you can see that predominately -- well, there is just so many different types of uses,
but it really is interesting to note the differences say south of Franklin Road versus north
of Franklin Road. Very much a different story. South of Franklin Road, again, mostly
auto oriented, not that much pedestrian movement. North in the downtown area a lot
more pedestrian movement, which was one of the challenges, I think, to the study.
There are several predominate movements that occur. Steve mentioned that this is the
second biggest -- second busiest corridor or intersection in the state behind Eagle
Road, which is number one, and there is a very predominate movement of vehicles that
are coming off the freeway, heading north, and going either west on Franklin or through
to the very large growing area, the north Meridian area northwest of town. This
intersection, Waltman, Meridian, Main, Central, is a very challenging intersection, as
Steven mentioned. Especially Waltman Lane has very poor access. One of the things
we were going to do in our 2004 study was some minor improvements that would have
improved Waltman Lane. But it is an intersection that with that heavy movement, the
43,000 vehicles a day that are going through that intersection, it makes it very awkward
to try to meet some of the challenges out there, not only with all the existing businesses
that you have, east of Meridian and Main, but the fact that you have a corridor, an area
along Waltman Lane to the west that is -- well, it's prime developable land, for
something to happen in the future, but at the present time has no access that would
support that type of development. Okay. One of the interesting things is on Main
Street, for instance, in this area, we have added lanes in recent years and we have a
fair amount of capacity just in that one section, but more of the travel demand seems to
be to use this as a through corridor to get out to those areas north of town and west of
town. I think I'll turn it over to Steve.
Siddoway: Okay. So, I started off mentioning earlier that we have this goal to address
three different priorities. Community priorities, transportation priorities, and fiscal
priorities. We used what's called a multi-criteria evaluation process to evaluate all of the
different scenarios or alternatives that we would identify, but before we identified
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 5 of 110
alternatives, we first identified what the goals were. So, transportation priorities, those
are things like what's the level of service through the corridor, meaning what's the delay,
what's the signal time and how does it work together. We came up with seven different
components there. For community priorities is things like how does it fit with the
Comprehensive Plan? How does it fit with the marketing strategy? How does it work
for emergency services? And, then, fiscal priorities, were things like what does it cost
for right of way? What does it cost for construction? Can it be phased? Once we had
these priorities, we went through a process of identifying alternatives and to start off
with, we identified about 14 distinct alternatives for dealing with traffic through this
corridor. Those 14 were quickly reduced down to six. Those six went through these
priorities and were narrowed down to three. Those three are what we are going to show
you tonight, because they received the most attention and a very thorough analysis of
the top three alternatives. I might mention the public involvement process through this
whole process as we were going down -- weeding down from 14 to one, we held -- we
have held four public open houses and workshops. One in -- at the end of September,
one in November, one in January. The one in January was originally intended to be the
final one, then, we had some updated cost information and ideas for phasing that we
took through an additional open house in May. So, the top alternatives. First of all, we
have to compare those alternatives to the base condition and there are those that are
proponents of the base condition staying as is. This would mean keeping the streets in
downtown one -- all the streets would remain two way and in the current configuration.
The main advantages of doing nothing, is what this amounts to, is minimal cost, but the
disadvantage is it does nothing to address the bottleneck at that five way intersection
and it does not meet the future demand, let alone even the current demand. Oh, I think
it's important to note our base condition, if you will read the top, is -- it does assume
several things. The Ten Mile interchange is built in this scenario. The Locust Grove
overpass and the Linder Road overpasses were modeled as being built in this scenario.
We had to answer the question: If we do nothing more than build these regional
improvements, the Ten Mile, Linder, and Locust Grove, is that enough? What we came
up with was, no, it's not enough. We need to do more here. We need those. We need
those badly. And we continue to push forward on those regional improvements, but we
needed an additional solution for downtown. Okay. So, Alternative A was the one-way
couplet as defined in that 1997 study. It is -- starting from our Main and Meridian split,
Main becomes one-way north, Meridian becomes one way south. The advantage of the
couplet -- it does make this intersection at Waltman work well. It does increase the high
traffic volumes generated by the couplet work well for this southern auto oriented
business area and it does have a moderate construction cost. The main disadvantages
include -- it would actually increase the traffic volumes that we are seeing through
downtown, which is inconsistent with the goals of a pedestrian oriented downtown.
We'd like to get those heavy traffic movements to the edge of downtown, not through
the middle of downtown, and as we mentioned earlier, Main bisects the downtown area.
Meridian Road is at the edge. The other disadvantages is as we get to the north end of
the couplet it dead ends and you have to deal with an abrupt transition there from one
way and to accommodate the people that are continuing north, they end up making the
-- sitting through an additional light. The second option was just widening Meridian
Road. Under this option Meridian Road becomes five lanes the full length. There is a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 6 of 110
blow up here of that five-legged intersection here. What they have done is just moved
Meridian Road straight through, connected Central and Waltman through, and, then,
Main T's in on its own separately. Now, the main advantage of this is that it puts that
heavy through traffic movement on Meridian Road. It is consistent with the goals for
downtown and it does help the Waltman Lane intersection. The disadvantages of this
one is that by shutting off the traffic flow on Main Street clear down here near KFC, the
auto oriented businesses that are up in here are no longer served as well as they are
today. This option actually requires the most right of way of any of the options and the
cost associated with that. And for traffic operations, the Franklin-Meridian intersection
goes to what they call level of service F, which just means that there is a lot of delay at
that intersection because of all the turning movements that are happening with every
road being two way. The third alternative, which is the one we are proposing tonight as
the preferred alternative, is a hybrid of the other two and picks the best of both. What it
is -- it has a one-way couplet on the south end where Main and Meridian split hear KFC.
It continues as a one-way couplet passed Franklin, but, then, between Franklin Road
and the railroad tracks, there is a new cutover that takes the through traffic over to
Meridian Road and Meridian Road becomes a five lane road north of the tracks. There
is also a continuous through movement for the downtown destination traffic. So, this
addresses the to versus through traffic situation very well. The main advantages of this,
it does operate well at Central and Waltman. It does serve the south end auto
orientation. It does move the heavy traffic to Meridian Road before it gets to downtown.
There is a smooth one to two way transition with this couplet. Instead of dead ending
up at Fairview, you're able to bring the couplet back together, which is the ideal situation
for a couplet. And it is consistent with the downtown goals. The main disadvantages --
this is a new road alignment and there is right of way needed there and houses that
currently sit there and businesses that would be affected. There is also concern over
the southbound traffic movement for Main headed south, because they do have to jog
over here or more likely there are -- as you know in downtown there are cross-streets
about every 300 feet. They would use one of those cross-streets to get over to Meridian
Road, if their destination was to get south to the freeway or beyond.
Borup: With that as a -- kind of a synopsis on the three main alternatives that came at
the end, we are going to turn now to a blowup of two of the main areas, that transition
and, then, the Waltman intersection area, talk about how they operate, and also some
ideas for phasing.
Mills: Okay. And this is a blowup of what the transitional area would look like. You
have Franklin Road to the south here. It would end up at the railroad tracks in this area
here. Essentially, you would have one-way traffic coming up Franklin Road and it would
continue as one-way traffic through this area here, which would be a new line, as Steve
mentioned, through some existing businesses. There would be one lane that would
break off and continue northbound on Main Street. Southbound on Main -- it's hard to
see in this, but there is a yellow line there. You would come down on Main southbound
and you would, actually, have to turn and come up here. There is a road that could
bring you southbound on Meridian this way or, as Steve mentioned, there are several
intersections in blocks to the north that could be used to cut over. We are looking at
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 7 of 110
phasing this. If this is, in fact, the way we go, the first phase would be -- and we will
show that in a minute, but the Waltman intersection -~ some improvements to that. We
can -- sure, we can look at that. Under either the couplet scenario or the split corridor
scenario, this is the first thing that will have to happen, because we need to split traffic
and get the northbound traffic going on Main Street, southbound coming down Meridian.
At the same time, we recognize an importance to get a good access over to the
Waltman area. Certainly there will be pressures to develop some of that prime land to
the west. This is, as you can see, a pretty significant intersection. Cost on this --
everything's at a planning level at this point, but in the three million dollar range to build
an intersection like this. But the advantages of this, again, are that it allows all the
movements that would be needed here. It also takes, you know, our most congested
area in this whole corridor is from the freeway up to Franklin Road and so phase one
would be to put in this intersection, get one way traffic going up Main Street to Franklin
Road. Franklin Road would have two way traffic. North of Franklin Road you would
have a two~way street as you do today. Essentially, the only construction would be
south of the Franklin Road for this phase one. Likewise, we would make Meridian Road
southbound only and this intersection would be built. The second phase -- if you will go
back to that previous slide. The second phase would be to take off from Franklin Road
and build this other area here, which would take a few years to get the design and the
right of way purchased and along with finishing up this transition over from this point to
the railroad tracks north and Meridian Road, would be widened to five lanes up to
Cherry.
Siddoway: So, the last question is how did those three fare through our multi-criteria
evaluation process. As we ran through the scoring, the split corridor came out on top
with 75 points. Widening Meridian Road in the middle, the couplet just below it. The
base condition, or do nothing, other than the regional improvements, was the lowest at
29. You can see the updated cost estimates at the bottom. The couplet at 8.1 million is
the cheaper -- cheapest of the three. The other two are close together. The split
corridor at 11.6 million and widen Meridian Road at 11.7 million. Our recommendation
to you tonight is for the split corridor as the preferred alternative and with that I'll stand
for any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Steve, I'd just be curious as far as the overall dollars, are those today's dollars or
are those anticipated in the phasing?
Mills: Those would be today's dollars at this point. Again, they are planning level
estimates, so, you know, plus or minus, I don't know, 20 percent, something like that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 8 of 110
Moe: Okay. Thank you. I guess the only other thing I would you say is reading through
the plan, which is rather lengthy, a lot of information, I want to commend you guys, you
did a great job. There is a lot of work in this, a lot of research, and we do appreciate it.
Zaremba: I would only add -- you mentioned the public involvement in the open house,
but -- or the four open houses, rather. But also there was a steering committee made
up of citizens selected from all different realms around the city, with all different
interests. I happen to have been one of those, and joined in the unanimous decision to
recommend this alternative. So, my opinion is known. But I just -- I wanted to comment
that in addition to the expertise of the Hudson Company and Fehr and Peers, we had a
lot of local input on the steering committee, in addition to the open houses. So, there
was a lot of thought that went into it.
Siddoway: On the steering committee we had representation from the city, from the
Downtown Urban Renewal Agency, from the Chamber of Commerce, from Compass,
from the regional transit, from citizens, and we did, in the end, have a unanimous
recommendation from the steering committee for the split corridor. We have also since
had recommendation or endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce Transportation
Committee, and the Meridian Development Corporation also passed a resolution
recommending the split corridor last month, so --
Zaremba: Thank you. I think what the City Council would like to hear from us is a
recommendation and if somebody would care to make a motion for a recommendation
to -- for the City Council with our approval, that would be in order, unless somebody had
some further comment. I'm sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, 1--
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just had a question. I read through this -- like you said, a huge
amount of information. How will the intersections, like lights and things like that, change
from what it is today? I'm trying to get my head around this picture. Which intersections
will -- will all intersections that are controlled with lights today still be that way? Will
additional intersections have lights?
Siddoway: I know that the plan basically keeps the lights the way they are today. It
does recommend that we considered an additional light on Meridian Road as it goes to
five lanes, probably around Carlton. There is a lot of residential area over there that will
have downtown as a destination and they need a good place to cross. We will, actually,
need to provide opportunities for traffic in downtown that wants to go south to be able
get onto Meridian Road and do that. So, by and large, the signals will stay as they are
today, with the recommendation that we look at adding an additional one on Meridian.
And those kinds of issues will be answered as this moves through to engineering. Right
now this is a line on an aerial photo and it's a concept that we are trying to see if there is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 9 of 110
agreement to move forward with. If there is, it will move into engineering and start
answering some of those more specific questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: The only comment I would have, just to echo the comment that it's probably
time to move forward. We have been studying this for a long time and sometimes I get
impatient with the studies, other than in this situation I think what we have here is
something -- a better proposal than we have seen in the past and probably something
that better suits the needs of Meridian better than some of the earlier proposals. So,
maybe for once it -- it was better to wait and do more studies, but I like what this
proposal does.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: Just to follow up to Commissioner Borup, then, I would recommend that we send
on to the City Council approval of the Alternate C split corridor design for the Downtown
Meridian Transportation Management Plan.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Thank you both very much. Appreciate that. And I will add we have seen a
lot of new cooperation between ACHD and the city, not only on that subject, but it has
eased out into other subjects around the city and the county as well, so very nice.
Item 5:
Recommendation: VAC 05-006 Request for a Vacation of a private road
known as E. Herons Crossing Lane and Meridian City sanitary sewer
easement for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No.9 by Brighton
Investments, LLC - west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East
Ustick Road:
Item 6:
Recommendation: VAC 05-007 Request for a Vacation of a portion of
the 10-foot wide easement centered on the interior common lot line of Lots
1 and 2, Block 2, Olson and Bush Industrial Park Subdivision by
Dennis Kelley & Walter Sigmont - 3131 East Lanark Street:
Item 7:
Recommendation: VAC 05-008 Request for a Vacation of platted utility
easements of Lots 16,17,21-27, Block 2 of Honor Park Subdivision No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page10of110
3 by Franklin / Stratford Investments, LLC - south of East Franklin Road
and west of Stratford Drive:
Item 8:
Recommendation: VAG 05-009 Request for a Vacation of the public
utility easement on Lot 8, Block 20 of Paramount Subdivision No.4 by
Paramount Development, Inc. - south of Chinden and west of Meridian
Road:
Zaremba: The next four items on our agenda are very similar recommendations for
vacations of easements. The staff comments are pretty clear. There may be one or
two that we need to make comments on, but let me ask legal counsel is there any
reason why we cannot consider all four items at once?
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, no, you could -- you could receive a staff
report on all of them and if you need to separate them out, because of particular
comments to vote on, you could do that. Otherwise, you could also -- if you want to
approve them with staff comments and the comments from the applicants together, you
could do that as well.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. In that case, I believe we will do that. Again, these are
recommendations that are not public hearings, they will be discussion among us and I
will open V AC 05-006, V AC 05-007, V AC 05-008 and V AC 05-009 and staff can sort of
touch the high points of each. Thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. I will just take a
couple minutes to tell you -- there is really just one of these that I'll spend some time on.
I think the other ones are pretty clean. You have seen these quite often. This number
five is, actually, two easements, it's private lane easements, as well as a sewer
easement along the north side of Paramount. The sewer easement was created when
the White Trunk project came through originally across there and Public Works needed
that easement, since they didn't know where the road was going to be. The sewer went
in the road when it was constructed, which took care of the need for the easements,
since it's in the right of way. These two lot owners in Crestwood Subdivision, these five-
acre lots, have -- they gave their consent with the original preliminary plat. So, we are
recommending approval on that one. Item No.6 is the Olson-Bush Subdivision off of
Eagle Road. This is Lanark -- East Lanark here on the north side. This is an interior lot
easement, which we have received all the relinquishment letters from the utility
companies on that, as well as the consent from both property owners. Item No.7,
Honor Park Subdivision, each of the easements that are shown on here are interior lot
easements. There is currently no buildings on any of these. In our staff report we had
recommended for this Lot 27 -- there is another -- one more lot in Honor Park -- again,
this is East Franklin Road here on the north and Stoddard here on the east. The
applicant owns all of these lots, but does not own Lot 28, which is in Honor Park, their
northerly owned Lot 12, I believe it is, here south of 16. So, we have recommended that
this five foot and this five foot not be vacated. They agree to that. The big issue is that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 11 of 110
Idaho Power did send a letter -- did you get that in your packets? I know I didn't get it
until just today, so I'm assuming that you did not get it, but --
Zaremba: We do not have it.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Essentially, the letter is from Eileen Vanderpool at Idaho Power
Company and it states that their main electrical utility services come down these two
private lanes, these cul-de-sacs, that come off of Stafford and their concern is just a big
-- they have a -- you know, an available easement to get to all these buildings,
eventually. They do have concern that if these are all vacated, you know, they just don't
know for sure where they are going to go. So, they are asking for the applicant to keep
working with them, Idaho Power, to -- you know, where these buildings are going to go,
how the lot lines are going to adjust, and basically make sure that they can get their
utilities up through from those private cul-de-sacs, you know, to the buildings. So, it
sounds like -- the way that the staff report that you have in front of you is written is that
they have to provide Idaho Power relinquishment before City Council. Based on this
letter, it doesn't sound like they are going to get it before City Council, but you never
know. I think the way that it's written is probably okay. If they don't get it, then, the City
Council won't approve it. But our main concern was with 27 and 16 and they have
agreed to that. So, I think from the city's perspective we have preserved the ten-foot
interior on both of those -- the full ten feet. The last vacation is here in Paramount
Subdivision No.4, there at the very north boundary of that phase and they are
proposing a lot line adjustment, that's what's kind of necessitating this request. We
have not received a letter from Cable One that is -- would need to be supplied before
City Council. Otherwise, we don't see any issues with that. It's just the north boundary
of that lot that they are proposing to vacate. So, I don't think that there are any changes
to the staff report for any four of these vacations, so --
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: As far as the relinquishment on Cable One, that's just a timing thing, do you
know?
Hawkins-Clark: That's my understanding. They just were not able to supply the letter
before this meeting.
Mae: Okay. Okay.
Zaremba: And I had one general question that would apply to all of them and probably
others that are similar. One of the items listed under these easements is that it's also a
drainage easement, so that when you pave over a portion of what was open property
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page12of110
and put buildings on it, you need some place for runoff to go. Do we lose the drainage if
we give up the easement?
Hawkins-Clark: I might ask our Public Works representative to address that.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, on the Commercial properties you
won't lose the drainage, because they -- by statute, they have to keep all their drainage
water on site, so would drain to a certain point where it would, at that point, go to a
subsurface facility, drainage swale, something of that nature. On these -- on these lots
like the one you're looking at on Paramount, it's a lot line adjustment. Once they vacate
this easement, they adjust Lot 4 forward, I'm assuming, to make the lot bigger and at
that point there would be another ten-foot easement created -- it would be five foot,
signed on that -- on the new lot that would be submitted with the next phase of this. So,
the easement like on Paramount, we needed it going away, it's being restricted and you
have to vacate, bring those in line and, then, dedicate the easement over. So, I don't
believe that drainage will be a problem on these.
Zaremba: Thank you. That was very helpful. Any further discussion?
Newton-Huckabay: I have no comment.
Zaremba: Mr. Nary, should we make the recommendation individually or can we lump
them all together for a recommendation?
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you can make one motion and a
recommendation on all the items together in one if you'd like.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: I guess that's one question in regards to making reference to staff comment and
such, we do have different dates in regards to being received by the city clerk's office.
Is that going to matter?
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, you can simply
reference the particular application and that's fine.
Moe: Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of VAC 05-006, VAC 05-007, VAC 05-008, and VAC 05-009, with all staff
comments for the hearing date of July 7th, 2005.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 130f110
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. At this point the rest of the items on our agenda -- or
most of the rest of them are public hearings, so for those of you who are not in regular
attendance at our meetings, let me run through our procedure a little bit. You have
seen part of it, but there is more on public hearings. On each of these items our
professional staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of time together and
so we begin, actually, with a presentation from our staff telling where the project is and
what the project is and any outstanding issues that are remaining to be considered and
resolved. Following that there is a presentation by the applicant and we allow the
applicant 15 minutes for that and that's to include any supporting members the applicant
has brought, engineers or architects or lawyers or anything else that they have brought
and we ask that that be confined to 15 minutes. Then after that the general public is
invited to bring to our attention anything they think we need to know, something you like
about the project, something you don't like about the project, and we ask that you
confine that to about three minutes. Hopefully, our meetings don't end up going until
1 :00 o'clock in the morning, but it helps if you're a little concise. We do make an
exception to that. If there is a person who is a spokesman for a group -- and an
example of that would be the president of a homeowners association, for instance, and
that person identifies themselves and members of the audience agree that that person
is speaking for them, that person can have ten minutes to make all the points that
everybody would have made. And we always appreciate it if you can just say, well, I
agree with what Joe just said. That helps. Following that, then, the applicant will have
ten minutes again to respond to issues that the Commissioners have raised or the
audience has raised and see if they can help resolve any of the issues that have been
raised. And, typically, then, we close the Public Hearing, the Commissioners discuss it
a little bit, and we make a recommendation to the City Council where there will be,
again, another Public Hearing on the same subject. We do have a handy little light
system here. When the green light is on you have plenty of time. When the yellow light
comes on, you should start to wrap up. And when the red one is on, please, conclude
fairly quickly. Other than that, I believe we are ready to continue on.
Item 9:
Item 10:
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: AZ 05-018 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for
Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of
Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: PP 05-020 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 5.39
acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision by
JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard:
Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: CUP 05-027 Request for
Conditional Use Permit I Planned Development approval of a mixed-use
development consisting of 10 multi-family buildings and 6 office buildings
with multiple buildings on a single lot and a waiver of the street frontage
requirement in a proposed R-15 zone for Westborough Square
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 14of110
Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc.
Chinden Boulevard:
- SEC of Jericho Road and
Zaremba: So, I will reopen the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-018, PP 05-020,
CUP 05-027. These three items relate to Westborough Square Subdivision on the
southeast corner of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard. And we will continue with
staff comments, please.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this is 29 acres, approximately, bound
on three sides by public streets. To the west is Jericho Road. To the north is Chinden.
And to the east is Locust Grove Road. There are currently five single family homes on
this site that aren't in the 2003 aerial, that have recently been constructed on these five
residential lots to the west of Westborough Subdivision. There is also a charter school
and a city well lot on Locust Grove, that are all part of the subject application. Recently
the city reviewed and approved some development applications, specifically Saguaro
Canyon here, which extends southbound to McMillan. Arcadia Subdivision is another
residential subdivision. And Tustin is at the corner of Locust Grove and McMillan.
These are all single-family residential products -- or projects. This is the first multi --
mixed use project that we have reviewed in this section in this area. On June 2nd,
these applications were before the board and after some public testimony, the board did
recommend that staff change the Findings of Fact for a recommendation for approval
and I have done that and included some conditions for approval, that the -- that 22
acres of the proposed 29 acres be zoned to R-4. Now, that area includes the five
existing homes and the school site and the well site. So, a good majority of the site is
zone to R-4. The remaining approximately six acres in this location at the southeast
corner of Jericho and Chinden, to basically be split in half -- and I'll get to that here in a
second, with the west half being zoned L-O, office, and the east half being zoned R-15.
The R-15 area includes -- and this is the preliminary plat, so it's a little bit hard to kind of
make out, but this line here basically represents the split between office -- six office lots
over here and on one lot there are ten four-plex buildings. I want to go to this site plan.
It's a little bit easier to look at to kind of understand what's going on with the landscape
plan, but you can see that Jericho Road is here and there is one access into the site
that's shared by both the office and the multi-family, which feeds in this location and
kind of does a loop around. The applicant is required by the Ada County Highway
District to improve their half of Jericho Road to one half of a 40-foot street section and
construct curb, gutter and sidewalk. The six office buildings look like this. Here is the
elevation of the office buildings and I had them in reverse order, so I'll go back to the
four-plex. Here is the four-plex elevation. They are two stories high and each unit has
two bedrooms. And I guess with that I'm just going to touch on -- since this is the first
time with conditions and I did want to touch on a couple of the conditions. For the
annexation and the development agreement, I guess prior to -- before this goes to the
City Council, staff has recommended that the applicant submit a revised legal
description. One for the new L-O -- originally this was all proposed as R-15. To better
reflect the land use, the Commission recommended that this be zoned L-O. So, we
would need a new legal description for that, as well as the remaining R-15 -- or the
proposed R-15 to be zone R-15. With the preliminary plat there were conditions by staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 15 of 110
that we require land use buffers between different land uses and there are inadequate
land use buffers between the proposed office and the multi-family, so 20 foot wide
landscape buffer between the office and multi-family, as well as the existing single
family -- between single family and office there is also a 20 foot wide buffer. That goes
for the existing church as well to the east. There is not a sidewalk shown on any of the
plans either. That was another condition of the preliminary plat, that sidewalks be
constructed. And also the sewer flow meter be installed to measure the true amount of
sewage being lifted. The Conditional Use Permit conditions, if we could touch on some
of those. One was to provide a walkway or some way for the residents here to get to
the amenity proposed in the northwest corner, a little patio plaza area is proposed here
and there really isn't a good way for the residents to access that amenity. It's kind of off
on an island and so that was something that staff believed that an additional walkway or
some way to get to that amenity seemed appropriate, as well as another amenity --
active amenity. There is quite a bit of open space, something like 37 percent is green
space on here, but there really isn't another true active amenity on this site, so staff --
site specific condition number two on page 24, kind of left it open, but any additional
amenities required by the Commission or as may be required by the Commission. Also,
in the staff report I did ask the applicant to clarify the 100 square foot of private usable
open space that's required by ordinance for each unit. That hasn't been addressed
anywhere and I'm not sure that -- it looks like there is some patios and things, but just to
make sure that that hundred square foot is being met for each unit, as well as the open
space and just to clarify what the actual percentage of open space is, exclusive of the
landscape, the land -- street buffers and any other impervious areas, like planters within
the parking lots and things, but open space. There is a condition in there that we do
need to have new plans to reflect the requirements prior to City Council, specifically the
land use buffers, so you're going to have a pretty significant impact on the site plan as
shown here, and so at least ten days we have requested that a revised application be
submitted to staff that shows these changes. And, finally, I just wanted to make note
that we did receive a letter from an attorney's office representing the Dunwoody
Homeowners Association and some homeowners in Dunwoody Subdivision, which is
just to the south, oh, about a half -- a quarter mile south of this subject site. It's off of
this map, but they are in this general location and have a road that comes out to
McMillan, in opposition, they believe that the project is too dense, to summarize a three
page letter. That's basically what they say. So, staff is recommending approval, based
on that action of the Commission on the June 2nd meeting, with the conditions included
in the staff report and I will stand for any questions that you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Moe: I have no questions of staff.
