2006 02-16
ý5~
Meridian PlanninQ and Zonina Meetina
Februarv 16. 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 16, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Chairman, Michael Rohm, Commissioner, Keith Borup,
Commissioner, David Zaremba, Commissioner, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and
Commissioner, David Moe.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Jessica Johnson, Craig Caleb Hood, Josh
Wilson, Joe Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening. I'd like to call this regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Commission together for this date, February 16th, 2006, and begin with the
roll call.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to start with the adoption of the agenda. There will be
a couple of items at the end of the agenda that will be continued, but before we do that
let's just start by adopting it and, then, we will move to the Consent Agenda. Could I get
a motion to that effect?
Zaremba: Move to adopt the agenda.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? The agenda has been
adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-054 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County
Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main
administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2
storage buildings in an I-L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 2 of95
by Ada County - south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust
Grove Road:
B.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 05-055 Request
for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40-unit
congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a
R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview Lakes by Grace at Fairview
Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue:
Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there are three items
on that. The first being Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-054. The
second item is Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-055. And the third
item is Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for CUP 05-057. Could I get a motion to-
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make a couple of amendments, if I may.
Rohm: You may.
Zaremba: Okay. On item A, Weed and Pest Control Campus, on page two of four, item
D, paragraph one, the third sentence of that starts out: For conditions, use permits --
and I believe the word conditions should be conditional. That appears to be a
boilerplate error, because item B has the same amendment needed. So, somebody
needs to get to the original boilerplate and change that word if they would. Back on
item A, on page three of four, this was brought to us January 5th, 2006, which was after
we transitioned. At the bottom it correctly states the Chairman Michael Rohm should
sign this, but right above that it still has chair after my name and I would ask that that be
stricken. Item ß, actually, has that correct. Item C I did not have in my package. Did
anybody else have Intermountain Wood Products?
Newton-Huckabay: No, I didn't. Oh, yes, I did.
Zaremba: I would ask that we move that to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Item
C be stricken from tonight and moved to the next regular meeting.
Rohm: Works for me.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, unless anybody else has any other comments, Mr. Chairman,
I move that we accept Consent Agenda items A as amended and B as amended.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the Consent Agenda for items A
and B. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 3 of95
Item 4:
Presentation from the Meridian School District by Wendel Bigham:
Rohm: At this time we are going to have a presentation by the Meridian School District
and Mr. Wendell Bigham. Please come forward.
Bigham: Thank you, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Meridian School District
appreciates the opportunity to come before you tonight to talk about our common
interest and to further our understanding of each other's needs. I'm going to go through
a number of items very very quickly. I notice you have a full agenda, so I will move
through things fairly quickly and, then, you can question me if -- as long as you see fit.
Waiting here briefly while we get something up on the screen. Probably as just a couple
opening remarks, again, bear in mind that the school district is neutral on growth. We
are in support of healthy, sustainable communities and, thereafter, our goal is to work
within the Comprehensive Plan and the associated rules and regulations of each
municipality. We are in the fortunate position that we have many masters, that being
the City of Meridian, the City of Eagle, the City of Star, the City of Boise, Ada and
Canyon Counties. So, we are fortunate to be able to do the same thing a number of
different ways in various jurisdictions. And that's probably our biggest challenge is to
look at that. We are a recommending body. You will notice that in all of our approval
letters, we simply provide you statistical information, if you will, and with that we hope
that you can formulate a plan that works the best for you as a city. Just briefly, so you
can see on the map, I will talk about a couple of things here in a minute. The broad
outline is the Meridian School District, coming down through west Boise here, clear
down south. The center area, of course, off the freeway here is the City of Meridian. I
will simply make passing reference to one fact right now. That district is 385 square
miles. That number will come into play here in a minute. We provide this map to
planning and zoning, to staff level people. It has future elementary school sites. It's
very difficult to see. Middle school sites. These sites are simply placed upon this map
based upon our best guess at the number of houses that will actually end up being
there and that is based upon approval, not zoning. And that distinction will be pointed
out here in just a little bit. I think -- can we go ahead and go to the next one. Hopefully,
the next one will come up. We have several spare copies of this, if someone in the
audience wants one. This is the basis of our understanding. It is how we project
student growth. It is not a perfect system and I will point that out to you. But just as a
rule of thumb -- we always talk about district capacity. We have a lot of capacity in the
district, but you really don't want to bus somebody from Star to west Boise, because we
have elementary capacity in the aging west side of Boise. So, district capacity is one
way we look at things. Capacity within a geographic area south of the freeway,
between Chinden and the freeway, we look at capacity, and, then, ultimately, it gets
down to capacity at the local school, which is where we really all feel it. We are going
through boundary discussions. It's highly highly likely if you're in the north Meridian
area your child will be in four different elementary schools in the course of five to six
years at that school and we will touch on that briefly. Within our model our elementary
schools are designed for 650 kids. In trying to roll things up, an elementary school -- a
middle school is 1,000. 3.1 elementary schools requires us to build a middle school.
Two thousand students is the actual operating capacity. Our design capacity is 1,800
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 4 of95
students for a high school. One and a half high schools for every 3.1 middle schools.
What does that mean to us as a community where we are building four elementary
schools in the next two years, we are also building a middle school and a high school.
We are starting to think along the lines of a high school every three to four years,
instead of four to five years, based upon our growth. It gets to be very scary, because
when we go for the next bond issue in 2007 we still won't have completed the high
school approved in 2005, because of the time line. So, we are starting to get this
tremendous overlap of having to ask for money for new schools for the growth that's
been approved. So, to put that in perspective, we will do 50 million dollars a year in
construction in over the next three years from the last bond issue. From that number
we try to figure out the number of houses, quite frankly, that generate the kids. We take
the number of homes and we use a census factor of .8. This is the first fly in the
ointment. Average census track for the district tell us there is .83 age five through 19
year olds per household. Okay. We interpret that to be kindergarten through seniors in
high school. Okay. Not all seniors and 9th graders. That's kind of a hard number,
because as we look around in the community we live in, we have a perception that there
is more than 8/10ths of a kid per household. Some households are larger. It is a low
number. Garden City is up around one. Parts of Eagle it will run down to .63. But we
have got to base our calculations on something, and it's a very good number for a 20
year old built environment that holds very nicely in Boise and has for a number of years.
It's a number that's woefully low, because we are building and growing with our hair on
fire here in the community. So, I'll speak to that lopsided issue. So, that's our first
assumption. So, based upon that assumption, 650 kids are generated for every 1,767
homes. Remember 1,800 homes per square mile. Every 5,400 homes generates, of
course, three elementary schools, one middle school, and every 8,000 homes will
generate one high school and 1.5 middle schools and 3.1 elementaries going back out.
Okay. To run those numbers through just kind of a model that I think we can all relate
to, we took the north Meridian planning area a number of years ago, said, okay, it's
about ten square miles, 640 acres, and my assumption that it's going to be 80 percent
residential consumption, which I think is arguably maybe a little bit low. That number,
as you probably well know, is kind of backwards with what larger cities are. It does
reflect that we are a -- I don't want to say bedroom community, but we are primarily a
residential community in support of a larger urban core. So, 80 percent of that
generates 5,100 residential acres. At 3.5 houses per acre, that generates 17,900
homes. Okay. That's 1,792 homes per square mile. Census tell us 2.3 people per
household. Okay. That number I think kind of feels sort of right. Would generate
41,000 people. North Meridian was planned to be between 42 and 58, to give you a
perspective. This number is the second very difficult number for us. Imagine if you will
if that goes up to a higher number, as we go to more urban densities. We will start
looking at two elementary schools per square mile or three elementary schools in two
square miles. And that's really problematic in the square miles that are more or less
built out, because the land simply isn't available. This number is also very critical in
terms of do we do our modeling on zoning and the number of houses that it's zoned for
or do we do our modeling on the trends that Council and Commission make approval
on? Just because it is zoned R-8, but the development is approved R-3, what do we
build our modeling on and our modeling is looking out there 20, 25 years for the land
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 5 of95
acquisition. This is a real estate model. So, we tend to watch really closely what you
desire to do and what the ultimate action is for those subdivisions. Okay. So, currently
we tend to track tend more than desired growth, until trend and desired growth get
closer together. So, that's a second really big iffy number for us. To help you put this in
perspective -- can you slide the screen up just a little bit? Number of homes since --
what do I want to get out of this. Oh, in that ten square mile area, running it again
through the formula, ten elementary schools, 3.3 middle schools, 2.2 high schools.
Look at cost for just a minute. Elementaries are 10 acres, 40 acres for a middle school,
60 for a high school. Land costs, 100,000 or more per acre in today's market. An
elementary is a million, four million, six million for a high school site. Furniture, fixtures,
and equipment, that's all that is is desks, chairs. My design costs, our hard construction
dollars, we just bid a middle school today and it came in 12 percent over our estimate.
That's, really, a reflection of the economy, 1.8 million dollars difference. Here is where it
starts getting interesting. Cost per school -- these numbers -- this middle school that bid
today is up 40 percent over Sawtooth Middle School, which we bid three years ago.
Hard construction costs. If we take the number of schools times the cost per -- times
the cost per school, and now there is a hundred million in elementary, there is 59 million
in middle schools, 94 million in high schools in today's dollars. Can you slide this clear
up now? Way up. Keep going. Go ahead and shove it clear up. Thanks. In the ten
square miles is 254 million dollars. Okay. What's the simple number? It's 25.3 million
dollars of taxpayer dollars per square mile to provide a K-12 public education. That
investment per square mile exceeds roads, it exceeds sewer, it exceeds water, it
exceeds every essential public service that you could possibly come up with. Just a
number. Just happens to be a big number. The more interesting number for Planning
and Zoning is if you take the same number of schools, their acreage, the total acres per
type of school, the total number of acres in that ten square miles at three and a half
houses per square mile, we are at 5.72 percent of all the land within control of the City
of Meridian. Okay. Remember what I said, we were 385 square miles in size? There is
about a hundred square miles that is south of the district, south of Lake Hazel. It goes
out in nine mile sections, it goes out, it includes the old Orchard town site almost to
Mountain Home, the bombing range, BLM land, state endowment land -- okay, take
those out. So, say we have an area of 250 square miles and it goes the way Star,
Eagle, and Meridian are going, which is 80 residential. Two hundred fifty square miles
at five percent of the land, not 5.72, but just five percent of the land is -- there will be
12.5 square miles of school acreage within our district. To put it in perspective, that's
8,000 acres of taxpayer-owned school property to support a district that will be about
225, 230 thousand square -- or students. That number feels large to me. I'm probably
more comfortable with that number being around 5,000 acres. We currently own 800 to
1,000 acres. So, we are aggressively out looking for 4,000 acres of land or more and
100,000 and acre, that's 400 million dollars we could use today to buy land to compete
with the development community that's chewing up the land. So, as we go forward, this
is really the interesting numbers, the land use. It presumes some pretty big things that
every school needs to be built the way the existing schools are. Think of high schools.
Every high school has to have athletics. It chews up a tremendous amount of land.
The build out number we are a district of 17 high schools. We are three and a half
conferences into ourself, as a matter of numbers. It's 62 elementary schools, 23 middle
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 6 of95
schools, 13 to 15 high schools and about 40 ancillary type alternative or charter type
schools, public facilities. So, this is the basis -- when I talk to Planning and Zoning,
when I talk to staff, it is how do we get from where we are to what the district will be at
some future date. Today we are 3.5 million square feet, about 350 million dollars of
improved infrastructure in the district today to support roughly 30,000 students. Just
another number. So, where do we kind of go from here? We kind of went through the
number of houses and explained the iffy numbers. Some modifying factors are -- well,
let's talk about portables first. That's probably best. Portables is how we deal with
growth. They are a very unpleasant way to deal with growth and they are horribly cost
inefficient. They actually cost more per square foot to put on a campus than it does to
build the building, but the reason we use portables so aggressively is subdivisions that
would normally take five, seven, eight, ten years are seeing a hundred percent build out
in the three, four, or five year range. So, students are coming to us much much quicker.
Our new Hunter Elementary School in Bridgetower Subdivision is the largest elementary
school in the state now. It has over 850 students in it. It opened over capacity. And it
was built -- you know, last year it opened. So, we use portables to deal with that very
very rapid growth. It serves about two square miles, various portions. Very very large
portion of those kids will go to the school that's in the square mile that they live in when
that school is built. Very very likely that your kid will go to at least three elementary
schools, unless you physically live in the square mile where the school is located. So,
we deal with portables. We come before you regularly for portables. You can ask us
where are we going to put portables next fall. That's a fair question. We asked ourself
that today in a budget meeting and the answer is we don't know. Right now all of our
growth indicators are sideways than what they have been historically. Building permits
are up. Occupancy permits are up. Two good indicators are pre-school enrollment is
kind of flat, which is usually a good historic indicator of the percentage of our growth.
Our in-district growth should be about 400 students since the start of school. It's like 37.
We can't figure that out. So, we are trying to now project our growth for next year. Pick
a number. Seventeen? We grew by 2,300 students last year. Our dilemma is in the
next 60 days we will set the budget for our '05 and '06 school year based upon some
imaginary growth number. If we guess too high, we don't get the money from the state,
and we may have hired teachers that we have to hire and, then, we let them go,
because there is no money right before the start of school or our more traditional model
is be conservative, the growth comes, the state allocates the money and, then, the
week before school starts we hire a bunch of teachers or your child, teacher, classroom
is split two weeks into school when we hire teachers. So, the ability to project the online
-- the coming online of the houses is keenly important to us and there is no good way to
do it. There isn't a district in the state that can project how many kids there will be per
household. That.8 is a different number. So, portables is how we kind of handle some
of that. Plat approval process. We try to work very diligently with the platting
engineering community to make our desires and the information that I'm sharing
available to them through Planning and Zoning staff, city staff at all levels, so that the
development community can come and talk to us before they start drawing up
subdivisions, so we can say, hey, we are interested, you know, where can we go from
here. It's very -- it's just adversarial to have it drawn up and, then, for us to come before
you and say, yeah, but we need a school site there. We have to be very diligent in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 7 of95
keeping that communication alive and we depend heavily upon the city staff. I can tell
you we do not have the staff that any of the cities have to do these planning activities. It
doesn't mean that we shouldn't, but we simply do- not. So, the city is -- and the counties
are really our -- some of our workforce. Again, we are a recommending body, you're an
approval body, we look to where that makes sense for both of us for a healthy
community and that many times is at odds with what the development community
wants, but I guess that's why we are on -- have the jobs we have. Talked a little bit
about absorption rates on the plats that are going quickly. A couple hot issues to us is
the cost of off-site improvements. There is one school of thought that says the school
district money or bond should only be used to build schools. We should not be required
to build roads, sidewalks, signalization, and there is another school of thought that says
we are creating the growth and the demand in the neighborhood, therefore, we need to
widen the streets, we need to put in the sidewalks, and we need to put in the signals
that our traffic generates. Please understand our position is you want to solve that
problem, quit saying yes to building houses and the need to build schools immediately
goes to zero. There is that natural tension. Our goal is to find that intermediate line. It
is a struggle. In some instances we are signalizing entire intersections, because our
traffic counts -- our traffic counts, those kids within our community, are just enough to tip
the traffic count over so we get to bear the full brunt of signalization and/or expansion of
an intersection. Working very diligently with ACHD, they have been working with us,
and we are trying to bring the development community in in a way that makes sense
that we all share. We are not saying we don't have a responsibility. If you have ever
been to Mountain View High School at 7:30 in the morning or 2:30 in the afternoon, you
can appreciate we do create a horrible amount of traffic for a very short period of time.
But they are also people that live in the subdivisions within our community. So, that
underlying off-site cost, as congestion gets worse, the pressure for those dollars to
spend them off site gets greater on the school district. We simply need to find a way to
budget an appropriate amount, so that when the requirements are placed upon us, we
have sufficient funds to meet a reasonable number of requirements. That same
discussion, then, carries through to sidewalks. Sidewalks are really not about a school's
boundary, Do we need the sidewalks within the school's boundary, so that the kids can
safely walk to school? Again, go back to the model. It's one elementary per square
mile. If we do our intersection and within the square mile, the 20 year built environment,
everybody in the square mile will walk to school as the adjacent rural lands develop.
But we do have an obligation to put sidewalks on our property, just as the development
community does on their property. It's the between parcels to make the
interconnections work. While it is difficult to spend tax dollars to build sidewalks, I
understand that it's not the highway district's responsibility, it's really not the city and it's
arguably not ours, but if we can go off site with right of way that exists, we will entertain
building small chunks of sidewalk to connect it up, with the simple understanding that
sidewalks aren't just for the sole use of children walking to school, they are for the
enjoyment of the community at large, so it's more of a bigger picture and how we do that
as we develop in rural America, if you will. I don't have a good answer, other than we all
need to be aware of it. We all need to find the opportunities to work between the
roadway systems, the school, and the development community to cause that to happen
and sometimes that may force anyone of us to go off site and to make up a connection
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 8 of95
that simply makes greater sense for the community. And those discussions will always
be a little bit fun. But I think they are very worthwhile. I think with that, because I know
you're busy, I will stop and answer any of your questions. Very specific, as long as -- I
just prefer not to talk about any applications that are, you know, before either of us in a
global sense. If you have questions, I would gladly stand.
Rohm: Wendell, thank you very much. I'd like to speak for the Commission here just
for a moment, that the school district has been great to work with and we certainly
appreciate your input as we all work towards putting in good development to Meridian
and the surrounding area and I think you guys do a great job and it's right in line with the
same things that we do and just appreciate your input and with that I will turn it over and
-- anybody else have any questions, this is the time.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one. I have been curious what exactly the state
board of education or even the Meridian School District is doing at the state level, where
most of the legislation is set on how schools can be funded, as I understand it, and I'm
just curious what kind of lobbying activities are going on there, facilitated at the local
level.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, to broaden that question a little bit, there is
always an underlying discussion of impact fees. School districts are precluded by
Constitutional law to collect impact fees. It may not be necessarily the same piece of
law if you talk mitigation when you talk planned communities, although to the person
that has to write the check, impact and mitigation start feeling like the same thing. To
run quickly through that number right there, if you did a mitigation that development was
to pay for itself, if you take 25 million dollars and divide it by 1,792 homes, you get about
14,000 dollars per house as an impact fee. Okay. That's one extreme. The other
extreme is we bond one hundred percent for those improvements. So, what are we
doing legislatively? We look at funding for salaries, which is, you know, state
appropriation, which is one set of battles that the school district fights. The other is -- I
don't want to say going against property tax relief, but trying to make sure that property
tax relief that's being considered this year, keeps the school district whole. We have hit
the top of our plant facility levy. It doesn't matter how much we grow for the next three
years, we can only do 7.5 million dollars on our plant facility levy. We have hit the cap.
We have hit the cap on our property tax replacement, I think is the correct term. The
upshot of all of that is we are growing faster than we can get our hands on money. Our
valuation for tax purposes for this budget year is based upon the December 31, 2004,
tax value of the district, but yet we have to use that value for staffing calculations and
the children are already here for the growth that's occurred in the last year and a half.
So, we are seeking legislative help for that one year transition until the tax base catches
up to us. There is legislation afoot that it should be levied on the assessed value of the
property without deducting the homeowners exemption. We are constantly advocating
that commercial development may get a bit of an easy ride. As a district we are much
different, as you as a community are much different. We are primarily residential. We
don't have that other blend of commercial and residential. Probably the biggest
legislative problem that we face is there is 114 school districts in the state. We are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 9 of95
funded at number 103. We are the largest, we are the fastest growing, we got the
highest test scores, we are the most efficient. I don't know what that says about the
other 102, okay, but it is a struggle for us. Last year we had to pass a supplemental
levy. Our tax levy rate to keep your property taxes the same used to be all relegated to
bond and we did a supplemental levy for facilities. Last year we did one for additional
costs of operating of schools. So, that supplemental levy for the operating cost of the
schools last year reduced our ability to bond this year for facilities. So, there is constant
pressure to chip away at the tax base. Don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
So, we are actively involved in the legislature. If you're trying to get a hold of any of us
at the school district, until the legislature leaves town, we are pretty much -- mayor may
not be there. We are heavily involved. We try to partner with other school districts and,
quite frankly, the other school districts in the valley, that being Kuna, Nampa, Vallivue,
Caldwell, that are seeing the wave of growth that Meridian had three or four years ago
is now moving west. They are starting to appreciate some of those similar financial
concerns that we have been advocating. We hope to see some movement, but I don't
have any crystal ball to project what that outcome will be.
Newton-Huckabay: May I ask one more question? So, does the school district, then,
doesn't -- you know, land rights in this state playa huge impact on development and
has the school taken any steps to try to impact that set of legislation on personal
property rights?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, no, we, actually, you know, in favor of property
rights and arguably property rights in this state are some -- as much in favor of the
property owner as about anyplace in the country. We certainly have powers of
condemnation, you know, but you pay market value. Our goal is not to go out and
condemn property, our goal is to put the elementary schools within the subdivision for
safe walking in a way that makes sense for the developer, so he can make more money
and have a good built environment. Our goal today is to divert whatever funds we have
for site acquisitions to acquiring the 40 acre, 60 acre secondary parcels, because we
are having to compete dollar for dollar with the development community to buy that.