Zaremba: I would comment that I think you did an excellent job of incorporating the
essence of the first part of this Public Hearing, which was continued to tonight. I didn't
see anything that was missing and you incorporated conditions as we expected for what
the project would be and I appreciate your extra work done on that. I guess if there
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 16 of 110
aren't any actual questions, it would be time for the applicant to come forward and
express your wishes.
Jewett: Jim Jewett, 516 South Capitol, Boise, Idaho. I'm in agreement with -- with the
staff report and staff's requirements and conditions. I'll just kind of clear up a few things
that -- what we will do after reading the staff report. I guess I would ask for one
clarification, too. I'm saying into the land use buffer between the L-O and the -- and the
apartments and if I'm understanding, you could have -- the code requires that buffer to
go on either side. It could be a combination of both.
Hood: It, actually, does say on the side of more intense use, but I think we could work
with the property line split down the middle, as long as that land use buffer is provided, I
Jewett: As long as there is a combined 20-foot. Okay. And then -- now you mentioned
also a buffer to the church. Is that the same 20-foot buffer?
Hood: It would be the same, yes.
Jewett: Even though the church is not in the city limits?
Hood: Yes. They are based on land use and, actually, the table has different zones,
county zones, as well for --
Jewett: We will endeavor to make this change to insure that we have the 20-foot
buffers between those uses. And after the second amenity -- and as I look at the plan
this afternoon, will go into this area or this area and put a tot area. A tot lot area. I hope
that would be sufficient as an additional amenity. That would only be used by this
neighborhood. Of course, I don't think the people in the L-O would want to go over and
use a tot lot, but the neighborhood is -- and, then, as far as looking at provided some
pathway connection between here and here. We will endeavor to try to find an
identifiable pathway that is clear that could be utilized through there. And we will show
that in the plan that we come back with, probably the ten days before Council.
Otherwise, we agree with all the conditions that he's mentioned and would stand for any
questions.
Zaremba: Thank you for all of your consideration of that as well. Discussing the
amenity that's up in this corner, that would, essentially be on the corner of Jericho and
Chinden and anticipating to be -- Chinden to be very busy, are you adding any bushes
or anything like that that would do some sound deadening and -- I'm just thinking if this
is open patio, with free distance to Chinden, it may not be a very pleasant place to sit.
Jewett: Actually, that's a very good question and I will answer that. I mean in talking
with my landscape architect on this, what I wanted him to do was in corporate our
signage into some berming, with this patio courtyard area below that, so that actually --
the screening and the landscaping and the sign would all buffer the street noise in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 17 of 110
street. So, we would create a courtyard using those other amenities, so we didn't have
the sign out here and, then, have a courtyard, we are all incorporated.
Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you.
questions?
Okay. You were ahead of me. Commissioners, any other
Borup: No. I think we covered quite a bit last time.
Zaremba: Yeah. We did very thoroughly. And it appears that we don't have anybody
signed up to speak on this item, so that doesn't require any response from the applicant
either.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Where did that voice come from? Oh, Craig.
Hood: Sorry. I just remembered that I did ask the applicant about the hundred square
foot of private usable open space.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Yes. I failed to ask that question.
Jewett: And I -- we haven't actually addressed that. I wasn't really aware of it, but when
we get through the final plan we would have addressed it, but in looking at the plan,
there is a patio area identified in all these, I just need to go and make sure that they are
all private and they do contain a minimum of 100 square feet.
Zaremba: Are any of these second floors?
Jewett: No. That's one -- yeah, that's one thing we designed is no second floor.
Zaremba: Okay.
Jewett: They are all a townhouse unit, so there is always a downstairs.
Zaremba: Okay.
Jewett: There is no stacked units with one on top of the other. So, we will create that
private -- here is one unit, there is one unit, here is one unit and here is one unit. This
takes access from the side, this takes access from right here, this one here, and this
one from the other side. So, we will create that 100 square foot or a ten-by-ten-patio
area minimum private area for every unit.
Zaremba: Okay. Even if you didn't sign up, there is an opportunity to speak if you wish
to. Seeing nobody wishing to do so, Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 18of11Q
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-018, PP 05-020, and
CUP 05-027.
Zaremba: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any
opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, before you begin, I would make one comment and that
is on page 24, item three, do you want to make the statement that the applicant has
agreed to do a tot lot?
Moe: Basically, he's already said he was going to, so I wasn't going to worry too much
about that.
Zaremba: Don't need to add it in here? Okay. It's on the record.
Moe: Yes. On the record.
Zaremba: No further comment.
Moe: I guess I would ask one other question. May I go ahead and do all three at once
or do we need to do these individual?
Borup: Should be individual.
Moe: Individual? Well, having said that, then, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean these are recommendations.
If you want to make them together -- if you're going to make individual changes to the
recommendations that have been agreed to or you want to make note specifically, like
Commissioner Moe stated, like Mr. Jewett indicated, he would be building a tot lot, if
you want that to be included in the Findings that are being sent to the City Council, that
that will be included as the amenity or whatever staff wants in the recommendation
that's going forward for Findings, but you can certainly make the recommendations as a
group. That's fine.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 190f110
Moe: Okay. Having said that, then, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council
recommending approval of AZ 05-018, PP 05-020 -- or, excuse me, 020, as well as
CUP 05-027, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July the 7th, 2005,
received by the city clerk's office June 30th, 2005. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and second regarding all three items. Those in favor say
aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from June 16, 2005: RZ 05-008 Request for
a Rezone of 2.61 acres from R-4 to C-G zone for Walgreens by Hawkins
Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane:
Item 13:
Continued Public Hearing from June 16, 2005: CUP 05-029 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a 14,490 square foot retail pad with dual
drive thru for the pharmacy on 2.61 acres in a proposed C-G zone for
Walgreens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane:
Zaremba: Okay. Now, I would like to reopen the continued public hearings for RZ 05-
008 and CUP 05-029. These both relate to Walgreen's on the corner of West Cherry
Lane and Ten Mile. And we will begin with staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Just to briefly refresh your
memory, this was a rezone and Conditional Use Permit for a Walgreen's located on the
northwest corner of Ten Mile and Cherry. The Public Hearing was continued on this
item primarily because the proposed driveway to Ten Mile Road, a portion of that, about
two-thirds of it, lies off site and the city did not have consent yet from the property owner
that owned that flag lot to construct that driveway for the Walgreen's -- a shared
driveway for the Walgreen's and Mr. Vance. I did speak with the applicant -- actually, I
played phone tag. I did not speak with her. I understand that they do have a verbal
agreement with Mr. Vance. They, however, do not have a written agreement yet and
they believe one is forthcoming, but it is not here yet, so with that being said, I think I'll
leave the staff report at that and if you have any questions, I will stand for them.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: No. Not of staff.
Borup: I guess not -- either of them or -- well, I'll wait until --
Zaremba: Would the applicant come forward, please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 20 of 110
Agulara: Good evening. I'm Jessica Agulara with Hawkins Companies. I brought my
senior counsel Tracy Vance also with Hawkins Companies. I'm going to just quickly go
over where we are at with regards to consent and, then, I'll let Tracy speak in detail
about it, because he's involved in the actual real estate process of this project. Again,
Craig did say we have heard from Mr. Vance via voice mails and literally camping out in
his front yard. He's given his verbal consent for the easement, but he did call me last
night and left a message and indicated he had a couple of items that he felt we needed
to readdress -- not readdress, necessarily. Location of his garbage cans for trash pick
up, indemnification issues and he came back and countered and wanted additional
compensation for the access rights there. But, unfortunately, I can't get him to tell me
what he wants exactly, so it's hard to continue the negotiation process. So, as of tonight
we do not have written consent and most likely will not be able to get written consent
soon and at this time I have to turn it over to Tracy Vance, who can give you more
specifics as to why we cannot get that.
Vance: My name is Tracy Vance. Like she mentioned, I'm the project attorney for this
transaction. Just to make sure that you know that we have not been -- just been sitting
on our hands since we were here last time, I have left numerous messages with Mr.
Vance and I know Jessica has as well and we have actually stood outside his house
making sure we have talked to him and we have talked to him several times. He has
more or less provided the consent in principle. As of June 23rd I gave him an initial
draft of a permanent access easement. We finally -- yesterday he finally gave us
comments to that and that was after actually getting the discussion underway. I would
say based on the comments, we are probably 75 to 80 percent of the way there.
However, that is not surprising in a transaction of this nature. We are always working
and working and working and this document itself, even when -- if I walked in the door
today and said we have his consent, the only thing that I would be able to tell you is we
have a verbal consent, because the access agreement will be entered into with the
Hawkins Companies and him and it's not a document that will be entered and recorded
until the time that we actually are ready to start a construction project and I don't -- you
probably know a little bit about what's going on, because there are kind of joint -- we
also have -- the next one on the hearing is Black Cat for the Seventh-Day Adventist
Church. The issue there is because we are buying the properties from the Seventh-Day
Adventist Church, we are finding another property for them, constructing their building,
and once we can turn over the keys to them, they have a certain amount of time to
swap and, then, we swap properties. So, we can't record a document of record until we
actually swap properties, even if we have the consent, which is not an unusual situation
when you're developing pieces of property. I mean so -- so I don't find it unusual that
when you get -- when you get approvals that they are conditioned on certain guidelines
and conditions that are placed upon them and approvals. I mean, for instance, if you
approve us today, you're going to approve us to make sure that we have to have certain
requirements on a percentage of landscaping and we have to have a certain amount of
caliper trees, we have to have -- you will give us access onto to Cherry Lane and it's
right only, and we have to put in ACHD's requirements to put in a median right there and
what we are trying to do here is have a full access, but to do that we have to work with
surrounding owners what we think is the best possible solution for this project, but also
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 21 of 110
long term, because, eventually, the properties to the north are probably going to one
day be sold and the highest and best use is not residential, it's probably light office or
something of that nature, and that is the most logical access point. So, at this time do
we have a hundred percent deal, we don't. But do we think developers are not in
business to take risks. Before we start wanting to break ground on the Black Cat
property, we are going to want to make sure that everything is tied up, so when we start
-- we start spending serious money, things are going to just fall as clockwork. So, I
don't see where this is a loose string or an unresolved issue, I see it as just a condition
that has to be met, along with all other conditions. That being said, I believe we will
reach a resolution. His comments to Jessica the day he left that voice mail, none of
them were extraordinary. He mentioned that he did go to an attorney, to his credit. His
attorney came back with some comments that were very applicable and I think that we
will eventually reach an agreement and it's in our interest to reach an agreement as
quickly as possible. If there is any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners?
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. I guess I'm a little confused. Number one, neither one of
you were here at the last meeting. Basically, at the last meeting the discussion was not
so much getting an agreement with them to go forward with your project, as it was the
access paint into the Walgreen's property, and, basically, it was either you get an
agreement with the owner there, or, if not, you have to basically put your approach to
the south of his, basically side by side. And we just simply requested that you get an
agreement with the owner that you guys can work it out and have him sign something
stating that it could be worked out and that probably would have sufficed. The other
thing that I was anticipating seeing this evening also was not only the owner of the
access point agreement with that owner, you also have the owner of the property to the
west and I wanted to make sure that we were well informed as to what we are going to
do with his property as far as screening from off of Ten Mile Road and such, to make
sure that he was taken care of as well. So, my bigger concern is is that -- I mean we
have seen no letters of agreement, so, therefore, the way the plan is today I would have
to probably deny, because it's not correct. Or do we continue this on until we get a
letter from -- of an agreement?
Vance: Commissioner, on the letter of agreement, which I was wondering -- I have read
the minutes, too, of the previous meeting, so I am aware of what happened. I don't
understand -- you know, from a legal perspective, his letter of agreement, I guess,
would be analogous to letter of intent, I guess, would be a nonbinding agreement that
he would agree to something that may be -- if, in his terms, he may agree to in the
future, which the only thing that would give us would be -- he would -- we would have a
good faith obligation to proceed. That would be the only thing that would -- it would be -
- it would -- legally it would be nonbinding. It wouldn't really get us more than what we
already have by giving a document back into him, getting his document, he finally got it
to an attorney, he actually called us back with comments, and that's usually the way a
realty transaction goes back and forth. we get documents going back and forth until you
actually say this is the agreement that everybody agrees on, this is what's going to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 22 of 110
signed. Then when -" in this situation when this agreement is signed, the best we could
possibly do is get him to sign it and put it in our files, because we don't own the property
at this time, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church owns the property and it's not a
document that can be put of record until after we swap property with the new church,
with their existing church, and so the logistics of it would be our deed would go to
record, then, the easement agreement would go to record, so it's an agreement that we
can't -- it would not even be enforceable until the closing, but I have in the past got their
signatures on easements and we have put them into escrow and waiting for the closing.
But, like I said, I would legitimately say we are probably about 75 to 80 percent to
getting a final document, in our window that's probably not second to the last draft, but,
you know, it's definitely past the initial draft stage.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Vance, I -- the reason I wanted to recommend continuing this
hearing and the reason being that if you didn't have intent by the property owner, which
all you had at the last meeting was assumption that the property owner would allow that
easement, then, you have to start over.
Vance: That is correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Craig, was that your --
Hood: I did read the minutes, but that was a few weeks ago now and I don't remember
exactly what your motion --
Newton-Huckabay: If they don't get -- if they don't get this easement, they have to start
this process over, because their new access would be a completely re -- a complete
redesign of -- of the property and what we are trying to avoid is the exercise of sending
a recommendation onto City Council -- it all takes time. I know it takes your time as
well, but--
Vance: I understand, Commissioner. And we do understand that the risk involved is if
we cannot reach an agreement, which we still -- we definitely hope that we do, because
we are spending a lot of time and effort and money as well, that -- that we will have to
start over. We, basically, are starting over from the very beginning and we have to
submit everything from the very beginning, work with Craig, get on the calendar agenda,
and we do understand those consequences.
Newton-Huckabay: But I mean that was my understanding from the first time is that you
were assuming that you would have that access without having spoken with -- is that
property owner's name Vance as well?
Vance: It is. His name is Ed Vance. No relation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 23 of 110
Newton-Huckabay: So, anyway, I, myself, I would feel comfortable moving -- you know,
recommending approval based on getting that information and you have made the other
adjustments to it, but I mean that was the reasoning or my thought on that, but I do think
in the future that having that in the first would have made ~- you'd probably be at Council
now.
Vance: Oh, I would agree with you totally. If I could get my ducks in a row exactly
when I want them, I would love that, and sometimes some of these are just a little hard
to, you know, bring them together. But, you're right, in the best case scenario I wish we
had everything agreed upon and sometimes, you know, that we proceeding forward and
we understand the consequences that we have to -- basically, it's just like a new -- new
owner with -- trying to develop the property coming in here from scratch. Jessica would
like to address the Mr. White situation that Commissioner Moe brought up.
Agulara: Thank you. We have met with Mr. White, both over the phone and actually
met with him on site yesterday and what we are going to do is provide some additional
screening for him on his property. We are working with him on that and he's agreeable
to that. We are also working with him on making sure he has irrigation water available
to his property. As a result of prior developments, his water source was cutoff, even
though he's paying for irrigation water, so being a good neighbor and working with the
irrigation district, we are trying to assist him in getting that rerouted for him. We have
met with him earlier this evening and to the best of my knowledge there isn't any other
outstanding issues we have with him and I think he's in support of our solutions that we
have presented to him.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. We actually don't have anybody signed up to testify, but,
again, there is an opportunity if you care to make any comment, either Mr. White or
anybody else, this is your opportunity.
White: I had not come prepared to make comments, but --
Zaremba: Please state your name and address. Thank you.
White: Lee White, 1750 North Ten Mile Road. The property north of the Walgreen's
proposed site. I guess I should do it right. Chairman and committee -- commission. As
Jessica says, we had discussed things and concerns that I had are being worked out.
There is -- I have no great concerns. They are putting -- proposing putting a screen
fence up. They are widening the area, so that I will have minimal or none problems
parking and removing my RV from this parking place and the irrigation problem is going
to take some time, but they are willing to work on that for me and at this point there is no
problem. Any comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7,2005
Page 24 of 110
Zaremba: Thank you. Not to put you on the spot, but have you had any conversation
with your neighbor Mr. Vance --
White: I have not --
Zaremba: -- and got a sense of his feeling about this?
White: Yes. Mr. Vance and I have spoken extensively. It all is positive in our
conversation. I haven't seen him in the last three days. His car hasn't even been in the
driveway. He must be camping out at his work, because he's on call and a very
important individual at his work. So, I just haven't seen him, but I keep an eye out and
I'd like to see where he stands, but the conversation he and I have had is favorable and
just ironing out some details and this Mr. Vance has stated some of those concerns.
So, it's all a go verbally at this point.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Anybody else care to add testimony? Okay. Applicant,
any last minute comments? No? Okay. Commissioners? I'm sorry. Come ahead.
Agulara: I'm sorry. I'm not sure that it was clear that we have the store hours resolved.
That was another item that I believe needed to be addressed per my understanding of
the minutes.
Zaremba: Yes, I do recall that.
Agulara: It's our request that -- and if you go through the minutes and recall the
conversation that Mr. Hawker had with the Commission, is we are just trying to maintain
the flexibility of a 24 hour store, although we will not be open 24 hours, we just wanted
the same access, if you will, with regards to the clientele that Albertson's potentially has
that's kiddy-corner to us and I know there was some discussion, but I don't know if there
is any additional thoughts or comments from the Commission regarding that.
Zaremba: Likewise, I remember the discussion and not the resolution.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I do have the minutes here and I drafted the revised staff report, I
think all Commissioners chimed in on what they thought the hours of operation should
be. At the end, the maker of the motion did not amend the hours of operation as were
originally stated in the staff report, so that's how they stayed. Now, that -- you know,
they do want to change those. They are only 10:00 to 6:00, I believe is -- or 6:00 to
10:00 are the hours that were put in there, so --
Borup: The only comment I'd have on that -- and I'm not remembering that all the
Commissioners felt that way, but at least I felt it would be appropriate -- the same hours
that Albertson's was allowed. That seemed logical to me.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, for fear of contradicting myself -- pawing through the
minutes here, I believe I was in agreement with Commissioner Borup, that I didn't -- I felt
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 25 of 110
like limiting Walgreen's and not limiting Albertson's really wasn't a direction I wanted to
go.
Nary: Mr. Chair, just for the sake --
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: -- of the record, the operations of this store has to be compatible with the
neighborhood that is adjacent to it. It's not adjacent to Albertson's. When Albertson's
came through under their conditional use, there were no houses back there. Those
houses weren't built until after the Albertson's was built. Or a majority of them, There
was a few neighbors, but not quite to the same degree. But if the Commission wants to
make a finding regarding hours, then, I'd simply ask that they relate to the compatibility
to the adjacent neighborhood, not to an adjoining business across the street. That's not
what the statute requires. It has to be compatible to its neighbors, not just to another
store.
Zaremba: Thank you. And I think my feeling last time was exactly that, that the idea is
to protect the neighbors, but through a future CUP process -- and to clarify what I mean
is I agreed with the 6:00 to 10:00 hours currently. At such time as there is a plan for the
second building, which may also be shielding the neighbors, my opinion was I would be
open to reconsidering the 24-hour availability at that time. I may have been the only
one that felt that way, but I believe that's the opinion I expressed and that's how I feel
tonight.
Nary: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I simply want -- whatever the
Commission's decision is, I just want to make sure that what the record reflects is that
the compatibility is related to the neighborhood. Albertson's has a masonry wall in the
rear of it, they have some delivery to the rear of it, but there is a huge buffer space
between the building and the residences and if this is the same type of setup, then, as
long as the record would reflect that, then, I think we would be safe in making that
recommendation going forward for Findings.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Agulara: I'd like to add a comment, if I may.
Zaremba: Please.
Agulara: What's not clear in the site plan -- and l'd like to point out to the east there is
currently a wood fence that separates the property between us and the adjacent
residential there. We are proposing on removing that and putting in a six-foot wall --
CMU wall. To the north we are proposing -- and it's not clear on that either,
approximately from the corner of the -- get my bearings here. The southeast corner of
the City of Meridian well lot, we are putting -- proposing a four foot CMU wall that would
start at that proximate corner and follow the curve there approximately to the corner of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 26 of 110
the Walgreen's building, if that makes any sense. And, again, we are also providing a
four foot cedar fence, per Mr. White's request, on his property that will screen his
property directly across the proposed access point to the Walgreen's. So, there will be
screening, as well as landscape buffers. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
Zaremba: Thank you. Any further questions from the Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, my opinion still stands on the hours.
Zaremba: Questions from the staff? I guess not. All right. Thank you.
Commissioners, are we ready to close the Public Hearing? I guess the items for
discussion would be whether we want to continue it until we have in writing -- I think for
me there is a slight difference. I was serious about -- my expectation for tonight was
either to have the agreement in writing for the easement or to have a drawing that
showed a separate driveway. At our last hearing there was no evidence that there had
been any agreement with the neighbor and I felt much more strongly. Tonight I feel that
there is progress towards the agreement that it probably will happen. I'm aided in that
by the neighbor Mr. White's comments. I still would want the condition that the
agreement be -- that there be some evidence in writing of the agreement. I'm not
saying recorded, but some evidence in writing of the agreement before City Council acts
on it. But I'm -- it's less up in the air and I would be more willing to forward it onto City
Council. That's my personal opinion on that issue.
Borup: Well, I had the same expectation. I think the thing that I have reconsidered is
the time frame of the whole project. It's not something that's going to happen right
away, with finding new property, building another church -- I mean this is something
that's extended way out there and --
Newton-Huckabay: The church is up here in a few minutes.
Borup: It's what?
Newton-Huckabay: I said the church is coming up in a few minutes.
Borup: Right. But it's got to get built and they have to move. So, I mean just because
that time frame being out there so far, that puts it, in my mind, a little bit different light on
having all these agreements in place, too. It wouldn't be needing -- you know, it
probably was not much more binding than a verbal agreement, because, you know, the
property is not being -- is they don't own the property. So, I guess all 1'm saying, I feel
we probably could continue, you know, to move this thing on.
Zaremba: I didn't hear that. Continue it or for --
Borup: No. Move it on.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 27 of 110
Borup: Continue the process.
Moe: I guess I would concur. I don't have a real problem now. My biggest point was I
wanted to verify what was happening with Mr. White in regards to what's going to
happen screening wise and whatnot and I do understand it takes time to get some
letters that -- the only problem I still have -- and maybe staff can help me on this or
whatever, I mean we have -- we saw a plan at our last meeting, we see a plan here,
which is not the right one, but I guess we made -- comments have been made about the
block walls and whatnot -- I keep screening through this report. I'm not seeing that --
did we note this, the CMU walls and such, are they on these --
Hood: Mr.Chair, Commissioner Moe, the six-foot wall, CMU wall, is on page 15,
number three, C, subsection C. The four foot wall that the applicant talked about
running from the southeast corner adjacent to the north Walgreen's, that's new to me,
so that one is not in there. I would ask that if you do move this forward that you, as part
of your motion, include that proposal to include that CMU wall with the six foot CMU wall
that was proposed already. Do you find that, Commissioner?
Moe: Page 15?
Hood: Page 15, site specific number three, subsection C.
Moe: C. Okay.
Hood: In addition to that, some of the screening to the White property has also not
been included. That's new information as well since the last hearing. So, the additional
screening would probably need to be added to the staff report, just so it --
Moe: Would that also be the access to irrigation? Is that -- we discussed that they have
not had their -- we are still in Public Hearing, so --
Agulara: Commissioner Moe, technically and legally speaking, the property owners, the
Seventh-Day Adventist or Hawkins Companies, we have no legal responsibility to
provide water or renegotiate water lines to Mr. White or Mr. Vance's property, for that
matter. We had a neighborhood meeting a few months ago and Mr. White was
concerned about that and I made a commitment to him that as part of our project we
would take a look at that and make sure not to do anything to impede his access to the
water and what we found out was that through a prior development his access was cut
off, so we just -- as part of our project we are working with the irrigation district to see if
we can get that connection made again.
Borup: So, the water does not access through your property -- the church property?
Agulara: No, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 28 of 110
Borup: That's what I thought.
Moe: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair? Maybe just some of the things that have been discussed tonight, as
well as at the previous meeting, just for your easy reference, I guess, if you wanted to
change the hours of operation that's within the annexation -- or the rezone section, it's
the fourth bullet under number two on page nine. The consent to change it prior to
issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance to provide that written consent from Mr.
Vance prior to going to the City Council, so if you want to change it back to the original
recommendation, however, I guess that's on page 16, number two, and, then, the
landscaping, again, is on page 15, number three, subsection C, so --
Moe: Slow down, Craig.
Hood: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, before you repeat that, tell me again which is first, the building permit or
the certificate of zoning compliance?
Hood: The certificate of zoning compliance is required before the building department
will process any application for a building permit.
Zaremba: Okay. So, if we made it the CZC --
Hood: Basically, the Planning and Zoning Commission --
Zaremba: Maybe it will move on the ground until --
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: --- that agreement is there.
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: I want to go way back -- let's go back to page nine.
Hood: Okay. Number two.
Moe: Yes, sir.
Hood: Fourth bullet.
Moe: Fourth bullet. Hours. Got you. Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 29 of 110
Hood: And, then, the -- we will probably need to change, it sounds like, page 16,
number two.
Mae: Page 16?
Borup: I think we have different page numbers.
Hood: Oh.
Zaremba: Mine is four through nine.
Hood: Page 15 -- page 15, number two. I apologize.
Borup: Oh. Okay.
Moe: And change it to what?
Borup: Change it back to the certificate of zoning.
Moe: Just a little bit more discussion in regard -- I want to make sure that -- where are
we at with our hours of operation? I don't know that we have made that determination
yet.
Zaremba: I still support 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., but it would not be a deal breaker for
me, with the option to change it later.
Borup: Yeah. Yeah. And I like that -- that option, if change is needed. You know,
11 :00 wouldn't bother me either. At this point I don't know that it's necessary for
anything more than that. I'm assuming Albertson's is midnight, so that would still be
less than that.
Zaremba: Their pharmacy is not open until midnight. The store is, but the pharmacy
has much shorter hours.
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: Something like 6:00 or 7:00. I'm sorry. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: According to the attorney that we can't consider --
Zaremba: We aren't really considering Albertson's, are we, but just the neighbors.
Borup: And I'm thinking of others next -- others that I'm familiar with next to residential
neighborhoods.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 30 of 110
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I guess my thought on the hours would be -- I mean we
know where I stand on that and I think limiting them is not in the best interest, but would
-- to forward this on to City Council as is and -- I mean what is the direction that City
Council is going? When we limit hours, are they overturning that at the Council level
are they endorsing it? You know, what's their -- you know, I would just like to know
where City Council stands on that -- on that issue. So, I would say leave it as it and
move it forward and ask for that feedback to come back around.
Zaremba: That makes sense to me. I think they have been supporting such restrictions
in the past. Doesn't mean they would every time.
Moe: Well, then, basically, in the comments it does talk about unless otherwise
modified through future conditional use permits, which would coincide with the other
building being built and such. So, the 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 -- I guess I'm not opposed to
even going to 11 :00 myself.
Zaremba: Are we ready to close?
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Let's go with 11 :00 and close the Public Hearing, because I
don't think we are going to get --
Zaremba: I'm ready for a motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Mae: I move that we close the public hearings on RZ 05-008 and CUP 05-029.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Okay. Okay. I'll try this. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-008,
to include all staff comments for the hearing date July 7th, 2005, received by the city
clerk's office June 30th, 2005, with the following changes. Yes. On page nine, under
the zoning amendment comments, item number two, bullet point number four, I'd like to
change the hours of operation to be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p,m" in lieu of the
1 0:00 p.m. That would be it. End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7,2005
Page 31 of 110
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval
of CUP 05-029, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July 7th, 2005,
received by the city clerk's office June 30th, 2005, with the following changes. On page
15, item -- under site specific conditions, item number two in the report, the certificate of
zoning compliance, CZC for site has been lined out, I would like to return that and
include that in the motion.
Borup: And, then, delete City Council.
Moe: And, then, delete the City Council action. Then under item 3-C, I would like to
add after the six foot tall CMU wall as proposed, to put a four-foot tall CMU wall at the
north property -- or not the property line, the north landscape planter.
Borup: As stated by the applicant.
Moe: As stated by the applicant. Thank you, sir. Then, on page number 16, I would
like to add an item H, which should be to provide additional screening at the north
property for the White property. And let's see --
Borup: That screening was on the White property, wasn't it?
Moe: Yes.
Borup: Not on the north of this --
Moe: I'm sorry. That would be correct. That would be additional screening on the
White property to the north. I believe that would be the end of the motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: We are approaching 9:00 o'clock, which is traditionally a time that we take a
break and before we do that, I would like to get a consensus of the other
Commissioners. The three items that we will take up beginning first after the break, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 32 of 110
received a whole lot of new stuff on today, a new drawing and a few comments from
staff, but my question is a consensus of whether we anticipate continuing that to give
staff time to mull over the new information and provide us with a new report or would we
take a longer break to read through what we have and discuss it tonight and probably
still continue it?
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Newton-Huckabay: I'd rather only discuss it once.
Borup: I'd be interested in comments from staff on that, too, since it pertains to them,
Moe: Based on the new information and gone through with the staff's recommendation,
you know, they are still recommending approvals and whatnot, I think there is some --
some items that they probably need to work out between -- depending upon how the
vote goes this evening, on if we do vote on that, if it was to be approved, it could be
worked out between now and City Council, I believe.
Zaremba: Does staff have an opinion?
Guenther: If you feel comfortable going forward with the memorandum that you have
been delivered tonight, the detailed CUP, and with that understanding that the Findings
and recommendations all need to be changed through the staff report prior to City
Council, staff can do that before City Council, if you feel comfortable making that long of
a recommendation based on any memo that's in front of you. We can do it if you think
you need -- if you want to make it --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: I guess I would say since we are going to take the break, I will have some reading
material to read first before I come back.
Zaremba: Okay. So, if I don't hear disagreement from others, consensus would be we
will take a slightly longer break to give ourselves some time to do this and will, in fact,
open them and hold the Public Hearing.
Borup: Yeah. I think so.
Zaremba: The end result of which may be continue it anyhow, but -- okay. In that case,
we will take a --
Newton-Huckabay: But I think I'm going to be out voted. So, how long is our break?
Zaremba: Let's do about 25 minutes. Let's get together at ten after 9:00.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 33 of 110
(Recess. )
Item 14:
Item 15:
Item 16:
Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: AZ 05-019 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.9 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Dorado
Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC - NWC of South Eagle Road and
East Overland Road:
Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: PP 05-024 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 16 commercial building lots on 10.9 acres in
a proposed C-G zone for Dorado Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC
- NWC of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-031 Request for conceptual approval of a
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for approximately
110,000 square feet of hotel, commercial, retail and restaurant uses
(some with drive-thru windows) in a proposed C-G zone for Dorado
Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC - northwest corner of South
Eagle Road and East Overland Road:
Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene this evening. Let the record show that all
Commissioners that were here before the break are again with us. And I will open
public hearings for AZ 05-019, PP 05-024, CUP 05-031, all relating to Dorado
Subdivision, northwest corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road, and just
to repeat a comment that we made last time, the file number for PP 05-024 was
mistakenly reported as PP 05-020 on some paperwork, but 05-024 is the correct
number. And we will begin with the staff comments.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an
annexation and rezone application that comes along with a planned development for
10.9 acres immediately off of the 1-84 inter -- off ramp and it's immediately west of Eagle
and north of Overland. The EI Dorado Subdivision, Bonito final plat, is immediately
south of this project. That is a mixed use regional, as well as this designation is mixed
use regional by our camp plan. The aerial photo shows that it is completely bare at this
time. There was a house that was located in the southwest corner of the property. That
has been removed. As well as there was a flood plane issue that was on the northeast
corner of the site. That has been -- they have done the work on that in order to bring
that up to elevation and compact it in order to put building footprints and such on that.
The preliminary plat for the site shows 16 commercial lots and a proposed zoning of C-
G. This rendition is the original submittal for the site. This does show some inaccurate
landscape buffers on this. The landscape buffer for the 1-84 interchange would be 35
feet, as it is an entryway corridor to the City of Meridian. As well as Eagle Road is an
entryway corridor and is 35 feet. And Overland Road is an entryway corridor and
requires 35 feet of landscape buffers. Overland Road was recently redone by ACHD
and the existing accesses -. there is one point immediately across from the main
entrance -- one of the main entrances into EI Dorado. This is a full access, right-in,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 34 of 110
right-out and left turn lane. There is a right-in, right-out access closer to the Overland,
Eagle Road intersection, as well as the applicant is proposing an alternative style off
ramp, I guess you could say, from Eagle Road that would be a right-in only, there would
no right out off of this subdivision from -- onto Eagle Road. The request is for
approximately 110,000 square feet. A hotel, retail, commercial, restaurant uses. This
site being, in this proximity, it is a mixed use regional designation, but the mixes of uses,
with the hotel and retail and restaurant, that is primarily what we would expect to see on
this site and we are not looking for or asking for an extensive mix of uses on the -- for
this site. The site plan that you see in front of you is the site plan that is referenced in
the staff report as being submitted on July 5th. Is the detailed conceptual -- detailed
approval, detail planned development that has been submitted. As you can see, they
will landscape and provide the off ramp from Eagle Road into the subdivision. The hotel
would be located in approximately the northwest corner of the subdivision. This is -- I
believe they had indicated that this is a Marriott Travel Lodge. There are three uses in
the -- off of Overland Road that are requesting drive-thrus to be approved. One is a
bank right off of the intersection of Overland and Eagle. This bank would have a drive-
thru as well. These are drive-thrus that would not need a Conditional Use Permit in the
future for the drive-thru. These projects would just be required to submit a certificate of
zoning compliance. As you can see, this detailed planned development does not follow
the lot lines that have been submitted and this is very common for a commercial
development. Staff would almost expect to see a permanent plat or a final plat come
into our office that would reflect these changed lot lines when we actually have this
come before us in the future if the uses are established more permanently. The
applicant has indicated that the hotel would be located where it's proposed, as well as
the bank in the corner have already been fairly secured in their locations and should be
platted accordingly. With the planned development, this would be required to provide
an amenity. The applicant has shown a plaza unit in the center of the parking lot, center
of the subdivision. Staff is not supporting that amenity as it's presented and located.
The director and myself met with the applicant this afternoon and gave them several
proposals for locations of the amenity, which would potentially be in the center of the
two restaurant retail uses in either this location or in the southwest corner. We feel that
with the size of these restaurants that they are most likely going to have seating waiting
lists and such and an amenity that could be provided to pedestrians, people waiting to
be seated, is more beneficial to the site, than having a random amenity in the middle of
a parking lot with no pedestrian accesses or feasibility for actual use of that. That is
noted in the memo that you received dated July the 6th. The other issues with the site
are currently -- this is -- immediately west of the site is Overland Way Subdivision. It is
an Ada county R-1 subdivision. We do not anticipate this subdivision to be maintained
as residential in an extensive time in the future. This would -- this subdivision is
designated as commercial in our Comprehensive Plan and we anticipate it to develop
as such in the near future. The applicant has indicated that several developers have
purchased these home sites. They are all populated with single-family residential
homes and are approximately one to two acres in size. With that, there is an existing
residence that is a single family residence, as defined by our staff -- the staff report,
which the landscaping ordinance does say that the matrix for commercial to residential
districts, it requires a 25 foot landscape buffer. The memo that you have in front of you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 35 of 110
does detail that Lots 1, 2, 3, 15 and 16, respectively, as I have described them here --
let me go back to the plat -- would be these five lots right here would border that
residential use and some creative conditioning has been drafted and is in front of you to
try and reflect the -- not only the protection of the residents that's on the one lot in
Overland Way Subdivision, but also to facilitate the commercial development of this site.
The condition does read that they will not be required to actually install the 25-foot of
landscape, but that it should be acknowledged that each one of these lots would have to
come back for a detailed Conditional Use Permit for the uses located within the scope of
those lots and that's so that this board can determine in the future if the use that is being
proposed for those lots is going to interfere or could an alternate landscape proposal be
developed in order to mitigate any type of commercial impacts on the residential lots
and also the -- there is a condition that is in the memo that was delivered that says that
if this property here is annexed and it would most likely, in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, be annexed as commercial, that all of those conditions for Lots 1,
2, 3, 15 and 16, would become void. So, that the developer would not have to come
back and get a Conditional Use Permit on those properties, if that property is developed
and annexed in as commercial. The last thing I would like to cover is that in discussions
with the applicant and with the submittal of this detailed Conditional Use Permit planned
development, staff feels that the development agreement may be waived and the
recommendation is to remove the annexation and zoning comment number five for a
development agreement, with the addition of the conditions that are stated in the memo
and of the amendments of the conditions from the staff report, staff feels that the
concerns of staff can be met through the planned development conditions and,
therefore, eliminate the stuff of the development agreement. At this time I will stand for
questions if you have any.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Just one of curiosity. Why -- you had mentioned the lots and the buffering.
Why did you leave out 13 and 14?
Guenther: Lots 13 and 14 -- 13 is the more square one here against -- the property
here, the applicant has indicated, is owned by Winston Moore, which is the developer,
and the property immediately south of Mr. Moore's property and north of Mr. Sasser's
property, is under contract with Winston Moore as well. That's the reason for making
this -- these Lots 13 and 14 be eligible for the five foot landscape buffer, as we know
that this will develop as commercial.
Borup: Okay.
Guenther: And so, therefore, that's the reason for that.
Moe: I have no questions.
Zaremba: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant care to come
forward, please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 36 of 110
Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian.
First off, I would like to apologize for the -- if we can get the conceptual plan back up --
for the delay in getting this to you. In this concept plan originally, I think as we are faced
with oftentimes, you know, we are trying to get approval for something, we know what
we want, but we are not sure what it's going to look like. And as this started to develop,
it became apparent that I think this is a pretty fair approximation of what it will ultimately
look like when it's developed. And so with that, that's why we submitted it here within
the last week. So, we apologize for any confusion this evening that might have been
created in the process. So, having said that, one of the things that I would like to point
out -- I think a couple things if we mention in here. We have a -- right here, just to give
you a little bit of overview on this project. This is a Marriott hotel. The Marriott hotel is a
town place suites. It's essentially one of those where someone stays for a period of a
week, two weeks, almost like a small apartment type of thing. It was approved by
corporate a couple of weeks ago. With Marriott, once it's approved by corporate, that
pretty well is a done deal. So, that became -- in fact, if you can flip over to the rendering
on the Marriott, we can kind of show you. And kind of jump back and forth here a little
bit, but -- right there. So, that's a rendering of generally what it's going to look like. We
think it's going to be an attractive project. It was an attractive project. It will be an
attractive project. We think it's something that the city and the community will be a real
asset for, so we think it's a real plus. The other thing, if we can flip back to the concept
plan, and I apologize for moving back and forth, but I'm trying to kind of show you --
over in this corner we have signed an agreement with Sterling Bank for this location.
Sterling Bank, if you are familiar, has about seven billion dollars in assets. They have
got about 135 banks currently. They consider this to be an excellent location for their
project. They are looking at about a 4,500 to 5,000 square foot building here. They are
looking at doing some very extensive construction on it, including possibly clock towers
and what have you. So, we think it's going to be real attractive. The balance, as we go
through here right now, we are talking to a very -- a group of restaurants, We are not at
the point where we can share those, but it looks like at least some of them will
materialize and we are quite a ways down the road. So, we feel very confident. The
same situation with potentially the balance of these. At this point it's a little bit more un-
established. So, that will develop over time. As we mentioned with ACHD, they have
allowed us a right-in only here. This is a right-in only and it's dictated by location across
from EI Dorado Business Campus and, then, of course, this is a full access itself,
dictated by its location across from EI Dorado Business Campus. As I mentioned, we
have got the landscape through here and I will talk about this landscaping in a minute.
If I could flip over to the one that shows the subdivision for -- there is another one there.
There. I think it's been mentioned and I know some of the neighbors will get up here.
It's very obvious that this is a residential subdivision -- this is our project right here -- that
borders our project. I think the interesting thing with this -- and maybe some of the
neighbors will disagree. This is at least my -- my humble opinion on it -- is that, you
know, for example, we came to you for EI Dorado Business Campus, we border
Thousand Springs, we recognized that Thousand Springs was going to be a residential
subdivision, would continue to be open, there was no reason for it to change. However,
I think this one here -- and, again, in my opinion, is a residential subdivision in transition.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 37 of 110
As he mentioned, Winston Moore has bought this -- he has made -- clarification. He
has made an offer on this with Bill Urris. I believe he's going to accept it. They had a
very good face-to-face conversation. And Mr. Sasser I know owns this -- at least I know
he's operating it -- or it's being operated as a business or what I understand he may be
moving back into that and may live there forever, but at least as of right now that's the
case. Over here Ron Van Auker owns these three. So, these other two right here -- or
the five here are owned by the individuals. So, I think, as you know, this right here is all
vacant land. I think Mr. Van Auker, I believe, owns this over here and I think the plan is
for this -- because it's mixed use regional, it would developed as that. In fact, if you look
at the staff report, you will see where they acknowledge over a period of time -- we don't
know how soon, but I think within a reasonable period of time you're going to see this all
go away and become a development. So, I think with that, that was the reason why we
see it as a transition, why we came in -- if we could flip back to -- I'm sorry, I keep -- the
one that shows -- thank you. This is why we asked for, in this particular case -- this is
where the 25 feet of landscape buffer is going to be or was supposed to be requested
and the reason why we asked for the five feet -- if you look at this, what we have done is
we have taken the 25 feet and drawn it around this so you can see it, if you look at
these two particular lots, the depth of these lots, if you take your 25 feet, if you take a 25
foot drive aisle, if you take your 20 feet of parking, a sidewalk, 35 feet of buffer there,
you can build a 32-foot wide building. I don't think there is going to be too many people
that want to build a 32-foot wide building. What -- here, the problem we have had here,
again is this drive aisle is dictated by ACHD in its location across the street here from EI
Dorado. If you do 25 feet here, you, basically, impede this drive aisle coming in. As I
understand it -- and I'm not a traffic engineer, but you need approximately 150 to 200
feet for cars to come in to get out of the way, to go towards their parking, so you don't
have people backed out into the street. So, right here we -- right now we have it -- we'd
almost have to either move this drive aisle over, which would be a domino effect on
everything else that goes through there. Up here it's not quite as big a problem. So,
what we -- what we are willing to do -- and at least we would suggest -- and I know the
homeowners have some concerns, we are not sure what those concerns are, but I
suspect -- I can take a reasonable guess. You know, we can look at, for example, a
fence, we can look at six, seven, eight foot fence as well. We can add some additional
landscaping. We can also -- even though we don't own this, we can add landscaping
here. We are willing to do that if necessary. We are also willing to do that through here.
If you flip over to the aerial, if you will see here, again, there is, for example, Mr.
Sasser's house, there is Mr. Urris. This is the one Winston has purchased, If you can
see, there is approximately 180 feet from there to there and if we were to build a
building over here, we would probably -- that's another 75 feet. So, you're almost 300
feet of buffer from the house. I understand people live in their backyards, too. So, also
in this particular case, the building right here, you have got a large shop here, so it has
mitigated -- some of this is mitigated. But, again. I recognize that this is a home, I'm
sensitive to that, but I think we have got some factors here that potentially mitigate it. If
you can take -- there is a photo there that shows the back of his property. Right there.
That's a view of Mr. Sasser's house in this case. This is probably where one of our
buildings would sit ultimately. This house is back here. There is some pretty mature
pine trees that I suspect have been there for awhile. We can, again, add more fencing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 38 of 110
and stuff, but I think you have got a far substantial buffer. What we are willing to do is
go along with the CU for here, so, in essence, the people here, as they continue to live,
have had a second bite at the apple. They can come back -- we will be coming back
and asking for approval for this. But what we are simply saying is -- is I'm not sure that
that 25 feet is necessarily critical. Again, that's my interpretation and that there is may
be other ways that we can mitigate it or reduce the impact that we may have potentially
on buildings out here, whether it's through say higher fences. So, anyway, if we can put
back the concept plan. Okay. The other thing, in addition, then, to allowing us the five
feet -- and as I say, we are very open to other ideas, as I say, the fencing, a couple
other things in the staff report that we would request -- over here we are asking for 35
feet of landscaping, which we have no problem with. However, we have a right turn
only in here. What we are asking is in this particular case that that be reduced by the
distance of what will be the drive aisle. We have to work that out with ACHD specifically
how long that will be, but I suspect that would be about 14 feet. Again, what,We are
willing to do is put trees or other things up in this area or down in this area or through
here, to, again, I guess give you an alternative for reducing that landscaping in that
particular area. The other thing, this plan right now shows a sidewalk right here. We
don't. As you know, over in EI Dorado we had to do 35 feet of landscaping. We did a
meandering sidewalk through that 35 feet. As I understand it, in the staff report what
they are saying is in addition to 35 feet, if the sidewalk is five feet, they want that five
feet added on top of it. That's new to me. But I guess, apparently, it's been done.
Again, what we would ask, if they modify it, that we do a meandering sidewalk through
here, that that could be part of the 35 feet buffer, so -- the other thing that I just want to
clarify and it may just -- there is some confusion and, hopefully, I'm not going to muddy
the waters, but, you know, we are looking at -- it's a conceptual plan. We are looking at
this as possibly some slight changes in it. We don't see material changes in this. We
don't see material change in use, but I got a little concerned when Joe was saying this is
exactly what it's going to be. Again, what we are trying to do is come up with what we
think is the best thing and I think as Commissioner Borup said, I heard him earlier, you
know, we so often fall in that dilemma, we have to give you something very specific, but
we are not sure what we are doing completely yet. I don't mean literally, but on the
plan. So, I just want to -- I think I want to get that clarified. We believe this is generally
what it's going to be, but, for example, this could very well be one building or something,
you know. So, I just want to clarify that. As far as the amenities, as we mentioned to
staff, they have asked it here, if we could provide them with some details.
Unfortunately, at this point we can't. What we can do is we would visualize some type
of covered seating area. It might be in here. Anna even suggested here. We might be
able to incorporate something somewhere in here and we will work with staff between
now and City Council and we will come back with a specific design and plan for that, so
we can address that. So, I think, in closing, I think, as you well know, because we have
been here before, we did this with EI Dorado, we sat up here in front of you and said we
will build a quality project and I think we did. I think it was something that, you know,
everybody could be proud of. I think Winston Moore went well beyond what would be
expected in that project. We will do the same here. We think this is a quality project.
What we are asking for is some flexibility as far as these considerations and ask you to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 39 of 110
modify the staff report with those. And with that I would be glad to answer any
questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Borup. You look like you
were about to speak and I was calling on you. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Okay. Well, I'll probably have some more later, but just at this point we do not
have a preliminary plat; is that correct?
Seal: Yes, we do.
Borup: We do? That--
Seal: That's the preliminary plat right there.
Borup: Right there.
Seal: Yes.
Borup: Which doesn't -- that doesn't jive with your building locations at all, though.
Seal: No. Because what we did initially -- and we can -- we can modify that.
Borup: I thought there was a new plat that was --
Seal: No. And then we -- yeah. And the same thing we had here at EI Dorado. And if
you go back and you look at, for example, EI Dorado Business Campus, we came in
with all these -- we have done lot lines all over the place. We have done adjustments.
We have had to spend 15,000 dollars to re-subdivide a couple lots that we didn't
anticipate. So, what we are trying to do is provide ourselves some degree of flexibility in
our design, so if we have to move things around or something, we can move the lot
lines around and we are not having to come in for a re-subdivision down the road.
Borup: You had mentioned that you have got probably four -- four or five of them that
are already -- pretty done deal?
Seal: Yes, we -- they are not a done deal at this point, but they are close. So, you
know, the old saying, it ain't over until it's over. But we feel confident enough that we
can present a plan tonight that we think is going to be a pretty good representation. I
don't think you're going to come back five years from now and look at this and say,
wow, this really didn't look like what we saw before. So, that's why we are willing to
submit that.
Moe: But, then, at the same time you do take exception to some of the staff comments
in regards to the preliminary plat for, you know, site specific conditions; right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 40 of 110
Seal: As far as landscaping?
Moe: Landscaping. Right. Okay. I have nothing.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Did you mention everything that you had concerns with as far as the staff report
in your --
Seal: Yes. I think in the additional memo I think we addressed everything.
Borup: Okay.
Seal: So, my really concerns, I think, again, to kind of summarize, is the five feet. We
are willing to live with the CUs on those particular lots. We are asking for the five feet.