You know, there is land out there that's going for 150,000 dollars an acre. It's
conceivable that the land that the school is built on will cost more than the school in the
next three years. So, we are trying to divert our dollars to that. Our only go place to
find that money is by bonding. The biggest -- the scariest part about our growth is the
increase in tax base and the district to meet capacity that that growth is bringing to us is
diverting many many dollars that should be going to preventative maintenance activities
to deal with the increased capacity that the district needs. We are just breaking even,
but it's starting to tip that in the near future deferred maintenance will start to be a
problem for the school district. Then, we will be in the company of pretty much every
other school district in the state. So, money is tight. The only solution is, quite frankly,
today is more money and, yet, with that we have to go to the market and compete for
the land. Our goal is to do that efficiently.
Rohm: Thank you, Wendell.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 10 of95
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Borup: I think that discussion raises a couple of questions I would have. One on the
lobbying efforts. Has there been -- has the school district looked into advocating a level
tax levy? I know my school taxes on property I own in Meridian district has gone down
last year and that's because of the growth. And so it dilutes that and, then, taxes are
reduced. I think past studies have showed that a level tax levy would eventually
eliminate even need for any bonds and that had some action several years ago and I'm
surprised there hasn't been an effort to renew that effort to --
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I, frankly, don't know. I try not to get involved in
the tax legislative stuff. I'm kind of busy with the other things I have to do. But the
answer is, yes, our effective levy rate never quite makes it to our stated level rate. Now,
I don't know if that's answering your question --
Borup: Well, no, right now it's going down.
Bigham: Yeah.
Borup: If it just stayed level where it was originally at, it would eliminate the need for
bond elections.
Bigham: Well, certainly, to have that question answered -- it's a very fair question. I'm
sorry I can't answer it, that's just -- it's a whole other world. Eric Exline with the school
district does our legislative affairs stuff or Evy Kiler, our budget and finance officer,
could probably right off the tip of their tongue give you more information than you want
regarding that. It would be -- it's a fair question. I simply don't have the answer.
Borup: Okay. And the other thing you brought up was impact fees. Does the school
district have a stand on the current impact fee bill that's being proposed in the
legislature presently?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. Could you tell me what the status -- current
status of that is?
Borup: It's had its third reading and I think it's going to the house.
Bigham: Is that the one that's like $2.50 --
Borup: 2.50 per --
Bigham: -- per square foot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 11 of95
Borup: -- per square foot, which would -- you know, five to ten thousand dollars per
house that would be added directly to the cost, but -- and the thing that will probably
affect Meridian is -- my understanding is strictly be used basically for updating old
schools -- older schools firstly and, then, it could be used to reduce bond elections. The
question I would have, if -- if the voters in the districts see that they are going to have
that cost, how -- how open are they going to be to the next bond election.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that's our exact fear. If you're going to levy an
impact fee, you need to do it in a way that no long makes you dependent upon the
super bond majority.
Borup: Well, this one -- or at least spend the money related to impact of the growth.
Repairing old schools has nothing to do with new growth.
Bigham: Right. But if there was money available to provide new school growth for an
impact, it would free up bond indebtedness at another level to deal with the older
facilities and the deferred maintenance. Again, we have a number of legislative affair
committees. I can simply tell you that my perception is that any discussion of any type
of impact fee needs to be moderated with a commensurate decrease in the super
majority to 50 percent. If I'm a homeowner and I pay 2,000 dollars per lot or I pay
14,000 dollars per lot, contribution towards the school, I'm probably going to vote no on
next bond issue when someone asks me to vote for a bond. So, as we go down the
road on discussion of impact fees, let us level the playing field and have a simple
majority. And, then, I think in between you can have a much healthier situation, which is
a blend of impact fees, which gives you a -- kind of a reliable source of money, not this
hit and miss two year cycle and a blend of bond dollars that allows you to deal with the
fact that you need 40, 60, 150 million --
Borup: That's one more item for the lobbyist to work on.
Bigham: Yeah. It's going to be difficult. I hold out no hope for impact fees short term.
The bill that's before the House is -- I have no idea where that number came from at that
2.50. I can show you our numbers, I can tell you that the average household in
Meridian was about 1,700, 1,800 square feet. It's probably up closer to 21,22 hundred
square feet. But how you do that -- seems assessing it on a square foot basis -- the
larger the house you got, the fewer kids probably live there as you're retired, the more
money you pay, feels inequitable. I mean I don't have a good answer.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: I was just going to comment, Mr. Chairman that it's enlightening to
understand the sequence of events that a subdivision gets improved and, then, the
school district has to go look for or beg for an area of land that they can set aside for a
school, plus pay a higher fee for it. And, then, often, because the subdivision has
already been approved, the school's application is the last one in line and tips the
balance -- the last straw, so to speak, that causes the need for a traffic light or causes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 12 of95
the need for sidewalks and the school district ends up paying a hundred percent of that
cost. And as you pointed out, the schools don't cause the subdivisions, the subdivisions
cause the schools, and it impresses to me -- it seems a little unfair that the school
should end up bearing a hundred percent of that cost time after time after time and I
don't have a good solution for it, but I was impressed by that point.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, it is a topic of ongoing discussion with
ACHD. We historically get to a reasonable, fair, and equitable solution. It is a problem
unique to the secondary schools, specifically the high schools that generate so much
traffic. Hopefully there aren't many 6th, 7th, and 8th graders that drive to school at the
middle school and it's really kind of a moot point at the elementary schools, because,
again, the traffic is local, 10, 12 trips per day neighborhood. Our goal is to work with
ACHD to identify early on where our secondary sites are, so that the knowledge that
those schools and the traffic they generate are coming as ACHD and the development
community looks at the roadway improvements. It's a great plan, it's predicated on our
ability to get out there and buy our secondary school sites ahead of the subdivision
growth itself. That's kind of risky, because I'm not sure where all the various planning
and zoning agencies are going to approve development within, you know, their area of
impacts. So, it's a balancing act. It is all about communication and it's gotten
substantially better between all jurisdictions and agencies in the last year. So, I
appreciate your concern and it's just to be mindful of it.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Rohm: Wendell, thank you for a good presentation and we certainly appreciate all your
efforts and I'm sure we will be seeing you lots more.
Bigham: Next week.
Rohm: At this time is when we start hearing our public hearings and one of the things
that we try to do is we try to give each project it's due consideration and listen to all
public testimony in its entirety and our agenda tonight has expanded beyond what we
are capable of hearing tonight and with that being said, we have talked to a couple of
the applicants and the first thing that I would like to do is let the public know that we are
going to continue Item CUP 06-002, the Sun belt Equipment Rental application and AZ
05-067 and CUP 05-060 for Casa Meridiana to a later date and so if there is anybody
here that had expected to hear testimony and make testimony on either of those
projects, we are not going to hear those tonight and it's my recommendation to the
balance of the Commission that we continue the Sunbelt Equipment Rental to our
regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006, and Casa Meridiana to March 2nd,
2006. And so if I can get a motion to continue those two items, I would appreciate that.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, even though we adopted the agenda earlier, I would be happy
to move these two items forward and beginning with Item 21, I move that we continue
CUP -- actually, you haven't opened them, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page ]3 0£95
Rohm: Let me get--
Zaremba: Then, we can deal with them -
Item 21 :
Public Hearing: CUP 06-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
an Equipment Rental, Sales and Service Business on 2.28 acres in a C-G
zone for Sunbelt Equipment Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments,
LLC - 355 and 399 East Franklin Road:
Rohm: I will open CUP 06-002, Sunbelt Equipment Rental.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the Public Hearing for CUP 06-002
relating to Sun belt Equipment Rental to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th,
2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 06-002 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22:
Public Hearing: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9
acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential
zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High
Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects -
1777 Victory Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-050,
both relating to Casa Meridiana.
Item 23:
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: I move that we continue Items AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, both relating to
Casa Meridiana -- neither of us are getting that name right, probably.
Rohm: Yeah. Probably.
Zaremba: Something like Casa Meridiana. To our regularly scheduled meeting of
March 2, 2006.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 14 of95
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: All right. Now, before we open our first Public Hearing for testimony, I would
like to make a few comments. The general procedure for opening and taking testimony
on an item is we, first of all, ask the staff for their report. The staff is there to present the
application's project in terms of how it affects the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance.
They tell us if they are in compliance or if there is things that need to be changed, but,
basically, their position is neutral. After the staff has made their presentation, then, we
give the applicant an opportunity to present the project from their perspective. That's,
basically, their sales pitch. After the applicant has made their presentation, then, it is,
then, open to the public for your testimony. At that time the testimony that we receive
as it relates to those specific projects -- as you make your presentation it's best that
you're able to speak to either Comprehensive Plan or ordinance as you speak to the
project. And not necessarily do you have to use either the Comp Plan or ordinance, but
it's best if your comments tie back to that, because that gives us something to validate
testimony. The second thing is many times a group of people will have a single
spokesman, like a president of a homeowners association, that will speak to a project.
And if that's the case, what I will do is I will ask for a show of hands for those people that
that individual is speaking for and, then, unless that -- a spokesman has omitted
something that you feel is pertinent, then, you're actually relinquishing your time to that
spokesman and they are given extra time at the mike.
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-060 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Ada
County Highway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County
Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road:
Rohm: So, with that being said, I would like to open the Public Hearing -- continued
Public Hearing from January 19th, 2006, for AZ 05-060, relating to the Ada County
Highway District Ustick Road property and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an
annexation request only at this time to a -- from Ada County RUT district to a general
commercial C-G district. The property site is located approximately a quarter mile to the
east of Ustick-Eagle Road intersection and this one will relate to several other projects.
There are two other projects in the area tonight. With this annexation the -- ACHD owns
the property, but they will be doing a future split of the property in order to sell the
remainder that they do not wish to continue. This area is primarily residential at this
time, but this portion here south of the site has been annexed into the City of Meridian
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 15 of95
and services to Red Feather Estates Subdivision to the south and east, as well as the
portion that did the attachment has not been developed. It is currently a C-G parcel that
has been bound by a development agreement. The future collector road system would
connect from Ustick all the way through to Fairview approximately to where Records
Drive is across from the Meridian Crossroads development. This collector system
would primarily be developer funded, but ACHD needed to acquire this property in order
to make sure that it was -- started off in the right direction. However, the property is
approximately 170 feet wide. A collector road system is an approximate 65 foot wide
roadway and so they will be doing the division in order to split the property in the future.
Since they are a governing body, this would be a piece of property that would come up
to the highest bidder. Now, with that property, since we know that there will be a
remainder that would be bound by development agreement, the development
agreement of this site would provide for a minimum of two cross-access points. We
anticipate one to be in the middle of the site somewhere and the second one to be at
the southern property boundary. With that, the next hearing item also is bound by those
same development conditions. This is pretty straight forward and I guess I will stand for
questions. Staff is recommending annexation with the development agreement as
stated in the staff report.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Moe: No questions.
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like the applicant to come forward, please.
McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay,
Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm here this evening
representing Ada County Highway District. We submitted the application for annexation
and rezone of this particular piece of property. As Joe indicated, we have requested -- I
think I wore it out Tuesday night. The particular piece of property in question is
approximately 4.92 acres in size. It's only 169 feet wide -- or 166 feet wide. I'm sorry.
And, then, it's extremely deep north-south. Ada County Highway District ended up
owning this particular piece of property, because when they decided to expand and
rebuild that section of Ustick Road, the property owner would not sell any right of way
and they said if you want the right of way you need to purchase the whole parcel. So,
they ended up with the entire parcel in order to facilitate the expansion of Ustick and the
acquisition of the necessary right of way. It is the desire of the highway district to,
obviously, do a one time split of this property, therefore, allowing the property to be C-G
and potentially be utilized with the adjoining property to the west in some type of future
development. They also want to retain 60 feet along the eastern boundary here, which
would be utilized for a collector roadway that would come down into the interior of the
section and would link up with Allys Way, which is the signalized intersection at Fairview
up by Sportsman's Warehouse and Lone Star? Isn't that -- yeah, right there at the
corner. They believe that this will, obviously, alleviate, you know, some of the
congestion that we are seeing on Eagle Road and Ustick by creating what we typically
call a continuous collector that comes out from -- goes from one arterial to another to a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 16 of95
signalized intersection. We have reviewed the staff report and I think we are in
agreement. There was one thing on page number three, just in the summary, we
wanted to make sure that it was clear. It talked about no direct lot access to the future
roadway. I believe that should have read no direct lot access to Ustick, other than the
future roadway. I think that's what the intent was. This roadway will be a 50 foot -- 60
foot wide right of way, with a 46 back to back. It will be three lanes with a bike lane.
ACHD, it's my understanding at this time, doesn't know when that will be installed, but
that is the plan. In reviewing the staff report on page six, bulletin number six, it says a
street buffer constructed in accordance with city code shall be installed along Ustick and
the future collector roadway. It is the desire of ACHD to install a landscape buffer along
the collector roadway, but only on the west side. The reason being is, obviously, with
166 feet in width, where we are keeping 60 feet for future continuous collector going
southbound, they are only left with 106 feet of usable area. Secondly, the lots in
Perkins-Brown Subdivision, which are located here and take access currently off of
Duane Drive, are 640 feet, approximately, in depth. At some point in time those lots,
being the fact that they are very long and about 200 feet wide, some are a little
narrower, could potentially redevelop. They would have access to that collector for
redevelopment purposes. All of the homes are pretty much located along that Duane
Drive corridor and so they -- most of them have some pastures or yards or so forth. We
ask that the Commission take into consideration that this particular parcel is
interconnected with the property to the west. I think it's call Una Mas. We would like
our application to stay in sync with the adjoining application, since they are interrelated
in a vehicular fashion. The district has been working with these property owners to get
some cross-access for them, so that they can have access to this collector roadway
and, therefore, alleviate congestion on Ustick or Eagle Roads. Do you have any
questions?
Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Before you sit down, I'd like to ask staff if you have any
objections to the two changes that she's suggested to the staff report.
Guenther: Well, staff has drafted the staff -- or the development agreement conditions
in accordance to the ordinance and staff would not find that the -- eliminating the
eastern landscape buffer would be a severe encumbrance on any of the properties
accessing that, since sewer and water would, actually, be closer to their properties as
well, as well as easier to access than having to get through a common lot, essentially, in
a future subdivision or something for ACHD to maintain. So, no, staff would not have
any problems amending the development agreement to require only the western portion
to be a landscape buffer, but I would recommend that you hear public testimony prior to
and taking that into consideration.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Pagel70f95
Zaremba: On that same subject, I would just clarify one thing. It's ACHD's intent to
build that collector right to the east property line?
McKay: Yes, sir. It is their intent.
Zaremba: So, if there is no landscape buffer there, the edge of it or the curbing -- back
of curbing or something would go right along the other people's property line?
McKay: Yes, sir. Which would, then, obviously, facilitate future access for them. Also,
one thing I did fail to mention is Summer's Funeral Home is located adjoining that and,
then, the LDS church has a facility there. A ward is there. ACHD -- it is their intent to,
obviously, try to convince those property owners to take access off this new collector
and eliminate some driveways out there to Ustick and Duane Drive.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Moe: Becky, would you go over your first comment? Is that page two or page three?
McKay: Page three, sir.
Borup: Yeah. I had the same question.
Moe: Could you go over that one more time?
McKay: I believe it referenced -- last sentence on it says there will be no direct lot
access to the future road and a system of cross-access points or internal streets will be
established by ACHD. I think Joe intended to say there will be no direct lot access to
Ustick Road, except for the future road and a system of cross-access points or internal
streets will be established by ACHD. Is that not correct, Joe?
Borup: Is there any restriction on individual lot access on a collector in commercial? In
a residential you cannot have a driveway access onto a collector, I believe, but that
doesn't apply to commercial, then?
McKay: Commercial collectors I think function a little bit differently, but there would be,
obviously, offsets required. One hundred seventy-five feet between -- edge to edge, I
believe.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you, Becky. At this time it's open to the public for public testimony and
we do not have anybody that has signed up, but you're welcome to come forward, sir.
And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Belcher: Fitzroy A. Belcher, 2920 Duane Drive. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm
here tonight to represent the people on Duane Drive and very much opposed to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 18 0£95
doing away with the landscaping on the east side" of this right of way. Becky stated that
in the future we may want to subdivide. As it stands today, the covenants say we can't
go less than two and a half acres, so there is no way to break those lots down and have
that right against our properties. We'd like to see landscaping on both sides. We can't
break -- we can't subdivide.
Borup: Sir, we see projects all the time coming in before the city that that has
happened.
Belcher: I'm sorry?
Borup: We see projects all the time that are developed. So, it is quite common. And
the owners in that association can amend those bylaws. But you realize that if they do
put a landscaping buffer there that you would not have any access at all?
Belcher: Yeah. We don't need the access. We don't want the access.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: I think one of the other things that I'd like to point out to you that may change
your view a little bit is this road is being fully developed by this applicant, as opposed to,
typically, a developer will only develop two-thirds of the road and, then, leave the
balance of the road for the adjacent property owner, the people on the other side, to
develop at some point in time down the road. And in this particular case the road will be
curb to curb and will be completed and there will be no obligations of the property
owners on that side to complete any additional roadway. So, it's -- from my perspective,
it's almost like there is a little bit of give and take here inasmuch as the county is willing
to fully develop the road and the fact of all of your homes sit back significantly from the
roadway, it's almost like the property in itself offers its own buffer if you -- if you can
appreciate that.
Belcher: We have about 600 feet from the lots where the houses are back to the back
property line. However, most of those are all fenced now and they are all -- in pasture.
Almost everybody has stock. And I don't know what the traffic up and down there is
going to do with the stock. Going to bother them. I don't know.
Rohm: Yeah. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Is there anybody else that would like
to testify on this application? Okay. At this time I'd like to ask the balance of the
Commission if they have got any final thoughts on this application prior to moving
forward.
Baird: Mr. Chair, it might be appropriate at this time to allow the applicant rebuttal.
Rohm: Okay. Becky, would you like to come up and -- okay. Any questions of the
applicant by members of the Commission?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 19 of95
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. And, actually, this may either be for staff or for
the city attorney. At a joint Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council meeting or
workshop, rather, that we had a few weeks ago now, we discussed development
agreements and the lag time between when the development agreement was finished
and prepared for the applicant's signature and the requirement for them to return it
signed. We did not discuss what is on page six of this staff report under analysis, where
it says the applicant shall contact the city attorney with 18 months -- within 18 months to
initiate this process. Of course, the initiation of process has to happen long before the
signature part of it. It just seems to me that that's an extraordinarily long time. I realize
we have probably had that condition for a long time, but if the goal is to finish the
annexation of a property, the annexation is not complete until the development
agreement is complete. If we are going to discuss that there should be a shorter time
for the applicant to return it after the city attorney has prepared it, I think there should be
a shorter time in the initiation.
Rohm: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I was not in attendance at that joint meeting, but Mr.
Nary was, and I'm not sure where that 18 month period came from. I suspect that this
particular applicant is motivated and organized and we will see them calling us right
away, because I think they want to get this taken care of and maybe they can make a
commitment as far as what that time frame would be and we could re-insert that time
period and I would also probably have the Commissioner -- or the Commission inquire
of Mr. Guenther if he has any idea where the 18 month time period came from. It looks
like we have got a technical thing going on over there, though.
Guenther: Mr. Chair, Craig is trying to look it up. I believe that section came from the
portion of the UDC which sets time frames on annexations and platting for expiration
and 18 months is when they have to complete within that time and I believe it is stated
in 11-5-B, which is under for the expiration provisions. However, we are trying to locate
an ordinance to verify that for you.
Rohm: I think in this particular application it's almost a moot point, because it's going to
take place way prior to the 18 months. So, I'm not sure that we will be bumping up
against that anyway.
Zaremba: And, Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily certain that we need to solve that
for this applicant either. I think it's going to be -- but I think as a boilerplate issue, again,
since it does show up in other applications, if staff would promise to look into it and
discuss it another time, I would be satisfied.
Rohm: A point well taken.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I would just like to confirm that we will look it up. It doesn't look like
we have the UDC. We got a new computer this week and they didn't put our UDC on
the computer it doesn't look like. So, I don't have access to that. I would just
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 20 of95
recommend that we strike that 18 months in case it isn't in the UDC, because as you
noted, they will probably comply with that anyways and, if not, we aren't requiring
something that isn't required by code. So, just to be safe, I'd recommend that we just
strike out that time period at this time and they need to comply with the UDC. So,
whatever it says they have to comply with anyway, so -- and we will look into that.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, if we just take out the words within 18 months, the whole rest of the
sentence still makes sense, so -- okay. Thank you. The applicant has been nodding
her head yes. Do we need that testimony on the record?
Borup: No. Let's just do it.
Rohm: I think we are clear on that. ! think at this time --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-060, Ada
County Highway District Ustick Road property.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we close AZ 05-060. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Newton-Huckabay: Whoa. I have got a question.
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be pushy.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess I got to speak up.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I was just trying to refresh my memory regarding the buffer on the
east side. Isn't there a buffer to the north? I mean --
Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that would be the Ustick Road buffer,
which will be a 35-foot landscape buffer to the north, which would -- which is written into
there -- into the development agreement.
Newton-Huckabay: No. Isn't there an east -- the road north of that. This is the
signalized one right behind Lowe's; right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 21 of95
Guenther: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: The one north of it, doesn't that have a buffer on the east side of
the collector that's already built out? Whatever -- Heather Meadows or --
Guenther: Yes.
Zaremba: If I can interpret your question, we are talking about where the center line of
the two different roads would align; right? Depending on whether there is a buffer or
not. That's the question. Do they align.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Depending on whether there is a buffer or not.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. And I guess that's -- because as I -- I don't think they will,
but --
Guenther: Mr. Commissioner, Chairman, Mr. Inselman from ACHD is in the audience
and he indicated that there is a land use -- or landscape buffer on the other side of the
road as well.