We are willing to provide other things to, as I say, as alternative, so to speak. We are
asking for the stuff as far as the driveway coming, the right in, and the 35 feet there and
the meandering sidewalk in the five feet.
Borup: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Seal?
Seal: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: When you said additional memo, you're talking about --
Seal: Yes. Yes, I am.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
..
Seal: I know it's got more confusing.
Newton-Huckabay: Just to make sure I'm looking at the right document.
Zaremba: No further questions.
Seal: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Signed up to speak is Becky McKay. Okay. Not signed
up, but you're welcome to come and speak. I didn't look at Item 16. You are signed up.
Sasser: Commissioners, My name is Gale Sasser and I own property at 1546 Loder
Place, which is the one that's parallel on two sides of the proposed development. So,
anyway, I guess my biggest concern with this proposed development -- we are in favor
of it, by the way -- is the -- is the landscape barrier around the perimeter to five foot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page410f110
The entrance to the development will actually be coming and, then, the cars could be
turning and the headlights are going to be basically shining right on our house. Now,
they showed the mature trees on the east side. Now, on the south side, which is where
our bedroom is in our house, a very minimal amount of trees, so we are really not
protected by the -- by the mature trees and -- but that's my major concern and as we
attended the preliminary meeting with the W.H. Moore Company, which -- a
neighborhood meeting to address our concerns, the only concern that I had and that I
brought up to Mr. Seal was that very thing. Noise and lights. And his response to that
is what do you care, you live by the freeway. So, that was somewhat shocking, but --
but that's what he said. Anyway, I'm in full agreement with the staff's report and
recommendations of the -- maintaining that 25 foot landscape area around our
perimeter. Other than that, I have no issues. So, basically, that's alii have.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Sasser, in regards to the property on the south side, would you be
looking at wanting some screening and whatnot, some additional fence screening and
such for that?
Sasser: Something to protect us from the lights, yes. Because we are going to be
extremely vulnerable. Our master bedroom is on that south side, so all night long we'd
have car lights, you know, shining in the bedroom.
Borup: And that was the same question I had. So, like a six foot fence would -- would
help?
Sasser: Yes, a six-foot fence and some landscaping to buffer it a little bit.
Mae: Okay.
Sasser: That's all I have.
Zaremba: I do have a question. And certainly we have the obligation to protect your
right to live there as long as you wish to and to not have this disturb you any more than
possible, but thinking to some day where it might be desirable on your part to change
the use of your property into a commercial, might you -- I'm just thinking of how would
your property develop into a commercial property, which is envisioned eventually in the
Comprehensive Plan, not that anybody's going to push you to it, but eventually.
Wouldn't you want to actually have cross-access into this property, which would mean
not only not 25-foot landscape buffers, but maybe even holes in the buffer that would
provide you drive aisle access and cross-easements with this property?
Sasser: That's a possibility that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 42 of 110
Zaremba: I mean that's way in the future, but I'm just -- I'm throwing that out as a - 25-
foot landscape buffer all the way around you might make it very difficult to develop your
property, at least in coordination with this one.
Sasser: Sure. I have had nobody approach me on that.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. So, it's too early for you to have an opinion.
Sasser: I really don't have an opinion. I haven't seen really much. I got the first
information at noon yesterday on the proposed plot and staff report, so -- as you have
as well.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Sasser: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Don Hutt is it? Okay. Then we will have Becky McKay.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm
here representing Don Hutt and Gale Sasser. They came to my office around the first
of May and brought in the site -- the preliminary plat of this project and were asking
questions and asking me to tell them what the ordinance said and what their rights
were, because this is a residential subdivision and they had some concerns. Ie-mailed
Anna on May 12th with some questions and concerns, because they had been down to
the Ocity-planning department and there was very little information as far as a site plan
or uses in the file. They said that they were very concerned about the lack of
information that had been provided; they were concerned about the height of the
buildings next to them that a lot of the residents have lived there for a long time. They
wanted to be assured that the livability of this neighborhood would, obviously, be
maintained. They were concerned about traffic circulation, size of the buildings, parking
area. Anna e-mailed me back, she said the staff has the same concerns. I forwarded
this e-mail on to Jonathan Seal, this was May 13th. He never called me. Never e-
mailed. Nor did they contact Mr. Hutt or Mr. Sasser, which really disturbs me, because
I'm in the same business as they are and when residents ask for additional information
or have concerns, we typically take the time meet with them. I normally don't come here
to testify about other projects, but it bothered me that the comments at the
neighborhood meeting were made such as, well, you already live by the freeway and
that the hotel is non-negotiable, when they were trying to find some middle ground. Mr.
Hutt indicated I am not opposed to the project. Mr. Sasser indicated he's not opposed
to the project. They are just very concerned about the possibility of construction or
service traffic going down Loder Street. If Mr. Moore purchases clear to Loder, they
don't want that residential street being used for commercial uses. The lighting impact.
The landscape buffering. The other question they had was why weren't the other two
parcels included that they have optioned and within their subdivision. A new site plan
was submitted just on Tuesday. Staff report was written. I read through it, it was
outdated as soon as it was e-mailed to me, because the new staff report came out. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7. 2005
Page 43 of 110
read the addendum, then, also the staff showed me some adjustments that were made
to the addendum. In my opinion, if I came before this body and was bringing staff site
plans in two days before, the staff was adjusting their site plan, I would expect to be
reprimanded. I would -- I don't think you would tolerate that of the rest of us and I
wouldn't think that it would be tolerated here. I think you have to consider that these
poor residents, even if this does transition, which it very well may, probably will, they still
have to live there and those buffers - 25-foot buffers for more intensive commercial
uses against residential, are important. They are there for a purpose. Very rarely -- I
have never asked for a waiver on them or on the entryway corridors, because the
landscaping, the esthetics of our project, are very important to the city, to the
community, and I just want you to take those things into consideration and that's what
Mr. Hutt asked me to, please, pass onto you. Do you have questions? Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. That covers everybody who was signed up. There is
opportunity for anybody who didn't sign up to comment if they wish, though. Come
ahead.
Arnold: Members of the Commission, for the record, my name is Steve Arnold, I'm with
Stanley Consultants. I submitted the application and I was not prepared here to speak
tonight. I, actually, came here from a movie, was not anticipating to speak, but in
defense of what we submitted, we met with staff, we did -- we discussed the application.
Because the commercial application such as this, are not the typical subdivisions with
commercial applications, such as the Lochsas, the Bridgetowers, that has -- they go in
there with an application and they have commercial uses that are planned or permitted
at intersections or corners, there is some issues that, you know, these things -- you're
not adjacent to neighborhood properties -- I guess in response to the 25-foot buffers
and the variances from those buffers, yeah, I mean if we were coming in with a
subdivision next to a residential neighborhood, Magic View being one of them, you
know, at the northwest corner of Eagle and the interstate, you know, the Commission
has held with the buffers or, for that matter, the EI Dorado Subdivision, the same
developer of this project did EI Dorado, and they -- they did a buffer along Thousand
Springs and they will provide that. You know, the buffer that we are providing here or
the buffer that's being recommended, in my opinion, is temporary. You've got a use that
is proposed to be commercial use. If you go in there and you start putting these large
buffers on these properties adjacent to these current residential pieces, we all know
they are going to transition to commercial. You know, if I was representing the property
owners of those residential uses, l'd say, look, are you going to live there for the next
ten years, 15, 20 years. If you're not going to live there for the next 15 or 20 years, start
thinking about the long-term solution. The long-term idea is you're going to transition to
commercial. Do you want these 25-foot buffers adjacent to another commercial use?
Do you want to segregate your property and isolate it? A couple issues there is buyers
get issues providing services, emergency services, and police services. As soon as you
start putting these buffers -- I don't have a light pen. You know, as soon as you start
putting commercial -- these bufferings around these residential uses -- I'll be quicker.
You know, if you're looking at doing commercial buffering around here or, for that
matter, around here, what you start doing is isolate these units in there. They start
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 44 of 110
becoming their own unit. Most likely, the buildings stand up front in this area, parking
goes in back, and it becomes an enforcement problem. You start having issues with
police, because now you have got this wide buffer around this area that police can't see,
you know, as they enter this area. They can't see as they enter Loder Street. That
becomes an issue. You know, the idea of what we submitted -- and let's go on with the
buffers and I think Jonathan spoke to those, but the idea of what we submitted to you
and why things have transitîoned so much, is when we submitted it, we told the planning
director, you know, we have dealt with subdivisions, I mean commercial subdivisions
such as this, the Meadow Lakes, the Gemtone, the Treasure Valley, you know, the
Bonito, which my client is -- at the other corner. As you start getting things platted,
things change. I mean your tenants you don't have lined up, so what we submitted to
the Planning and Zoning Commission was a flexible schedule. We had extra lots,
basically. We don't think we are going to use them all. But you can't increase lots when
you go to final plat. You can decrease them through density reduction. So, our
anticipation or our expectation is that, you know, this lot configuration will change. The
conceptual plan that we brought with us will basically stay the same. We don't know
exactly what tenants are going there. We don't know exactly what uses will be there or
where the drive-thrus will be. But we know there is going to be drive-thrus, we know
there is going to be commercial uses that go in there. Our thought with this conceptual
plan is, you know, we will submit it to you, you guys mill it over, is the commercial use
here adjacent to what is going to be commercial use, is that acceptable. Granted, there
are existing residential uses. What can we do as an alternative solution towards the
requirement to provide the 25-foot in the alternative conditions? What can we do to
provide something that will buffer this area and this area against the existing residential
use? You know, I don't know if it was brought out, but this use here currently is a
mortgage company. You know, we expect that it's going to change uses. You know,
what can we do in the short term that will suffice in keeping that residential use buffered
from the new use, you know, in this area. Our solution was some sort of solid fencing
and five foot landscape buffering, you know, and that's what we are here to negotiate,
whether -- is that sufficient. If that's not sufficient, you know, what is? What do we need
to do. You know, we all know that this area, bounded by, you know, a principal arterial,
the interstate here to the north, a principal arterial to the south, and Eagle Road over
here, it's going to transition. What should we do that would be sufficient. And the idea
of the application was to leave flexibility for not only the applicant -- so I know your
staff's busy. You know, I have submitted these revised preliminary plats to you guys
many times before. What our intention is to do is to try to give you something that gives
us and you flexibility. You know, here is conditions, here is what we want to place on
our plat, and here is how we -- here is how we mitigate any impact to existing residential
use. That's the intention around the conceptual PUD. And if I understood staff
incorrectly, that's my fault. You know, my intention was to come here, so that we could
submit something that was flexible enough that you guys can act on it, but, you know, if
we needed to reduce units we could. And I'll stand for questions.
Zaremba: I guess my confusion is that I don't remember ever seeing -- and maybe I'm
just not remembering, a conceptual preliminary plat or a conceptual CUP. We do ask
for conceptual designs when somebody is only bringing an annexation. That helps us
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 45 of 110
determine whether they are asking for the right zone or -- or not and, then, we do treat
them as conceptual. But I have not been on this Commission forever, but my instinct is
that a preliminary plat and CUPs are -- I don't remember ever seeing a conceptual one.
I guess I'll have to ask other Commissioners and staff. I understand the reason for it if
all we are getting is an annexation and a zoning, but it seems to me this is something
that's going to get recorded and needs to be --
Arnold: Commissioner Zaremba, if I may interject there, you know, we are -- the plat
here is fixed. That's -- this is the number of lots that we are proposing. We submitted
an area map that showed, basically, you know, we are going to have a hotel in this area
and that should be in your packet. And we would have restaurant and retail uses in this
area and other -- you know, a bank and perhaps other office, drive-thrus, in that area.
That's the only thing that's conceptual. We are going in for a fixed, you know, C-G
zoning. We are going for a fixed PUD -- preliminary plat with a fixed number of lots.
The only thing that is conceptual is the actual buildings that are going there. And the
problem with going in with a specific CUP and a specific lot layout is we always change.
Now, I have not had one preliminary plat that is -- that is commercial or office or retail in
Meridian that stayed the same. You know, I keep coming back before you. You know,
the Gemtones, the Treasure Valleys, the Meadow Lakes, they all change and we had
this discussion with the planning director and she said, well, come in with the number of
lots that you need, you know, the maximum number that you expect. And we don't
expect to final plat this with that number of lots. Come in with the anticipated uses, you
know, the retail, commercial, banking, hotel, and we put that on a map and that's been
submitted -- and submit that. You know, the number of lots that you end up with are
probably going to be different. You know, we are going to lot line adjust this as we get
uses come in. Instead of bringing you a new preliminary plat re-platting what you have
already seen and creating additional work for these guys, which they see Jonathan and
I too much, you know, we are coming in with something that's flexible enough with your
existing ordinance that allows us to adjust things and final plat it as we know we have
tenants to occupy the lots. That's the whole idea and that was the intention that we met
with staff earlier on to try to figure out, now, how do we do this so we don't create a
bunch of work continually. You know, we are just doing this -- you just review -- you
didn't -- but the City Council just reviewed another final plat for Bonito Subdivision,
because the tenants changed. You know, we want 20,000 square feet, we don't need
15. So, we had to lot line -- we couldn't lot line adjust, we had to replat and do some
other things and this -- the whole idea around this is you need to know the uses that are
going to go in, but we don't know, you know, roughly--
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Arnold?
Arnold: I'm sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. I think we are starting to repeat the point. Is this
applicant response or public testimony or -- because we are starting to drag on here.
Zaremba: It's been a little flexible. You answered my question, so--
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 46 of 110
Arnold: I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Arnold?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: All right. Assuming Mr. Seal wants to speak again, we will give him the final
word.
Moore: Commissioners, Winston Moore, at 11655 Thomas Drive in Boise.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Moore: Just two or three quick things. With respect to the neighbors, we are certainly
going to do for these neighbors what we have done with all the neighbors in the past.
We are going to respect their wishes and their rights and it sounds to me like about the
only consideration there is the -- perhaps the width of the landscape buffer. If you folks
or the neighbors insist that it's 25 feet, that's, obviously, what we will do. Respectfully, I
think that a narrower buffer with a fence would accomplish a lot more than a flat or
slightly mounded 25-foot buffer. The buffer doesn't do anything for sound. It certainly
doesn't do anything for headlights. And so my -- if the neighbors would agree and we
won't solve that at this meeting, probably, but I just want to repeat, we will do whatever
these folks really think we should do. And 1'm of the opinion that the fence would be a
lot more satisfactory and beneficial to them than just a landscape buffer. Mr. Borup
asked about how -- I believe about how many business that we are pretty well along in
our negotiations with. I can tell you that the Sterling Savings Bank on the corner, we
have a letter of intent from them. We are drafting right now at their request the build to
suit lease agreement. We are going to build their facility for them. Design it. I mean in
concert with each other. We are going to own it and lease it to them. That one's done.
And, then, just -- I think I have a pointer here. All right. This is the bank, of course. We
have a letter of intent and these people are anxious for us to go beyond that for a
restaurant. we have a national restaurant right here with a letter of intent. And some of
these the community is going to be really pleased to see that they are coming to
Meridian. This is an Italian restaurant with a -- frankly, a Blimpy as part of it. This may
or may not be. They tell us it will be. We don't have anything in writing yet. I'll just
name some names. Panda Express, which is, as you know, a Chinese restaurant. So,
we are pretty well along with a lot of those negotiations. And I think that you will find a
year or two from now that when you go back and superimpose what we have built on
this, there isn't going to be that much variation. Just one more quick thing with respect
to the plat not being exactly fixed as the way it will ultimately be. This is, essentially,
what we did at EI Dorado. I think what Silverstone is doing. If you come in sincerely
with what you think you're going to need, but it never works out that way, unless it's a
residential subdivision. It just -- things change and that's one of the reasons I think you
allow in your ordinance for lot line adjustments. So, we are not -- we are coming in with
something that's vague and nebulous. This isn't going to be, in that context,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 47 of 110
significantly different than EI Dorado and Silverstone, which I don't think have been a
problem for you. It's just -- the neighbors -- again, I have not met these folks, but we
have every intention of cooperating with them. If you have any questions for me.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moore: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: We will give Mr. Seal a couple of minutes. Mr. Moore took some of the ten.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Nary: Before you finish that, Mr. Arnold's testimony went well beyond your normal three
minute testimony, to it basically being an additional presentation, and you had already
had your rebuttal testimony. It's unorthodox, but your testimony to preserve your
record, your might want to be assured that those people have an opportunity to rebut
that. His testimony should have been part of the initial presentation, not in the middle of
all the other testimony. I think you have a risk of having a defective record without
allowing those people to have that opportunity to rebut what he had to say if they wish
to, before you get to the final word from Mr. Seal.
Zaremba: Okay. We will do that. I appreciate that advice. Mrs. McKay, as a
spokesman for the others, do you care to comment on the further things that have been
added? Okay. She does not have anything to add to that. So, Mr. Seal, we will ask
you to conclude. And briefly, please.
Seal: Very briefly. It's not really a rebuttal. I think for one, to Mr. Sasser, I apologize on
that comment, because I meant it one way and, obviously, it come out another way on
the freeway, so I apologize. And, Becky, I guess I learned something about
communication tonight. She was under the impression that I was going to call her. I
was under the impression that if she wanted to she would call me. So, that's where it
stood and, unfortunately, instead of getting together and avoiding all this tonight, we
didn't, we are doing it here. So, I guess I bear some responsibility. But had I known I
certainly would have gotten together with the neighbors. That's always been my style.
Apparently, this one just got muddied up, so -- and, obviously, at this point if the
neighbors want to get together, we are glad to get together with them if they have any
concerns. That's always been our style and will continue to be our style. So, maybe
that's a little bit of my fault, too. So, I bear some responsibility. As far as Mr. Sasser,
we can certainly address his concerns with the lights, we can go with the six or even a
seven foot fence. So, I think we can address his concerns with the lighting if necessary.
It sounds to me like that's really the only issue there. So, however long he stays there,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 48 of 110
we can address that. If he'd like to, we would be glad to sit down with him and get that
worked out and stuff. So, with that, I will sit down.
Zaremba: This was kind of an off-of-the-wall question that I asked Mr. Sasser, but
would you see any interest in preserving the ability of cross-access between what
eventually might happen on his property?
Seal: I think I would --let me put it this way: I think we would certainly look at that. You
know, I don't think we -- you know, I think, as you well know, Winston Moore is not an
unreasonable person.
Zaremba: Sure.
Seal: And if there is something, we could certainly take a look. We would be glad to
look.
Zaremba: I think the reason I asked that question --
Seal: I think it's a reasonable question.
Zaremba: We are talking about 10.9 acres.
Seal: Yes.
Zaremba: And even a residential development of that size would be required one or
maybe even two stub streets to the neighboring property and --
Seal: Yeah. It might be a win-win for all of us.
Zaremba: We will assume that the rest of it some day, who knows when, will be
commercial, the cross-access is appealing to me. I don't know about anybody else. But
even if the 25 foot landscape buffer were the eventual result, I still think there should be
holes in it that would allow some cross-access, so --
Seal: If there is cross-access, that would all go away, the 25 feet. At least that's the
way it's got to -- but we -- you know, we will certainly work with them and if there is any
interpretation on the neighbor's part that we didn't want to, we apologize for that, that's
never been our intention, but, apparently, that seemed to come across, so --
Zaremba: Let me ask a couple of things that are probably ACHD issues, not ours, but
just in looking at your concept. They have made the requirement that you put a six-inch
high median strip on Eagle Road.
Seal: Actually, what you have got is is you got the draft staff report. We had that
modified. Apparently, you didn't get that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 49 of 110
Zaremba: Okay.
Seal: Because you can see, there is no point in it to have a median there, because
when they turn in they are pretty well locked in.
Zaremba: I am agreeing with you. That doesn't seem like an appropriate place to put it.
However, it would make sense to me to put the same thing on Eagle Road.
Seal: There is one on Eagle Road right there.
Zaremba: It already exists?
Seal: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry.
Seal: Yes. There is one there. We had to put that in with EI Dorado Business Campus
when we did Farmers and Merchants.
Zaremba: Next would be a discussion of the sidewalk. I guess some of the sidewalk
already exists, but this little portion up here that goes out, the peninsula or the spit,
makes me pretty uncomfortable. My thinking would be if there is a requirement to
provide a meandering sidewalk, that there should be a cross-over where the traffic is
going the slowest and not bring pedestrians -- I would even try and remove that portion
of the sidewalk.
Seal: Yeah. I think we probably -- you know, we would be looking at some type of
meandering sidewalk. It might be across here, which would probably be a little bit safer,
and, then, have it meandering through here. Where it goes from there, I guess you're
on your own. But, yeah, I think that's what we --
Zaremba: I'm not sure those are our staff issues, that's probably ACHD's staff issue.
Seal: You know, we certainly can accommodate or take a meandering sidewalk down
to some point.
Zaremba: We are all thinking the safety of any pedestrians that may -- we do need to
preserve the need for pedestrians, even though they are not going to walk across the
freeway, there may some day be bus service and a sidewalk is how they would access
it. So, it sounds like we are thinking in the same direction, so that's good.
Seal: Okay.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions?
Seal: All right. Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 50 of 110
Zaremba: Oh, I did have one other question. And that is probably a question for maybe
staff, but while you're here, I'll ask you if you know this. My recollection is that 1-84, as
either an entryway corridor or something -- aren't there design review requirements
along 1-84? Do we need to mention submitting for design review anything that faces 1-
84 or exactly what is that --
Guenther: We don't have the design review for that type of an issue. Normally, that's
addressed during the submittal of elevations and this board would either ask for a height
reduction or additional landscaping, something to mitigate if you felt that it was going to
impact the -- the appearance of the entryway corridor for the city. You have seen the
elevation for the hotel and if you're comfortable with the way that's going to look or if you
would like to see more detail submitted to the City Councilor back to this Commission,
that's something you could ask for as well.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: And we don't have design reviews, but --
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: I thought I heard that somewhere. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if there are some concerns
or some assurance that this Commission is seeking, I know the staff originally had
thought a development agreement wasn't necessary, but that's certainly another option
is to have a development agreement to address those concerns on the buildings that
may be oriented towards the freeway.
Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: And maybe just an idea in concept, but on -- speaking of the amenity seating,
would you agree that -- as staff's contention that, really, to be feasible and usable it
needs to be more central to the other buildings and the location where it is now probably
isn't real practical?
Seal: Yes. We think that's a reasonable request and I think as we start to develop this,
I think -- I think that's a possibility. There are a couple of spots that would probably work
better than this and let's put it here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 51 of110
Borup: Okay. So, that would be a desire to get it closer to the building in order to be
usable?
Seal: Sure.
Borup: And the other, I don't know if it's really a question or a comment. It appears to
me that the -- and maybe this isn't really pertinent, but the hotel rendering and the
footprint don't really seem to match each other.
Seal: Well, they don't entirely, because it's a rendering, it's just kind of a general one.
What we were trying to do is give you what it's going to be --
Borup: So, that was not -- that rendering --
Seal: It's not a construction drawing or a specific rendering for this one. That's their
general. So, it's going to look very close to that, but it's not going to be that.
Borup: I mean the shape of the building wasn't even close.
Seal: No. That's was going to be -- but you're going to see what -- the kind of
construction, what the appearance is going to be. It's an approximation.
Moe: We know it's going to be a hotel.
Seal: We know it's a hotel and it's going to be a Marriott. There you go.
Borup: And it could be that architectural style.
Seal: And it could be that architectural style. Other than that, we don't know.
Moe: One question I have. I'm a little bit -- number one, I love the development, I think
it's going to be a great -- a great great add to the city and whatnot, but based upon, you
know, getting the changes and whatnot in such short time frames and we have got -- we
still have some issues in regards to the buffers and whatnot and the fencing and
whatnot. I guess I'm -- I'm somewhat reluctant to try and structure this thing, you know,
for me tonight, to go ahead and make the conditions and move it on. I guess I'm going
to ask you do you have any problem if we do a continuation to try and get some of these
issues resolved in regard to the screening and the buffers and whatnot with the city,
along with the courtyard, but basically just trying to clean up some of these issues. I'm
not talking a long continuation, but I just think just enough time to get some of the things
worked out. I, myself, would like to see it come back to this body prior to it going to City
Council, so that at least I know what it looks like before it goes to Council.
Seal: Obviously, we can't say no to that, but our preference would be is -- and I think --
I talked with staff about that today, because, quite honestly, I had some concerns about
this point and I apologize for bringing this in at the last minute, but we also are very
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 52 of 110
anxious to get started on this project. I know Winston is typical chomping at the bit to
get started. We'd like to get the infrastructure started here as soon as possible, which is
once we get approvals and we start moving forward. So, P&Z -- the next P&Z hearing
is two weeks away, which, then, we have already gone from just an annexation rezone
to a PUD, and if we postpone it a month, we have lost a month and a half. So, I would
ask if at all possible if we can give it the old college try and try to get this cleaned up and
get it to City Council. And staff at least has indicated to me that they can do that. So,
I'm kind of relying on staff with that respect. So, if we could, I would appreciate it.