Baird: Mr. Chair, if we could reopen the hearing and get Mr. Inselman on the record, I
think that would be the best course of action at this time, since there is an open
question.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to rescind closing the Public Hearing and reopen it for
AZ 05-060 and I would note that nobody has left the room since we closed it.
Rohm: Okay. Is there a second?
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we reopen AZ 05-060. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I complete my statement before you call him up here?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. My question is this: If there is a buffer and the streets
wouldn't line up, which I didn't think that they did without a buffer, I would think that we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 22 of95
would need to have a buffer on the east side of the property and so that the street would
line up.
Zaremba: Good point.
Newton-Huckabay: And that it would look like -- if for no other reason -- I mean that
esthetically it looks like it's a continuous flow. And I have completed my statement.
Rohm: Okay. Would Mr. Inselman like to come forward, please.
Inselman: Commission, Gary Inselman with Ada County Highway District. The
intersection is already constructed with the road project that we just did with the
developers at Lowe's and the other side of Eagle and the roadways do align at Ustick
and, then, it is the desire to swing the road to the east to allow access to the Summer's
Funeral Home and the church and, then, continue the road straight south for the
distance that those parcels require.
Borup: The radiuses are already in, there is no curb cuts to do anything; is that correct?
Right. The intersection is already there.
Rohm: So, you will just be continuing the existing roadway to the south.
Zaremba: Well, the part that I heard is that it would curve. There would be a slight
curve to the east to -- somewhere south of Ustick it -- okay. At Ustick it aligns with the
road across the street and that requires some bit of landscape buffer to do, but some
distance south of Ustick the road would shift slightly to the east and eliminate that
landscape buffer for the purpose of connecting to the two properties that agree to
connect, but, then, it would continue along that property line from then on.
Rohm: On south.
Zaremba: Oh, there is a drawing to my right. I was looking the other way.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, this is, actually, from the Una Mas project, which we will hear
next.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: This is their drawing, their rendition of the ACHD intersection.
Zaremba: And is that a fairly accurate depiction, as far as you're concerned, Mr.
Inselman?
Inselman: Something to that effect, yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 23 of 95
Rohm: It appears to be very clean cut to me. Thank you, sir. Any other questions of
Mr. Inselman before we move forward? Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay,
do you have anymore questions about the buffer to the east -- or to the south I guess it
would be. No. To the east. To the east.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, isn't -- the Summer's Funeral Home sits on Ustick, so where
is the access off of the proposed street? It's right there? So, it's going to access at the
back of their property?
Rohm: I believe that's the intent, to take access off of this new roadway.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess to me it doesn't make sense, other than the mere fact
that I guess you have got many more feet of land to sell on the other side, so -- but --
Rohm: I think that might have been the point.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm just stating my opinion. I would have put the landscape
buffer all along it, but --
Borup: Well, it does allow -- as was stated, it does allow direct access to that property.
Newton-Huckabay: To?
Borup: To go to that collector. Yes. Someone leaving Summer's would not have to go
down to Ustick and down to Eagle and back to Fairview, they go directly to Fairview.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, we don't have to belabor this any longer.
Borup: That's what I was thinking.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for one final time on AZ
05-060, Ada County Highway District Ustick Road property.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close -- reclose AZ 05-060. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, are you ready to move with a motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 24 of95
Zaremba: I am ready. I was trying to find the third place where I need to make a
comment and I have found it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-
060, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, with the
following modifications: On page three, paragraph I, the very last sentence would be
changed to read as follows: There will be no direct lot access to Ustick Road, except for
the future road -- and, then, the sentence continues the same as it was. On page six of
the staff report, item ten, the last paragraph introducing the bullets, there is an
underlying statement that says the applicant shall contact the city attorney. In that
sentence I would strike the words within 18 months and leave the rest of the sentence
the same. In one of the bullets following that, the bullet actually begins on page six and
continues onto page seven, I would add a sentence to that bullet that says that a
landscape buffer will not be required along the east side of the future collector roadway.
End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-060 with modifications to the staff report. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-061 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una
Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East Ustick Road
Rohm: One down. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from
January 19th, 2006, for AZ 05-061 for the project Una Mas and begin with the staff
report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Una Mas
annexation request is, again, just an annexation request. What we have tonight is a
9.55 acre site that would be requesting annexation from RUT to C-G. With this site it is
also mostly agricultural at this time. Currently, there is two main issues with the site.
One is that ACHD on Ustick Road has not provided them with an access point -- a
future access point to Ustick with the current roadway configuration. The access would
be full access immediately off site to the west. And, again, from the future roadway that
we just had discussed, which is why the extensive portions in the development
agreement address cross-access and vehicular circulation between all these parcels.
That is the main concern that staff has with this site. Secondly, that the southern
portion of this property staff is recommending to ACHD that a 42 foot wide road system,
half of it be reserved, not dedicated, to provide for a future either public or a collector --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 25 of95
commercial collector roadway. That is to be determined by ACHD. Staff does feel that
there is a severe need for traffic to -- especially commercial vehicular traffic, which will
be loading trucks, semi trailers, and such, to not take access to Ustick at this point. So,
cross-access across this parcel, probably at the southern boundary for a full roadway,
would be desirable in order to allow for loading traffic, large truck traffic from any
commercial properties in that area. Keep in mind that the property to the west is zoned
general commercial, which we will also see tonight and the property to the south is
zoned general commercial, which we shall see sometime in the future. Staff doesn't
anticipate this entire site to be retail type of commercial uses, but possibly office and
additional residential uses that would be able to take an access off of the commercial
road with another type of future roadway system. And that would just be for a
reservation of that future roadway system, so that it is available for any future
development needs that may arise. Staff foresees that there would be those needs,
therefore, that will be written into the development agreement. The second point would
be that a cross-access road would be designed to a private street standard, with a
minimum of 24 foot wide paved surface, with a five foot wide landscape buffer and a five
foot wide sidewalk for pedestrian access in the east-west direction in order to provide
for some sort of a mid block or mid development connection. We would foresee this
parcel would come in as either -- well, two to five lots for a preliminary plat and the
cross-access could be provided at the lot line, which would connect the parcel to the
west to the future collector roadway. That one, as shown in this rendering, could be
designed as a slightly meandering type of a roadway, but staff feels that no parking
shall be allowed or backing out on that roadway in order to facility vehicular movement
between the portion of the property west of the site and the future collector roadway
system. Currently, this site here, there will be -- Article H of the UDC does not allow for
access points to Eagle Road. So, therefore, the east-west connections are paramount
to the success of the commercial operations in this area, which is why the extensive
development agreement would be required. In my discussions with the applicant, they
feel that these cross-accesses would be -- they should be able to design around them
and, therefore, staff is recommending approval of this site, with the cross-accesses as
listed in the development agreement requirement of the staff report. I will stand for
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Any questions of staff? Not at this
time. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Rosin: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Jon Rosin, Hansen-Rice, 1717 Chisholm
Drive, Nampa, Idaho. We are in agreement with the staff report, with the clarification
that we would like to also see that if they are asking for the 42-foot area along the south
of the property, if that's truly where it's located, we are good with that. Along this --
along this edge right here. We have had discussions with this applicant, as well as
ACHD, and we believe we have come up with two access -- you know, we have come
up in agreement with at least two access points -- cross-access points across our
property line this way and we are --
Moe: Can you show me the other one with --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 26 of95
Rosin: From this drawing?
Moe: I understand the one on the south side. I'm just curious --
Rosin: Yeah. This one right here is the 42-foot that they are requesting and we have
come up -- we had a meeting with ACHD and the applicant to the west and we are
showing right now somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 feet or so from Ustick having
some kind of a meandering access -- cross-access to get through our site over and,
then, another one down here that lines up with theirs that would also meander through
the site. Our goal is, you know, to have offices, retail space, and, you know, we don't
want -- I mean we have purposely aligned these lots up so that people would have to
meander to keep the speeds down. We really don't want a freeway going through the
sites where we have, you know, the offices and a lot of people who are working there.
Moe: So, you're anticipating that you would have three cross-access points off the west
side?
Rosin: Yes. We are okay with that. We are willing to -- you know, we are willing to
work with them. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Actually, I would ask Mr. Rosin a question if I could. Since you have been
talking to ACHD and the other applicant and somewhat together, I guess, do you have
any greater comfort that it may be you that acquires this piece of property that will be
the remainder of ACHD?
Rosin: Not at this time. We don't know. We sure -- we would sure like to pick that up,
but price will dictate. You know, it would definitely help us in our development, but it
depends on, you know, what happens when it goes up for sale.
Zaremba: Okay. I assume that has to be a public process.
Rosin: It does have to be a public process.
Zaremba: There may be other bidders and so forth.
Rosin: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open it for public testimony. We don't have any additional
individuals signed up for this, but at this time I will open it to public testimony.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 27 of95
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing for AZ 05-061.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-061.
All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-061 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-061. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's not part of the motion, but I would support the request of
one of the applicants that AZ 05-060 and 05-061 stay together. That they go onto the
City Council at the same time.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that's appropriate.
Zaremba: Just a scheduling question for staff.
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R 1 to R-8, R-15
and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2,2006: RZ 05-019 Request
for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for
Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935
North Eagle Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 28 of95
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 single family residential lots, 22 multi-
family residential lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots for Bienville
Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle
Road:
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: CUP 05-052
Request for Conditional Use Permit for Mixed Use Regional project within
300 feet of a residence for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff
Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the public hearings for AZ 05-057, RZ 05-
019, PP 05-059 and CUP 05-052. All of these relate to the Bienville Square Subdivision
and before we take any testimony it's only being reopened to discuss the perimeter of
the project and the fencing and pathways. It's not to take testimony on the project itself,
other than as it relates to that -- that boundary. So, with that being said, I'd like to ask
staff for the staff report, please.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. With this
application you tabled this item to here. Some of the discussion was there was open
questions about the southern portion of this boundary, as well as the western property,
the fencing and the design layout and such of the multi-use pathway along that area.
Since, then, the applicant, as you have multiple letters from the applicant and staff, that
they have gone back to the neighbors and met with these property owners along the
southern boundary. They have come to an agreement that the Finch Lateral shall
remain open. You should have received a site plan stamped received by the City of
Meridian Planning on February 13th. The staff report that you received I believe on the
14th of February is the date that -- the final date, which should include a condition of
1.2, which -- trying to get Craig to flip this. The applicant did bring this layout back to us.
This is the Finch Lateral ditch, which would be approximately a 30-foot wide ditch, and
they -- Nampa-Meridian has asked for an 18 foot wide maintenance pathway. The
fence line would include a six foot wrought iron fence with the multi-use pathway
between that fence line -- or that fence line and the development. Again, the staff report
does indicate that there would be one other condition just referencing the site plan that
was received on February 13th, which includes this drawing that I'm showing you on
here. Staff actually supports this -- this change to the -- I guess it's the master site plan
now that has been submitted, as well as the applicant has submitted a new fencing plan
for the western property boundary, which would be of a composite sort of a nature with
stone and composite materials, which would be to the liking of the neighbors. The
applicant has indicated that the neighbors are in support of this -- of these design
changes. With that, there should be two letters in your packet of support of these
designs and staff is recommending approval with the staff report that you received this
week.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff by the Commission?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 29 of95
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. If you would take the current drawing off and
show the one that was there before. Just to clarify, since I wasn't clear and maybe --
maybe I'm the only one, but maybe others aren't clear. But to make certain, orienting to
this drawing, this would be Carol Subdivision on this side and this would be Bienville on
this side?
Guenther: That is correct.
Zaremba: Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. That was it.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff?
Moe: Joe, I guess one thing I do have, I understand that the neighbors and the
applicant have kind of worked this all out and we have the plan and whatnot, but have
you received anything else in regards to -- you know, other than the master plan here,
as far as explanation for the fencing and whatnot or are we just supposed to take that
off the master -- this revised master plan? I bring that up, because based upon the
letters that we did receive. When the applicant comes up I'll have a couple questions in
regards to some of the --
Guenther: I have not received any other correspondence with neighbors, outside of
what is in the packets.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant, please, come forward.
Guenther: The copies that the applicant is handing out are the copies that I had up on
the presentation. We received them via e-mail I believe on Tuesday as well.
Unger: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, Bob Unger with Redcliff Development. Our
address is 7871, Suite 125, East State Street in Meridian -- Eagle. Getting my places
mixed up. What I have just passed out to you reflects what staff has on the board here.
If you go to the second page, that is a site -- or a view from the -- of the pathway as we
are proposing with the trees on either side of it and the wrought iron fencing on the left-
hand side. That would be a view looking west. If you go to the next sheet, this is a view
looking north, which would be towards the condos that we are proposing. The next
sheet is just kind of an overhead -- somewhat of an overhead angle view, once again,
looking west -- or east. Northeast. Which also, once again, shows the condos and the
possible commercial building structures that would be there. And in all these we are
showing the pathway with the fencing and the trees on either side of the pathway. And,
then, the last picture that we have in there is a shot from the southeast corner of the
project, in other words, there at the corner there of Eagle Road and just south of the
canal itself. This is the -- for the Finch Lateral itself, this is what we reviewed. We met
with the property owners twice since we last were before you folks. We met last
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 30 of95
Saturday morning -- one of the property owners was nice enough to let us use his
home. And, then, the Wednesday before that, Wednesday last week, we met on site
with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, Bill Hansen, and the property owners along the
southern border, to discuss, you know, what we could or could not do within the
easement of the Finch Lateral. And what we brought before you this evening is the
conclusion of those discussions and negotiations, where the Finch Lateral will be left
open. There is an 18-foot -- there will be an 18-foot separation between the top of the
bank over to the fence area. This would be allowed -- would allow Nampa-Meridian
sufficient room to get in and out of there to do any work on the ditch if they need to.
Small shrubs are permitted within that 18 foot strip. The -- our landscape architect kind
of pushed them -- kind of bowed them out a little bit. Those will need to be up against
the fence. And, then, we had the wrought iron fence and, then, we have another four
feet between the wrought iron fence and the pathway, which allows for tree planting
every 35 feet. And, then, we have a seven foot pathway. And on the other side of the
pathway we have some larger trees that will be placed at 35-foot on center, but they will
be spaced in between these front trees to give a good visual barrier throughout the
project. And as I have indicated, the property owners to the south of the project have
indicated that they are okay with this plan. In fact, we have modified it since our plan --
or since our discussions on Monday based upon their recommendation. So, this is what
they asked us to do and that's what we are bringing before you this evening. If you will
go to the -- the next one is for the west -- western boundary landscape and fence detail.
Zaremba: Joe has that one, too.
Guenther: I was looking for a picture.
Unger: Oh. Sorry. No pictures on this on. What we are showing here is -- our original
fence that we were proposing along this western boundary was -- actually, was going to
be a pillar and cedar solid fence. The neighbors did not like that. They felt that the
cedar was not sufficient. They had concerns about the durability. What we are coming
back with is this is actually -- is not cedar, this is Trex, which is a composite that's made
of recycled plastic and wooden mixture and it comes in some different colors. What we
are showing here and in our picture is more towards a cedar-looking color and we have
shown this to a couple of the neighbors along the western border. They seem to feel
comfortable with that. That's what we are proposing what we want to go forward with.
It's a very durable product. In fact, it -- we have done an awful lot of research and as
has neighbors -- the neighbors over there have also done some research. The
information we are coming up with is that it has anywhere from a -- some of the product
it says a ten year warranty. What we found has a 25 year warranty. So, it's a very
durable, very solid product. And that's what we are all looking for is something that's
durable and solid, a product that's going to last awhile and, in addition, the fence itself
would continue to be always maintained by the property owners association, as would
any of the landscaping within the project. And just to show the detail here, this would be
the fence that we are proposing. We have a bermed area here and trees every 35 feet.
That's within a 15 foot section. Once, again, a seven foot path and, then, another eight
feet for additional trees. And, then, the properties that would abut this within our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Conunission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 310£95
development, they would be allowed to have an iron fence along this portion of it. And
that is within our 30 foot landscape buffer that is shown along our plan. So, with that I
think I can conclude the presentation, because that's what you instructed us to do and
that's what we have done. And I'll take any questions that you may have.
Rohm: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Any questions of the applicant?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Unger, as far as your renderings that you have submitted to us tonight in
regards to the condominiums, basically with the windows facing to the west, is that all
the windows we are going to see in the condos facing to the west?
Unger: I'm sorry, I didn't -- I think I understood you, but --
Moe: The picture right here as far as your window location and whatnot facing --
Unger: South you mean?
Moe: South. I'm sorry.
Unger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moe, yes, those particular units, they do have windows.
Those are bedrooms and we have to have windows in there. You know, we will try to
put in sufficient landscaping and buffering to somewhat, you know, block their view.
But, once again, I think just to remind you --
Moe: Mr. Unger, Let me -- what I was going to tell you is I think this is more than
adequate.
Unger: Oh. Okay.
Moe: I wasn't looking for less.
Unger: Okay. I'll quit right there, then.
Moe: Another thing, are you in receipt of the letter from Betty Rosso to the
Commission?
Unger: No, we haven't received that.
Moe: Do we have other copies? I think it's important that he get a copy of this, because
there were comments made within her letter that I just kind of want -- maybe after we
have the other public testimony, you may answer to -- you know, she makes mention of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 32 of95
your meeting on Saturday, the 11th. I think she still has some concerns and then -- so,
maybe you can kind of review that and answer to that.
Unger: Okay.
Moe: Okay? That's all my comments.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, on the treatment of the ditch and pathway and that stuff along
your southern property, I assume your property line is the center of the ditch, which
means that you're responsible for maintenance north of that, including what would be
the easement between the ditch and your fence and my question is should that be in a
separate parcel maintained by the homeowners association or how is that 18 foot wide
strip between the ditch and the fence going to be maintained?
Unger: Mr. Chair, what is -- the greenery that you see here is going to be more of a
longer buffalo-type grass. In our discussions Bill Hensen, he was all right with that. He
was also comfortable with our maintaining this 18 foot strip. We will have to have a
license agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in order to do that and it
will be identified as part of the landscape area that will be maintained by the property
owners association. So, it will be incorporated into our CC&Rs.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. And my other question, actually, is to staff while you're
here. If the pathway is to serve as part of the regional pathway, isn't there a
requirement that that be ten feet wide?
Guenther: That is correct. We were looking at that just now and Craig -- I was going to
bring that up as a point of clarification. The condition 1.1.2 does indicate that the
pathway needs to be compliant with UDC sections for regional multi-use pathways,
which have their own fencing and landscaping standards, which also has -- the
construction standards of the pathway needs to be ten foot wide. But with the additional
15 feet of landscaping, the applicant should be able to accommodate that.
Zaremba: He nods his head yes. The rattle doesn't show up on the public record.
Unger: Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, staff and I discussed this a couple of days ago
and staff was going to check on that for me and we hadn't communicated since then.
That was Tuesday?
Guenther: I believe that was when you originally made the submittal, yes.
Unger: But at that time he informed me that it may have to be wider and we don't have
a problem with that.
Zaremba: And you can work it out to be the ten feet?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 33 of95
Unger: Absolutely.
Zaremba: That was my other question. That's it.
Rohm: Thank you. At this time I will open it to public testimony and start with Billy
Knorpp.
Knorpp: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am -- my name is Billy Knorpp. I live on
2972 Leslie Drive. So, I'm one of the seven lots that back up on the south side of this
development. We did meet with Mr. Unger twice, as he indicated, and we did come to
a -- what seems to be a good agreement. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points from
my point of view of what I would want to make sure either gets into the record or
becomes part of what would happen and that is -- I guess the first one is sort of a
question, I guess. Mr. Unger believes that a see-through fence is required. We would,
of course, prefer it not be a see-through fence, if it were possible to put something along
there, but I think it's part of the code associated with this path. But if that was possible
to be a solid fence, we would prefer it to be a solid fence, rather than the see-through
fence that is now planned. The other is the larger -- the fact that they're going to put in
landscaping, which is great, I mean he's agreed to put in twice as many trees, actually,
as I think are required. What we'd like is the trees be big enough so that they are not
saplings, you know, they are two feet high and they take 25 years to grow up into
anything that's useful, that they be reasonable size trees put in at the time, so that when
the -- and we didn't discuss this, but I believe Mr. Unger would agree to this. We
haven't really -- it isn't something that came up in the meetings that we had. He's been
very agreeable in helping us to resolve this -- the differences between us. So, I can't
speak for him, obviously, but I just wanted to put that in the record that, hopefully, the
trees will be at least five gallon or so size, so that they will grow enough rapidly to cover
up the area. And the other issue is, again, Mr. Unger agreed that they would move the
roads and other obstructions around, so that the -- he took out the drawing, but that
drawing that shows the profile of the path, that that profile would, actually, continue
everywhere. The original site plan didn't leave enough space in some parts of the path
that you could actually put those trees and other shrubbery on the north side of the path
and so as long as they have agreed and they continue to have enough space there to
put that line of trees in, then, I think it will all work fine. So, those are, really, the only
things. Just some clarification more than anything, of the agreement that we did come
to. So, I think that's all. All the other things were discussed in the other meeting. We
still have concerns about traffic, but that's not a topic to be discussed here at this
moment.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this testimony? Thank you, sir.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Unger will bring it up, but on the subject of
whether that's an open vision fence or a closed fence, under the old ordinances, the
police department consistently added the requirement that along public pathways it be
an open vision fence. That's a safety feature. And for that reason it got into the new
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 34 of95
Unified Development Code as a requirement. So, it's a police department request that
that not be variable, that it be an open vision fence along all public pathways.