Obviously, we can't tell you no, but that's sure what I'd like to do.
~
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Maybe to continue what Commissioner Moe said -- and just to see if I got it
clear in my mind the things that you had concerns with. The notes I had was, really, the
staff comments on the 25-foot buffer to a five foot and your preference is five foot. And,
then, the landscaping on Eagle Road to include the sidewalk within that and make
allowances for the access road. And that's -- you know, I didn't see anything else,
Seal: On the CUs, we are agreeable to that, on these lots, and so, you know, again,
somebody could come back. I think, again, as Mr. Sasser said -- and I'm -- hopefully,
I'm not misstating him, but it sounds like if we can address his concerns with lighting
here and I think we can do that between now and City Council, I believe that's his
primary concerns, and we will sit down with him, we will meet with him and stuff. So, I
don't see any -- I don't see a lot of things that we need to really address. I understand
that we got a memo, we have got a staff report, but I think when you --
Borup: How about a development agreement? Are you okay with keeping that or --
Seal: No, I'd rather not. I think that the PUD and we go through with the certificate of
zoning compliance and what have you and we talk to them, you know, in my opinion,
again, I don't -- I don't see the need for that.
Borup: And what's the concern?
Seal: Well, I think it just adds another level of complexity to this. We have to deal with
that. We are -- you know, we are really showing you we are going to have 35 feet along
here. This is an off ramp. These will be restaurants. This will be a hotel. I'm not sure
where the concern is as far as what might go here. It's obviously going to be quite a
project. This is bordering, for example, residential or a residential street or something
that where I think you would have a level of concern. It's a freeway off ramp. So, I
would prefer to stay away from the development agreement. I think it's just -- it's
something, in my opinion, that I'm not sure is necessary.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 53 of 110
Borup: And staff did delete that in the new thing, but they left the condition -- or the
conditional use in there. Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: It's nice of Mr. Seal to save me some work, but that's just not really necessary.
The other thing, I guess, I would remind the Commission -- and I guess the City Council
can choose what they want to do -- you know, the recent project that this Commission
and the Council saw regarding the Majestic, had the same issues that Mr. Seal is
saying, but it was oriented to the freeway and that was the only assurance that the
Council could have. Subsequent now is to have a development agreement, to have
some opportunity to have some opportunity to visit what the designs of the building are
and the orientation to the freeway. It is on a collector street, I understand that, but the
front of that building faces the westbound traffic of the freeway and so it mayor not fit --
right know, I guess, without having a lot more information, there isn't -- there isn't a way
to determine whether or not it's going to be a distraction for the freeway. But that's just
a method in which to do that and the Council can, then, choose to do that or not, but just
to remind you that we have just revisited -- we just went through this about two months
ago, so -- just about four months now, so --
Seal: Is the certificate of zoning compliance of concern?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: You're going to have to humor me for a minute here, but it often
seems to me when these hearings start to run over an hour, that the homework really
hasn't been done. We have met with the staff and we are doing work that the applicant
should have been doing with the staff sorting out issues that we really shouldn't have to
be sorting out at the Commission level, in my interpretation, and I -- and my little brain
starts to get very confused about this point when we are making all these changes. I
would not feel comfortable moving this onto City Council. I think this work -- and correct
me if I'm wrong -- should have been done by the applicant with the staff prior to this
hearing.
Seal: Well, in some defense, I know Joe, you know, not to make excuses, but Joe was
sick with pneumonia, so we did have some difficulty hooking up, obviously, when he
was not available. Again, we apologize for that. We didn't purposely delay it until the
end, but there was some circumstances there that I think were beyond our control, Joe's
control, my control. In fact, to the point where Craig can attest to it, I called down
Friday, said where is the staff report, we are running out of time. So -- oh, we have had
some situations here. Again, I certainly would ask if we could move it onto City Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7,2005
Page 54 of 110
I appreciate the fatigue level at this point. But we are -- if you say -- we'd at least like to
get the infrastructure going and get that process done. It's your call.
Zaremba: Let me ask one more question. I just -- 1'm trying to find the second amenity
and -- we have talked about one of them. A PD requires two. What is the second one?
Seal: I think when I talked with Anna and I think Brad might have been in the meeting,
we recognize with something this small, you know, to try to create something with a
covered area, you would have some seating, you could sit back, as the two amenities,
but we kind of combined the two.
Zaremba: A covered seating area near one of the restaurants?
Seal: Yes. And, then, have seating, maybe have a fountain, maybe have some
landscaping or something like that. So, is it probably at the level of like EI Dorado
Business Campus with 80 acres, where we are talking ten acres -- and, in fact, I think
Anna made the comment one time, this is too small, almost, to be a PUD with all those
amenities. So, I think that's the thinking and Joe may disagree or agree, because I can't
remember if Joe was in that meeting or not, but, anyway, that's our thinking.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Further questions? All right. Thank you very much.
Seal: Thank you.
Zaremba: Just to express an opinion, it's been mentioned that many of the commercial
plats have come back for realignments and readjustments and to me that's a normal
part of the process. You do kind of expect that to happen and, to be honest, the
Winston Moore projects have been a benefit to the city and they have -- everyone of
them that I have seen has gone well and neighbors have been treated well. My instinct
on this one is that almost everything that has been talked about can be resolved, but I
think -- I feel like what I think hearing other commissioners say, we don't feel it is
resolved yet and my feeling would be, even a short period of working together with the
staff, even if it was just two more weeks, again, it goes back to our discomfort with
passing things along to the City Council that weren't pretty final when we made the
recommendation. The City Council has asked us not to do that. I think everything can
be resolved and, again, I trust the word that they will get together with the neighbors
and solve what they can solve, get together with the staff and solve what they can
solve, but I would ask the question of staff, would a two week continuance be enough to
resolve issues that you feel may still remain?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to this type of an issue -- I believe that all of
the issues have been resolved tonight. You have to keep in mind that Mr. Seals has
already agreed that all of these properties here will come in for a conditional use, which
is why the buffer for the 25-foot should be a non-issue, because it will have to be
addressed in the future anyhow. Therefore, that buffer, as long as the conditions in the
memo are incorporated into a complete staff report for City Council, I have to do that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 55 of 110
anyhow to make the amendments prior to the City Council meeting. So, if you're
comfortable with the minutes that have been on the record, have the memo, amending
the staff report, that all will be incorporated into one complete staff report prior to City
Council and -- so, therefore, if you made the recommendation tonight, as we have
discussed, it should be complete going to City Council. There should be no breaks,
there should -- there should be no more discussions between staff and the applicant,
because everything has been ironed out and they have agreed to what has been
presented to tonight. One last point of clarification is that with a planned development
we do see a detailed planned development and you had asked that question before.
Typically with just an annexation and zoning we will see a conceptual plan, but this
came with a plat and a planned development and the planned development should be a
detailed planned development and that's what we only flushed out to this extent earlier
this week and, again, I --
Zaremba: Even though it didn't come as early as we all would have liked, you feel
satisfied that it's ready to move forward to City Council?
Guenther: I feel satisfied that I can get a staff report addressing all of the concerns that
we have discussed, all of the agreements that have come down with this meeting
tonight, and prepare that for City Council. If you would like, I can include a copy of that
with your next packets for your meetings to make sure that I didn't miss anything.
Unless you wanted to table it out to that time and adopt the Findings and Conclusions at
the meeting on the 21 st, whichever way you feel most comfortable doing it, we can
accommodate.
Zaremba: Okay. Any need to re-insert the development agreement to get a design
review or is that going to happen anyhow?
Guenther: That is up to the Commission. Staff doesn't feel that -- that a development
agreement is going to change very much. The original development agreement was
taken out for the fact that with the lack of the detail for the original submission, that staff
had recommended that all lots become conditional, therefore, at that -- with that type of
a condition, a development agreement would be essential. With removing that and
becoming more detailed and calling out the specific lots, requiring the conditional uses,
staff feels comfortable with eliminating the development agreement.
Zaremba: Okay. Works for me. Commissioners?
Borup: Well, I -- a question I had earlier, when you had mentioned two weeks to work
out issues, my question is what are the issues? And I don't know of any, other than
what -- the couple that we have discussed and I still think those things need to be
discussed by this Commission before we proceed on, in my mind.
Zaremba: I can agree that most of the things that began as issues have been resolved.
I guess my question is do we want to see them in writing before we make the
recommend or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 56 of 110
Borup: But which ones would -- I'm not even sure what you're referring to.
Zaremba: Well, the developer's going to work with the neighbors and the staff to solve
their concerns.
Borup: Oh. Okay. So, maybe we need to make a -- maybe we need to have that
discussion and make a recommendation ourselves.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: You're talking about a 25-foot buffer. I'd some discussion on that item before I
want to vote on something.
Zaremba: Okay. I personally don't have a problem with a fence line and a smaller
buffer. I think some day we are going to want to punch through and make
interconnectivity and the bigger the buffer is, the less coordinated the neighboring
developments are going to look.
Borup: And I agree with that. I mean I think you got to look at -- you got to look at the
projects in this location, this size of the adjoining lots, the Comp Plan designation and
those --
Zaremba: Or, actually, the point on that is that if those lots have to come back for a
CUP anyhow, we can discuss them and that may be -- you know, that may not be
tomorrow that they come back for the CUP, but the situation on the neighboring
properties may have changed by the time we --
Borup: So, you're saying that those last -- their last -- you're saying that it can be
amended -- so, you're feeling that it wouldn't even need to be amended by us at this
point? Changing the 25 -- page two. We just mentioned -- the staff report mentions 25-
foot landscape buffers on those locations and, then, the next paragraph says it can be
amended. But, again, for if we are looking for lights and separation and privacy, a six-
foot fence would do more than, you know, one tree every 35 feet.
Zaremba: Or we would have to call it alternate compliance or something like that.
Borup: Right. And they mention that, that they would do some landscaping
compliance, get some denser landscaping with the fence.
Zaremba: Sure.
Borup: The only other thing I -- that still in my mind is the development agreement. If
staff feels that's necessary, I mean I would agree, based on past experience with -- with
the previous projects that they have always been first class, but, you know, 25 years
ago we used to buy lots on a handshake with not even a written agreement and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7,2005
Page 57 of 110
sometimes it's just good business to do things properly, whether -- you know, it has
nothing to do with whether you trust the person to do a good job or not.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, could I just add one point on that?
Zaremba: Brad. Please.
Hawkins-Clark: On the development agreement issue, the city attorney made the
reference to the Majestic Theater. I think the main difference there is we did not have a
planned development.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: You know, I mean the Conditional Use Permit is going to run with the
land and if you -- you want to see some conditions that run with the land, put them in a
Conditional Use Permit. I think that's the big difference. If you didn't have a Conditional
Use Permit, then, definitely a DA. I think that's just -- unless there is something I'm not
seeing, but I think that was -- as far as the clarification on some of these projects, you
know, it's just as effective of a tool to carry conditions with the property.
Borup: Oh, I may have misunderstood. Are we looking at a conditional use on every
building or just the western boundary?
Zaremba: Just selected properties.
Borup: Okay. That's what I thought. That's what I thought.
Guenther: Yeah. It's just the select properties. And there is even a condition in there
that they don't have to construct the landscape buffer along that property line in order to
start building other buildings. So, they can come in and get their hotel certificate of
zoning compliance after they file their preliminary plat and not have to do 25-foot
landscape buffer until those lots develop. Once those lots develop, then, they come
back to this board and through reviewing the detailed site plans for those buildings, you
will determine if the five foot landscape buffer with a fence is going to be appropriate or
if you'd like to go with the 25-foot landscape buffer and, therefore, that 25-foot should be
a non-issue at this time, because you're going to see it again.
Zaremba: Or even if the neighboring property has changed use.
Guenther: There is a clause in there that says if the neighboring property changes use,
all of those conditions go away. So, if this property -- Mr. Sasser's property is annexed
as a C-G property, all of the conditions for Lots 1,2, 3, 15, and 16 are void.
Zaremba: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 58 of 110
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Again, it doesn't really make a big difference to me either way, but I was under
the impression that those northern-most properties, the hotel, those restaurants, don't
have a conditional use, that there aren't any conditions placed upon them, because of
where they are located and oriented. So, I don't know whether or not there is any other
thing besides zoning compliance to have some assurance as to how those are. This is
a major entry corridor to the city, I agree Mr. Moore has always built first class projects,
so that's not -- it's a concern with Mr. Moore, but this is an ongoing, a long-term project,
so -- but there isn't another method that I'm aware of for those locations. The CUs are
all on the bottom, on the southern portion of the property, not on the top. Unless I
misunderstood.
Zaremba: No. I think that's the way I understood it. I'm agreeing with you.
Nary: The development agreement process that we have implemented since I have
been here is significantly faster than the previous process. Actually, most of the time
the developer is the one that makes the process to take longer. Normally, if the City
Council approves it on a Tuesday night, most times we can have that to the developer
within a week. And so the process from our end doesn't take very long. Sometimes the
developer can take up to 18 months to sign the development agreement, but that's in
their ballpark to get that done. We can get it to them fairly quickly. So, if it's a concern
about a delay in the development agreement, that hasn't been our experience in the last
eight months.
Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-
019, PP 05-0 -- it's 24, not 20; right?
Zaremba: Two four is the correct number.
Newton-Huckabay: -- 24 and CUP 05-031.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Do we want any discussion of a motion?
Zaremba: Well, my sense is we all think this is a good project. The question is do we
want to noodle the details.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 59 of 110
Borup: The only two things that I'm contemplating on is if we want to mention
recommendation on that landscape buffer and a development agreement. Beyond that,
the staff report I think handles everything else. Well, it handles that, too, but --
Zaremba: Well, Mr. Nary's point is that a development agreement that would allow
some design review on the properties that don't need to come back for a CUP -- I mean
we have agreed that the southwestern properties are all going to come back for a CUP.
On the northern properties that don't come back for a CUP, a development agreement,
for design review, since they face the freeway and our entryway corridor, I think is a
reasonable request.
Borup: And that's the things that -- you know, I'm really looking forward to this. I'm
looking forward to, you know, want to eat, go out there and you drive around in circles
for five minutes deciding what food you want, but we will have to see how soon that
happens.
Zaremba: Well, I was going to suggest that they contact Cheesecake Factory. It's a
national chain and it's outstanding and we need one.
Borup: I don't think it hurts to add something like a development agreement. It's not
going to really impede the project. That's just -- that's just good business, it seems to
me.
Zaremba: I'm on board with that. Are we ready for a motion?
Borup: Do we need to mention anything on the landscape buffer or just leave it as in
the staff report? I mean five feet with some alternate extra landscaping and a six foot
fence to me handles things real well.
Zaremba: That would satisfy me, but I think the staff's point is we can decide that when
we see the CUP.
Borup: Okay. And see if anything changes between now and then.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: All right.
Newton-Huckabay: Don't forget your meandering sidewalk.
Zaremba: Uh-huh.
Borup: That's right. That doesn't -- that's back in the original staff report; right?
Guenther: I'm sorry, which portion was that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 60 of 110
Borup: The sidewalk.
Guenther: Yes. That's in the original staff report. That hasn't changed.
Borup: What page would that be on? Is that on the preliminary plat?
Guenther: Preliminary plat, site-specific comment number three.
Borup: Number three. I went over that too fast.
Guenther: From what we have determined, the sidewalk on Eagle Road and Overland
Road were constructed within the existing right of way and which is why they would not
be included with the landscape buffer.
Borup: The existing ones you say are?
Guenther: Yes. They have already built those sidewalks in there, which is why the
property line doesn't start until -- on the other side of the sidewalk on -- and that's why
the 35 feet is referenced on that.
Borup: So, with this concept submitted, we don't know where that 35 feet starts, is that
what you're saying?
Guenther: It starts at the back of the curb. On the --
Borup: But you don't know whether it's drawn that way or not.
Guenther: No. And that's why this isn't a condition. On the -- Mr. Seal referenced the
EI Dorado Business Park. With that one they didn't build attached sidewalks, they built
meandering sidewalks, which were incorporated into a 35-foot landscape buffer. But
when ACHD did the north side of Overland Road, they attached the sidewalks, which is
an ACHD build issue. So, therefore, that was incorporated into the right of way.
Whereas the sidewalks on the EI Dorado development were incorporated into the
landscape buffer.
Borup: See, in my mind, south of Overland is where you're going to have some -- going
to have some pedestrian traffic. North of Overland I don't see a lot of pedestrian traffic
heading over the freeway. I don't see a lot of --
Zaremba: Only enough pedestrians to maybe assemble for a bus stop.
Borup: On Eagle Road?
Zaremba: Yeah. That's a logical place for bus service.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 61 of 110
Newton-Huckabay: Wasn't the question just if we would allow a meandering sidewalk?
Moe: I guess I would --
Borup: This would be a change of the staff report. Yeah.
Moe: And based on your comment about not much walking, you've got two hotels on
the north side of the freeway and a lot of restaurants on the south side, I can anticipate
you're going to have walking over there at times.
Borup: Over the freeway?
Mae: You bet you. You bet. I wouldn't.
Zaremba: There is no pedestrian lane on that bridge, is there?
Moe: There isn't?
Zaremba: I don't think so.
Moe: Well, maybe not, then.
Zaremba: I don't think there is a sidewalk.
Borup: That's what I was thinking.
Newton-Huckabay: Are we going to do a meandering sidewalk or a straight sidewalk,
guys?
Zaremba: My assessment is to the north the sidewalk isn't really going to go anywhere.
There does need to be a portion of sidewalk to accommodate public transportation, but
it's not necessarily going to connect across the freeway to anything. So, it doesn't make
any difference to me whether it's meandering or not, necessarily.
Guenther Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: The issue at hand, I believe, with the meandering sidewalk is the fact that
this sidewalk right here on Eagle Road has already been built.
Zaremba: Right.
Guenther: If you put this curb cut in here and this drive aisle goes right in, this
deceleration lane into the project, they are going to have to eliminate the existing
sidewalk, so they are going to have to tear it out in order to put this type of drive in. And
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 62 of 110
like what Mr. Hawkins-Clark just mentioned, when they have to redo the sidewalk in
there, this portion -- they may relocate the sidewalk in the landscape buffer at this
location.
Borup: That was my assumption, that the existing sidewalk would stay, and, then, it
would come off of that and then --
Zaremba: The new sidewalk can be counted within the 35 feet.
Guenther: That is correct.
Zaremba: It doesn't have to be in addition to the 35 feet. That's what Mr. Seal was
trying to clarify.
Guenther: Yes.
Zaremba: Where did he go? I lost him.
Borup: That was my assumption.
Zaremba: Okay. So, adding this -- this entryway is going to cause a reconfiguration
anyhow and if they put a meandering sidewalk into the landscape buffer, it's within the
35 feet, anything new they put in.
Guenther: And as Mr. Seal stated earlier, this section for Eagle Road north of that
access point does require alternative compliance and they are going to provide
additional green space within the development in order to mitigate the loss of the
roughly 14 feet of the drive aisle and the meandering sidewalk. Our ordinance currently
says that if you have 35 feet you can't count that sidewalk. So, if you have 35 feet with
a meandering sidewalk, it all of a sudden becomes 40 feet. So, you can't count the
sidewalk in there anyhow, because these are seven foot attached sidewalks on
Overland Road, where there is five foot detached meandering sidewalks on the EI
Dorado -- on the south side of Overland Road here.
Borup: That EI Dorado has 35 feet or are you saying has 40 feet?
Guenther: Our ordinance says that you cannot count the sidewalk.
Borup: Unless we make an exception.
Guenther: Unless you approve it as an alternative compliance, which is what they are
requesting here.
Borup: Okay. Are we ready?
Zaremba: Certainly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 63 of 110
Mae: Go for it.
Zaremba: Please proceed. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ
05-019, request for annexation and zoning of Dorado project, with two sets of staff
reports, one for public -- both for Public Hearing July 7th, one with a transmittal date of
July 1st and the second with -- what was the date? I guess July 7th. Today. With all
staff comments, with --
Zaremba: Might say -- just to say as modified by the memorandum.
Borup: Yes. And I want to eliminate one strike out, though.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: I thought. Isn't that under the zoning? I got too many pieces of paper here.
Okay. Oh. Okay. No, I do not have any other modifications on the annexation. End of
motion.
Moe: I'll second.
Borup: Did I hear a second?
Moe: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
Zaremba: We have three in favor and one opposed and one absent. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of
continued Public Hearing PP 05-024, request for preliminary plat approval of 16
commercial building lots on 10.9 acres, proposed Dorado Subdivision, to include all staff
reports for Public Hearing of July 7th, with -- I lost that again. Today's -- today's memo,
the one that had a strike out; right? To eliminate the strike out on page two, under
special consideration preliminary plat, the development agreement -- in other words,
that would be included. I believe end of motion. Anything else that needs to be there?
Guenther: Mr. Commissioner, were you going to include --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 64 of 110
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah.
going to say?
On page 11, paragraph three -- is that what you were
Guenther: No. I was going to say are you going to remove -- recommend that the
annexation require a development agreement? On page one of the memo.
Borup: Well, the memo had it under preliminary plat.
Guenther: Page one says staff recommends removal of annexation and zoning --
Borup: Okay. That's what I meant to do in my first motion.
Zaremba: We can amend the motion.
Borup: So, the original motion on number five, eliminated the development agreement,
but also -- so it also eliminated conditional use permits on everything.
Guenther: That's correct.
Borup: We should discussion that a little bit more. I'm not feeling any conditional use --
if we have a development agreement, we don't need the conditional use permits, other
than those on the western property, south and western properties, the ones that are
required because of the drive-thru and, then, those that are bordering the residential.
Guenther: If I may.
Borup: Yes.
Guenther: If you struck out -- if you removed 5-A and just left it with the development
agreement and, then, prior to issuance of building permits, which would be 5-B, 5-A is
covered through the Conditional Use Permit, with requiring those specific lots to get
conditional use, then, the development agreement would apply to the rest of the
development.
Borup: Right. And that was my understanding, that we would not have conditional use
on any other building.
Guenther: So, then, it would just be to strike -- reintegrating the development
agreement, but striking out 5-A?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: That works.
Nary: But Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 65 of 110
Borup: That's -- this is pertaining to the annexation motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I was going to say that on the annexation motion you made you're going to
include the development agreement. So, you may have to go back and revisit that, if
that's what you want to --
Borup: That's what I realized. Isn't a development agreement usually in part of the
annexation and not the preliminary plat?
Nary: It has to be part of the annexation.
Borup: That's what I thought. And that's why I hesitated on the first --
Zaremba: We need to revise that motion.
Borup: And it's not part of the preliminary plat.
Zaremba: No.
Borup: So, both motions are wrong.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to -- what do I need to do, reconsideration of that motion?
Zaremba: Let's see. Do we need to rescind the previous motion or can we just revise
it?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you can -- probably to make your
record clear, you can move to reconsider, if that were to be affirmative, then, you can
amend -- then you can restate your motion, just amend it, the motion that you have
made, and include that and, then, I think, Mr. Guenther, that should be adequate -- is
that enough for you to be able to prepare Findings from that?
Guenther: Yes.
Nary: And the other thing, too, to be sure, if the Commission's desire is to have a
development agreement, our normal process is to make sure the Council approves that
before we prepare it, because I hate to do it twice. But I don't anticipate a tremendous
opposition to that, so we will prepare it in anticipation of the Council's meeting. If they
amend it, then, it will take an extra week. If they don't, it will be done and completed
and, then, they can sign it and they won't lose that at least one week that we would
normally have in the interim, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 66 of 110
Zaremba: Okay. The Chair would consider a motion to reconsider the previous motion.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we reconsider both the previous motions.
Moe: I'd second that.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending
approval of continued Public Hearing PP 05-024, request -- wait a minute. I'm sorry.
Public Hearing AZ 05-19, request for annexation and zoning from RUT to a C-G zone,
with all staff comments for the July 7th hearing, with the exception of 5-A would be the
only sentence that would be removed. 5-A would be removed. The others would stay
in the -- as written in the original staff report. End of motion. I hope.
Moe: You need to reference the first hearing as well. You did the 7th, not this one.
Borup: Is there a memo?
Moe: Yeah.
Borup: Well, both hearings were for today. You mean the original hearing that was
continued?
Moe: Uh-huh. No. No. This was the -- there were two staff reports to this.
Borup: Right. They were both of July 7th. One was issued July 1 st, the other was
issued July 7th on the second memo.
Moe: That's correct. Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. And just to clarify discussion on the
motion, the intent is that there be a CUP on selective properties and a development
agreement on all the rest of them.
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: And staff has identified which properties are which.
Borup: Yeah. The ones that are specified as on specific lot numbers.
Mae: That's what I seconded.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 67 of 110
Zaremba: Okay. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
Zaremba: We have three in favor, one opposed, and one absent. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval
of PP 05-024, request for preliminary plat approval of 16 commercial building lots, with
all staff comments for meeting July 7th, the initial staff report July 1 st and the second
staff report of July 7th, to include all staff comments, with the exception of page 11,
paragraph three, under preliminary, that the new addition -- that the existing sidewalk,
as much as possible would stay and new sidewalk can be a meandering sidewalk within
the 35 foot buffer along Eagle Road. I believe end of motion.
Moe: You want to do anything with the screen wall?
Borup: Yes.
Guenther: Mr. Borup?
Borup: Yes.
Guenther: Special considerations, preliminary plat, you need to include the
development agreement, the strike out. It would be page two of --
Borup: Yeah. I was thinking the development agreement didn't apply to the preliminary
plat.
Guenther: It's a special consideration that says -- if you look at page two of the memo,
the applicant shall maintain compliance with the requirement of the development
agreement.
Borup: Okay.
Guenther: And you included that back in?
Borup: The development agreement is included in the annexation, so it should be also
included here; is that what you're saying?
Guenther: Yes.
Borup: Okay. So, also on page --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 68 of 110
Zaremba: To comply with it.
Borup: Yeah. Also on page two, then, remove this strike out over the word
development agreement. And probably an additional item --
Moe: I don't know where you're going to put it. Just with the item.
Borup: Yeah. Whatever is -- it's item nine would probably work fine. We would
recommend a six foot fence with a five foot buffer on the -- which would be the south
and east of the residential properties --
Moe: Sasser.
Borup: Specifically, the Sasser property. Six foot fence, five foot buffer, with alternate
compliance of denser landscaping in those areas or as may also be worked out
between the applicant and the residential property, with staff approval, which may also
include cross-access agreements and other pertinent items. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
Zaremba: We have three in favor, one opposed, and one absent. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Are you sure you want me to do this last one? Have we got time?
Zaremba: You're on a roll, Mr. Borup.
Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend -- forward to City Council
recommending approval of CUP 05-031, request for conceptual approval of Conditional
Use Permit planned development, as stated in the application, with all staff comments.
Moe: Do you have to do something with that, too?
Borup: Yeah. With all staff comments for Public Hearing for July 7th, including staff
comments of July 1 st, and the second memo of July 7th, with the only change being on
conditional use item number one, to remove the strike out referencing development
agreement. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 69 of 110
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Newton-Huckabay: Opposed.
Zaremba: We have three in favor, one opposed, and one absent. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook,
LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: PP 05-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 56
building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive
and 540 East Ustick Road:
Item 19:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family detached units and single-family
attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street
frontage and zero lot line side yard setback for Hollybrook Subdivision
by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road:
Zaremba: Thank you very much. Okay. I will open the Public Hearing now for AZ 05-
026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033, all relating to Hollybrook Subdivision and entertain a
motion to continue all three to our regular meeting of July 21 st, '05.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: Yeah. I move that we -- move that we continue public hearings for AZ 05-026, PP
hearing 05-025, and CUP hearing 05-033, to our regularly scheduled meeting of July
the 21 st. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: And in anticipation that we will finish our agenda tonight, I would suggest
about a six minute -- six to eight minute break. We will reconvene in a few minutes.
(Recess.)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 70 of 110
Item 20:
Public Hearing: RZ 05-009 Request for a Rezone of 4.53 acres from I-L
to C-G zone for Porky Park Subdivision by VJ Joint Venture - south of
Pine Street and east of North Eagle Road:
Item 21 :
Public Hearing: PP 05-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15
commercial building lots on 34.56 acres in proposed C-G zone for Porky
Park Subdivision by VJ Joint Venture - south of Pine Street and east of
North Eagle Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to reconvene and let the record
show that all Commissioners that were here before the break are again present and I
want to thank you all for hanging in there. We are making progress and we are getting
to you. I will open the Public Hearing now for RZ 05-009 and PP 05-026, both relating
to Porky Park Subdivision, south of Pine Street and east of North Eagle Road. And we
will begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request
for a rezone of 4.53 acres, as well as a preliminary plat for an industrial subdivision.
The 4.53 acres is -- okay. A little technical glitch there. The subdivision is located off
Eagle Road and Pine Road. Recently we just approved the Conditional Use Permit for
the Jackson's Food Store, which is on the front of this lot. One of the conditions of
approval for Jackson's was that they be incorporated with the multi-use development --
the mixed use regional comprehensive designation. It's getting a little late for me, too.
They have done that. The mix of uses is primarily the industrial park for the eastern
probably three-quarters of the subdivision and there is approximately six acres of
commercial C-G zone, including the Jackson's lot. The landscape for Jackson's was
already approved through the Conditional Use Permit and so Lots 1 and 2 of this
subdivision, which is one and two here, have already -- have already landscaping
improved, as well as the required accesses. The only major issues with this is there is a
canal that runs along the lower portion. The applicant has indicated that they are not
willing to tile that immediately, because they are currently farming this site. If you go out
there, I was informed that it's barley and they are looking to harvest in the next couple
days. They are going to continue to farm that property. As this -- this application is
before you, because there are the commercial developments closer to Eagle and Pine
that they wish to try and get developed today. With that, our standard condition is that
that irrigation ditch be tiled. That can be bonded for and required improvements as
such. The one condition of approval that I was looking at that -- I believe we can amend
is that -- let me find that quickly. It would be page nine, item three. The item says that
Porky Park business owners association shall maintain all required landscape buffers.
As long as the easements are in there, the staff is comfortable with letting the
individuals maintain their own landscape buffers, as they would be constructed
according to Chapter 13 of our Meridian City Code. So, that last sentence could be
struck out. It has -- it's been done in the past in looking at these industrial properties,
the landscaping can be developed on an individual basis.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 71 of 110
Zaremba: Would you want to strike it or would we want to propose it as an either/or,
allowing the occupants to make the choice?
Guenther: You can do an either/or, if that's what you choose -- or what you feel most
comfortable with.
Zaremba: That at last preserves that it's somebody's responsibility to maintain it, other
than the city's.
Guenther: Well, the individual ownership of the lots would be the ones required to
maintain it. Typically, with commercial, the previous development, they will have a
business owners association, in order to have a consistent landscaping. Those
industrial parks are quite a bit different and, therefore, I tend to agree with the way the
applicant just presented, that the obvious lots will be individual ownership and there will
not be a large association maintaining all of the lots on this property.
Zaremba: Okay. But is it just automatically -- it's understood, then, that the individuals
take care of it or --
Guenther: Yes. They are going to have to do that through their certificate of zoning
compliance in order to certify that they are complying with our landscaping ordinance.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: There is an ACHD condition. There is a road stub currently -- it's
approximately in the middle of the property. This is the connection to -- I believe it's
Commerce Street that runs off of the industrial park south of this property. They have
almost no chance to get a left turn onto Eagle Road without having a controlled access.
ACHD and the developer, as well as the city staff have worked to try and help figure out
some way to get the -- so traffic can't turn left. So, they are going to be able to come
around and use the Pine Street access, which is a controlled intersection, and will have
a controlled left turn, you know, once this street connects through to Commerce. The
ACHD condition just states that that needs to be dedicated. It was not -- it's not shown
on the preliminary plat that it needs to be dedicated and so staff decided just a basic
condition of -- to that effect. I will give him that. Staff has no additional concerns with
this project and I will stand for questions. We are recommending approval as detailed in
the report.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Moe: Where are you noting the ACHD requirement?
Guenther: The ACHD condition -- Site Specific Conditions of Approval start on page --
at the bottom of page 13. And it's -- ACHD condition number four says construct a
north-south public road at the end of Commercial Court to intersect Pine Street. And as
far as I know there is -- this road has already been constructed due to the applicant's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 72 of 110
desire to get that road constructed prior to having water in the canal. So, they have
already done the work and it's -- they just covered the ditch. They did some dirt work,
though. They did some dirt work. That's not actually paved.
Zaremba: Any further questions? Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward
and explain who the heck picked the name Porky Park Subdivision.
Miller: My name is Brad Miller, representing VJ Joint Venture, 3084 East Lanark and I
know that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay wants the long version of all this, but if it's
okay with all of you, I'd like to give you the short version of all this.
Borup: Go for it.
Miller: The name Porky Park -- and I apologize for that. We went to John Priester to
name this and, as you know, he controls all the names. We wanted it to be called VJ
Property -- Properties and he said no, because you can't have initials. So, we said,
okay, we will spell out Veejay, V-e-e-j-a-y. He said no, you can't spell out initials. So,
we said Pine-Eagle Industrial Park and he said, no, there is too many Pines and too
many Eagles. Mr. Van Auker, most of you know, can be a little abrupt on things and he
said, well, just call the darn thing Porky Park and so we did and Priester liked it. So,
don't ask me why, but that's why we -- it's not out of disrespect to the city or anything
like that. The property was zoned -- annexed and zoned in about 1994, maybe 1995,
and I know that Commissioner Zaremba's big on industrial land, as are we, we like big
boxes, but if you will note the Comprehensive Plan calls for this to be a mixed use
regional and so we are proposing that to conform with the property that's to the north,
where you have the Ram and the savings and loan and some other -- we decided to --
so, we decided to -- we sold the current piece of Jackson and, then, we have a hotel
that's interested in this second lot, so we have decided to conform the front few lots to
the commercial that's directly to the north. And it meets what the Comprehensive Plan
wants. But we want to keep the rest of it industrial. If you go on the other side of the
Lewis & Clark Middle School, you can see stuff like we do. We have got distribution
warehouses over there. And, typically, we are a build and hold developer, we don't sell
lots off, typically. Although in the Jackson case we did. What I anticipate that we will do
is we will go one by one and we will build those lots out, lease them -- build buildings
and lease them out to prospective tenants. And so we would like to continue -- and,
quite frankly, the farming issue, we have got a good crop of barley out there, 75 bushels
per acre, and we are going to harvest it tomorrow. I'm pretty excited about that, except
they won't let me drive the combine. Next year I think our agreement will include me
driving the combine. But we will just go lot by lot. We would like to keep agriculture,
because, quite frankly, you can't afford to hold land if you don't keep it in agriculture
anymore, the tax assessments are so steep. And so we contract with a farmer to do all
that for us. All the utilities are in place. We have widened out Pine Street, as you know.
We have got -- we have got the sidewalks there, everything's there, all the utilities are
stubbed out to all of the lots that are there. We held a homeowners meeting, notified all
the homeowners in the area, and none of them showed up and, hopefully, if there is any
that have issues they are here tonight to be able to address those. I don't think there
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 73 of 110
should be any issues. The new road that Joe discussed is -- is a proposed road from
Commercial Court and Micron or Crucial Technologies and Albertson's and all the other
owners that are really having a tough time getting out on Eagle Road, especially making
a left-hand turn, so this is kind of a group effort and we have come together. We have
agreed to contribute the land, the other owners there, including John Jackson, Coors,
and Albertson's and Crucial and Nelson have some up with the money to build the road.
So, we are dedicating the land for that and they are going to -- they say they are going
to start on that next week. They have covered the ditch already, because that had to be
done before the water went in the ditch. So, we hope that that will be done by the end
of the summer, because it is dangerous out there. In regard to what Joe mentioned
about the homeowners association -- or the owners association, we have never done an
owners association. Typically, I think in this case we will probably own all of those. If
you go on the other side of Lewis & Clark Middle School, we have got about 20 lots
there and there is about five or six lots that are un-built yet. Of all those buildings that
we constructed there, we own all but three of them now. So, that's kind of what our
mode of operation is to continue to hold, but if we do sell them, they will be controlled by
CC&Rs. There will be CC&Rs over the whole project that will dictate how that the
landscaping is to be maintained and, then, there will also be an architectural review
committee, of which Mr. Van Auker, myself, will be a member, along with a third person.
Probably if we sell off it, it will probably be one of the owners we would sell it to. I think
that's everything I have. If there is any questions, I would be more than happy to
address them.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Brad, just looking at the property and whatnot and realizing we have got industrial
designation and whatnot, we see the Jacksons, you're speaking of a hotel, we are in
mixed use. Are we going to see any office anticipated in any of that as we go east?
Miller: Well, I think that we will probably end up with some office uses. We don't --
typically what we do, Commissioner Moe, is we are spec builders and we build big box
warehouses. We are not spec office builders, but the way that area is changing and the
way land prices are going up, it kind of prices you out of the warehouse market, you
can't afford to build warehouses on land that's that expensive. But the nice thing is is
we bought the land right and so we can afford to do it, since we are in the land right, but
someone new that would purchase land from us, if we were to sell it, would probably
have to go to a higher and better use there. So, there could be some office uses, but
right now we don't anticipate any. Just so you know, east of the middle school we have
just built two new buildings there. One is a General Electric supply and we just moved
in there to a 16,000 square foot building. Then, we have Midwest Flooring that moved
into a 26,000 square foot building. So, we would have -- I anticipate similar type uses
on the industrial side --
Moe: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 74 of 110
Miller: -- of the subdivision.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Okay. We have no one signed up on these items to
speak, but this is an opportunity, if anybody cares to add anything. I see no action,
therefore, we don't need rebuttal from Mr. Miller. Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-009 and PP 05-026.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, signature by saying
aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval
of RZ 05-009, with all staff comments for the hearing dated of July 7th, 2005, received
by the city clerk's office July 1 st, 2005. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP
05-026, to include all staff comments for the hearing date July 7th, 2005, received by
the city clerk's office July 1 st, 2005, with one change. Under the preliminary plat --
preliminary/final plat, site specific condition number three, I would like to strike the last
sentence, the Porky Park business owners association shall maintain all required
landscape buffers. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: That's all folks.
Moe: That's what I waited for him to say.
Zaremba: All right. We will open the Public Hearing AZ 05-024, request --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 75 of 110
Moe: Ladies and gentlemen, let's have a little bit of smiles now. We are going through
this here. All stay with us here.
Item 22:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5
acres to L-O zone for Seventh Day Adventist Church by Hawkins
Companies - 1735 North Black Cat Road:
Zaremba: We are getting closer to it. Thank you for hanging in with us. Okay. This is
AZ 05-024, for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church on North Black Cat Road and we will
begin with the staff report.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this application is the other half of the
Walgreen's site that you looked at earlier tonight. This is the five acres proposed for an
L-O zone for a Seventh-Day Adventist Church just south of an existing LDS church on
Black Cat Road. It's approximately 650 feet north of Cherry Lane, just to orient you a
little bit. There is currently a single-family home on the property, which they will remove
if this is approved. To the south and east are single-family -- south and west are single
family homes and to the east Milliron Subdivision, has been approved. They haven't
started constructing homes in there, but that should be coming very soon. I did want to
just briefly touch on the parcel directly to the west. Now, the subject site is in black bold
here. Directly behind are a couple of parcels that are land locked. There is an existing
easement along the shared property line between these parcels here that provide
access to these parcels. There is also a stub street here in Turnberry Subdivision. But
this parcel is land locked, so one of the conditions that we have recommended for the
development agreement is that a 50-foot wide easement be provided, whether it be at
the southern boundary or at the northern boundary -- and I will get to that in a minute --
be provided to that parcel for a future public street. Churches are principally permitted
in the L-O zone. This is a concept plan that shows how the site may develop. There
are two -- currently two access points. The northern driveway proposed. The southern
driveway is where the -- it serves the current home and ACHD has not approved the
driveway shown on the site plan as proposed. What the highway district has done is
they have approved one driveway to align with Milliron Drive across the street and, then,
the applicant has been given the option of either constructing a second driveway at the
northern property line and sharing that with the LDS church, provided the LDS church
gives up their access point, which is just 20, 30 feet further to the north or if that came
up and, then, they construct their second driveway at the southern boundary and
provide cross-access with that southern property owner, for them to redevelop and,
again, that 50-foot easement would, then, go back to the parcel to the west. I did touch
on the cross-access to the west and the other condition, I guess, just with the
development agreement, that you actually limit the uses on this sight to church-related
uses, similar to what we have done with some of those other resolutions that come in.
There is an L-O zone, however, it's shown as residential on the Comprehensive Plan.
We don't have a zone that corresponds to churches. So, an office is about as close as
you can get for a zone to represent land use of the church. So, just to prohibit this from
going to staff office, staff is recommending that you meet there on condition of the DA,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 76 of 110
whether it be church or church-related activities and a lot of women need those bake
sales. Or they have a day sale or some other things that are normal operating
procedure for churches. So, with that staff is recommending approval of the annexation
request to L-O, that the requirement for a development agreement, as stated in the staff
report. And, then, I will stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Would the applicant care to
come forward.
Agulara: Good Evening. I'm Jessica Agulara of Hawkins Companies, 8645 West
Franklin Road, Boise, Idaho. I just want to recap the Walgreen's component of this
project. This is a land exchange. The existing Seventh-Day Adventist Church site is at
Ten Mile and Cherry Lane, they are proposing to do the Walgreen's, and we are in an
agreement with them that if we obtain and construct a new facility for them, we will,
then, exchange that property for the Walgreen's property. So, that's why they are
together. I just want to also just reiterate that we will comply with the current ordinance
per the L-O designation. We don't have any issues with DA requirements. We are
limiting the uses on this property for church activities. There is a comment in the staff
report about the existing residential property, that will be removed or demolished as part
of the construction of the church, but I guess I want to throw out there that it may be a
possibility in the future that the church may want to do some type of residence on the
property, like for the pastor, but we would, obviously, go through some type of CUP
process, I presume, to make that happen. I don't think it's likely, but that's the only
possible residential opportunity we would even consider. And it's not even on the table.
With regards to the easement area, I just want to note that we are currently pursuing a
cross-access agreement with the LDS church property to the north. We don't have that
in place yet, so it's going to take some time. It will probably take two to three months to
go through their approval process, but that is our preferred location of the driveway. At
that time, if that happens, we will, then, provide the 50 foot easement to serve the
property to the west -- properties to the west. Actually, can you go back -- there is three
properties back there that are ideal candidates for a future development, subdivision
development, so we would like to make that and we will provide that 50 foot easement,
but I just want to make that clear, that if and when those properties -- adjacent
properties are developed, that property owner, developer, will have to negotiate,
whether it be Hawkins Companies or the Seventh-Day Adventist church, whoever the
current owner is at the time, will have to negotiate the acquisition of that 50 foot
easement area for dedication to ACHD. It's not our intent to donate that land to ACHD
for a future residential road. It's for strictly providing access -- as easement. I wanted to
make sure that was clear. Other than that, I don't have any additional comments. Is
there any questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 77 of 110
Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask staff a question. Would it be reasonable, as
opposed to an easement, to actually make this a subdivision with two lots and one of
the lots is salable as an eventual right of way, like we do with common area lots that are
eventually going to be sold as a right of way?
Hood: That would be an option and we did speak when Jessica and some of her other
coworkers were in for pre-apps, about how to do that or preserve right of way and
ACHD won't accept that, unless it's improved. They won't accept a right of way unless
it's improved to their standards. You could make it a lot. The problem is you have got
to be careful with how you word that on the plat, because John Priester looks at future
right of way basically the same as we are dedicating this right of way. So, you could
have it be a separate lot, but you would have to be careful with how the language is
there -- a buildable lot that never gets built and, then, turn it over to ACHD, but --
Zaremba: Well, a 50 foot wide lot isn't really very buildable.
Hood: Yeah. In fact, in the L-O zone it wouldn't be -- wouldn't meet the minimum
frontage or anything like that, but that would be an option. I guess --
Zaremba: It would make it easier to sell later. Or they just come back later for a lot
split. How would they do that?
Hood: Yeah. You could do a lot split with our current ordinance. This parcel, after
annexation, would be eligible for a one-time division. So, it could be split off that way,
as long as another parcel is not created on the other side of that right of way and I don't
think that would be the case. There is already 25 feet, I believe, of that 50 foot is
already encumbered by an access easement. So, the remaining 25 feet is, quote,
unquote, buildable, but, you know, that right of way -- there is already an access
easement there, so --
Zaremba: Okay.
Hood: I guess I'm a little confused, though, on the comments that Jessica just had had
about it being the access, but not necessarily a right of way.
Agulara: Well, I guess how I interpreted the staff report -- and it might be just strictly an
interpretation issue with me -- is that I don't want it presumed by the current property
owners to the west or potential developers, that by granting this easement that that
gives them -- that that is an outright dedication in the future to ACHD, without some
potential compensation to the church, because in their mind it's like a taking if -- the way
it's worded.
Hood: Yeah. I guess that would have to come down to how the agreement is worded
for access today and we don't want that to be -- it's kind of a -- we don't want to be
limited to just one single family home or three, but to leave that open for negotiations for
the future, but that is the intent that ~-
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 78 of 110
Agulara: Yeah. And I think the way we have discussed it with the church is that we are
reserving it -- and I won't use that word in the legal sense, but we have identified a 50
foot swatch, if you will, for a potential ACHD residential road. Not necessarily a
driveway that would serve one or potentially three homes. A residential road -- ACHD
defined residential is one that it's a minimum of 50 foot section, would meet all their
requirements to be a public road, where currently we have the 25 foot easement, which
is just, essentially, just a private driveway. So, I just wanted to differentiate that and
make it clear that we have no problem reserving the area, we just don't want it implied
or inferred that, you know, whether it's next year or ten years from now, that this DA
implies that we have to just give it, that it's just taken from the church without
compensation, whether it's directly from ACHD at the fair market value at the time or if
it's from the adjacent future developer who needs it for access to Black Cat. Does that
make sense?
Borup: It does. Have you got a preferred wording of that, then?
Agulara: 1--
Borup: I assume you're referring to the sentence that says said cross-access
agreement shall include a provision that allows the property owner to improve and
dedicate the easement for a future public street?
Agulara: I don't have specific wording for that. Our counsel hasn't developed that yet,
because we are just not in a position, nor have we been approached by anybody yet to
pursue that further. But I just wanted to bring it to the table tonight and just make sure
that it's clarified. Again, the cross-access, it would be to the benefit of those property
owners. I don't know that we really need to get into an agreement with them, per se,
because it's going to be benefiting them or we could just state it if and when those
properties get developed, then, we would agree to come to an agreement at that time
as to how that's acquired, whether it be from ACHD directly or that potential developer.
Newton-Huckabay: Could you just strike the second sentence?
Borup: That's what I was looking at. I don't know if the sentence needs to be stricken
or if there is something that needs to be added that -- that would be -- that allows for the
possibility of compensation as agreed upon by both parties or something. I don't know
how that should be worded, though.
Newton-Huckabay: We need an attorney to --
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: Do we have an attorney in the house?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 79 of 110
Agulara: What I would like to suggest, in my mind this is the only major issue with
regard to this proposal and it's not even a major issue, but prior to -- assuming that you
approve it this evening and pass it onto Council, that prior to Council we will come up
with a draft -- the draft language and include that with our Council package for that and
maybe it's just included in a DA, something to the effect that if and when those
properties to the west get developed, then, we can negotiate how that is to work out.
But right now, yes, technically those properties are land locked, but there is a 25 foot
easement in place -- currently in place that's to the benefit of those three properties right
now. So, they won't even --
Zaremba: Could we just tag on a sentence that says this requirement does not imply a
free dedication or something like that?
Agulara: Or a donation.
Zaremba: I'm agreeing with you that it's an issue. Could be an issue.
Newton-Huckabay: I would think, since we are only talking about semantics, I would be
comfortable with Jessica's suggestion that they work out the wording before City
Council and then -- we all know -- we are all saying the same thing, just not the same
sentence. I would be comfortable with that.
Borup: Discuss that with staff prior to?
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Yeah.
Zaremba: Legitimate concern.
Borup: Does that make sense, Mr. Hood?
Agulara: And I would add that not only would we present it to staff, but we would also
take it to ACHD and make sure that both ACHD and the city were in concurrence that
the language is suitable and it meets the intent of what ACHD's and the city's concerns
are. I just want to make it clear it's not a donation.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I think we could do both. We could add this sentence to the end of
the bullet stating that and, then, also direct the applicant in the next three weeks to meet
with staff and have that agreement in hand at the Council meeting and I think that
makes the record very clear that -- what the intent is here what a cross-access is meant
and what it's for, so --
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what she's going to work out with staff.
Moe: So, what are we going to do with it at this time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 80 of 110
Newton-Huckabay: We are just going to state that the applicant and staff are going to
work out the semantics of page 11, bullet two.
Moe: That will work.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: To make it clear that the property is not a donation.
Zaremba: We have Bob Kell signed up to speak. Please come forward.
Kell: My name is Bob Kell. I live at 1820 Nash Road, Eagle, Idaho. I sell real estate for
Sell-Equity Real Estate and own Kell Land Development and I have under contract the
piece of property to the west that we are talking about the easement. And it's -- right
now it's -- will make some difference as to buying that piece of property from the owner,
since part of my contract is to supply that easement, or at least a letter that says a
usable easement and without knowing any terms of what the people in front want to sell
that easement for, it's kind of late in their approaching people -- haven't approached
anybody to say, okay, we will sell this, but we don't know what for. So, I think we -- I'm
not asking for a donation, but I do need to know what that piece of property will cost,
because I -- if they improve it on the north side and use it, then, there is nothing there to
really buy, because they are using it also. I would probably have to do some
improvements on it, I really wasn't expecting to buy it. And the people to the west, Mrs.
Carson, she has one more access to the north, but her main access is down that 25 foot
easement.