Rohm: Thank you. At this time Ray Tomczak. From the audience he says his
questions have been answered. Steve Meredith. And from the audience his questions
have been addressed as well. Is there anybody else from the audience that would like
to speak at this time? Please come forward.
Grant: My name is Steve Grant, Mr. Chairman. I live at 1534 Leslie, which is on the
western boundary of the proposed development. I am concerned that there is an
assumption been made that the composite fence that was described to you by Mr.
Unger is -- he -- I think his words were seems to be in agreement, because that is not
the case. I came away from -- I didn't go to the meeting on Saturday, I had another
commitment, but I was given a drawing that shows a masonry fence and a composite
fence. After the meeting started tonight, do you see the masonry fence anywhere? It's
gone. That's the first I knew about it. And I'm very concerned and I'll just draw your
attention to the fact that we were here late two weeks ago and Mr. Unger stood up and
said, okay, I surrender, masonry fence on the west side. Do you remember that? And
Mr. Borup asked him what about the south side? And that's when the -- we started to
continue. So, I'm asking the Commission to hold them to their commitment to a
masonry fence on the west side as we discussed and they agreed to two weeks ago.
And that's -- that's all I guess I really want to say at this moment. Any questions?
Rohm: I think you have been pretty clear. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else
that would like to testify? At this time would the applicant like to come back, please.
Unger: Mr. Chair, Bob Unger again with Redcliff. I think the first gentleman was asking
for five gallon trees. We will put in whatever code requires. I believe those are three
gallon. I'm not sure, but whatever code requires we will put in there. Whatever size is
required by city code.
Guenther: City code requires two inch caliper trees, which approximate a five gallon.
Unger: Okay. As far as the -- Mr. Grant's comments, we were unable to get this final
composite fence to him before this evening, so I don't know exactly what his -- whether
he supports it or doesn't. This is a compromise that we have put out there and this is
what we want to go with. It's a very durable fence. It's a lot better looking than a block
wall fence. We did get some indication that that would be a favorable move, but,
obviously, that's not confirmed. So, I apologize if we have misled you that everybody's
happy with that fence. This is the fence that we are asking you to approve. In reading
through the Betty Rosso letter, I'm not quite sure what kind of comment you're looking
for from me.
Moe: Mr. Unger, I think, basically, I would imagine that items such as Mr. Grant has
brought up are pretty much what she was referring to, to make sure that whatever
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 35 of 95
agreements were made on Saturday, you know, within your discussions, that those
things would definitely be done. I think that's, basically, what I got out of her letter.
Unger: And I agree with you and I think whatever conditions of approval that this
Commission puts on us, holds us to any agreements that we have out there and I think
that's the reassurance that she's looking for.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, one other question. Mr. Unger, do you remember the comment
in our last meeting about the block wall?
Unger: Yes, I do.
Moe: Thank you. That's alii have.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: The meeting Saturday, do you know how many people along the western
boundary were there?
Unger: I can only confirm that there was one, because I believe Ray was there. That's
the only one that I know for sure is from the western boundary.
Borup: And another -- just a comment. You had mentioned you weren't sure whether
Mr. Grant was in favor of the composite fence or not. I thought his testimony was pretty
clear, though.
Unger: Well, let me share with you the comments I heard from him before we came into
the hearing, was that he wanted to look at this.
Borup: Okay.
Unger: If there were anything out there, you know, comparable to this. So, yeah, I
agree.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Unger.
Unger: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Any discussion amongst the Commission before we close this hearing?
Commissioner Zaremba, any comment?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 36 of 95
Zaremba: I do have comments, which could come either before or after. I don't actually
have questions.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I was just -- on the property to the north on the western boundary,
isn't there going to be a masonry fence along a couple of the property lines?
Rohm: I believe that that's where the discussion ended the last hearing, is there is a
masonry fence to the -- on the adjacent property. Just a moment.
Zaremba: My recollection was that it would be a continuation of the same fence that
Sadie Creek was building on their portion that abuts the eastern part of Carol
Subdivision.
Rohm: I believe that that was where the discussion ended at the last hearing, yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, my preference would be to have the same fence continue
along the entire eastern -- I mean, obviously, the lateral presents a unique situation,
because it's the ditch and the open site requirement, but along the western boundary to
continue the same type of fence, so you have continuity through the two projects.
Rohm: And I think that there is general support for that conclusion.
Borup: The other concern I have -- it appears there is only two people that had any
input on that. I'm wondering -- two out of the six is all that seemed to have a concern.
I'm wondering why the others didn't have any input either through letters or attending
the meeting.
Rohm: Well, there is a number of reasons why that may be. At the conclusion of our
last open hearing the assumption was that we were going to have a block wall all the
way along that west line and if, in fact, that was the conclusion, there would be no
reason for them to provide additional input. So, I'm pretty sure that that's how that --
Borup: That's why they didn't go to the meetings.
Rohm: And so, you know, I think at such time that we are ready to make a motion, it
would probably be best to include something to that effect.
Newton-Huckabay: I have been re-reading the testimony from last hearing and it's
pretty clear from the public testimony and from the statements that it is reasonable that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 37 of95
anyone would have gone away from that hearing assuming that there was going to be a
masonry fence, if not the exact same type of fence that's going to be on the property to
the north.
Rohm: And I think that we are all in agreement here, so at this point in time I think it's
probably appropriate to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-057, RZ
05-019, PP 05-059 and CUP 05-052, all relating to Bienville Square Subdivision.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059
and CUP 05-052. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Let's see. Mr. Chairman, I would float a motion and, then, perhaps have
discussion of that motion afterwards, if I may.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Borup: One other discussion item from me.
Rohm: Yes. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I just noticed there is no comment on that Eagle Road access. I believe ITD
denied it, didn't they?
Guenther: Commissioner Borup, ITD has not denied that access point at this time --
Borup: They just didn't approve it, was that --
Guenther: ITD's policy that I have been delivered from their staff is that they want to
see the land use proposal being approved or denied by the City of Meridian prior to
taking their action, because if we are not going to allow the access, there would be no
sense of them running an access permit through their executive committee. There have
been access permit discussions between many of these applicants and ITD staff, but I
don't believe the executive committee have been --
Borup: So, part of our approval would be recommending the access point as designed.
Guenther: Well, actually, part of your approval, if you are consistent with the conditions
of approval that are outlined in the staff report, would be to indicate the required 30 foot
wide landscape buffer along Eagle Road, which is in condition 1.1.3, which would be to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 38 of95
eliminate that access and replace it within landscaping, which would be the
recommendation that this Commission would send to the City Council.
Borup: But I don't believe that was the Commission's discussion last time.
Zaremba: Well, that is the portion that I was going to discuss.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I was going to phrase it in the motion such that the access would be there,
but, no, let's discuss it before I make the motion. My feeling is it is important to have the
access there and for it to be a full access. Possibly even signalized, if possible. The
issue on this particular corner, even different than the other corners, is that with Carol
Subdivision behind it, it's different than the other three corners, even at this same
intersection. If you go behind the Lowe's property, you could, by twisting around in a
convoluted double back and much turns, drive from Ustick to Eagle Road within
residential subdivision, but there is -- it's not any easy way to go and it would not attract
people to cut through. On the southwest corner there is no connection now. If ACHD
does make a connection -- and as we talked on one of the projects, maintain 35 feet
along their southern border and on the next door project that will come up we will
probably discuss that again, if that is somehow going to connect to Eagle, then, the
people on that corner will have a way to go around on the northeast corner where Kohl's
is going to be. They have a backage road that goes north from Ustick and the applicant
has made it very clear that they intend to bend tha't around to Eagle at some point. The
benefit of that is -- let me back up a second. If you have traffic that is going where you
don't want it and cutting through a neighborhood, such a Carol, which does connect
from Ustick to Eagle, it's attractive as a cut through and that is undesirable. A very
similar scenario is called a bypass and that's attractive. You want that in some places.
One of the proposals that has been presented entirely different from this and my
recollection is that I'm thinking of the intersection of Ten Mile and McMillan where either
one developer owns three of the corners out of four or at least if it's different developers
they are working with the same engineer, and they have presented a concept where
there are roadways that connect and allow you to bypass the intersection. With an
intersection like Ustick and Eagle, it's my assumption that we aren't -- we aren't even at
this point seeing half the traffic that's going to be on Eagle. When Canyon county
develops, Ustick is the longest east-west road in the Treasure Valley. It does go all the
way to the Snake River. The people in Canyon county consider it to be a major arterial.
When it becomes a major arterial, there will be people who want to bypass the
intersection of Ustick and Eagle. They can do so on the other three corners. On the
corner that we are talking about, they can only bypass the intersection by cutting
through Carol Road. If there is no access in Bienville to Eagle Road, my feeling is that
that access in Bienville to Eagle Road is opposite to my opinion about access
everywhere else. I absolutely agree with limiting access to the section line roads and a
half mile in between and possibly right-in, right-out at the quarter mile, not only on the
state highways, but on most of our arterials I would support that. If in the major point we
stick to that, then, the few times when there is a reasonable exception, which I think this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 39 of 95
is, it's easier to make that exception. My feeling is that we do no good to the traffic and
no good to Carol Subdivision by not providing a way to bypass that intersection for
people that want to. It is being provided on the other three corners. You can go north
behind Lowe's and west at their north property line. I'm pretty sure that the property on
the northeast corner is going to end up connecting. We are already talking about the
property on the southeast corner connecting. I believe there needs to be a connection
through Bienville. I would support it being a public road the whole way and I would
support there being a signalized intersection at Eagle, even though I would not support
that kind of access virtually anywhere else. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Rohm: Thank you. And I think as the property to the east develops, will be the
determinate whether there will be a signal at that proposed access point. So, I guess
we will wait and see how that washes out, but thank you for your comments. Are there
any other comments from the Commission before motion is to be made?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Newton-Huckabay: I have one.
Moe: I guess I would agree with Commissioner Zaremba entirely.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Isn't there going to be a light on the west side of Ustick? Does that
line up with the property -- the Sadie Creek property or where Kohl's -- weren't they
putting in a signal? Where was that signal going to be? So, it's just to the east of Leslie
Way. Okay.
Rohm: I don't know. I assume so.
Zaremba: You're talking about the signal that will be behind Kohl's?
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I was just trying to --
Zaremba: That lines up to the major roadway that comes through Sadie Creek --
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. Okay.
Zaremba: -- to this one.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I would also like to say I'm in complete agreement with
Commissioner Zaremba and I think he made very logical arguments and they would be
well to be repeated at an ITD hearing.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 40 of95
Zaremba: I would be prepared to make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: I'm ready.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, CUP 05-052, to include
all staff comments for their -- I believe their revised staff comments for this evening's
meeting of February 16th, 2006, and referencing specifically the master plan site plan
provided by the applicant, date stamped received by the city clerk February 13th, 2006,
and adding the pictorial representations provided by the client at this evening's meeting,
with the exception that the path will be ten feet wide and the exception that the western
boundary fence will be of materials compatible and repeating the western boundary
fence of Sadie Creek and recommending that our decision is made based on the
access to Eagle Road, which means I would delete on the staff report page -- I don't
have a page, but it's item 1.1.16 that says direct lot access to Eagle Road is prohibited.
I would change that to say that a full access to Eagle Road is required and as a second
part of the same motion I would say that that particular access is critical to this
Commission's recommendation of approval and would add as a part of the motion a
request to the City Council that if they make a decision other than approving that
access, that they remand any other version of this back to us for further consideration
and recommendation.
Rohm: Excellent motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded --
Guenther: Commissioner Rohm, direct lot access would imply that each one of these
five building lots would have an access to Eagle Road. That's what condition number
1.1.16--
Zaremba: Let me correct my phrasing. I would not approve direct lot access, I would
approve, as depicted on the February 13th, 2006, site plan a roadway access to Eagle.
Guenther: Commissioner Zaremba, would you just care to eliminate the last sentence
of 1.1.4, which says including to -- which reflects changes to the preliminary plat. That's
the landscape plan. That would say that add landscaping where there is currently
showing an access point, to eliminate that sentence.
Zaremba: That would work for me. Yes. Eliminating that last sentence would work. I
still want to clean up 16 a little bit. Well, it says other than those that are approved. I'm
recommending that we do approve it, but that -- okay. The statement as it says, other
than points of access approved by ACHD, City of Meridian, and ITD, direct lot access is
prohibited and, actually, I agree with that, but I'm -- based the February 13th, 2006, site
plan, I'm recommending that there be a roadway access as depicted on that plan.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 41 of95
Guenther: So, you're recommending approval of that site plan, which shows the access
point --
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: And we will forward that to the City Council --
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: -- as you have stated? Thank you.
Zaremba: And the second part of my motion is if that changes after it leaves us, we
want to see it again.
Guenther: We will get that to them.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: Okay. All right. It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City
Council recommending approval of AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-
052, to include staff comments with amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much. Appreciate all input.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: At this time we will take a short break and we will reconvene at 9:35.
(Recess.)
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-064 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear
Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West
Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road:
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-064 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on
116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision
by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west
of South Stoddard Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for tonight,
February 16th, 2006, and begin by opening the continued Public Hearing from January
19th, 2006, project AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 for Bear Creek West Subdivision and
begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 42 of95
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If you will recall, this
item was -- or these items were only continued because ACHD had not given their final
approval of the subdivision yet at the time of the last hearing on January 19th. Since
that time ACHD did approve the subdivision with no changes and staff's
recommendation would remain the same. We may need to kind of refresh your memory
on discussions and items in the staff report that need to be changed, but I think with that
-- one thing I will mention is Mrs. McKay did agree to the six items that are in the e-mail
that is in your packet for tonight in regards to buffering their impacts on that church
property on the north side and, then, we did also discuss part of the development
agreement that required that the five foot sidewalks and street buffers be installed along
Stoddard and Kodiak prior to occupancy of any dwelling units. I think staff and the
applicant did come to the agreement that it's probably more -- it's appropriate and more
agreeable that -- that's only with those parts of those streets that are installed with the
first phase. In other words, you can't install sidewalk where there is not a street yet.
So, that's what I have in my notes for the changes to the staff report and I would be
open to any questions or discussion from the Commission.
Rohm: I think before we have the applicant come forward, just for the audience's sake,
if you could just describe the project in its entirety and just for clarification here.
Wilson: Okay. The request for Bear Creek West was the annexation and zoning of
116.81 acres from RUT and R-1 to the R-8 zone and preliminary plat approval of 320
single family residential with 34 common lots, located generally west of Stoddard, east
of Linder, and south of Overland with -- let's see. With some -- a county subdivision on
the south and portions of the west, a lot of agricultural land on the west. The existing
Bear Creek Subdivision to the east and, then, some rural properties, a future school
site, and an existing church on the north side of the property.
Rohm: Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Any questions of staff before I have
the applicant come forward? Would the applicant please --
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. Mr.
Chairman, just to -- as Josh indicated at the last Public Hearing, we gave our
presentation, the opposition spoke, we are -- we did our rebuttal and, then, I believe it
was the statement of the Chairman and the Commission was in agreement to leave the
record only open for Ada County Highway District commission action. Josh had
mentioned the things in the staff report that needed some adjustment. Other than that, I
believe we are in total agreement with the staff.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Rohm: As previously stated by staff, this Public Hearing is only open to discuss the Ada
County Highway District's comments and so with that being said, Luke Lance, would
you like to come forward, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 43 of95
Lance: Luke Lance, 1370 Eggers Place, the subdivision to the south of the proposed
development. In speaking with Commissioner Bivens at ACHD, he addressed a lot of
our concerns for the property, since that's all I'm allowed to talk about. That's all I have
to say. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to
this -- on this project. Please come forward.
Rowe: My name is Chuck Rowe. I'm at 2707 South Stoddard Road. And I guess at the
meeting we were here we didn't close the Public Hearing and the main reason was
because we hadn't heard comments from ACHD and I came here tonight hoping to hear
some comments of what ACHD is going to do and what the report was. So, my only
other comment would be on the subdivision, there was some talk last meeting that the
subdivision would be moved in phases and I guess I'm interested in if the roads are put
in and the site's developed and, then, there is down turn in the market, what happens to
the maintenance of that property if a phase is -- if the roads are allowed to be put in
and, then, no houses are built on it. Any questions?
Rohm: No. And those were appropriate questions. I think we can get some response
on that. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak to this? Okay. At this time could I get
some comment from staff on the Ada County Highway District's report. Just kind of give
a synopsis of what that entailed.
Wilson: I will give it my best shot. Not being an ACHD staff member or terribly familiar
with their policies. It was approved as submitted by the applicant. What ACHD takes
into consideration is street sections proposed, the routing of public streets proposed,
and also the locations of any stubs. They also have some standard policies about
offsets of roadway intersections. You know, a fairly extensive staff report in, you know,
issues. I'm certainly not knowledgeable in -- I am knowledgeable that they did approve
the applicant's proposal with no changes. And, you know, as far as the weed issue or
the maintenance of those lots, if the roads are built and the phases aren't complete,
there is a city ordinance regarding the height of weeds on vacant lots and keeping those
in some sort of general upkeep and, you know, I think that's -- I think that's what we
have to fall back on there.
Rohm: Thank you, Josh. Would the applicant like to make any final comment?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question, either staff or the applicant probably can
answer it. We did discuss at the last meeting some variation in the treatment in what
would be the southwest corner of the project that involved changing a cul-de-sac
slightly. And what I wish to clarify is that ACHD saw the new plan and is that what they
approved? Staff had requested --
Borup: That was to allow access to that out parcel -- or to the existing house.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 44 of95
Zaremba: Something like that. I don't --
Borup: Isn't that what it was?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. So, they didn't have access on Linder Road. They had to
take it --
Zaremba: Staff had requested it and I'm pretty sure the Commission was leaning
towards agreeing with it.
Wilson: It doesn't look like that's part of the report. I'll let Mrs. McKay address how
ACHD deals with small changes like that, because they do -- it's pretty regular that small
changes to a roadway system like that come out of this Commission and I believe there
is a mechanism to -- for ACHD to approve those minor changes like that.
Rohm: Okay.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, that was discussed at ACHD tech review
when -- that the city staff was not in agreement with any direct lot access to Linder. In
my staff report it says other than access points that have specifically been approved
with this application, direct lot access to these roadways are prohibited, meaning
Stoddard and Linder. And there is no exception listed in my site specific requirements
allowing for access and they use -- they specify like no direct lot access, except for lot
X, lot such and such. I don't have anything in here to that extent. So, it -- I believe it's
their understanding that we are not taking any direct lot access.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of either the applicant or staff by the Commission? Okay.
At this time I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-064
and PP 05-064. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. On the staff report from last time I have some
items marked off that I believe we were going to go into and strike from the final motion,
but I'm not confident in that I have all of the modifications we were originally going to
make, so does anyone else have -- I have that we were, on page two, striking the
statement under five -- 5-A, the subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 45 of95
use as determined by the city, et cetera, et cetera, which I think was there by mistake
and, then, on page six under nine, we were striking sub set A.
Rohm: I think you're doing quite well. This could be in the form of a motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And, then, I have got on Exhibit B, item number three from the
fire department, I have that we were striking item 3.2 completely from the staff report.
And that's all that -- and with the addition of the e-mail from -- that Josh sent out on
Friday, January 20th, with the title Bear Creek West Subdivision, stating some
statements that the applicant agreed to.
Borup: That was not part of the testimony last time.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, it was. Yes.
Borup: It was?
Zaremba: I think Mrs. McKay mentioned those items and --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: -- what I see in the e-mail is pretty much the way I remember them, that she
and the developer had offered those fixes, so to speak. It wasn't anywhere in writing at
the time, but this is putting that into writing.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, if no one has any additions or modifications to the statements
I just made, I would ask that those be added to a -- move to recommend an approval to
City Council of file numbers AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of January 19th and the preliminary plat dated November 15th --
excuse me, hearing date of February 16th and the preliminary plat dated November
15th, with the modifications I mentioned previously, will that be appropriate, Josh, for
you to --
Wilson: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Did I get them all?
Wilson: There are a couple of minor typos. I guess I'll just run through those real quick.
There is several references to multi-family development. You did catch one of them.
Those are errors from another report. There was another one on the top of page seven
under annexation analysis. There was another one on page eight under preliminary plat
analysis. And, then, mistakenly, the Ten Mile stub is referred to in condition 1.3.6, it
refers to the Ten Mile stub drain and that should be Ridenbaugh Canal. And that's the
only ones that I have.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 46 of95
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064, to include staff comments, with the mentioned
amendments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank
you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-058 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
new 45,000 square foot church in a R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd
Nazarene Church by Valley Shepherd Nazarene - 2475 South Meridian
Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 05-058. This is in
reference to Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get to my presentation. I'm still trying to
get through the Bear Creek landscape plan. There we go. The Valley Shepherd
Nazarene Church is located on Meridian Road approximately a quarter mile north of
Victory Road, which would be just south of the map shown here. The entire site is 32.5
acres. It was annexed as -- I believe in 2002 and also includes on this map this one lot,
it's a 1.1 acre lot out of Bear Creek. This site is currently vacant. It does have the -- I
believe the Kennedy Lateral bisecting it. You can kind of see it there, which is a Public
Works concern. It is addressed in the staff report. The building that they are looking at
would be in the north -- I guess I don't have my site plan here. Okay. Somehow it got
truncated in the presentation. The church site would be located -- this would be
Meridian Road here on the right side, which is the east side of the site. The church site
would be located in the approximate northeast portion of that. It takes up a significant
portion of this site. The one lot from Bear Creek is right here and that has had a
property boundary adjustment that was recently completed and there is a 12 acre
division, which if you run this line straight down to the property line, this square here is
now a separate parcel, but it was included in this entire site design. One of these
special conditions of approval for this site is that when and if the 12 acres is platted as
anticipated as residential product, that the church site also be included in the plat, since
it is addressed in the entire development agreement, as well as within the balance of
this application that we have in front of us, which is for the 32.5 acres. I have not
received a comment from the applicant to that effect, but it should be more of a less
point. There is a collector road that is shown here. This is a half mile section of
Meridian Road and -- between Overland and Victory. This rendition shows a little bit
more of what we would consider an overkill. This would not be a full collector road
system, as we were previously defining and ACHD, which would affect two sections.
This would most likely be the shorter version of upwards of 175 to 300 feet of collector
road and, then, narrow into a local road, which would be a residential road type of a
system. This roadway would just provide connection at that light. It's anticipated that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Cornn1ission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 47 of95
Roselin, which is servicing some commercial properties and is currently a double cul-
de-sac, would connect through with the Larkspur development also occurring on the
east side of Meridian Road. So, therefore, this would be the logical portion for where a
light would occur at this site. The Strada Bellissima project on here is too close to
Victory Road to warrant a light. So, the only possible location that staff would foresee
would be at this site, which would be conducive to the collector road system, as similarly
shown on that. But since the collector road system would be on the church site, the
only mechanism in order to have ACHD acquire that road would be through platting and
dedication, unless this applicant wished to do a split off of their property. So, that's why
staff has included the condition in order to include the site in the plat and give ACHD a
comment on that, since ACHD's comment at this time would just be on the church and
that no access to -- or no direct lot access to Meridian Road would be allowed. With
that, you can see that the services for the church site would be coming out of Bear
Creek across from the portion of the 12 acres that they recently did their division with.
As far as the church itself goes, staff has looked at this building layout and this would --
this more than exceeds what -- our gateway corridor standards and staff is very
confident that this application would be a desirable product for that location, as well as
with the landscaping standards and the parking lot screening and pedestrian access
points addresses all the concerns for the site design that we would look at and staff
recommends approval of this application with the conditions listed in the report.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a couple. And I'm going to assume they are typos, but I do need to
have a clarification. In the description for notice and on the agenda and on page one of
the staff report, this is indicated as being an R-8 district. On page two, item E, present
zoning says R-4. In paragraph Hit's R-8 again. On page three, item E-6 proposed
zoning R-4. And I believe that they don't propose to change it.
Guenther: It should all reference an R-8 zone.
Zaremba: I assume these are typos and --
Guenther: Yes.
Zaremba: -- which one is correct? R-8 is correct?
Guenther: Yes.
Zaremba: So, it's currently R-8, it's proposed to continue to be R-8?
Guenther: That's correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 48 of95
Zaremba: Thank you. That was my clarification.
Rohm: Would the applicant care to come forward, please.
Rockwell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pete Rockwell. My
address is 595 Americana Boulevard. We are in agreement with all of the staff
recommendations and request approval of the Conditional Use Permit. I just want to
clarify that the access on the north side of the church is not part of this application, but
the church has been sited in such a way so that that could come at a future time. Other
than that, I just wanted to add the Valley Shepherd Church has been a big part of this
community for 89 years, will be getting under construction with this in their 90th
anniversary year. This will replace their facility which is right across the street here. It's
been a part of downtown, been a part of Meridian for a long time and churches are good
neighbors and churches are an asset to the community and an amenity that's good for
Meridian and good for the area in general. So, anybody have any questions of me?
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that I and probably the other Commissioners
are aware that Valley Shepherd Church has been a part of the fabric of this community
and many of the public meetings have been held at your facility and happy to see your
need to expand and also wanted to comment that the site plan shows -- including this
one -- I think it's very attractive to have your building closer to Meridian Road and your
parking behind it. That's a very attractive touch along one of our entryway corridors and
I appreciate that.
Rockwell: And it's purposeful.
Zaremba: I figured it was on purpose.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Rockwell: Thank you.
Rohm: Kevin Borger, please.
Borger: Kevin Borger, 169 West Cub Street. I live in the Bear Creek Subdivision. May
I have the site plan up. I happen to attend Valley Shepherd and I bought the property
that I did buy because I knew that the property was going to be built on by the Valley
Shepherd. My concern doesn't have anything to do with the building, but the staff
comments about -- if I can get this to work. My property is right there. That road is right
there. That's less than a first down to my back fence and my house sits well back on
the property. It's probably another ten yards or so to my back door, so I'm not all that
excited about learning all my neighbors' driving habits as they come off of that road here
and, then, go up here. I understand the church was moved up from their site plan.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 49 of95
They aren't intending on -- to make that a request. However, if the city were to require it
or the highway district were to require it, all of a sudden I have got all my neighbors from
here and probably this new subdivision suddenly coming right by my house. Obviously,
I have got a road up here. I'm not that interested in having another one right out my
back lot. My perception would be that that would reduce my property values by at least
a third if I have got headlights coming into my windows, cars coming by there on a daily
basis. You can imagine that if there is that access, people are going to take advantage
of a shorter route there, than perhaps driving down here or driving out the other way
and going down Falderwood like we do now. So, this may be premature, but you will
probably be hearing from a lot of us early and often if that is somehow proposed or if the
person who bought this property proposes it in the future. I know you have a letter from
I think this individual or one of these along Alaska Way, wrote a letter with that same
concern, and I know that my neighbors along here, to have a road that close to their
back property is not going to be advantageous. It's my understanding that the church is
an advocate for that at this time. So, maybe visiting with them, I'm merely requesting
that you take that in consideration and not make it a requirement. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application?
Okay. Seeing none, discussion amongst the Commission?
Newton-Huckabay: The road that -- will that come back before us in another hearing?
Rohm: I'm reasonably sure that it will.
Borup: But without the road the access to this site would be all that traffic through Bear
Creek Subdivision.
Guenther: Actually, Commissioner Borup, the access would be through Strada
Bellissima here.
Borup: Okay.
Guenther: And, then, they are proposing the connection there. You will see this again.
That's why the requirement is for the plat. This is not a rendition of the road. There is
landscape buffers and required use buffers between these two uses that we don't have
planned with this site plan. And that will be accommodated through that platting
process.
Zaremba: Have you looked or considered that future roadway enough to know that with
all the setbacks and the landscaping and stuff it would not require taking away ten feet
of what we are talking about tonight? Can it be done off this site?
Guenther: As far as the church is concerned? The church site? They have left over a
hundred feet of distance between here and their back parking lot in this location. When
we met with their architect, they figured they could fit Meridian Road in there and we are
not asking for that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 50 of 95
Zaremba: Okay. So, however wide it ends up being and however far it is from the
back of the neighbors' property lines, it still isn't going to affect the property we are
looking at tonight?
Guenther: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-058.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-
058. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe?
Moe: I move to approve file number CUP 05-058 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of February 16, 2006, and the site landscape plan dated November 15th,
2005. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 05-058 as presented. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried, but --
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Hood: Mr. Chair, just for point of clarification, the maker of the motion, would like to see
facts and findings. I imagine you guys are approving this, so findings for -- do you
already have those? With no changes to the facts and findings. Okay. Sorry. Thanks.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment on the facts and findings and it's the same
comment I made earlier. On page two of the facts and findings, paragraph D-1, the
third sentence, the word conditions needs to change to conditional. Just a typo.
Rohm: So noted. Okay. We should probably take another break. We are going way
too fast on this.
Zaremba: We are successful after breaks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 5\ of95
Item 14:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-001 Request for an Indoor Entertainment
Facility in an I-L district for Yanke Warehouse by Gordon Jones
Construction - 724 West Taylor:
Rohm: Okay. Just kidding. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on
CUP 06-001. This is referring to Yanke Warehouse and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: It's me again, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Tonight we have
another request for -- this is the Yanke Warehouse building. An existing certificate of
zoning compliance has been issued for this site and the certificate of zoning compliance
was issued for a warehouse building. The warehouse is located at 724 Taylor, which is
off of -- excuse me -- Franklin Road between Linder and Meridian. The warehouse site
-- this is the site plan that was approved with the certificate of zoning compliance. It
shows, essentially, a warehouse that has approximately 25 percent office building up
front and, then, now the site plan has been flipped around so the office building is in the
front of this one, where it also shows that there would be four basketball courts that
would be accommodated in this building. The use is as an arts, entertainment, or
recreational facility indoors, which the applicant is proposing to be basketball courts for
adult recreation and such. The use is accessory to the building, which is required by
conditional use, which is why it is in front of you, because it is in an industrial area. Staff
is recommending approval of this use as the primary use is a warehouse and if this use
ceased it still has practical use as the 29-foot high pile storage with a firewall between
the offices. So, I think the design accommodates the use, as well as for secondary use
as a basketball court. I'll stand for questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Of course I have a question.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Zaremba: I stay up nights thinking of questions. The -- let's see. It's been a couple
years now that we approved an indoor soccer thing not too far south of this on the other
side of Franklin and my question is how is that going? Seems like it's fitting into the
community well?
Guenther: I don't believe we received any comments since two years ago on the indoor
soccer facility in an industrial area.
Zaremba: Good. And the only comment that I remember from the discussion on that
one was related to parking. You did include an analysis of the parking that showed for
the warehouse space there is plenty of parking. The discussion on the soccer one was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 52 of95
that there would be times where people might be arriving for a second game before the
first game was over and, therefore, double amounts of people would have to park and
the net result of that was that we asked them to get cross-parking agreements with
some of their neighbors and that seemed to be okay, because the hours of industrial
projects and this probably wouldn't be the same. Is there any need to do that on this
one?
Guenther: There is not, Mr. Commissioner -- Commissioner Zaremba. The property to
the west is the 1-84 lumber site and the property to the east I believe is also owned by
Idaho Tank and Culvert and I don't believe that they foresee to have this type of parking.
This building size requires 12 parking stalls. They are showing 178, which should
accommodate four courts of five guys playing basketball.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Guenther: I'm sorry. Five per side. That's ten. You got to have two teams.
Rohm: That's a whole bunch of people playing basketball if you're going to fill that
parking lot.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of staff? At this time I'd like to have the applicant
come forward, please.
Harward: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Paul Harward. I'm with Gordon
Jones Construction and representing the owners SJL, LLC, who are proposing this
facility. You should have a letter in your packet there from Mike Ford, who is a
representative for SJL, the -- who represents the Yanke family. I don't know if you want
me to read the letter, but the purpose of their -- the intent of this building was to provide
a place for their children to play basketball and as noted in here they said that the intent
is not to provide a fee-based facility, a for profit facility, it is to provide a place for
organizations that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford a place to practice and play.
They don't anticipate being able to recoup the money that they are investing in this
facility. The warehouse spaces may off-set some of the costs, but the intent is just to
provide access as a public facility for -- in the first place the organizations that their
children play on, but for any other organizations within the City of Meridian that would
require space that wouldn't otherwise be able to afford it. So, that is the intent. And it
has four basketball courts, six volleyball courts, and the facility is to accommodate that.
So, we are just asking for approval on it. We don't have any exceptions with the
recommendations in the staff report. We have been fulfilling them and are fulfilling them
as we speak to be in compliance. That's all I have.
Rohm: Very nice. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thanks very much. Is
there anybody that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-001.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 53 of 95
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that the Public Hearing on CUP 06-001 be
closed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we -- let's see. I should look at it. It's not a
recommendation. This is actual. Okay. I move to approve file number CUP 06-001 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, and the site
landscape plan dated August 8, 2005, with no modifications and ask staff to prepare the
findings with one change to those. Page two of the findings, paragraph B, paragraph
one, third sentence for conditions, the word should be conditional. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-001. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23
commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace
Subdivision by Landmark Development - southeast corner of Ustick
Road and Eagle Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 06-002. This request is
related to Gateway Marketplace Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request
for a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is tied down to this site as a portion of a
development agreement. The plat is on the 22.85 acres in the southeast corner of
Ustick and Eagle Road. We have already had some discussion on this area. This also
-- this outline should include this slight piece right there, which would be next to where --
this is the Una Mas and the ACHD property that were recommended for approval for the
annexation earlier tonight. With this site currently there is the lateral that crosses I
believe it's the Milk Lateral, which will be relocated on site, as well as the site is
presently vacant. There are a couple of field drive access points to Eagle Road, which
staff anticipates changing significantly. The development agreement that is tied in with
this site is primarily commercial. The higher the density, the higher intensity of the use
for commercial is -- was encouraged at the time. As you can see, it's high intensity
commercial in the corner, commercial office, as well as a transitional use, which would
be the north-south type of a collector system. But this was done prior to the ACHD
roadway system collector being proposed between Ustick and Fairview. With this the
applicant's use request for a plat for commercial is consistent, but there is several things
outlined in the staff report that staff would like to see changed. One of those would be --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 54 of 95
I'll start at the southern portion. Cross-access to the south needs to be issued with this
plat. With that, the other recommendations on the development agreement for ACHD
and Una Mas were to provide from the southerly portions of these properties to
approximately where this property turns south, this little jog out would reserved for
ACHD to propose a future public street. That public street would be either a jog to the
south to access this property and provide multiple points for public access to property or
to also facilitate large vehicular traffic to the light, which would be at Allys Way and
Ustick. As you can see this site is proposing some larger boxes, larger box products,
with loading docks in the rear. Right now this design does not facilitate east-west traffic,
which is the main concern with the design of this plat, as well as it overloads the access
points on Ustick. ACHD has met and this is a right-in, right-out access point
approximately -- I believe it was 400 feet from the Ustick-Eagle Road intersection, as
well as there is another access point at approximately -- I want to say 750 feet, but it's
getting late and my memory is failing me. This would also -- this one here, the full
access point, staff wishes to see a design that would not accommodate large truck
traffic making a left onto Ustick across what is going to be a turning lane and two lanes
of eastbound traffic, which is why the public road section in this location -- at least
designed to public road standards would be something that would be most desirable, as
well as to allow the large truck traffic to access the point in this location and be able to
exit in a different location. Having that traffic not as a signalized intersection is not in
the city's best interest. This application is proposing two access points to Eagle Road.
One access point would be a right-in, right-out -- I'm out of light. In approximately this
location and the second one would be a full access point at the southern boundary of
this location. This access would be a full access, but currently the Eagle Road corridor
study does have a median in the middle of Eagle Road, which is also the same thing we
had discussion on with the Bienville project to the west of this site across Eagle Road.
With this staff is looking for a redesign mainly to address two issues. This application
would not meet the standards of the Unified Development Code as more than 70
percent of the Eagle Road frontage would be parking lot, as well as the Ustick Road
frontage would be looking at over 1,350 feet of the 1,380 feet of the site as being a
parking lot, which staff can site as same issues as what Meridian Crossroads has. The
recommendation is to bring back a redesign. I think the applicant has already submitted
to us late today a redesign that is already a proposal, but I think that this Commission
needs to give the applicant better direction as to what you would foresee in relation to
staff's comments in the report. There are not findings for approval. Everything would
need to come back to you, as well as this design just does not work with the
development agreement requirement for the access frontage road to facilitate that
traffic. I know that in the past -- I was not here when this was annexed, but there was
significant discussion about the large vehicular traffic accessing Ustick Road and the
frontage road being essential to that success of not having the large trucks cross many
lanes of traffic without a signal. With that the staff report does outline many changes
that we would like to see to reflect some of the concerns that we have had with this
design. With that the Una Mas annexation report does have the two points of cross-
access. One would be approximately at the center of the project and the other one at
the southern portion, as well as they would get their immediate cross-access into the
front lot of their site. And, again, this site -- or this access point to Ustick Road is off site
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 55 of95
from their project and so cross-access in this location would be essential. Also talking
about the cross-access here, the -- ACHD has made comment that they need additional
right of way here for stacking lanes that they would anticipate with this size of a
development. The design that I have seen already indicates that there will be a drive
aisle of approximately 300 feet in this location and a redesign in order to facilitate traffic
accessing that stacking lane, essentially, going both to the east and west, which is
something we also need to see in a better scale and more format in order to bring back
a better recommendation to this Commission. But, again, tonight staff is recommending
continuance of this, so that the applicant can address the design of the plat in relation to
the comments and concerns of staff, but I also encourage this Commission to give as
much direction to the redesign as possible. Or there is the other option which has the
findings for denial already incorporated into the staff report. Staff does not foresee that
a denial would be conducive to this application, but a redesign would definitely -- is
definitely a practical option. And at that I will stand.
Rohm: Thank you, Joe. Any questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come
forward?
Borup: Just one, Mr. Chairman. You made reference to the frontage road, but I don't
know if there was a lot of staff comments on that. Are you anticipating that there would
be a frontage road along Eagle? I think that was part of the Eagle Road corridor study.
Guenther: Yes.
Borup: And it was discussed at the time of annexation.
Guenther: Yes. The discussion on the frontage road has also shifted significantly with
the incorporation of the ACHD collector road east of this site.
Borup: That's that I was wondering.
Guenther: Which is why the -- and, originally, the development agreement indicated
that this transitional use would be, essentially, the frontage road for the entire area, but
that was -- this was done prior to ACHD making any type of condemnation or purchase
of that property east of the site, as they anticipated the collector road system to be at
approximately the quarter mile and that's a third of a mile. So, what staff has taken the
liberties of is to ask for a redesign in order to accommodate north-south vehicular traffic
as a commercial collector, which wouldn't have parking on it in this type of a location,
which would not be a public road system or, essentially, a backage road and to provide
the east-west connection to what the ACHD collector road system would provide, which
would be that backage road and the light to Ustick Road.
Borup: So, you're saying with that design you would not require a frontage road?
Guenther: With the conditions outlined as for redesign, we feel that the backage-
frontage road can be accommodated.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 56 of95
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Would you -- let's see. For a visual -- yes, that one is fine. The aerial.
Perfect. A couple of questions. Orient for me the -- Una Mas property is not as long
north and south as this property? Is it shorter?
Guenther: Yes. The Una Mas property comes right to that point, as well as the ACHD
property. This one incorporates -- it appears to be about 80 feet more to the south,
which is why staff would foresee that a public street in that area could cul-de-sac or
come into some sort of approved ACHD turn around, because of that type of
development, and the discrepancies in the property descriptions. As well as we don't
foresee public road access to Eagle Road. So, if off of ACHD's new collector, as we
have asked Una Mas to leave a right of way space at their southern portion, the
continuation of that would not, actually, be along the southern portion of this one, right?
It would be up just a little bit?
Guenther: It would be -- and, again, this portion is missing a piece, which would be this
long skinny one, which would be a portion of their southern border and, then, this jog to
the south. I would -- keep in mind that the conditions listed in the report are
recommendations -- they are not conditions, they are recommendations for redesign.
They are listed as conditions, but they are not -- typically they are conditions of
approval. This is conditions for redesign or denial. So, they are still very much open for
conditions or revision.
Zaremba: What you just said about the narrow strip -- clarify for me again -- does Una
Mas and this property share a common border or is there a little strip in between.
Guenther: Yes. There is a common border.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: And it would be, again, this little strip right here.
Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you just trying to determine if a road can go through to Eagle?
Zaremba: Well, you're anticipating where I'm going. It makes sense to me if Bienville
has a road that comes out there, that this road from ACHD's collector ought to come out
and there should be a signalized full access intersection there that serves all properties
on both sides. It completes my bypass idea. We already have the bypass up here. I'm
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 57 of95
sure we will have a bypass there. This isn't as neat, but it's somewhat of a bypass.
This would make a bypass on this side. And it would be signalized here and here. I
would like to see it signalized there. And it requires this one to focus their traffic there
as well to meet that warrant, I would believe. Both sides have to be feeding into it. But
it appears that what staff is asking for could lead to that, as long as it wasn't cul-de-
sac'd.
Guenther: Well, typically, ACHD is going to look for a full road section. The Bienville
section is not a full road section, that is, actually, only a commercial drive access to
Eagle Road, which isn't going to facilitate a light, even if it has the vehicular traffic.
ACHD has specifically said on both of these sides they don't want any public roads
within a quarter mile of Eagle Road. And this is approximately a quarter mile and when
it was talking about the ACHD representative, he says absolutely no closer to Eagle
Road than that. And again --
Zaremba: But it would be right on the margin of the quarter mile; right?
Guenther: It would be -- no. No. No. I'm talking quarter east-west of Eagle Road, not
a quarter mile south of Ustick.
Zaremba: Okay.
Guenther: They want to maintain no public roads within a quarter mile of Eagle Road,
which means that when Sadie Creek came through here, their public road ends about in
the middle of their project, where this one the public road would end in the middle of the
project. It would not approach Eagle Road. The Eagle Road access points would be
commercial access points. Apparently Eagle Road is planned for a full median at the
quarter mile, with an allowance for a u-turn design. When I met with Wade Christensen
from ITD, their district engineer, on Tuesday, that was the design he was
recommending at a minimum -- or at a maximum in these two locations they may get
right-in, right-out, but they would not foresee ITD giving access permits for full access
points, as well as it would be a miracle if ITD gave a light and it would have to have a
very strong recommendation from our City Council to have that light, as well as ACHD
would have to accommodate a public street to that point and ACHD specifically has said
they will not. So, I'm sorry, I've gone off of track here again.
Newton-Huckabay: With that said, that it validates, basically, statements that were
made on the other one. I think that we -- if we move forward, our recommendation
should be just as we have done on the west side of Eagle Road, on the east of Eagle
Road that we push for a full access to Eagle Road, because the properties to the north
on the corner have got it already. If I remember right, you can get -- or you will have it
eventually. Yeah. Because you can go back behind Lowe's and out beside the church
and out and if I remember right from our hearing on the Kohl's, you're going to go up
behind Kohl's and meander around and out to the street and if I remember right there
was talk of a light.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 58 of95
Moe: I don't remember the light discussion.
Newton-Huckabay: It seems to me like there was -- there was no commitment there,
but I think there was a desire.
Rohm: Yeah. I think at this time it's appropriate to have the applicant come forward,
please.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Joe, if I could have you cue
up my presentation. My name is Tamara Thompson, I'm with Landmark Development
Group, 1882 Taluka Way in Boise, Idaho. The site is located at the southeast corner of
Ustick and Eagle, which --
Guenther: Is this your development?
Thompson: No.
Guenther: Which disk did your have? I haven't seen a disk. Did you hand it to
somebody else?
Thompson: No, I handed it to you.
Guenther: You didn't give it to me.
Thompson: Maybe I thought I did.
Guenther: Is it this blue disk?
Thompson: No. It's this one. These later hours you get all rummy. Anyway, we can go
forward. We have 23 acres on the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle and we are
proposing to develop a commercial, retail, restaurant, and office development. The
exact mix will depend on the conditions at the time of development. With our site
plan --
Guenther: We got a new computer and it doesn't appear to be the fastest one in the
building.
Thompson: We have complied with all of the necessary landscaping easements and
setbacks, so we have the 35 feet along Ustick and Eagle Road. The property was
annexed and rezoned in early 2004, I believe it was April of 2004 that everything was
finalized, so we are just coming back for the preliminary plat at this point. At that time of
the annexation and rezone a development agreement was entered into with the city and
the property owners have relied on its content, including the concept plan, which I
understand you didn't necessarily get to see before City Council approved it. So, this is
the site plan as we submitted it and from what -- the aerial that we were looking at just a
few minutes ago, it, actually had the notch coming out like this and it, actually, cuts into
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 59 of95
the property, instead of out of the property. So, this line right here is where the Una
Mas southern property line lines up. Back in October of '05 we held a neighborhood
meeting and the Una Mas folks to our east were pretty much the only ones that had any
comments at that time and due to the sensitivity of the new office uses that they are
proposing, we have worked with them to come up with some mitigations for their
concerns. Along our truck docks, which -- let me -- can you go to the next one, please?
This is the revised site plan that we just submitted today based on our meeting that we
had with ACHD and Una Mas yesterday. It shows some -- ACHD wanted a longer
throat here on our -- the last one we -- basically, you came in and you could go east or
west. This one they wanted a longer throat of at least 200 feet. It worked best with the
Una Mas site plan, if we can get that back to 350 feet, and that's from center line to
center line. So, we have pulled that down and we got rid of the large mass in here and
put a cluster of pad buildings at that point. In order to mitigate their concerns with the
truck dock areas, we have agreed that along the edges of -- if these, in fact, are
recessed truck docks, we don't have -- we are currently marketing to high quality
national tenants that some do have recessed truck docks, some don't. Some just -- you
know, somebody like Pier One, for instance, just has a roll up door at grade level and
they don't get the big tractor trailer trucks. But somebody like Michael's, for instance,
does the recessed truck dock. So, we are showing worst case here where every single
one does, but depending on how the tenant mix comes out, they mayor may not have
them. So, anyway, for the ones that do have the -- have the truck docks, we have -- we
have agreed to a solid wing wall that comes out to help mitigate the sound and the
visual, you know, so you're not hearing the backup buzzers from the little forklifts and
that kind of stuff. We have also talked to them about the -- the backs of the buildings,
making sure that those have some sort of architectural elements on them, as well as
color bands or a split face block band or something like that, so that they are not just a
plain back of the building, but they are -- the people that are in there, those office
complexes, actually, are looking at something other than just a plain back of the
building. Although, it will be a back of a building where we are not proposing carrying
rock and towers and that kind of stuff along the back, but definitely giving them some
interest with color. The landscaping along the property line -- we have put two cross-
accesses that work for both their site plan and our site plan across here. City staff is
asking for a third one down here, which is not a problem. That one can be added also.
As far as the landscaping along here, we have talked to them about putting a three foot
berm with some ten foot trees at the time of planting on that, so that there is some
height there, so that they can -- to give some blockage. Let's see what else we had.
And, then, the other one is in the staff report already, where we have to -- any
dumpsters have to be confined to trash enclosures. We did meet and so I think we
have accomplished what staff wanted for the cross-access. Like I said, we have got --
we have got two here, we can add this third one here, and, then, we have another one
to the south at this location, The report still has in it the frontage and backage road,
which at the time -- well, from the first time we talked to ACHD they asked us to -- to use
their road, instead of adding another road at this location. Also, with that concept plan --
I was not involved in it at that point, but I have talked to the -- to the team members that
were and they don't remember that being basically a road that went through there. The
north-south access could meander through parking lots, which this one definitely did,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 60 of95
where you can meander through the parking lot to get -- to get down here. That
transitional use, as people remember it, was, basically, because this was residential up
until earlier tonight and so that transitional use was meant for a buffer against -- against
that use. But, in any event, that staff report as it references frontage or a backage road,
I believe that both ACHD and city staff now have confirmed for us that that is to move to
the Allys Way, so that the reference to that in the staff report should be eliminated or
changed. That was one of the big issues. I think the second big issue is the language
in the staff report where it calls out the clustered retail. With national retail tenants that
we are -- that we are looking for, the high quality tenants that we are looking for here,
we have looked -- we have looked at how we could -- I mean what staff is
recommending is, basically, pulling these buildings forward to here where you would
have parking on both the front and the back side have access on the back side and the
front side. Essentially, what that does is it eliminates these pads and you still have all
that parking along here, but you don't have -- have the break that the pads allow and -- I
mean retail tenants right now are -- are being extremely picky. They have a 25 page list
of what their site criteria is and I can tell you we are not going to get the quality tenants
that we would like to get if -- if we have got to go to something outside the box, if you
will. There is issues with loading, how you load those types of buildings. Basically,
what -- how I envision it is it would, basically, be something like the Boise Town Square
Mall where you have got loading areas on different sides of it, but we don't have the
sides that accommodates that, so I don't know how you have loading areas anywhere
and, then, you know, trying to get pedestrian customers through there, just isn't a safe
situation. I don't know how well this shows up, but this is our vision for how the front of
those major tenants would look, where we have got some -- some nice pedestrian areas
with some outdoor seating areas and, you know, with different facades and tower
elements and, you know, you can make that so -- in my opinion this isn't a strip retail.
Strip retail to me is something that looks all the same across and, then, you have got
different tenants that go in it, but you can't necessarily tell where one building starts and
stops, where these look like little townhouses, if you will, where they are all different
colors and architectural styles and architectural elements where they flow together, but
they are not necessarily the exact same. So, anyway, this is -- this is what we have put
together as an architectural vision and we have always added architectural guidelines to
our application -- or we submitted that at the time, so that there is clear materials and
that type of stuff that we would like to be used. So, I believe we have addressed staffs
concerns. We can revise the preliminary plat and landscaping plan according to -- to
the new plan that we have. Mr. Kissler, who is going to -- he owns all of the property at
this point and my client is looking at buying the northern 17 acres from him that -- Mr.
Kissler is ready to go. He's outgrown his Norco building on Fairview and needs to build
another one here and he's -- he's ready to go. So, he's in a little bit of a hurry. So, we
would -- we would like to just add conditions, basically, to take care of any concerns that
you have and be sent onto City Council with your recommendation. But if we can't do
that, then, being continued is the next best thing. So, with that I'll conclude. Actually,
can I see one more slide? Here is -- this is the staff report and I'm sure we are going to
get into traffic, so maybe I'll just talk about it real quick. Back in 2004 -- and you
probably can't read this -- but the B -- or the A down here -- it says ACHD approved
accesses. The B says ITD approved accesses. And so we have got A's here and here
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 61 of95
and we have got B's here and here. And the property owners always thought that this
was approved and so, you know, come -- now that we have the new ordinance and
everything -- and Mr. Kissler actually does have letters from ITD that -- back in 2004 --
October of 2004 granting him the two accesses at the locations that we are showing on
the site plan. We have formally submitted to them for right of way application and I
should know tomorrow. They had their executive permits committee today. So, I
should know tomorrow how that all went. One more. And this one you really can't see,
but this is -- I had our traffic engineer do half -- this is Eagle Road and I had him go a
half mile in each direction to show what currently is approved on the north side and
what's being proposed on the south side and from the intersection going north at 700
there is right-in, right-outs for both the east and west sides. At the quarter mile mark
there is a full access point for both east and west and, then, at the 1,700 feet, which
approximately is 400 feet from that one, another right-in, right-out was given to the west
side. And, then, eventually, where this new light is going right here, which your memory
does serve you correctly, it does connect down through here, which, hopefully,
eventually, will come through. This -- this road -- Mr. Moore is -- I think his property only
goes to about here at this point, so he can't make that full connection, but he will be
building that road. And, then, on the south side, at approximately 700 feet, which is
consistent with here, is a right-in, right-out. This one on this side has been pulled back
a little bit further to 860 feet, just because there is -- just to accommodate for the extra
stacking here, so that it, actually, wouldn't just completely stack up. And, then, this and
the -- what Bienville is proposing do line up at the quarter mile mark. And, then, like you
said, you can't get to the half mile point on the east -- I'm sorry, the west side here.
And, then, this is the new Allys Way, which I believe is scheduled to hook up to the half
mile point here and, then, eventually, they like to get it down to Fairview. So, just to
kind of show you how the entire system should work. With that I will be quiet and
answer any questions that you'd like.
Rohm: I think you have made a very nice presentation and I think that everything that
you have said is in line with working with staff to move forward with a project that could
gain approval by the Commission or a recommendation for approval, but the bottom line
is we don't have a staff report to support things that have been presented tonight and I
don't think that we want to write a staff report tonight.
Thompson: And that's fine. But we would like some solid direction, if that's --
Rohm: And I think that maybe after having heard your testimony we might be able to
have discussion amongst the Commission and provide some kickback to staff in terms
of some of your comments and give the staff some direction, but I really think that -- that
before we can act on this, it will have to go back to the staff level and be given due
consideration with a staff report that we can hang our teeth on. And so I seriously -- I
think you did a great job, but, I'll tell you, without having polled the balance of the
Commission, I think that we are going to have to at least kick it back to them for a
complete staff report and if there is some comments from the Commission to help direct
that, they will be coming. But thank you for your testimony.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 62 of95
Moe: Mr. Chairman -- don't go anywhere yet.
Thompson: Okay.
Moe: It's now question time.
Thompson: Okay.
Moe: In regards to the -- the roadway on the south side. Go back to the --
Thompson: You want the aerial or the site plan?
Borup: That's good enough.
Moe: Right there. I just kind of want to make sure in regards to the roadway on the
south, would it be your intent, then, it will line up with Una Mas, even though they are a
little farther to the north and, then, just on the boundary would you be doing the sweep
up and into their property?
Thompson: Well, what staff has explained to me is they are looking for half of a 42-foot
right of way. So, on this bottom portion they are looking for 22 feet that just trims this
corner, basically, and that's it.
Borup: Where is the other 21 feet coming from?
Guenther: The Red Feather future -- the future Red Feather Estates development.
Thompson: Yeah. There is another third party in this that --
Guenther: Yes. That is true. There is -- the portion that is south of this property -- get
back to my staff report. This property right here is all zoned C-G, but we don't anticipate
that all coming in for general commercial or office and, therefore, multiple access points
for residential developments would be preferred. So, if they are proposing some sort of
residential development here, they would need access not to a collector road system in
only one location, but multiple locations to facilitate north and south direction -- directed
traffic, as well as into their commercial projects.
Borup: So, Una Mas was also a 21-foot --
Guenther: Yes. It was half of a 42-foot wide --
Borup: But going right down that line there.
Guenther: Right. And right into that -- that kind of angle that she showed you just now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 63 of95
Thompson: Yeah. And, like I said, that doesn't bump out, it comes in this way. It's not
exactly --
Borup: No. It comes out over here and right down this property line, I believe.
Thompson: Right. But I'm saying that that corner isn't part of our property. Ours has a
little notch out of it, not added to it.
Borup: I think it does. Your property comes clear to here.
Thompson: Oh. Yeah.
Zaremba: That is not in the right place.
Thompson: Yeah.
here.
You're right. This line isn't in the right place. It is, actually, over
Borup: Yes.
Thompson: Sorry for that confusion.
Zaremba: Well, staff's last explanation about Red Feather -- is that what it is?
Guenther: It was annexed as Red Feather.
Zaremba: It's even stronger that this ought to be a real road that comes across there.
Borup: Your point was that it needed to be residential access --
Guenther: Yes.
Borup: -- coming from a non-public road, then, according to ACHD.
Guenther: It would be a residential collector accessing a public road.
Borup: But you said they didn't want a public road accessing Eagle.
Guenther: They don't want a public road accessing Eagle anywhere within a quarter
mile. The quarter mile would start here and move to the east as a public road.
Borup: Okay. Just traffic to Allys or whatever it's going to be called.
Guenther: Yes. Yes. Facilitating public road access to Allys Way or Allys Street or
whatever ACHD is calling that.
Newton-Huckabay: So, if they turn left, they are turning into the parking lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 64 of95
Guenther: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: They need to have a road there. Because they are going to use it
as a road.
Borup: It's already been approved two years ago as a road.
Guenther: I know. If I may--
Borup: On the other three corners.
Guenther: The problem with it is that ACHD had brought to us a recommendation that
we could do a public street. The applicant is showing here correctly that Mr. Moore, his
development here, has -- this is a public road. ACHD allowed this access point and
light to be a public road. If this Commission so chooses to have another quarter mile
public road, they should petition ACHD to have them connect that road. Currently, as
staff we are getting everything from ACHD saying they don't want any public road
connection to Eagle Road. And ITD keeps telling us they don't want any -- any access
to Eagle Road in that location either. So, we are, as staff, very much torn between what
we are getting from other agencies and what the Commission is telling us, which is why
I would really like more direction from the Commission as to what they want to forward
onto the Council, who is also getting ITD and ACHD --
Zaremba: My comment would be that I agree with both of them everywhere except
here. I don't want to say I'm generally in favor of accesses all over the place, I agree
with them that there should be a median down the middle of Eagle and that there should
be very limited accesses. This one intersection has the potential to be far more heavily
used than even Fairview and Eagle is right now and I think the need to have some kind
of a bypass system -- and I appreciate this drawing, because it's an illustration of what I
was trying to say in words before. There is a way around here. This is going to be
signalized.
Newton-Huckabay: It is signalized.
Zaremba: This is -- yeah, it is now, as a matter of fact. This is going to be signalized.
And I agree, I think Winston Moore is going to connect across here and that justifies this
being signalized. I would, actually, have rather seen this be a continuous connection
and a public road, but I think the same thing needs to happen on this side. There needs
to be -- it's not circular, but there needs to be this whole bypass concept in that area
around this intersection and in spite of what ACHD and ITD are saying about this one
spot -- I have to say, I design transportation systems -- I have done so in every major
city and run transportation systems and managed transportation systems, I work with
their infrastructures, I have seen good ones and bad ones. I have been doing it for 30
years. I do not have a professional engineering degree, but it's a side line of what I
have to do to get transportation systems going and this intersection needs a complete
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 65 of95
bypass all the way around it. That's my personal opinion based on 30 years of doing
that kind of work as a necessary component of my real work.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I think the other important point is if this -- when this annexation took place and
access points were approved by ITD -- and I don't know if ACHD was involved in the
same -- well, they were for Ustick. That was in 2004 and I think the owner of this
property had the expectation that what was approved then is what was going to be
approved now and went ahead with the design with that expectation. I don't know how
they can do a complete turn around in that length of time. It just doesn't seem fair to the
property owners to me.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may just real quick. I remember this
project when I was at ACHD on staff and ACHD does not comment on annexation
applications as there is no development associated with them. So, the access points to
Ustick Road were never reviewed or approved by ACHD when this came through for
just annexation. So, when a development comes that's when they will approve access
points. The other point is they can only comment on ITD roadway. They aren't going to
say that a public street can or can't enter Eagle Road at a certain distance, because it's
not their roadway. If someone constructs a roadway to meet their standards, that's all
they can do, and ITD is the one that actually gives the permit to access the highway.
So, it truly is up to ITD and respecting Commissioner Zaremba's take on this, also
respecting our code, newly adopted code, but the spacing of that, just getting a signal
and working with ITD for several years myself -- not 30, but just that quarter mile and,
then, the speed limit of that, the spacing and the timing of those lights on a highway
where they are trying to keep the speed limit 50 miles an hour or thereabouts, I just
know they are not real keen on that. Now, that's different than -- being a full access is
one thing. Being a signalized access is something different. But I just wanted to clarify
that ACHD has not approved any access points for this project when it was annexed
back a couple of years ago anyways.
Borup: And I may have misspoke. I think the applicant said ITD's approval, but -- and
I'd like to see that letter.
Guenther: In 2003 the applicant made -- Mr. Kissler, actually, was the person who
signed the application to ITD for all three access points. The report that I have received
on Tuesday from ITD's district engineer was that they did not approve them at that time
and the letter you have dated February 6 from ITD also indicates that any desired
access still requires a permit. That has not been issued. So, every indication from ITD
that I have says that even though they have put it on their site plan to the City of
Meridian, that it was not approved at the time of the annexation.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 66 of95
Borup: So, that approval letter would have been a good thing to submit with the
application.
Guenther: Well, they should have had -- there should be an access permit with their
application.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Even with that -- excuse me. Even with that being said, I think that it's this
Commission's position that there be access to complete that loop, regardless of what
the applicant's existing rights are anyway and so, if fact, this Commission wants to make
recommendation to ITD or ACHD to have access, that's what we are here for. So, that,
notwithstanding, I think we can make those kind of recommendations and see where it
goes from there. So, that's just my thoughts on the roadway. So, with that being said,
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I was just going to recommend that we just wrap up this
conversation and to make those decisions --
Rohm: That's kind of where I was going with that.
Newton-Huckabay: Clarify what the applicant needs to bring back and --
Rohm: I want to go to another subject for a moment here.
Newton-Huckabay:
conversation.
But that's not in line with my suggestion to wrap up the
Rohm: Well -- and you're not running this.
Newton-Huckabay: I will be.
Rohm: Not for awhile. Okay. With that being said --
Moe: When did we go to a dictatorship?
Rohm: The applicant has asked that we consider their proposal to have their
commercial building pushed back away from the roadway and indicated that staff report
had asked that they be pulled out more into the middle. Just to find out where we settle
on that, how do you feel about the applicant's comments about reasoning for pushing it
back? Is that something that you can live with?
Guenther: I still don't believe that it addresses the gateway corridor standards of the
ordinance, which says that no more than certain portions of that area must -- may be
allowed as parking lot, essentially. It's not the City Council's intention when they
adopted those standards to have nothing but a few trees and, then, see parking lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 67 of 95
again. And that's where they were going when they adopted those gateway corridor
standards.
Rohm: And I agree with what you're saying and I'm kind of thinking that these pads that
are out along the roadway break that up somewhat and that kind of mitigates the
concerns about the main building being pushed back to the back lot line. And I only
throw that out as a comment, not as a conclusion. How do you feel about that?
Guenther: Again, until I see some calculations that show how that actually relates to
our ordinance, I have to speculate that it -- this is what I see. Their new site design
appears to have better accommodated that, but, again, I haven't fully reviewed it, I
haven't even seen it in a large scale format.
Rohm: And that's exactly why we are going to continue this, so that the applicant can
make their changes to accommodate the gateway concerns in the UDC and work with
staff to something that is acceptable or can be forwarded onto the Commission with
recommendations for approval and I think that that's enough said about that.
Borup: Aren't we looking for recommendations?
Rohm: I think that --
Borup: Do the rest of us get to make them, too?
Rohm: Oh, absolutely.
Borup: Okay.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Do we have public testimony?
Baird: That's exactly where I was going.
Rohm: We can go there next. At this point in time -- let's see.
Newton-Huckabay: Where would we be without Mr. Baird?
Rohm: Jon Rosin.
Rosin: Jon Rosin with Hansen Rice representing Una Mas. 1717 Chisholm Drive in
Nampa. It's getting late. Commissioner and Commission, we'd like to just make a
couple of brief comments. We have been working with the applicant on this and we
agree with pretty much everything that they have said, as far as the larger trees in the
landscape buffer between the two, kind of giving us a visual barrier between the back of
their building and our office space. The screen wall hiding the trucks, we are in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 68 of95
agreement with that. They have said that they were going to have -- you know, carry
the -- you know, some type of an architectural element or the colors, mosaic block,
whatever it might be, to come around again to kind of dress up the back of the building.
The only other thing that we would like to see or have as part of their development
application is some type of CC&Rs or something that addresses that if the back of the
building is a truck dock, if any of you have ever driven behind the back of truck docks,
they are not sightly, typically, trash, cardboard, and whatever stacked on the back. We
realize that there is code enforcement in place that can be -- you know, can help with
that, but we'd like to see something more formalized between our -- between their
development and our development, so that we have something a little bit more stringent
for us as a mechanism to keep that looking as nice as possible. And those are the only
comments that we have at this time. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in this application?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise,
Idaho. First of all, thank you very much for taking the time here. As you probably know,
we were the culprit that developed the original annexation plan and concept plan. I
spoke to Mr. Kissler today and, obviously, he has concerns with moving ahead. We are
presently working on his office retail section on the southerly five acres that he would
retain after the sale. I'd like to make a point to Mr. Zaremba. And I think it was an
excellent one. It kind of draws me back to Bridgetower and the way that they circulated
their roads around the backside of the Bridgetower and it's exactly the same situation
here. If we are able to pick up this southerly portion -- and, once again, I think only
having seen this tonight, I think the dynamics have changed dramatically based on what
you have approved tonight west of this site and east of this site. In my mind, if we could
all get together here -- and it sounds like Mr. Zaremba is on track -- certainly I feel the
same way and be able to take a connected road off of Eagle -- which, incidentally, Mr.
Kissler believes is deeded and I'm trusting I can find that letter, because I know that
Commissioner Borup was here at that time. Having said that, if we could continue that
to the east, tie that into that road that's going to go north, I think it's case closed. What I
think should happen tonight -- and I think the chairman has made it rather apparent --
that this be deferred. However, in doing so, can you defer this with a condition that
perhaps we pursue a potential loop road, if you will, or whatever semantics you'd like to
use and give us some direction in that respect, and, then, they, in turn, can sit down
with the adjacent neighbors to the east and I think come up with a plan that would
satisfy everybody. And that's alii have.
Rohm: Any questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Strite?
Strite: Yes, sir.
Borup: I assume you're talking about this is the building you're working with?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 69 of95
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that is absolutely correct. That's a Kissler
building. It's a five and a half acre site.
Borup: Now, the road -- the proposed roadway, then, would parallel this line right here.
Straddle it I mean. Straddle this line here and, then, out to Eagle. Are you looking at a
new site design to accommodate that of some type?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, yeah, I think that -- and that's the reasoning for
the deferral. I think we might want to go back to the drawing board, reconsider the
configuration of his building that would still allow that access. In the development
agreement you probably will recall that the backage road system was designated either
private and/or public. So, I'm not all that certain that the road that's going to be
eastbound, if you will, that would connect to that connecting road, would necessarily
have to be an ACHD approved right of way, at least as I remember the development
agreement. If I would have been asked to show up here tonight at 5:00 o'clock tonight, I
would have that development agreement with me, but I'm almost certain that the
verbiage was private or public.
Borup: I think that's probably correct. But now we have got that road kind of into three -
- three properties, four if you count the ACHD.
Strite: Well, I'm not certain that we are concerned so much with -- with the right of way,
quite frankly, and I'm not all that certain we couldn't live with a public road there. I'm just
suggesting that my recollection of that development agreement gave us the option to be
either private or public.
Borup: Yeah. That makes sense.
Strite: And if you would just allow us that opportunity to really explore that, I'm sure that
Tamara, as the representative with Mr. Kissler's, could come back, along with the
neighbors to the east, with a plan that I think would be acceptable.
Zaremba: Well, I certainly -- Mr. Chairman -- certainly would say that I think the ACHD
proposed new collector on the east end satisfies the backage road requirement.
Strite: Absolutely.
Zaremba: I felt that that was an important requirement, but I think here we have a step
up from that. We have a collector proposed, which would be on the back end of these
collective properties. I just want to see a connection east and west.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I -- again, I think the total dynamics have
changed from what we have seen tonight. I'm even including the west side, since we
are able to align this with Bienville.
Zaremba: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
rage 70 of 95
Strite: And would ask that that be thrown on the table.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: In regards to the Una Mas property and some of their concerns tonight when we
discussed it, if we do continue this, are there materials that you will be bringing forward
as far as what will be the screening and whatnot around the back side of the other
buildings?
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that's not from me. I'm not involved in this
project, only as representing Mr. Kissler.
Moe: Okay.
Strite: But I would suspect that Tamara would, absolutely.
Rohm: What a guy.
Moe: Thank you.
Strite: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman. Tamara, if you would, please.
Newton-Huckabay: Is there anybody else?
Moe: Pardon me?
Newton-Huckabay: Is there any other public testimony?
Rohm: Before we ask you to come forward, is there anybody else that would like to
testify on this application? Okay.
Moe: I knew I was right.
Rohm: Okay. You're on.
Moe: Again, same question as far as either materials or basically are there going to be
any renderings or anything that -- to look at at all, other than what you propose tonight
on the front side, I mean as far as type of materials and whatnot you're going to put on
the back with the screen walls and whatnot in the truck dock areas?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 71 of95
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Moe, we haven't designed
the buildings at this point, because the site plan is conceptual in nature. I could bring
back something for you as far as what we think, you know, will happen on the buildings,
but, typically, major tenants are block buildings with stucco and different types of brick
and that kind of stuff and so on the back what I would propose is that it be a -- an
integral color, split face block, that -- I don't know how high we would need to go. It
depends on if it's recessed or not, but is it -- yeah, 12, 15 feet. Yeah. Probably an
integral color, just because if they get tagged at all, you want to be able to sandblast
them and not have to keep painting them and that kind of stuff.
Moe: Well, you had made a comment earlier in your presentation that you were going
to be doing something to the back side of those to take care of the office area --
Thompson: We definitely are.
Moe: -- along with the landscaping changes for the larger trees and whatnot back there.
I just want to make sure that, indeed, the office project would not be just looking at the
back side of ordinary buildings and trash.
Thompson: Yeah. That's our intent. But, you know, at this time we have not designed
the buildings and -- but they probably will be some sort of block building with stucco and
brick added. I did want to add I do have the development agreement and it does say
private or -- it says a private -- public or private backage street is what it calls for.
Moe: Again, you said that they are meeting tomorrow, so I would anticipate --
Thompson: No. They met today. And I tried to no end to get ahold of them, but they
did tell me they thought that they would go into the evening hours and so I should know
tomorrow. But I will get you the 2004 letter.
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment to Ms. Thompson, if I may. The drawing or
sketch or -- not really true elevations, but the front of the big boxes, I very much liked
the village look to it is what I would probably call it, where it's not all the same thing all
across. I thought that was great. I probably would suggest, if it were to work out, that
what's displayed up there is not your newest one, I don't think, but --
Thompson: No, it's not.
Zaremba: But you did have -- let's say these five are probably fairly similar.
Thompson: He's going to cue it up.
Zaremba: What I would suggest -- are you changing it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 72 of95
Thompson: Yeah. He's going to get that up there for us.
Zaremba: Back one. There. That perhaps another 20 feet be added, so that -- you
would lose a few parking spaces, so that this roadway is not absolutely straight, it
comes out a little bit, goes back a little bit, but that this center space sticks out like
another 20 feet. I mean in some of --
Thompson: And add more hardscape out there? Is that what you're looking at?
Zaremba: Well, just make the building a few square feet bigger.
Borup: Or the plaza effect like you were showing --
Thompson: Yes.
Borup: -- would do the same thing.
Thompson: Yeah. That's what I was thinking, that you add more sidewalk--
Zaremba: Oh, yeah, more sidewalk with tables and stuff.
Thompson: -- so you can have more plaza area. Okay.
Zaremba: Just something so that it's not -- I think the fear of the strip mall is that it --
from one end it looks like it's straight across and I would just show some variation to
that.
Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, like I say, most of the site design considerations in the
staff report are reflective of the old design. What I was anticipating incorporating into
this one would be more -- of a future staff report would be more of the design criteria of
the buildings that you haven't seen yet, which would be mostly reflective of the same
thing as you saw off the Kohl's site development. So, you will most likely see more of
those conditions in a future staff report from staff. So, I think maybe this discussion
would be a little more premature and best saved for the next time we hear the
application.
Zaremba: That's fine with me. We are just trying to focus on what needs to change
between now and then.
Guenther: And I think that mostly we are looking at the site instead of building design at
this time.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Wouldn't it -- can I just make one comment that if there was less
parking spaces against the street. I think that's visually unappealing to me is if you have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 73 of 95
a pad with a bunch of parking places and that kind of what -- I think that's what I think
the parking could be more internal to the project.
Zaremba: Let me visualize on that same subject. The northern boundary of
Crossroads Center, I think it is -- in other words, the Fairview side, as I drive along there
I'm not aware of as much parking as there really is against Fairview, because I think
there is a pretty good line of screening shrubbery. I'm more aware of it as I drive north
on Eagle, that there isn't as much screening. And I am aware of the parking that's
there. But I suspect that along Fairview there is the same amount of parking, but it's
screened somehow in a different manner. Either that or I'm just forgetting what I see,
but --
Thompson: Well, along Eagle on the Crossroads, they have used their 35 feet as a big
detention-retention area.
Zaremba: Oh, yeah.
Thompson: You know, so -- and we are not -- we are not proposing that. We are
proposing underground kind of French drain type thing. So, we are not going to have
areas -- you know, so we can actually have landscaping in that area instead. I think
what you're seeing is they just -- they do have kind of a blank area where they just kind
of have a swale in there without -- without a lot of landscaping in there. Ours shouldn't
look like that.
Zaremba: Yeah. That's--
Thompson: Especially when you have a big 35-foot landscape area.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I did have one design comment. I think it's been addressed a little bit, but that's,
again, Eagle Road, to get -- I think to get aways -- the parking lot and the percentage
that staff was talking about in the report, I'd like to see another building along there.
Perhaps make these buildings not as deep and a little bit wider, just spread them out
this way and maybe get another building in there and I think that would -- that would
serve a lot of the purpose, I think, with -- I assume that's what Joe was talking about, to
get --
Guenther: That is correct. If not, some sort of a corner L-shaped building in here in the
intersection that would be possibly multi-tenant or something along that line. Something
that could provide an intersection type of screening to the commercial development.
Borup: I mean -- and they have done -- they have accomplished that up here --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 74 of95
Guenther: And as I said, this site plan I didn't have until 4:00 o'clock today, so --
Borup: Right. Yeah. But the same idea down along here.
Guenther: At this point --
Borup: So, that would be my recommendation for the new design.
Guenther: It might be at this level to continue it at this time and give me a shot at that.
Borup: Well, hopefully, it will be in the design for you to look at.
Guenther: Yeah.
Rohm: Before we take a motion to continue this, I'd like to go down the row and have
each Commissioner, if there is anything specific that you would like to have the
applicant and staff consider, this is your opportunity for -- to bring up your points of
interest. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I may have failed to mention this before, but I certainly would
like to see a roadway connection along the --
Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I think everything has been stated that I was concerned about.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing more to say on this application at this time.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Well, let's see -- no, I have nothing more to add.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Other than is there any input from the applicant on how much time they would
need on a redesign?
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take an opportunity to present this
Commission's concerns to ITD and ACHD in order to -- because they -- ACHD still has
not made a comment on this application, which I have only gotten brief staff comments.
If I can bring this recommendation that Chairman Zaremba has as a Commission
recommendation, I will present that to the ACHD and ITD staff that I have been in
contact with and get their comments for you specifically related to that item.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 75 of95
Borup: I think if you could present the engineer study -- or the traffic engineering study
that was presented, that would help in making that presentation I would think.
Rohm: Okay. All right.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if it would be appropriate to make a motion within the
discussion of this, I would move that we direct staff to move ahead with presenting our
concerns to ACHD and ITD if necessary.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that's appropriate.
Zaremba: That was a motion.
Borup: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: We haven't set a date for a hearing or anything.
Borup: No. He's doing a different motion.
Moe: Oh, we are going to do that.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we direct staff to work with ITD and ACHD
on the interconnectivity --
Zaremba: Traffic and interconnectivity concerns.
Rohm: -- concerns and --
Zaremba: And the need for a bypass for this intersection on all four corners.
Rohm: With our desires to see that interconnectivity. All those in favor say aye.
Oppose same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Guenther: Mr. Chair, you might also ask that we forward that recommendation for
consideration to the City Council, since they are the deciding body. And we will have
the director present, along with ITD and ACHD recommendations.
Borup: That's what he meant. He was intending that.
Zaremba: That's included in the motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 76 of95
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: So, are we ready to continue this one?
Rohm: Yeah, I think--
Zaremba: I think the interests are known.
Rohm: I think that the date that the staff would like to see this continued to would be the
March 16th date. So, if someone would like to make a motion to that effect. Just first
that -- do you think that you can work with staff and get a --
Thompson: I can get things turned around fairly quickly. That's much more time than I
need, but I don't know what staff needs.
Rohm: I think that --
Borup: They need ten days.
Guenther: We are looking at -- from March I'm looking at least another seven projects
and I had six tonight and one continued, so if you want a sane staff member, you should
probably at least give me a month.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Well -- and you would need to have it ten days before the next hearing,
because if it's that far revised, it needs to go out for comment again from the other
agencies.
Guenther: That is correct.
Rohm: I'd entertain a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-002 related
to Gateway Marketplace, to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-
002 for the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 77 of95
Item 16:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
addition of a drive-thru coffee shop at the east end of the existing building
for Office Value Remodel by Dave Buich - 3055 FaÎrview Avenue:
Rohm: Okay. We are going to move real quickly into -- I actual think -- we can move
real quickly here. I'd like to at this time open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-003 related
to Office Value remodel and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to hit the
highlights here. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru
coffee shop on an existing building located at 3055 East Fairview. It's located generally
at the corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in -- let's see, the Treasure Valley -- I
think business campus or business center. And the blue square on the screen there is
actually one lot off. We are talking about one lot to the west. This sight is currently
zoned I-L. It has retail uses on it through a planned development that goes back to the
early '90s at the very least, maybe back to the '80s. It did allow retail uses on this I-L
property, provided they went through a Conditional Use Permit process. So, that is why
the application is before us, is because the previous approval does require that it comes
before you. Some of the staff comments, conditions. With the drive-thru the applicant
has also requested some facade renovations that do require design review approval.
Those are an administrative approval and this may be the first one we have, but when
one is concurrent with a Public Hearing item, we do kind of mention it in the staff report
and let the Commission consider all the aspects, but typically that design review is an
administrative level approval, where the CUP is the Commission level approval. So,
there is some discussion in your staff report about that design review application. The
applicant's proposal does meet those guidelines, with one exception, and that's a
pedestrian connection to the sidewalk out on Fairview. And I did highlight that in the
staff report. Our main concern and probably the main topic of discussion here -- and
this application directly ties to the Denny's application that's on the agenda later. It is
the site directly to the east. They do share a drive aisle and are proposed to share
some parking. Staff is not supportive of the parking shown adjacent to the drive-thru
that does back into the drive-thru lane. The applicant has proposed seven compact
spaces -- and that light's really dim. I apologize. I'll use the mouse. There is proposed
to be seven spaces here that would back into the drive-thru aisle and, then, would exit
out the drive-thru. They have indicated those are for employees only and that the
tenant -- possible tenant is adamant about keeping those. However, staff on both the
Denny's application and the Office Value application have come out consistently that we
do not support those parking spaces. Other than that, there is some landscape
improvements to be made to the parking in the back -- or in the front and the rear and
some signage and striping that will be required to make sure this drive-thru safely
functions. I think with that I will end staff comments and take any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 78 of95
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On that backout parking that you're concerned about, does
that meet current Uniform Development Code as far as --
Wilson: It does. Dimensionally. I don't have the number on top of my head, but behind
a 60 degree angled spot like that our drive aisle is minimum, the requirement. Thirteen
or fourteen feet or so.
Borup: If it was -- if it was signed employee parking only or something like that, would
that make a difference?
Wilson: I guess from our standpoint, no. There is so much other parking on the site
that it's kind of hard -- it's hard to justify spaces like that that could cause a problem, if
you can avoid it, and the site has quite a bit of parking.
Borup: That's true. Employees could park in the south, couldn't they? That's all, Mr.
Chairman.
Rohm: How about if the building were to slide --
Borup: The building is already built.
Rohm: Oh. I guess it's not going to slide, then. I guess the property at the east could
expand in there, but let's take testimony from the applicant.
Strite: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm here
on behalf of the applicant in support of this application. Quite frankly, we are pleased
with the positive findings and I think that the only thing, of course, is the content -- is the
angled parking. I'm not going to tell you who the tenant is, but it's a coffee shop
everybody knows. They do not have any access to their unit from the south of this
building. The only access they have from the building is the front door and one door on
the northeast corner of their building. That puts their parking some 85 feet away from
the entry door and there are security issues from a national standard, they will not allow
that type of distance, because they have to be there at 4:30 in the morning and so they
have asked us to provide those parking spaces immediately adjacent to that door on the
east side and that's the only reason they are there and I think Commissioner Borup
aptly mentioned it and it is on the plan that they are signed employee parking only.
And, if necessary, I suspect -- I won't use the name, but we could say coffee shop
employees only, if that's the wishes of this Commission. My position is that if it is
employee parking for that particular user -- and we make that clear tonight, that there
isn't going to be a conflict, because those people are in there, they know how to get out
of there, they know there is going to be drive-thru traffic coming through there. So, I
don't think it will create a conflict and that's the reason that the tenant has asked that we
provide those spaces that close to their only entry door. With that I'm happy with the
staff report.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 79 of95
Strite: I will answer any questions.
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant?
Zaremba: My only comment on that would be that I can understand the concern of the
current client that you're pursuing, but in many of these spaces there is turnover at
some time. My thinking is we would actually want to record it on the plat or something
that these are employee only spaces for some future tenant should that happen.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba --
Zaremba: Is there any way that --
Strite: -- can that be a condition of the approval? This is a conditional use.
Zaremba: Uh-huh. Right.
Strite: If that is a condition of the approval.
Zaremba: Can we go back and change a plat?
Strite: I think the conditional use -- tell me if I'm incorrect here, but I believe the
conditional use goes along with the parcel, with the building, so that if they do change
hands, that conditional use is still in effect.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, even if we were at the platting stage, I
don't think the county assessor or who -- given the late hour -- anyway, whoever checks
the plats wouldn't want that on there.
Strite: Engineer.
Baird: Thank you. Thank you. But, yes, if you do make it one of the conditions with
regards to compatibility, that can be enforced through code enforcement if sometime a
future tenant took down the signs, so you could require that they be for employees only.
Borup: So, they are concerned about their employees walking a few extra feet,
because there is a lot of muggings going on at coffee shops.
Strite: You know, I think it's the latter.
Borup: I mean I'm not understanding why they have such a concern.
Zaremba: Well, I would add that spaces around the back of the building are not going
to be visible for the employees.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 80 of95
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners -- and I think maybe David brought it up earlier or
maybe it was the other David, about the police department wanting to make certain that
they have visibility in all these places. The only parking that they have is in the back
side of that building, means that they have to walk all the way around the back of the
building and keep in mind that in this particular business it's predominately women. So,
in future -- or in comment to Commissioner Borup, I think that it is a condition of this
approval under this conditional use, it is subject to code enforcement if those signs are
removed. Certainly we would be prepared to suggest that as part of the approval, that
that is a condition.
Borup: And do we know how many employees they normally have per shift?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, they wanted seven spaces and that's what we
provided. I think, obviously, if it was for everyday traffic, people pulling in there and
backing in and out, then, there could be a potential conflict. But in my mind these are
employees that know this business, they know who is -- they don't know necessarily
who is coming in and out of there, but they certainly know the traffic pattern, so I don't
see that as being a conflict, just particularly because of use. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. At this time I'd like to ask Norman Moore if he'd like to come
forward, please. Norman must have gone home. I wonder why. Okay. Is there
anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, once the -- those parking spaces are not there now;
right? Once they are there, regardless of whether there was a Conditional Use Permit,
when the coffee shop moves out, they are not going to tear out the parking spaces.
Rohm: But they are still going to retain an employees only parking sign. So, I think the
point is that's all they are to be used for and whether it's a coffee shop or a hamburger
stand, it's still employee parking only as being -- as proposed as part of this CUP.
Moe: I guess a comment I would make that because of the fact that -- I mean as far as
parking, it meet requirements and so we are not regards the UDC and whatnot, if you
could meet all code, the condition is that the staff is just -- just doesn't want to see this
happen. I, quite frankly, am a little bit concerned for security purposes if, in fact, the
only entrance in the facility is one door off the east side of the main building and having
employees parking on the south side with minimum visibility from Fairview Avenue and
whatnot, and, in fact, they are opening at 4:30 in the morning, I would be very
concerned about safety and I would like to see those parking stalls be there and I think
if we do put the condition on it that it's employees parking only, I would support that.
Rohm: We do have someone that would like to testify.
Lyons: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, as the father of -- my name is Mike Lyons and I live
at 1267 Sour Creek. As the father of a daughter who works in this kind of an
establishment and knowing the things that she has to deal with getting in there at, you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 81 of95
know, 4:00 o'clock in the morning, this is something worth the Commission's serious
consideration. My daughter has worked in this field now for probably going on six years
and this is something that even here in Meridian that the store that -- the bright yellow
store has to deal with these issues on a regular basis.
Rohm: Thank you for --
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: We all know which one he's talking about.
Rohm: I think that we are ready to move forward with possibly closing this hearing.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-003.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-003. All
those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Now for the motion.
Zaremba: Before I make the motion, I would like to confirm that there are possibly a
couple of typos that need to be changed. On the staff report I'm looking at page four,
the top paragraph is paragraph I, and about the third sentence says the applicant is
proposing to record a cross-access parking agreement with the property owner to the
west. I believe that should say east.
Wilson: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. And -- okay. That one is correct another time. And I think that that
will take care of it. Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending -- wait a minute.
Borup: No. It's a CUP.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 82 of 95
Zaremba: We are doing it; right?
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to approve file number CUP 06-003 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of February 16th, 2006, and the site plan labeled CU-1, dated October 26
of 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval and that is that on
page -- I don't have a page number, but it's Exhibit B, number one, planning
department, sentence 1.2, the proposed angled parking on the west side of the building
adjacent to the proposed drive-thru is not approved. No parking, et cetera, that that
whole paragraph be stricken. The word should have been east, but we are deleting the
whole thing, so that doesn't matter. I believe that's the only substantive change. End of
motion.
Moe: Would you not want to put something in regards to the employee parking in that
same spot?
Zaremba: I'm sorry. Yes. Let's do that.
Borup: Oh, yeah. Signage.
Zaremba: This will be a new paragraph 1.2. The proposed angled parking on the east
side of this project adjacent to the proposed drive-thru is required to be employee only
parking and signage shall indicate that.
Borup: For each space?
Zaremba: Do we want to do that for every stall or -- I believe there should be --
Borup: I think so.
Zaremba: -- signage in every stall to indicate that it's employee only parking. I don't
care whether it means employees of this or of the Denny's that's going to be built next
door, it just needs to say employees. Or do we want to specify that it has to be this
shop? I think employee parking is good.
Rohm: Employee parking is--
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-003 to include staff
comments with amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16, 2006
Page 83 of95
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I missed a piece of that motion as well. I will either add it or
make a new motion that I further move to direct staff to prepare appropriate findings
document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.
Rohm: I think that that could be added to this motion.
Zaremba: Okay. Does the second agree with that?
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-059 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
drive - thru within 300 feet of a residential district for Silverstone Towne
Square by Rudeen & Associates - 1660 South Jade Way:
Rohm: We are -- it's getting later. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on
CUP 05-059 related to Silverstone Towne Square and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Familiar topic here.
We are discussing a drive-thru aisle on a commercial building. This one is for the bank
portion of a multi-tenant retail and office space located in Silverstone Business Campus
at the southeast corner of Jade Way and Overland Road. The area plan doesn't read
real well. Sorry for that. The applicant did receive a certificate of zoning compliance
approval to construct the proposed building and, then, was caught by the -- any drive-
thru within 300 feet of a residential district needs a CUP. There is a residential district
on the north side of Overland in Ada County -- I think Jewell Estates or Jewell
Subdivision. Jewell Subdivision. So, that's why it's here before you for a CUP. The
building is under construction with the requirement that they came through for the
Conditional Use Permit for the drive-thru and, then, submit a new CZC before
construction of those drive-thru facilities and use of them. I believe staffs only condition
regarded the addition of some trees along the south property line in order to meet code
and that a certificate of zoning compliance be submitted for the drive-thru before its use.
And with that I will stand for questions.
Rohm: I don't believe there is any questions of staff at this time. Could we get the
applicant to come forward, please?
Falwell: Mr. Chairman, Byron Falwell, Rudeen and Associates, 199 North Capital
Boulevard in Boise. As you can see, a fairly straight forward three lane drive-thru for a
bank tenant. Due to its orientation, we were sort of just caught by the 300 feet and
that's why we qualified for conditional use. Due to the orientation of the drive-thru we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 84 of95
don't believe that it will have any adverse effect on the residential area within that 300
feet, headlights or sound or smell or anything like that. The drive-thru will be just sort of
integrated into the building permit setting. That will go through another building permit
process like was mentioned before. I think we have some color elevations. If we need
to see them we can. They are similar to the design of the building, so it's part of the
building design to begin with and, then, just had to kind of separate it out once we
determined that we were part of a CUP process, so any questions?
Rohm: I don't think so. Thank you.
Zaremba: I do have one, actually. Can you go back to the site plan? But I agree with
you that sound and microphones and stuff shouldn't be a problem, but is this landscape
along there, is that bermed in any way or raised at all?
Falwell: Mr. Chairman. It's slightly bermed by about three feet I think. I don't have it
front of me. But it is. And there is trees as you can see.
Zaremba: The next question was going to go to your statement that headlights wouldn't
be a problem across there and --
Falwell: Right.
Zaremba: If this area is lower than a berm or something there, that could be true. What
I was going to suggest is a few extra low bushes right there just to make sure that there
is no headlights, but it may even look like that exists already.
Falwell: Right. Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay. So, if that's slightly bermed and there is some low bushes, I could
agree with you on the headlights. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir. All right. Is there
anybody else that would like to testify on this issue?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-059.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-
059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 85 of95
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 05-059 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February
16th, 2006, and the site plan labeled CU-1 dated October 26, 2005. I further move to
direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered the next
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 05-059. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.99
acres from R2 to a R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John
Fackelman - east of Black Cat Road and south of Cherry Lane:
Item 19:
Public Hearing: PP 06-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16
building lots and 2 common lots on 4.99 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman - east of Black Cat
Road and south of Cherry Lane:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-001 and PP 06-001,
both items related to Buckeye Place Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Buckeye Place
Subdivision is located south of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat. It's currently zoned
R-2 Ada County. It is surrounded by previously approved and developed subdivisions,
Castlebrook to the southwest, Rod's Parkside Creek to the east, Pintail Pointe to the
north, and to the south there is a -- we have Ten Mile Creek, Fuller Park, which is
owned by the Ada County Recreation District, not the City of Meridian, and, then, some
other existing subdivisions. As you can see, it is one of the last parcels in the area to
develop. It does have a stub road to the north property line that is proposed to be
continued into the project. That did require a cul-de-sac variance for the length of the
cul-de-sac. Staff does support that. There really is no other option. Ten Mile Creek is
on the south and west and there are developed subdivisions on the north and east. So,
this is their only roadway connection, their only access to the site, and staff is supportive
of that variance. A couple things to mention. There is a pathway connection from the
southern terminus of the cul-de-sac connecting to Fuller Park. There is a City of
Meridian multi-use pathway that moves through Fuller Park along the Ten Mile Creek.
The applicant is proposing to do some off-site improvements to connect to that pathway
and also bring that pathway through their storm water drainage lot. Staff is supportive
of that design. You won't be able to see it probably on this plan, but in the southwest
corner there is a 225 square foot lot, Lot 9, Block 1, that will be donated to the City of
Meridian to be included with that pathway. What that does is gives the pathway a little
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 86 of95
more breathing room as it rounds that corner. It's extremely tight. We felt like that the
safest and most efficient routing of that pathway would be accomplished by kind of
clipping the corner there. The applicant agreed to that. So, that is their proposal. The
fire department did restrict on-street parking on Lot 20 and Lot 18 at the north edge of
the property, due to the landscape island that restricts fire access through there. So, I
have added a condition that there is no on-street parking on those two lots. I did speak
with some gentlemen in the audience that did have to leave, had some concerns about
traffic, so I will -- I will voice those to the Commission for them. They were the
homeowners association presidents of the surrounding neighborhood. I believe they
said to the north and to the west. They were concerned about traffic at this location
here. And, I apologize, I can't read that street name. Golf View. They were concerned
about the additional traffic and construction traffic that this subdivision would add
through that intersection where they represented there has been many close call
accidents. So, I did tell them I would present their concerns. They are going to submit
their concerns in writing for the City Council hearing. I guess on that note I would just
add that when ACHD or the city or both required that this property be stubbed to, it was
anticipated that any development on this property would connect to that stub and route
through that subdivision. They did ask we consider some off-site improvements. It's
kind of outside the scope of this subdivision. They want some speed bumps and stop
signs elsewhere in this neighborhood. That would be outside the scope of what's before
you tonight. And, once again, this traffic was anticipated by ACHD when they required
that stub street. So, I think with that I will end staff's comments and stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just a comment on the portion that's going to be deeded to
Meridian, probably the parks department. I noticed that in the staff report as I was
reading through it, but I didn't question it until you reminded me that the rest of Fuller
Park doesn't belong to the City of Meridian, it's Ada County Recreation or something
like that. Would it make more sense to deed this portion to them and let them maintain
the whole thing or does the City of Meridian want that?
Wilson: The pathway is ours. I think -- and I could be wrong, maybe I'll let the applicant
help me out here. I think Ada County Recreation District's ownership is clipped at that
corner. I do not believe it continues around the corner. And so the pathway is the City
of Meridian's, so that's where that came from.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. The second question, actually, would be for Mr. Cole.
We have a letter from Mr. Mark Goins, I believe his name is, and on the first page of the
letter, line 20, he says: I am also concerned that if the catch basin is allowed to be this
small, runoff will regularly overflow into Ten Mile Creek and, then, he goes on to
describe how that happens and where it happens other places. Have you had a chance
to review whether or not you feel that catch basin is adequate?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 87 of95
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Chairman Zaremba, the catch basin
I assume he is talking to the retention pond. Catch basin is, generally, a term used in a
street that catches the water and, then, runs it through a pipe facility to a underground
subsurface facility or a pond of this nature. ACHD is actually the governing entity of the
stormwater runoff. However, they do require that it's designed to take a hundred year
storm event. So, this -- he calls it a catch basin, this drainage pond would have to be
designed to maintain a hundred year storm event. In addition to that, if they did have an
overflow facility to go to the Ten Mile Creek, which is a standard procedure when there
is a receiving body of water that they enter into a license agreement with the receiving
body, they can't discharge pre-development flows to that. They would have to enter into
a license agreement with that receiving body, at which point they would have to prove
that it was treated out to meet any EPA Clean Water Act regulations for the clean water.
I don't know if you wanted -- there is some other questions. I read Mr. Goins' letter
about wetlands and some groundwater issues. There was a geologist report from a
professional engineer that we reviewed prior to -- during the submittal of this that had
the water at over five and a half foot deep for the seasonal high is what his professional
recommendation was. He noted no wetlands on the site. It's possible that the water
that Mr. Goins was looking at was due to flood irrigation or just standing water of some
nature. I think that was everything in his letter that I saw that I could answer to and I
would stand for any questions.
Zaremba: Thank you. You answered mine.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Harris: First I'll say good morning. I'm Kevin Harris. Business address 1800 West
Overland Road in Boise, representing the owner John Fackelman. This is a great in-fill
project, you know, nice size lots for an in-fill and, you know, a pathway system
connecting up to Fuller Park and we agreed with all the conditions your staff has and I
would stand for any questions.
Rohm: Great presentation. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? It doesn't
appear as we have any. Okay. But we do have quite a list here. Felix Dias. Jim
Beam? Maybe that's better. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this
application? Please come forward, sir.
Goins: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I'm Mark Goins, the writer of the letter. I live at 1267
Sour Creek. And my primary concern here is -- you know, I agree that Mr. Fackelman
has his property and has a right to develop it in a responsible way. My concern is as
somebody who's lived -- and I live a few feet --
Rohm: There should be a --
Goins: Oh, that's right. That's right. I live right here. Okay. And this cul-de-sac here
drains to the drainage pond here and it routinely will flood all the way from the cul-de-
sac more than the drainage pond can handle and, then, it has to flow out to the Ten Mile
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Febmary 16,2006
Page 88 of 95
Creek. I have talked with ACHD about this. I have talked with them many years ago
about stormwater issues, and even before we were either phase one or phase two, you
know, Boise is phase one, we are coming up on phase two permitting this summer and
they didn't seem to have a clear understanding of how to -- what to do to keep that
water from overflowing, because they didn't seem to want to regulate that and my
concern, based upon the history of what's happening over here is that what we have
here is not going to be adequate and as somebody who came from an area where
water quality became a major issue, the issue that happened that -- what happened with
that is once we had a few contamination situations into like Ten Mile Creek and such,
we had people coming into the affairs that we really didn't want showing up. Sierra Club
and all these other organizations. And so my point is that we take a proactive position
in being conservative about these kinds of issues, rather than with all the development
that's going in Meridian and that five years from now people from outside the area come
in and tell us how to run our business, because we were a little bit lax in running our
business today. And so I'm asking that this study be seriously considered as to whether
it's adequate. As they said, the water level is five years -- I mean the water level in the
height zone is only five feet down. Well, we have floods up here every -- every strong
rain we have we will have a flood there. In fact, we have had neighbors drain pools and
flood that, so -- in fact, the City of Meridian hasn't had the wherewithal to be able to do
anything about that, so that's why I bring this up over here. If we can't even control
what's already there -- and this is a very large drainage basin, it's what appears to be
the dry retention type, but it does have wetland vegetation growing in it, as I stated in
my letter. So, that's my major concern is that we need to be good stewards of the water
that we discharge at Ten Mile Creek, we discharge at the Boise River, and so I just want
to make sure that's well designed. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Mike, would you care to comment?
Cole: Mr. Chair, I couldn't really speak to the storm system that was installed with the
Rod's Parkside Creek development. I think that's the subdivision. I don't know why
that's flooding. I know that today that you take the square footage of the asphalt that's
being proposed in this subdivision and half of the grass for the lots, take a one inch acre
over that whole site and a hundred year storm event and that pond that -- their retention
pond that they are proposing has to maintain that entire event, plus they will have some
sort of seepage bed facility in the bottom of that to -- that takes the water in as it's
coming in, but it will be designed to hold the entire one hundred year storm event. So, I
don't -- I don't see any possibilities of the overflow to the Ten Mile Creek.
Rohm: I think it's suffice to say that the design of this retainage pond is not necessarily
going to match that of the one that was brought up by public testimony.
Goins: That's correct.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify for this
application? Okay. That being said, I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 89 of95
Zaremba: Would the applicant care to respond to anything that's been said or --
Rohm: Okay. Any comments from--
Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: If someone wants to second it.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-001
and PP 06-001. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same sign? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner.
Borup: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-001 and
PP 06-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006,
with the preliminary plat dated November 30th, 2005. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-001 and PP 06-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 20:
Public Hearing: CUP 05-061 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
12,680 square foot commercial building housing a Denny's Restaurant
and retail uses on 1.7 acres in the I-L zone by Mark Chang - 3155 East
Fairview Ave:
Rohm: You know what, we are going to do it. Mr. Strite has been very patiently waiting
for this last one, so at this point in time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 05-
061 and start with the staff report. Thank you folks for coming in.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Hopefully, you remember,
just a little while ago, there was an application for a coffee shop with a drive-thru. This
site is directly to the east of that site and it is for a Denny's restaurant and future retail
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 90 of95
uses as well. The square footage of the building is escaping me now. I think it's
somewhere in the neighborhood of 12,000 square feet. A little over half of that will be
for future retail business use. I won't belabor the application. There are some
elevations. As Josh mentioned, this is on an entryway corridor and the applicant has
submitted a design review application. They do comply with all of the design review
standards for this building,- architecturally, and site layout wise. I guess the only -- and I
apologize, I didn't pull the condition, because I had one similar to Josh's that prohibited
that parking along the western side of the building. It doesn't show up very well on this
site plan. If anyone can find the condition quicker than I can. Yeah. It's on that side.
So, Denny's is actually on the opposite side. That's the other retail uses. This, actually,
does a pretty good job of showing the property line, because half of those parking stalls
are on the subject site and half of them are on the adjacent site. There is just a
clarification. I won't belabor the point. I think we have already hashed through that and
you guys have made a decision. I guess just for clarification, the width of that drive
aisle was not discussed. It's about 20 feet wide from curb to curb or the back of the
stalls to the curb of the building there. And just for clarification, that 20 feet, we do need
a 13 foot back up area, one way drive aisle for 45 degree parking. As currently shown,
that would only leave us a seven foot wide drive-thru lane now. Most cars are seven or
eight feet wide. Our standard lane for one way traffic each direction are a 20 foot one,
or, I guess to put it in other terms, you can get two-way traffic. So, if we are getting two
lanes out of there and some to backup and someone to also wait in the coffee line, it
looks like you need about three more feet to actually back up and meet code. So, just
for clarification, if you want to strike that condition that says remove the parking, that's
fine, but if you can word some condition that says either just generally comply with the
UDC for dimensional standards for backup and the drive-thru lane width, or 23 feet
would give them a ten foot wide drive-thru lane and a 13 foot wide back up area slash
one-way traffic for parked cars to exit. That would be my only request, I guess, of the
staff report. With that I will end my comment and stand for any questions you may
have.
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff?
Borup: That was on 1.2?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, the 1.2 -- there is a couple of
parking stalls that were a little shorter than what are generally required by code as well.
The 1.3 would be the one that refers to the angled parking.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Caleb, do you have a -- more of a pulled back view of this area that
shows like all the other developments that have gone in right in there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 91 of95
Hood: It doesn't look like there is an aerial here. I'm going to go back and see ifthere
was one --
Newton-Huckabay: I'm just trying to get -- there is so much built in there now with that --
and I'm trying to get a visual about where they all interconnect --
Hood: Sure. And this is three years old now. So, the site that -- again, that's
highlighted here is actually the Denny's site. Office Value is the building that's there, so
that's accurate. What's between this site now and the intersection is the Krispy Kreme.
There is a Blue Sky Bagel and other multi-tenant buildings there that are brand new and
those are the two buildings, primarily, between the subject site and I'm not sure if Red
Robin, actually, is on the same plane, but it's in between there, too. South of this site
there is a lot that hasn't developed. Those four lots that are directly south, they are not
buildings there today. There is a public street, as you can see on the aerial that's
constructed today. I can't remember if it's Oliver or Jewell that comes in through there
and, then, comes to the Hickory and this is -- the new signal is here. So, this is the last
lot with frontage between Hickory and Eagle that is yet to develop. There is cross-
access -- there is a driveway right here that we are working -- and that's in the
conditions of approval, too. There is an ugly island in the center of that drive aisle that
only leaves about a 12-foot wide drive aisle on either side of that. The fire department
has complained about large trucks, you really have to slow down on Fairview, even if
you're just driving a regular car, to make that turn there. They are going to be removing
that, but just to orient you a little bit more, there is a calming -- this spine road almost,
really, for the subdivision that ties Fairview back into Jewell, the public street system, I
guess, internally. So, hopefully, you can use your imagination from 2003 and kind of--
Borup: So, we do have good cross-access and interconnectivity --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, see, that's my -- that's my complaint, because when I'm in
there -- I mean I'm aware of everything that's in there, but that is the most awkward
piece of land to get around in in there and I just -- I'm trying to get -- you know, now we
have added all the -- but, then, there is also -- one of those roads is actually closed right
now, too, I think, for --
Hood: It was. It recently opened --
Newton-Huckabay: Did it reopen?
Hood: -- just a week or two ago and that's what I was saying that cross-access road,
they had it closed for construction and someone had parked a trailer or two in one of
those drive aisles. If you tried to go around Red Robin you had to go back out around.
That should be a temporary inconvenience with the subdivision Treasure Valley
Business Center phase one, that was approved late '90s, I believe. There were three or
four access points on Fairview Avenue, so that's already predetermined. There is a
larger -- and some of this has re-subdivided, like the Krispy Kreme lot is, actually, a re-
subdivision into three lots of an original lot of that first phase. There is an existing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16.2006
Page 92 of95
agreement for this cross-access. I don't think that parking is covered in that agreement
with the plat back then. The applicant is proposing primarily I think the ones that are on
the shared property line there, but as a general rule of thumb there is cross-parking
there. I did also notice when I have been driving by there recently that cars are parking
along side of this driveway that is -- what is the back side of Blue Sky Bagels and I
believe a Shanghai Restaurant or something like that.
Newton-Huckabay: Fusion.
Hood: Fusion. That also should be temporary. There is a little over a hundred parking
stalls proposed on this site and, as Josh mentioned before, I think there is about a
hundred on that Office Value site, too. So, some of that overflow I imagine will probably
come this way and when you get the lot to the south to develop again --
Newton-Huckabay: It probably, actually, will improve the parking overall in that area.
Hood: I believe so.
Newton-Huckabay: That was my only question. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Strite: Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante.
We are pleased with the staff report. If one could make a motion to delete item 1.3, we
would be consistent with the previous application and I'm ready to go home.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Zaremba: I think the question I have -- would you be willing to shorten the retail building
by about three feet to make those parking spaces longer?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there is room to push those over if we need
to anyway. We have about seven feet, eight feet, between the building and that side of
the curb.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
Strite: We just thought that more landscaping would be preferable to more paving, but if
that's a suggestion --
Zaremba: To make the drive aisle behind them a little bit wider.
Strite: Yes.
Zaremba: Three feet, is that what we were looking for?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 93 of95
Strite: Yeah. That would be absolutely no problem.
Zaremba: It would have to happen on this property, not the previous one, because all
that is is the painted tail end of these parking spaces, but the front of the parking spaces
is --
Strite: No. We would move them easterly, if you will.
Zaremba: Enlarge them to --
Strite: Enlarge them if you would, yes.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Strite: That would be fine.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Strite: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application?
Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on CUP 05-061 be closed.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-061. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 05-061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February
16, 2006, and the site plan labeled CU-1, dated October 12, 2005. I'm sorry to interrupt
here, but those numbers sound familiar. We have had that same thing on two or three
other ones. Are we sure this is accurate and not just boilerplate?
Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm fairly confident. The other applicant was also BRS, so they may
have used the same sheet number. Project numbers are probably different.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 94 of95
Zaremba: I'm, actually, looking at it and this is accurate in what it says. Let me
continue. And the site plan labeled CU-1, dated October 12, 2005, with the following
modifications to the conditions of approval. That would be on Exhibit B, page one,
paragraph 1.3, the proposed angled parking on the west side of the building adjacent to
the proposed drive-thru on the property to the west, is approved if the spaces are
enlarged and moved to the west to enlarge the drive aisle behind them.
Borup: And comply with the UDC.
Zaremba: And to comply with the requirements of UDC for angled parking.
Moe: East. Yes. That you moved to the east.
Zaremba: They moved to the east. I'm sorry. It's the west end of the building, but the
spaces will be moved to the east to enlarge the drive aisle behind them. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-001, to include all staff
comments with the amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: Since we have already dealt with Items 21, 22 and 23, I move we adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded we adjourn. All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: We are done.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:24 A.M.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi~~ion Meeting
February 16,2006
Page 95 of95
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
~ Þ~l~
MICHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN
I I
DATE APPROVED