Borup: So which parcel are you under contract?
Kell: Right there.
Borup: This one?
Kell: Yes. Five acres there. And it's the only access to that property between the LDS
church and the Stafford property to the south. And the five acres there has the only
access back to -- back to Black Cat, south of the LDS church property line.
Borup: And what was your perception when you contracted for that? Was it anything
different than a 25-foot easement?
Kell: No. I talked to the staff at the city and they said they would require a 50-foot
easement through there and they would require it of the Stafford property to supply that.
That that easement would be supplied. Now, again, I'm not asking for a donation, but I
guess I need to know what that cost is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 81 of 110
Borup: Yeah, that was a good statement, but you didn't answer my question. My
question was, did you expect anything other than that 25~foot easement --
Kell: Yes.
Borup: -- to go with that property?
Kell: A 50-foot easement. It's part of my contract.
Borup: With the owner of the property?
Kell: Yes.
Borup: They provided you a 50-foot easement?
Kell: Part of my contract states that they will supply me in writing the use of a 50-foot
easement.
Borup: How can they do that if they only have a 25-foot easement?
Kell: Going back to staff, that they would require the applicant property to supply a 25 --
or a 50-foot easement.
Borup: Well, it hasn't happened yet, though,
Kell: I know.
Borup: But you say your people you're contracting with will -- supplied you in writing
that they will do something that hasn't even been a requirement from the city yet?
Kell: It's part of my contractual -- and we haven't closed on the property.
Borup: Okay. I'm just trying to get an understanding, so --
Kell: All I'm asking for is it would be in writing.
Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Kell, what are you asking of us? We can't tell you how
much they want to sell it for.
Kell: I know. This is all -- this is all news to me that this would be of a cost.
Borup: You expected -- I'd like to do business with you if you just give property away to
people.
Kell: Well, I know they are going to be using it -- the applicant will be using it if they go
to the north side of their property. They have another suggestion that they move it to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 82 of 110
the south side, which, first of all, guys, it wouldn't w- it wouldn't -- Mrs. Carson, in the
back that has the other five and -- two five acres that shares the 25-foot easement, that
would -- you would still have her 25-foot easement to the north and it wouldn't benefit
me, I don't think, to have a 50-foot easement on the other side.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, what is it that you are asking of us? I'm really confused.
Kell: Alii really need is to bring it to the attention of the applicants and I would probably
need to know what they -- what cost they want for that easement.
Zaremba: Maybe I missed it, but if this application were not happening, what easement
already goes with that property?
Kell: Twenty-five foot.
Zaremba: Where?
Kell: To the north property line.
Newton-Huckabay: On the LOS side.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kell: It's south of the LDS property, I believe.
Borup: Yeah, but it's on the north property line of this property.
Kell: Right.
Zaremba: So, if they built something on that, they need to trade -- if you -- well, you
don't have it yet, but the current property owner has that easement and this applicant
ends up trying to move that easement, there is some trade that has to happen there as
well. Right?
Kell: Correct. Or have two easements.
Zaremba: I don't know if that's an important question or not, but you already have
something of value to trade.
Kell: Possibly. Thank you.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you. He was the only one signed up, but this is an
opportunity for anybody else.
Elliott: My name is Yvette Elliott at 1923 North Black Cat Road and I own the property
to the west of the church and so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 83 of 110
Borup: The same one Mr. Kell is trying to buy?
Elliott: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Elliott: Yes. And so we have been hit up by developers for the last five years several
times and I talked to your staff, I talked to Mr. Hood regarding this 50-foot easement. I
have also talked to ACHD regarding a 50-foot easement for a future development on
that property. In order to do that, they -- when I talked to Mr. Hood, he said that they
would require that, because that is prime future development area, because it is behind
the LDS church and it is adjacent to the other subdivision over there. My -- my real
concern in coming to this meeting is Mr. Hawker's company had come to our house and
basically handed me a contract for less than half of what all the other offers have been
and told us it would be in our best interest to sign his contract and that we could not get
a 50 foot easement. He did the same thing to Mrs. Carson that lives down at the end of
the lane. And I think it's a little bit of a brow beating, then, but I just want to make sure
that we do have the right of way to have a 50-foot easement put down there. If they are
going to use that easement as well, we are capable and we will help develop that road,
but if they are going to be using that easement, we don't feel we need to buy that
portion, but we would help develop that access area if -- for plantings or whatever, up to
code with the City of Meridian. When it's for -- whether Mr. Kell buys that property or
whether we keep it for future use. The other thing I'd like to bring up is that with the
LDS church we have a lot of problems with kids coming in and traffic. Within that LDS
church you have a lot of police officers that are chasing kids out of there and, you know,
stuff thrown through the chain link fence on the LDS church. So, we would also like a
fence put up along -- it would be, I guess, the west side of the property, a six foot fence,
and I would like maybe either -- it would have to be some solid type of structure. We do
have animals, we do have horses, and would not like people being able to throw things
through to them.
Zaremba: That makes sense.
Elliott: So, that's my only thing. I just -- I don't want to be -- same concerns as Bob Kell
to buy that property, but as you have seen by the works of -- with them working on the
Ten Mile Cherry Lane building, they don't have -- they came to you and they didn't have
things in writing that they should have -- with the easement with the gentleman and his
trash and whatever and so, you know, they kind of pinned them to a corner and I just
want to make that clear with the Council.
Zaremba: Okay. We will check with the applicant again, but I sort of understood the
question, what if this -- what if your and two or three other properties around you
develop into a major R-4 residential area, then, that becomes a roadway --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 84 of 110
Elliott: It's zoned as low density and there are two -- there is one access area through
the other subdivision and we aren't saying that we wouldn't use that 50-foot easement,
but they would as well use that 50 feet easement. We have a 25-foot easement and the
LDS church usually has cars parked on that easement and -- on Sundays and --
Zaremba: Would that prevent you from getting out?
Elliott: If we have to buy new grass and -- but we are good neighbors and we try to be
and it will be the same if another church is over there. It happens all the time. And
there is nothing, really, you can do about it.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Elliott: We even put signs up no parking, but, you know, it just causes problems, so --
Zaremba: Well, the easement is yours at the moment, so--
Elliott: Correct. Correct. But if it is -- if it is a 50-foot easement, like we said, we would
-- we would help develop that -- we would consider helping develop that landscape,
whatever, but --
Borup: Do you understand the church doesn't need the easement? All they need is a
driveway --
Elliott: I thought they needed to --
Borup: They just need driveways to their property.
Elliott: Right. And two of them; right?
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Elliott: Don't they have to --
Borup: No. ACHD just had one and that's not even an easement, that's just a -- just a
driveway to their property, is the only thing they need, just to be able to get in and out of
their property. So, the whole purpose of the whole easement was for your convenience.
Elliott: Right. And--
Borup: Not for the church.
Zaremba: Well, yes and no.
Elliott: Well, I understand that, but it's also for the City of Meridian wanting to develop
that for future use and that's what I understood --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 85 of 110
Borup: I don't think Meridian does any developing.
Elliott: They don't do any developing, sir --
Borup: It's just for your convenience, so you could develop that property or sell it to
somebody that would.
Elliott: Right. And, then, that area is prime property and lots of development going over
by the golf course and so they would like to develop that property for future use. Or like
to -- for somebody to develop that property for future use.
Borup: I think what the staff is trying to say, they want to make sure that this
development does not prohibit your property from being developed.
Elliott: Right.
Borup: And that's why the easement would be in place, so there would be some
mechanism that it could happen.
Elliott: For the 50 foot easement.
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: But we aren't inventing a 50-foot easement, there is already a 25-foot
easement --
Borup: Right. So, there is already access there. The access is -- the property is -- has
-- is not being denied access right now and that wouldn't change. If your use didn't
change.
Elliott: Right. But there will be a clause put in there that they would -- they would give
us 50-foot, though. Because you can't put a subdivision in a --
Borup: No, I don't believe there will be a clause that they will give you 50 feet, anymore
than you would give them the same amount of property. I mean we can't force you to
do that either.
Elliott: Well, I'm not saying -- okay. If it's not given and we have to buy it, we still -- we
could still get that 50-foot right?
Moe: Yeah. You have got your access to the 25-foot now.
Elliott: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 86 of 110
Moe: If, in fact, you want to do development and you got to go to the 50-foot, you would
have the opportunity, we have heard tonight, to purchase that area for that -- for the rest
-- for that easement for the 50-foot.
Zaremba: Well, do they have to purchase it or does ACHD purchase it? If it's going to
be a public road --
Moe: If it's going to be public road, I would assume ACHD would be --
Borup: No. ACHD doesn't purchase any roads in any other subdivision. The developer
builds it off and dedicates it to ACHD.
Zaremba: That's true.
Moe: That's true.
Newton-Huckabay: I think what they are saying if you didn't need the easement, then,
the two churches would just close it off and have the access, one at the north, one at
the south, likely, if you weren't land locked.
Elliott: Yeah. So -- but we would, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. But that's why the -- that's why they are saying the
easement is all your burden -- it's your burden, not theirs. And even if they -- if it
became a public road, they may use it. You know, I mean -- I think I know what you're
saying.
Elliott: So, they can use it. --
Newton-Huckabay: Anybody can use a public road, so--
Elliott: So, if we buy it and we develop it, they can use it? But if they buy it, we can't
use it.
Newton-Huckabay: No. You get your easement.
Moe: No. You have your 25-foot easement. Regardless of when they develop, your
25-foot easement is there.
Elliott: Right.
Moe: If, in fact, you wanted go ahead and develop your property, at that point you
would have to purchase -- you would have to work an agreement with them to purchase
the land in order to get you the 50 foot easement for the public roadway to go in and
that cost would be on you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 87 of 110
Elliott: Right.
Moe: The purchase of the land, as well as the development of the road.
Elliott: Uh-huh. Okay.
Moe: Okay?
Elliott: So, the other question was the fencing.
Moe: I, quite frankly, wouldn't have a problem with the fencing at all.
Elliott: So, you would -- okay. Recommend that?
Moe: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have a preference?
Elliott: I prefer a solid fence. Put up a six-foot fence.
Newton-Huckabay: Cedar?
Elliott: Now, I would prefer something more permanent. Cedar tends to fall out over
time, so I prefer either -- like the brick fencing or barrier wall or vinyl the fencing,
something of that structure.
Zaremba: Okay. We will put that to the applicant.
Elliott: Thank you.
Zaremba: Anybody else care to comment?
Hood: Mr. Chair? Oh.
Zaremba: I'll call on you next.
RElliott: My name is Rick Elliott, I reside at 1923 North Black Cat. Same property as
my wife. And I just want to make a few comments. Basically, we are land locked.
That's what this is coming down to. And, frankly, I don't think it's fair. I don't think it's
good neighbor. I just don't agree with it. I mean --
Borup: How long have you lived there?
RElliott: Ten years.
Borup: And you have always been land locked?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 88 of 110
R.Elliott: Yes, sir.
Borup: But it's fair ten years ago, but it's not now?
R.Elliott: I didn't say it was ever not fair. But I'm saying is now we are going to be
forced to buy that property at who knows what cost.
Borup: No. No. No, sir. You have got -- you have got your easement just as you do
now.
R.Elliott: For development potential.
Borup: Okay. That's a different thing.
Zaremba: Would the applicant care to respond?
Agulara: With regards to the fence, we will get in touch with that property owner and we
will negotiate some resolution as to what kind of fence to put on there. We don't have a
problem putting a fence along their boundary there on that property to the west. And I
also want to reiterate, yes, there is a 25-foot easement on the church/Stafford property,
that's the current owner today, but there is also a 25-foot easement on the LDS church
property. That boundary line is the center line, if you will. So, there is actually a total of
50 feet there that serves -- that's to the benefit of those three properties. So, even if
they moved the driveway to the south, that 25 feet slash 50-foot easement isn't going to
go away and it benefits them, it doesn't benefit the Stafford property, it's not going to go
away, but will always have that existing driveway there. But we are just saying that if
we decide to develop the north -- on the north side, which is what we want to do, we
have no problem granting an easement for access to that property for its current use,
but, obviously, if that gets redeveloped to a subdivision, that existing driveway, dirt road,
it isn't adequate to serve -- I don't know how many homes you can get in that five to 15
acres, it will have to be constructed as a residential street and ACHD has indicated that
they want that to be dedicated and all we are saying is we don't want to be committed at
this point in time to donate that land for something that mayor may not happen. But if
and when it does, that 50 feet will be reserved, but also we will incorporate that 50 feet
or as part of our design, so not only will there be 50 feet, but beyond that 50 feet we will
also have the appropriate landscape buffer that the city currently would require. So, we
are pre-planning for that and, again, we just don't want to donate it -- or in my mind it's a
talking. So, whoever developed it, develops it, will have to work out an agreement with
the current property owner at the time, which, like I said, this will be a land exchange in
the future and would anticipate at that point in time it will be the Seventh-Day Adventist
Church. So, that's who they will need to negotiate with. I will happy to take any other
questions.
Newton-Huckabay: I think she talked about a vinyl fence.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 89 of 110
Borup: That's right. Just ask for some clarification on the fence. Are you going to do
anything they want, I mean as far as --
Agulara: If they put it on --
Borup: Vinyl, wood, or chain link with slats.
Agulara: Yeah. We will work them and, you know, assuming that they are very clear
that they don't want a cedar fence. That's understood. So, we will just start with vinyl
and just verify what their concerns are and put in the appropriate fencing. That's not a
problem. And I also want to mention, to the best of my knowledge, my company has
not been contacted prior to this evening from any of those landowners or potential
developers with regards to any type of coordination for any future development, so --
and if there is people out there, we will gladly meet with them and see if we can
coordinate our efforts. But that hasn't happened yet. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Yes. I'm sorry. I was going to call on you earlier and I --
Hood: I wanted to get this out, I guess, before it just came up and -- but just to kind of
go back in time a little bit and come into the recommendation, it was tough to make
findings to recommend approval of this, if there weren't -- if there was not included a
condition that the private lane, the existing 25 foot that's been -- that's currently used
and the other 25 feet that the LDS church uses, with a fence and some trees within that
easement and things -- if a 50 foot wide easement were not provided to the west, I do
not see how this could be in the best interest of the city, because you have got five
acres of developable land there that didn't have access. Now, that's not the problem of
the subject property, but that was the only way that I could see that it would be in the
best interest of the city to annex if that easement were provided, with some
compensation. I mean they shouldn't just have to give it up. That being said, that also -
- a setback, a building setback, should probably also be included in this DA that requires
a new building, to not just go right up them and say thanks for the easement, because,
then, you're going to have a sidewalk and I don't think that's the intent of the church, but
just to cover the future dedication and acquisition of that fourth street, then, you have a
-- you know -- and that's nice in Old Town to have buildings that come on up to the
street, but here that probably wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be cut back, so he's just keeping
you -- I know where it is in the L-O, have 20-foot front street side setback or whatever to
the building and I have checked for their conceptual plan to see that works or not, 15
even, something like that. But there needs to be some setback measured from that --
which would be a 70 foot from your north property line or 65 isn't that only -- I guess
they have not included that in the staff report, but should probably be adjusted as such.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 90 of 110
Zaremba: Well, let me ask about -- the existing easement, if I'm understanding, is there
is already a 50 foot easement, 25 feet on this property and 25 feet on the LDS property.
Is the LDS church not in compliance? If they have built trees and landscaping on a --
what do you call it, a transportation easement -- access easement, do they need to
remove that?
Hood: I have not read the easement agreement, but if you ask me, I would say that
those property owners have a right to drive right over those trees and get out to the road
if they needed to. I don't know. Again, not knowing how that easement is worded --
Borup: So, you're saying there already exists a 50-foot easement --
Hood: Yeah. Twenty-five feet on the LDS side and 25 feet on the subject side.
Borup: So, 50 feet already exists, then.
Hood: Fifty feet there. Somehow the LDS church has made their driveway within that,
but, then, there is a -- I think it's a chain link fence, a ditch, and some trees that line that
-- within that 25-foot. So, it's basically fenced off and everyone is using this side -- this
25 feet and it's adequate for them. You know, a 25-foot wide easement is adequate for
a single family house, but the other side is in some type of violation and the property
owners back there just haven't done anything about it, so --
Agulara: May I respond to that or would we want to hear testimony first?
Zaremba: Let's have her come first and, then, you will be the last word. Thank you.
The hearing is still open.
Stafford: I'm Elenore Stafford and I'm the homeowner, along with my husband, at 1735
Black Cat for the proposed church development. We have lived there 31 years and
there is a 50-foot easement. When the LDS church built on their property five years ago
or whatever it was, they got permission from -- I guess in here, whoever was on the
Commission, to infringe 11 feet on that 25 foot easement on their side, which they put
their -- the buried irrigation ditch and, then, the Cyclone fence at the edge. But they
have definitely infringed 11 feet on their own 25. So, that is what she talked about
before about contacting the church and, of course, they can't make that decision locally,
it has to go back to Salt Lake now for them to rectify the wrong that they did before.
When that was in the process, my husband went over and talked to the contractor on
the property, because he knew him, and he said you're infringing, you know. Well, they
have gone in and they got permission to do that from somebody. So, it was kind of
evidently a little busy right from the beginning on what happened with that easement.
Zaremba: The only way to get permission is to vacate an easement, isn't it? There
would be a record if they vacated the easement.
Borup: That was not -- wasn't that through the county?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 91 of 110
Stafford: Obviously, they incorporated into the city.
Hood: Yes. That property is zoned L-O in the city and --
Borup: When it was first built?
Hood: I believe so.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: There was an application received, annexation, zoning and subsequently
constructed a church.
Zaremba: Yeah. They are L-O in the city.
Stafford: So, does that answer your question?
Zaremba: There is a process they had to go through. They can't just wave a wand and
say the easement is --
Stafford: I know. I know. We were surprised and I guess, you know, we should have
come up --
Borup: So, that 11 feet has a fence and a ditch you said?
Stafford: Uh-huh.
Borup: Is there any parking along there or anything?
Stafford: Well, your comment that my husband said they said was, well, it evened out
their parking on both sides if they could infringe 11 feet on that.
Borup: So, they'd have to remove some parking, too, then.
Stafford: Yes.
Borup: Was that the existing ditch or a new ditch that was put in?
Stafford: No. They put the new buried stuff in.
Borup: In a different location?
Stafford: On that easement. On part of that easement.
Borup: I mean the ditch was in a different location previously?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 92 of 110
Stafford: Previously, yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Stafford: So, does that answer your question a little bit better?
Borup: A little bit.
Stafford: And the house on -- that we live in has been sold and will be removed from
the property, so -- as part of the process. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Final word from the applicant.
Agulara: That 50 foot easement that's currently in place, I mean I think if we went to the
letter of the law, that's where, in theory, the residential road should go. But we
recognize that it's going to be difficult and not very timely to try and get that easement
vacated or whatever the process we need to follow on the LDS church side to make that
happen. So, that's why we are willing to do that 50 feet on our property. So,
essentially, we are giving up an additional 25 feet to make that happen. So, again,
sounding like a broken record, we just want to make it clear that it's just -- it's not a
donation. Thank you.
Zaremba: The issue is pretty clearly established. I'm not sure what the answer is, but --
Borup: I don't either. If that infringement was 11 feet out of the 25, you know -- so,
there is still 14 feet there that could be used, it seems to me. And she had mentioned
they weren't going to try to shift it over, but it wouldn't take the whole 25, it would only
take eleven.
Zaremba: If they left it at that location.
Borup: Yeah. But that's for someone else to work out.
Newton-Huckabay: Is that relevant to this?
Borup: No.
Newton-Huckabay: Can we close this Public Hearing?
Zaremba: I believe so. I think there is agreement there can be an easement, the only
thing is it doesn't want to be free.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-024.
Mae: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 93 of 110
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Commission Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 05-024, for the hearing date July 7th -- and the
transmittal date?
Moe: Yeah. Just do that.
Newton-Huckabay: Transmittal date of June 30th, 2005, with the following changes:
On page 11, bullet two, with the understanding that staff and the applicant will work out
the wording to make it clear that the 25-foot wide cross-access agreement is not a
donation of land and where should we put the vinyl fence? Page ten. Okay. On page
ten I will make a point number four that the -- this property will be limited to church uses
-- church type uses only. And, then, number five -- was that already in there?
Hood: That's already point number four, the first one on page 11.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Strike that last comment. So, I was done when I thought I
was done, I think.
Moe: No. The fence.
Hood: Two things. The fence and, then, additional setback or some way to--
Newton-Huckabay: And where do you want that?
Hood: -- insure -- both of those should probably be new bullet points within that same
number three.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. A new bullet point in comment number three, that begins on
page ten, that there will be a vinyl fence on the west side of -- six foot vinyl fence on the
west side of the property and bullet point number six -- what was the setback?
Borup: Maybe just the setback should comply the L-O zoning from the 50-foot
easement.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. As stated by Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Is that worded right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 94 of 110
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Item 23:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-032 Request for Conditional Use Permit
approval for the operation of a public charter school in a L-O zone for
Compass Public Charter School by Compass Public Charter School -
2511 West Cherry Lane:
Zaremba: Okay. I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05-032, for Compass Public
Charter School at 2511 West Cherry Lane and let's begin with staff comments.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Compass Public Charter School has
requested Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a public charter school out of an
existing church located on the south side of Cherry Lane, approximately a half mile west
of Linder Road. The property is zoned L-O currently. The site is surrounded by single-
family homes and Haven Cove Subdivision to the west and south, Sunnybrook Farms to
the north, and The Vineyards Subdivision to the east. Chapter 8 of Title 11, the
schedule of use control for Meridian City Code, requires all public schools in the L-O to
obtain CUP approval. That's why this application is here tonight. The lease area for the
school is approximately 17,096 square feet, and includes classrooms, bathrooms, a
gymnasium, and a multi-purpose room on the south end of the site. And that's within
two separate buildings. Basically, the south half of what I'm going to call the main
building, is the main area for the classrooms. This is a gym and multi-purpose area. I
believe a kindergarten and first grade, I think, classroom are in here. Kitchen facilities,
bathrooms, in both buildings will be utilized. Just a little bit of background for you.
Because the school year starts in August, this application has already been approved --
or this use has already been approved for one year at this location by the City Council.
That was done a couple -- few weeks ago by the City Council. The main things that
were discussed at that meeting were bringing the current building up to current fire code
and meeting all of the building codes for occupancy changes, conditions that require
this school or -- yeah, the state department of building safety and the Meridian fire
department to approve this use for a public charter school have been included with the
subject application. And I guess one of the other things I wanted to just touch on briefly
that kind of leaves it up in the air in the staff report is the recess area and the close
proximity to the single family homes in the area. Again, there are some -- some single
family homes that are pretty close. I spoke with the applicant probably about a month or
so now about where recess was going to be, I was curious about where recess was
going to be held. My understanding is it's on the southern area of this building here.
There is some gates generally in this location, I'm not exactly sure, that can kind of
close off that area to vehicular traffic, but there isn't a lot of green play fields, but I think
they are going to do -- you know, play with a ball -- bouncing ball and things like that,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7,2005
Page 95 of 110
things that don't require green space necessarily. But back to the point, I guess, that
those are real close to the existing residences and there are inadequate buffers,
according to the city code, just to this -- beside this school. So, the question was/is any
additional buffering or restrictions necessary to reduce those possible noise levels.
Staff is recommending approval of the application with the conditions included in the
staff report dated June 30th. I did want to make one note to the staff report that I have
not included a limit on the number of kids that are able to attend. They intend to have
one grade level, K through 7, so eight class -- eight different classrooms with
approximately 30 students, but it hasn't been limited to that. I have not also included
any type of condition that restricts the amount of time that they can use this building for.
You use a Conditional Use Permit to develop land. I think the intent is to have this be
temporary while they construct a new one, but I do not know how long that's going to
take and I guess that's something for you to decide if it needs to be limited to a year or
two or four or six and why, if you so choose to do that. So, with that I will stand for any
you questions may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay.
please.
We are ready for the applicant,
Jensen: My name is Christolina Jensen and I live at 2870 South Gold Bar Avenue in
Meridian and I currently serve as the chairman of the board of directors for Compass
Public Charter School. And I have a new respect for you tonight. And I will go through
and -- the chairman had mentioned earlier that, you know, you don't want to go past
midnight and I thought, oh, he's exaggerating, but I was wrong. So, thank you for your
patience considering this matter. We, as mentioned before, had received a
miscellaneous use permit for one year. Our plan is to use this facility for our first year of
operation and, then, while we are occupying that facility, primary facility will be built by
Brighton Corporation on Ten Mile and Chinden and in their subdivision at Bainbridge
Subdivision and that what they plan on doing is building that and, then, leasing that to
us, a lease-to-own agreement there. And so we needed the time the first year to be
able to operate the school, but also have time to build our permanent facility. So, that's
why we approached Cherry Lane Christian Church and asked them if we could do that.
Up on the screen is kind of the use that we have planned. Highlighted in the yellow, the
light yellow, harlequin pattern, is the classrooms and the gymnasium that we are using.
That little blue strip you see there is where our drop off and pick up of the children will
be. In the back there is the -- kind of a peach color, tan color, is where we had planned
on having the recess. That was one of our concerns when we approached the church
was where to have the children have that recess time. It's important for them to have a
break from classes. And so we in the back there had a -- had gates that shut it off and
so we felt that protected them better than say cordoning off an area of the parking lot,
we felt like it was safer to have it in the back there. We have approached the three
neighbors that directly share that fence in the back. We were able to talk to two of
them. One we just left our information with them. We weren't able to speak wîth them.
But the one that shares the widest amount of fence along that back there, we spoke
with them last night, just to be a good neighbor and introduce ourselves and let them
know what our plans are for the building. Their only concern is that she didn't want a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 96 of 110
high school in there and we said, no, it's K through 7 and she was afraid if a high school
was in there, there might be activity behind there that wouldn't be appropriate, so -- we
assured her that that was not going to be the case. There is a -- in that back there there
is a -- kind of a wall that -- I don't know how to word it -- comes up or -- a retainer wall
and, then, on top of that is some trees and, then, there is six foot high fence. And so I
know it's not up to code, but because of the temporary use of the building and, then, I
think that it's as adequate as it's going to be. Like I say, we have talked to the
neighbors and they did not seem to have a concern about that. The children will be
arriving at school no earlier than 8:15. School ends at -- classes, then, begin at 8:30
and, then, school ends at 3:00 o'clock and my experience has been that by 3: 15, 3:20,
the area is cleared out. And so that's kind of the time that we would be using that
facility. We have had the Meridian fire department walk though and they did notice
some inadequacies. We are currently working with Cherry Lane Christian Church to get
bids on bringing that building up to code. We are going to have to be adding some fire
alarms and those kinds of things. And we are currently getting bids for that, but that will
need to be done before we can occupy the building. We have also had our inspection
done by the State of Idaho Division of Building Safety. They came through on June
27th and he didn't find any other issues, other than what the Meridian fire had pointed
out and I do have a copy of his report, if you want me to give that to the city clerk at the
conclusion of my remarks. The only other thing is that we are anticipating an opening
date of August 15th and that's why we are kind of running concurrent, because we know
that the CUP process takes a little bit longer and that's why we went with the
miscellaneous first, so things could get us moving and, then, following up with the CUP.
But we feel like it's a great opportunity for us to be able to get open and it's kind of a
win-win for the church, they are able to receive some monetary compensation for that
that helps them in their efforts to build their building -- their permanent -- their other
building, too. So, it's a win-win and it's our hope that you will recommend this onto the
City Council. I stand for questions now.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Any questions? Commissioner Moe.
Mae: Yes.
comments?
As far as staff comments and whatnot, do you agree with all staff
Jensen: Yes.
Moe: And, then, one other thing I would question, what time are your recesses going to
be?
Jensen: That's a very good question. We will have that open time, like I said, from 8:15
to 8:30 and, then, we have our lunchtime that will have -- going between -- which will be
from 11 :30 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m., which will be staggered lunch and so there won't be the
whole school out there. As far as when recess comes, I'm going to turn the time over to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 97 of 110
Kelly Trudeau, administrator, she's kind of overseeing that aspect of things and
hopefully she has an answer to that question.
Borup: Mrs. Jensen -- Mr. Chairman. Just one final question before --
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Mr. Hood had asked how long you wanted that CUP to last. You mentioned
your new building would be going -- anticipating just this first school year and whether
going into next year --
Jensen: We are anticipating that it will be completed by the following year, so that it
would just be for that one year. I spoke with Brighton Corporation today and they said
that they don't see any problem with that. Of course --
Borup: Mr. Hood, would it may be safer to do a two-year approval, though?
Jensen: Yeah. I know.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, the other question, while you're still here, on that same subject, we had
a CUP a couple of months ago that we actually tied to the applicant instead of the land,
and the point was the applicant could be there using the CUP as long as they needed
to, but when they left or sold or whatever, the CUP expired and that would be a
comfortable thing in this situation, I think, as well. Is that -- is that generally possible or
was that an unusual exception that we made the last time?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that is -- I mean this is a Conditional
Use Permit, you can pretty much impose any conditions that you deem appropriate.
The only reason I brought that up earlier is unless otherwise stipulated, they run with the
land and not with an applicant, but if that were to be one of your conditions, if you feel a
different charter school in this location would have a different impact on the
neighborhood, you're okay with this one, but another one may impact it differently, and,
therefore, they should have a separate CUP, I think that's appropriate, yes.
Zaremba: I just think we would want to hear it again if there were that kind of a change,
so -- you wouldn't have any problem with it expiring when you're ready to move?
Jensen: No.
Zaremba: Okay. And I'm thinking rather than put a specific time limit on it, we just tie it
to the applicant. Thank you. Let me go through the list, if I may. Eric Jensen. Do you
care to speak? Okay. Everything you have said -- he's marked as for and he's
satisfied. Kelly Trudeau.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 98 of 110
Trudeau: I didn't know if you wanted your question answered about the recess. I'm
Kelly Trudeau. I live at live 507 South Tiburon in Meridian. And I'm the administrator of
Compass Public Charter School. As far as the recess goes, recesses will also be
staggered. There would not be more than two grade levels out at recess at one time. I
think the biggest chunk of time would be that lunch period, which does run from 11 :30 to
1 :00. Again, that will be staggered, but it will be kind of a consistent, you know, children
coming out during that period of time. But, again, our hours of operation are 8:00 -- you
know, 8:30 to 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, so it's not a real early time or real late time.
I believe our lease with Cherry Lane Christian Church has been -- even our staff are to
be out of there by 5:00 o'clock, unless we have a specific activity scheduled and we will
probably have two or three, sayan open house, you know, Christmas program, a
couple of those things throughout the school year.
Moe: But as far as recess, like in the a.m., nothing before the noon hour or 11 :30? My
main concern is noise and whatnot say 10:00 a.m. or something out there with the
neighbors behind the place.
Trudeau: I think the time -- the earliest time would, of course, be upon arrival, as
children are arriving around 8:10, they will be directed to that back area, to be in a safe
area right before they are allowed into their classrooms. And so that could, potentially,
be a large number of students. We will have our gymnasium open to the -- the doors
open to that back area. We will have the gymnasium doors open as well for overflow,
you know, if the weather is poor, then, of course, the kids would be there.
Mae: Okay.
Trudeau: And, of course, we are talking about children laughing. What better beautiful
sound is that?
Moe: Absolutely. Thank you.
Trudeau: Any other questions?
Zaremba: No. Thank you. Jay Walker. Okay. That's somebody who has departed
already, but marked as for. Becky Priest. Okay. Everything she needs to say has been
said. That's everybody who signed up. Anybody else care to comment? Okay. Mrs.
Jensen, do you care to add anything? I'm not sure there is anything to rebut, but -- I
think we are covered. She's satisfied. Okay. Commissioners?
Borup: I'm satisfied.
Moe: Make that motion.
Zaremba: Are we ready to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close Public Hearing CUP 05-032.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 99 of 110
Moe: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and two seconds. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: We had nothing -~ no change to the staff report, was there?
Moe: Other than the -~
Zaremba: I think the only thing I would add is some phrasing somewhere that says that
the CUP belongs to the applicant and expire when they vacate.
Borup: Okay. Waiting for me? Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council
recommending approval of CUP 05 -- no. Excuse me. Yeah. 05-032, request for a
conditional use permit for Compass Public Charter School, to include all staff comments
and report for hearing date of July 7th, transmittal date of June 30th, to include all staff
comments, with the addition of item 14 on page seven and add that the CUP will expire
when the Compass Charter School vacates the property.
Mae: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 24:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.47
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Meridian High School by Hummel
Architects - 1900 West Pine Avenue:
Zaremba: Thank you very much. And last Public Hearing, but not least, I will open the
Public Hearing for AZ 05-025, request for annexation and zoning for Meridian High
School and we will begin with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman. With your permission, I have about an hour and
a half staff report.
Zaremba: Thank you very much. And in that case I think we should take a 20-minute
break before we start. Please proceed.
Newton-Huckabay: You do not have my permission.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 100 of 110
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. I will make it real short. This request is for annexation and
zoning of 5.4 acres, currently rural urban transition. They are proposing an R-4. Same
zone as Meridian High School currently has. The Commission is all familiar with where
Meridian High School is. Linder and Pine. This is abutting their west boundary.
Property that the school district, my understanding, has had for awhile, just didn't realize
it wasn't in the city limits, so -- I am, by the way, pitching in for Josh Wilson, who is out.
So, he wrote the staff report on this. The request is just an annexation, although they
did submit with their application a concept plan for how it might develop. Staff did not
feel like it was necessary to tie that specifically to their -- a development agreement, so
no development agreement is recommended with this. This aerial gives you a little
better feel for how it relates to the existing campus. Parking lot abuts pretty much the
entire shared boundary between this new five-acre piece and the existing school. There
is an existing access easement off of Pine that comes into this site to serve the two
houses to the west and to the north, but staff understands the school would not need to
use it, they would just use their access from inside their campus. So, we are
recommending approval.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions?
Borup: Is that a backfield that's on site now? Is that what that -- there is an existing
baseball field? Softball?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe it's a practice field of some sort.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the applicant. Good morning, sir.
Daniels: Ed Daniels, Hubble Architects. Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I
applaud you for your duration here. It's quite a process. I really don't have a lot to add.
I think he covered it pretty well. Like he said, it was a piece of property the school
district's owned for a long time and as we got into looking at constructing an annex
building for them, we discovered that it wasn't in Meridian city, so that's the reason for
the annexation. The proposed use is going to be coming with a -- it will be a building for
the votech center here. It will be replacing an existing building that they have on
campus now. And that's really about it. There is a -- like he said before, there is an
access on the east side that the school district would be utilizing. They wouldn't
necessarily need any sort of access off of Pine Street. And there is an existing irrigation
lateral that runs to the north boundary and we would make sure that we tile that and,
then, also any water rights that are associated with that to the adjacent properties, we
would maintain that. Outside of that, it's -- to me it's pretty simple, but -- if there is any
questions for me?
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 101 of 110
Moe: I have none.
Zaremba: Pretty straight forward. Thank you.
Borup: I assume this parcel here is already annexed, then?
Daniels: Yeah. You know, I don't know that.
Borup: Is that part of the school district?
Hawkins-Clark: That is not, no.
Daniels: Not right now.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: We do have someone signed up to testify. Paul Geile.
Geile: My name is Paul Geile and I live at 4717 Willow Lane in Boise and my father
owns the trapezoidal piece just to the east of that, the 18 acres open ground, and he
sort of handed me this project this morning and I'm sorry if I'm not quite up to speed. I
was really concerned that a property was going from Ada county into an R-4
designation and it struck me as an odd thing to put a residential zoning on what is
proposed to be a student or community owned and it -- I guess from the little research I
did I kind of found out that schools are almost all in R-4 for reason or reasons unknown,
Zaremba: There is no zone that specifically identifies schools. It's like putting churches
in limited office zone, that's just where we put them.
Geile: So, if they were granted an R-4 zone, they could, potentially build houses there,
to an R-4 standard; is that correct? I mean not that they would, but -- it was standard --
they did an R~4, do they get the rest of the rights associated with an R-4 zone, even if
they are going to build a non-residential building on that property?
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Unless -- I'm assuming unless the development agreement states otherwise.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's -- that's correct.
Planning and Zoning staff's read on this is the R-4 has certain entitlements with it,
unless you put a development agreement on here that says otherwise.
Zaremba: School uses.
Geile: And I guess that was an earlier comment, that this zoning change is not at this
point tied to the building of that industrial building that they are going to put in.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page1020f110
Moe: Right.
Geile: So, I guess -- the reason that my dad sent me down here was to make sure that
they weren't going to put in a lighted stadium in that area. And if they can -- my
understanding also is that the -- once they get an R-4 zone, they can, essentially, build
whatever they want there, without an additional Public Hearing? Is that right also?
Zaremba: Well, you're right in some respects. What they are planning to build there is
allowed in an R-4 zone, but there are other things that are allowed in an R-4 zone, with
no further hearing.
Geile: And an R-4 owned by a school gives them incredibly broad attitude to build
almost whatever they want?
Zaremba: Well, as staff pointed out, we can put a limitation by saying, yes, it's an R-4,
but what you have to build is school related.
Geile: But this is just what I wanted to make sure that I understood that correctly. And
the last map I have of that five acre piece gives me an indication that it was actually two
parcels and at some point was it combined to become one five acre piece when the
high school purchased that?
Zaremba: Let me ask staff if they know the answer to that.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, as I mentioned, I'm pinch hitting for Josh, who did the -- he's
the planner who did more of the research on this. It's not mentioned in his staff report,
so maybe we could ask the applicant.
Zaremba: We will ask the applicant that in a couple minutes.
Geile: Okay. And I guess I heard also, in just a very brief discussion with one of your
staff people that was generous enough to share some of their time this afternoon, that
generally even in the R-4 designation owned by the school, you ended up with one main
building per parcel. Is that correct also? And if this goes as two parcels, then, they can
build two buildings on that space. If it goes as one parcel, they could build one building
on that space?
Zaremba: Well, your -- typical in all zones is that you can only build one building per--
one main building per parcel. Sometimes outbuildings are allowed.
Geile: Okay. Well, I guess that's what I wanted to make sure. I guess it was more of a
comment and some education and to make sure that -- my father's concern that if there
was any possibility that the high school could go ahead and build, essentially, whatever
they wanted on that property, once they acquired the R-4 zoning change, without the
neighborhood being able to go back at a public hearing and have that discussed. That
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 103 of 110
was a concern of his. And I live next to a public park in Boise, which is an incredibly
intrusive, light spilling, noise spilling, monster. And if we can go ahead and limit that, tie
that building that they are intending to build to this zoning change, I would recommend
doing that, if they are generally considered -- going to go ahead and do that. The other
thing is the staff had mentioned that in very rare instances could you go ahead and
approve a zoning change and if there were a particular item that was proposed in the
future, that you could require that that require a public hearing. So, what I'm afraid is
going to happen is they are going to purchase that eight acre piece --
Borup: They already own it.
Geile: What's that?
Borup: I believe they already own it.
Geile: Yeah. I saw -- I saw -- there is another lot there also and they own the little five
acre piece right now that is a practice soccer field and baseball field. But they are going
to probably buy the eight acre piece to the north and they are -- as what I'm hearing for
the Meridian school district, that they would like to put a stadium there and I just don't
want it right next to this property and if they get cart blanche from an R-4 zone, they will
be able to do that without any other public comment and that was my concern.
Zaremba: Well, yeah, that piece of property is not included in the discussions, so that
would go through the same notice and separate hearing and everything at that time.
Geile: What you would probably do in that case is give them an R-4 for that piece of
property also?
Zaremba: I'm sure that's what they would request, but it would go through a public
hearing and --
Geile: And if they wished to build a stadium after they got this piece into an R-4 and
that eight acres piece into an R-4, would they have to go through any additional public
hearings?
Zaremba: To get the other piece into an R-4, they would have to go through a public
hearing, just like this one.
Geile: But once they got that they could build a stadium without additional public
hearings.
Zaremba: Any school use, yes.
Geile: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
JUly 7, 2005
Page1040f110
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: You know, it probably seems obvious, but there is already a stadium on this
campus. I mean the school district's proposal, which has been publicly discussed, is a
field house, as a portion of the high school property, which was an indoor gymnasium,
not an outdoor facility.
Geile: On the five acre piece that they are --
Nary: That's what they are proposing on their property in some location.
Geile: Okay.
Nary: There is already a stadium there. I don't -- Mr. Hawkins-Clark may recall when
that stadium was put in, if any CUs were required, because of the lights, I mean it being
adjacent to those homes on the north side of the property. But they couldn't sell it -- I
guess maybe to answer your -- they couldn't sell it to build houses, which was one of
your points you made, without it having a public process through the school's board.
They can't sell property, no different than the city can sell property, without a public
process. So, you would get notice of that. If they were trying to sell it, you would get
notice of that from the school board.
Geile: Okay. But they would be in possession of that R-4 zone, having got approval
from it tonight, so there wouldn't be a hearing on that in the future, because they would
keep that zone with them.
Nary: Right. I mean as Commissioner Zaremba has stated, they can -- the
Commission can certainly recommend a development agreement with limitations on
that, but I just wanted you to understand that they couldn't sell it -- that wouldn't happen
and the only way they would do that would be to sell it, and the only way they can sell it
is through a public process, which you would receive notice of.
Geile: Right. And it would be counterintuitive to me that a high school could be in
possession of an R-4 zone and I didn't -- the logical connect was not there, so I was a
little suspicious on what else they got by acquiring an R-4 zone, because it wasn't -- it
wasn't clear what an R-4 zone would do for them in the first place and what else it might
do for them after this has been passed. And I don't know the answer to that question.
But my father was asking just to defend his interest as his property was subsidized
around and that's -- so, two things. If I can have the linkage to the use associated with
the zoning change and I guess you cannot, then, require a public hearing on a future
use, even one as large stadium on a school --
Zaremba: Well, on the other piece of property is not at issue yet, but it would go
through -- you would get notice, if they do buy that other eight acres that you're talking
about. That's not part of what we are addressing tonight, but it would go through exactly
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 105 of 110
the same process. Your dad would get notice that they were planning to annex it and
zone it and what they were going to put on it.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think it's hardly big enough for a stadium. They could just
barely put the current stadium in those pieces of land now.
Geile: Well, it isn't--
Zaremba: My point is it isn't an issue tonight.
Geile: It is not something for you tonight, so all I really want to just get -- the only thing
that you can accomplish is to link the zoning change to the proposed use.
Zaremba: That works for me.
Geile: Can you do that?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. We can.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Geile: I think that's it.
Zaremba: Does someone else care to comment on this subject?
Hawkins-Clark: I was just going to clarify that the zoning ordinance only allows two --
two things in the R-4 and that's public schools and single family detached houses.
Zaremba: Right. Theoretically, less than four per acre.
Moe: I think the point that he's just trying to make is in lieu of seeing a -- even, for that
matter, a baseball stadium with lights, on that R-4 property, he would like to make sure
it's going to be a building, as opposed to something else,
Hawkins-Clark: Right. And certainly that would be a change between the relationship
between the City of Meridian and the Joint School District No.2. To my knowledge,
over the last seven to eight years Meridian city has never required the school district --
for Mountain View High School, for Sawtooth Middle School, for Lewis & Clark Middle
School, or for any of the other elementary schools, to go through a Conditional Use
Permit process for anything, even the middle schools and high schools that do have
stadiums. It doesn't mean that -- I don't think, that -- I mean the city can require a
development agreement that says the school can't build a stadium. I'm just pointing out
that, you know, historically, that relationship has not been -- the city has said school
districts, you construct whatever you feel is in your master plan and what's in your best
interest, whatever your board approves and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 1060f110
Zaremba: But, still, this gentleman -- if the school district chose to buy the other parcel
that he's talking about, his dad would get notified that they were wanting to annex and
zone it and there would be an opportunity to --
Hawkins-Clark: I think the applicant's concern was -- not the applicant. I'm sorry. The
gentleman's concern was that if -- once it is approved for -- assuming they come in and
it's R-4, then, they could still -- they could come in and put that stadium in there without
a public hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: And they could.
Zaremba: Actually, that's true. Okay. All right. Let's have Mr. Daniel comment again, if
you would, please.
Daniel: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, not really knowing the detail
that he does on the process, but in regards to the lot being split at one time, we have
had the land surveyed and this is the first I have heard of it being two lots and so I'm not
really sure where that is. I'm not saying it's not accurate, I just -- this is the first I have
heard of it. It never come up in our survey work that we had done out there a few
months ago. And unless there is some other questions that I'm needed to answer now -
Zaremba: Would you have any problem with us having a development agreement that
says it has to be a school use?
Daniel: No.
Zaremba: That would prevent you from building houses on it, but I'm sure that's not
your intent.
Daniel: Sure. No. I think, as a lot of people know the history behind Meridian High
School, they are pretty much land locked, you know, from the land that's taken around
them there and they are really limited on -- on land that they need for their facilities and
for their programs. And so, no, I think their intended use for the property would be for
school use, not to develop any sort of housing. So, I don't think we have a problem with
that at all.
Zaremba: Commissioner Mee.
Moe: Yeah. I don't have a comment or question to the applicant, but going back to
what Mr. Nary said, I'm not sure that development agreement in regards to the housing
is really necessary, because if, in fact, they were going to sell the property, that would
come back before the public anyway, so there is really no need to stick it into here.
Zaremba: Good point.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 107 of 110
Moe: And I also believe that Brad's probably answered the other question, that pretty
much the city has kind of let the school district kind of do what -- what they want with
their own property. So, therefore, I mean it would be a new precedent if we did a
development agreement in regards to making sure that there is a building put on that
site, as opposed to something else.
Zaremba: Well -- and there are standard city ordinances for everything, that you can't
have lights that bleed over onto other properties, so I mean those are standard
requirements that have to be complied with anyhow, so we don't need to add that. If a
stadium would be built, then, there would have to be discussion of the lights, but that's
not what's envisioned, is it?
Daniel: Not in this annexation, no.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: I don't see where we need to really add anything. They are not going to build
houses there. Not this school district.
Moe: No.
Zaremba: They have got too many people watching them.
Borup: Well, they need the space. It just -- it's not practical.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-025.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: Is there a second?
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: For discussion, I guess I -- you know, the testimony that we have had, I think we
kind of -- kind of talked our way through this thing in regards to any housing. I think if
for some reason that was to happen, there would be more public hearings on that, so,
therefore, that could be taken care of at that point and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page1080f110
Zaremba: Well -- and the extra issue is not only public hearings, but there would be
notice --
Moe: Yes.
Zaremba: -- to his father as a neighboring property.
Moe: And based upon the preliminary kind of plan that we have seen, you know, for
this property, it looks to me like they are planning to build a building and the applicant
has said as much as well this evening. I don't foresee anything else happening. They
have already got a -- you know, a practice facility and a softball field there now, so,
therefore I'm assuming they are trying to get this into annexation to go ahead and build
a building. So, therefore, I'm not sure there is really anything else necessary to put on
this for a motion. So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend sending on to City
Council approval of AZ 05-025, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July
the 7th, 2005, with a transmittal date of June the 30th, with no other comment.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 25: Discussion of street name change from West Fireweed Drive to West
Orso Drive in Bear Creek Subdivision No.7:
Zaremba: Thank you all for hanging in there with us. The last item on the agenda is a
discussion, not a public hearing, but we will have discussion among staff and
Commissioners and is there a staff report to begin with?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I can just summarize your packet, I guess, real briefly. And,
basically, the ordinance says if somebody wants to change a street name that's already
been recorded -- and in this case the name has been recorded in Bear Creek. I'm sorry
I don't have any exhibits to put on the slide, so we just have this, but if they want to do
that and it's recorded, our ordinance says that the Planning and Zoning Commission
needs to approve the street name change. Of course, it would also have to be
approved by the Ada county street name committee. My understanding is that was
already done. So, I think if you read the material, you saw that the reason they want to
do it is it better matches up with the theme of their subdivision of Strada Bellissima, they
did not feel that Fireweed was authentic Italian.
Zaremba: We had that discussion when Strada Bellissima was here, they were
commenting on the name.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page1090f110
Hawkins-Clark: So, unless Mr. Nary has more to add as far as the process, but I think
bottom line they are anxious to be able to get this name changed and, technically, you
need to give your blessing.
Borup: It sounds fine. Orso it seems to me.
Zaremba: I don't know who came up with the Italian word for bear, but it works for me.
Orso.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Since this is kind of an odd circumstance, we don't see a lot of these street
names, I can only think in the last five years we have only had one other one, the city
ordinance does say the Commission is the approving body of it, which is inconsistent
with some other parts of the code. The only other time in the five years that I have been
here that we have had this come up, the Commission simply recommended that action
to the City Council, City Council, then, took up that action and it passed a resolution. It's
probably cleaner to do it that way. The city code regarding this does give one out to
changing it for -- for this purpose. It says all the other purposes are supposed to be for
duplication, similar pronunciation or spelling, or for reasons like public safety and the
last one says convenience. It seems to me like this is more convenience than anything
else, but there is authority in the ordinance to grant it for that purpose and, as you
stated, I think when Strada Bellissima was presented, that was part of their presentation
was seeking this name change. So, you do have authority to recommend that and we
will move it forward to the Council, we will have a resolution, so there will be some
authority in which to track that that change has been accomplished, so --
Zaremba: That seems reasonable to me. If you want to make that motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we recommend to City Council to have
the street name changed from West Fireweed Drive to West Orso Drive in Bear Creek
Subdivision No.7, as noted in Item No. 25 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting
of July 7th, 2005.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: No second?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
July 7, 2005
Page 110 of 110
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? We
are adjourned.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1 :04 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
AP PROV~ (0 ~~--------
DAVID ZAREMBA - - ~IRM ~
ATTESTED: