2006 03-16
--.--..,
Meridian Plannina and Zonina M!.!!!na
!\/larch 16. 20Q§
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 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, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and Commissioner David
Moe.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Craig (Caleb) Hood, Josh Wilson, Joe
Guenther, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
RolI"call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call of
attendance.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Before we adopt the agenda there is a few changes that I'd
like to propose and they are as follows: Items 8 and 9 on the agenda, AZ 06-010 and
PP 06-008, both relating to Cardigan Bay Subdivision, I recommend that we continue
both of these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, because there is no
Ada County Highway District report, so we cannot act on this item anyway, because
there is some missing documentation. So, my recommendation is we continue that one
to April 20th. Items 12 and 13, AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both relating to Hendrickson
Subdivision has been requested to be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of
April 6th, 2006, and I would like to further that recommendation onto the Commission.
And Items 16,17, and 18, all relating to AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, all
relating to Canterbury Commons Subdivision, this would be open only to continue it to
the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. The last item on the agenda, AZ
06-008, related to South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation,
there are issues with that particular application, but what we want to do -- or what I'd like
to do is open' that for a staff report only and because there are so many things that are
still up in the air on that, I don't think that it would be of much benefit to take public
testimony on that, but at least the staff report should be heard, so that we can at least
come up with a method of moving forward for a continuance on that. So, we will not be
taking public testimony on Item 19 either. And that's the balance of --
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 2 of 82
Rohm: Yes.
Hood: Mr. Chair, on Item 19 I would ask that you actually do open up the Public
Hearing and have somewhat of a testimony. It will probably be continued, but I think we
should have the Public Hearing on that item.
Rohm: Between you and the applicant? The reason why I brought this up is because
for those people that are in the audience that expected to get some sort of conclusion
on that tonight, I don't think that we are going to get there and so maybe it's just out of
courtesy to those in the audience that are here to speak to that item, we will more than
likely be continuing -- we will be continuing that to a later date for conclusion. So,
maybe it's -- I will just leave it at that. With that in mind, I would entertain a motion to
accept the agenda as amended.
Mae: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the agenda as amended. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of November 29, 2005 Planning & Zoning
Commission Special Meeting:
B.
Approve Minutes of February 16, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
C.
Approve Minutes of March 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
D.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06,,005
Request for Modification of a Conditional Use to allow zero lot line
setbacks on Lots 1-6 Block 27, Lots 1-7 Block 28, Lots 1-7 Block
29, Lots 1-7 Block 30 of Quenzer Commons Subdivision No, 9 by
Brighton Development - west of North Locust Grove Road and
south of East McMillan Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to present the Consent Agenda. Item A is approve
the minutes of the November 29th, 2005, Planning and Zoning Commission Special
Meeting, February 16th meeting, March 2nd meeting, and the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of law for CUP 06-005. Motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 3 of 82
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: 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:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: 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: We are almost through the page and it's ten after 7:00. We are doing good. At
this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from March 2nd, 2006, for AZ 05-
067 and CUP 05-060, both relating to Meridiana -- Casa Meridiana and begin with the
staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you remember, this
project is located at the southeast corner of Victory and Locust Grove. The project does
include about 6.9 acres. They have submitted for a redesigned project, which does not
show the gates. It has reduced the number of units from 32 to 31. And shows more of
the concerns that the Planning Commission developed of the March -- March 3rd
hearing. The applicant has made a good attempt at addressing all of the concerns that
were addressed -- or brought up at that hearing. Staff has prepared Findings consistent
for approval. There are some special considerations in there for the Planning
Commission, which do address the public versus private street issue, as well as ACHD
still needs to provide documentation on this project. ACHD has not made comment
specifically on the redesign, but has indicated to me that their comments would be
consistent with the previous design as well. They should be receiving final comments in
the next couple of weeks and they indicated that they would have final comments prior
to the City Council hearing, if this goes forward tonight. Again, staff is recommending
approval with the conditions as listed in Exhibit B and I will stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Before I call the applicant forward, I would
like to just kind of comment to the audience here on the procedure that we go through
when we have a Public Hearing and, basically, what we do is, first of all, we hear from
the staff and they present the project as it relates to Comprehensive Plan and
ordinance. They don't speak out for or against specifically, other than how it relates to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 4 of 82
those two documents. Then, the applicant has an opportunity to come forward and sell
the project to the Commission and once that presentation has been made and
questions asked, then, the audience has an opportunity to come forward and speak on
the project as well. Each person coming forward has three minutes to speak, unless
they are speaking for a homeowners association or something of that nature, and, then,
we, typically, will grant a spokesperson up to ten minutes to respond to an applicant's
testimony. Once all of that's been completed, then, we will either -- we will call the
applicant back up to respond to any specific questions asked from testimony offered.
Once that's completed, then, we will either continue, deny, or approve a project. So,
that's the procedure. And with that I'd like to have the applicant come forward on this,
please.
Phillips: I'm Russ Phillips with Insight Architects, 2238 Broadway Avenue in Boise,
Idaho. And to start out with, I guess a quick recap as far as for annexation. Where we
left the last meeting was I believe that -- seeing that there -- understanding that there
was support for -- not really any negatives for annexation. The use seemed to be
positive as far as we were hearing. It seemed like there was a general consensus that
the development we showed -- next slide, please. Next slide. Thanks. This was the --
the proposed site that was brought in, the development. At the previous meeting -- and
the next slide. And, then, we believe we have incorporated the comments from the staff
report that was presented at the prior meeting, which mainly focused on eliminating
access to Locust Grove, which was at this point providing a stub street to the south at
this point and, then, setting up the development so that if gates are approved at a later
date and time, that we would have stacking for a minimum of three to four cars and,
then, a turnaround area in case someone changed their mind and wanted to leave. We
still are -- have presented this development as a PUD, utilizing private streets as a way
of conveying traffic -- excuse me -- traffic to the area. We have worked -- we have
worked with the proposed property owners to the south. As we understand it, they are
not under contract at this time, but they are moving ahead with some plans. So, we
have worked with their civil engineer and allowed for three lots to be along this area
here and, then, a stub street that they would continue and join to -- at the south. So, I
believe we have, you know, satisfied the -- at least, as I understood and reflecting back
through the minutes, we have responded to the comments that were made, mainly
redesigning this southwest corner and providing an area for gates that would be in if
that came about that would work for a gated community. Again, this is a very unique
development to Meridian. It's not unique elsewhere in the country. It's not that
complicated, but it is new to Meridian, and it provides that diversity and residential
offerings that isn't currently here. In reading the report, the staff report, you know, there
were a couple items that -- that appeared that weren't in the first report that I'm
compelled to respond to and the first item there is -- there was a memo to Planning and
Zoning Commission by your planning director and in reading through it it seemed that it
was a kind of a general, more philosophical about public streets. We feel that we are
not talking in this case about drive aisles in parking lots or a rental multi-family
community, that this is set up more as a single family attached type development and
when considering public streets versus private streets, the private streets -- seems to
me that there is latitude in your Uniform Development Code to allow for a variety of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 5 of 82
projects, case by case unique situations, and we feel this is one where -- where as staff
mentioned in the meeting the other night two weeks ago, that if these were public
streets it would take on a different character. We also look at if these were public
streets, we would lose, for axample, the type of parking that we provided right here for
that center, because of backing out onto public streets. The streets would be wider,
which would cramp setbacks and the homes even further. And we just look at this as a
-- you know, we really think that you have got a good ordinance right now where it does
allow latitude, so that when unique sites come along, when creative solutions are
presented that you have the latitude to evaluate those and approve those. Looking in
the staff report, there were a couple of new things that appeared that we hadn't -- that
weren't brought up in the last staff report. One item is that staff has concerns about
using private streets for, essentially, a single family residence and some concerns about
setbacks. Again, we have got over 40 percent open space here and this is a planned
unit development where some areas are tight, but others are more open. It was also
mentioned we have not submitted a UDC text amendment, which is true. We attempted
to yesterday, but we were advised that it needed to be defined further. So, we did not
submit that yesterday. There was also mention -- and this isn't really -- it's under I
guess number five, that the L-shaped roadway system. Well, that's -- we have
eliminated the L-shaped roadway system and gone to this next one to the south. So,
that ought to be changed. It's under special considerations. There is a notation about
additional trees being planted along driveway cuts. We can certainly do that. We'd
prefer not to make everything entirely uniform or that would start destroying the free flow
design that we have here. Proposed pathway connections to the east should be
landscaped. That's fine with us. It mentions, again, that ACHD would prefer these
streets to be public. When we met with ACHD in the beginning, they indicated that they
could be either private or public, that due to the city's preference for connectivity,
vehicular connectivity, they'd prefer that they were public. I believe now that we have
got the connectivity that, really, satisfies, as we understood the intent of the ACHD
report, that they mentioned in the report public streets, so that there was an assurance
of connectivity, but we are providing that even though we still have private streets.
Now, there is a -- there is a new comment about eliminating our access to Locust -- or,
excuse me, Victory Road and we really don't find that that would be the way to go. It
would be advisable here that this is our only access now to the property. The property
to the south, you know, to all respects to the sellers of the property and the proposed
owners, you know, this may not happen and at this point we would prefer to keep
Locust Grove as an egress and even if, hopefully, this all develops some day and there
is a loop that goes clear around here, I still feel it's important to have -- to maintain
access to one of the collector streets and the ACHD report did classify both these
streets, Victory and Locust Grove, as collectors. The staff report goes on to suggest,
essentially, that there would be perhaps some type of a loop drive and so we met with
ACHD -- or, excuse me, we met with staff and your director yesterday and -- next slide,
please. And took a look at what that would entail. This is kind of a general diagram that
was being proposed and, then, that -- at some point this would become an emergency
drive only. And we found that contrary to the verbiage in the staff report that there
would be less pavement, we have the same amount of pavement. This becomes a very
standard, uniform development, in our opinion. It becomes much like other
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 6 of 82
developments you have seen. We have concerns regarding -- and my eyes aren't good
enough to read all this, but we had concerns regarding in -- solar concerns in the late
afternoon during the summer that all of these outdoor patios and outdoor kitchens would
have full summer sun and if any of you own homes where you have experienced that,
it's not comfortable this time of year. The neighborhood to the north, when we had our
neighborhood meeting, they expressed concerns that there is traffic noise along Victory
and Locust Grove and so in this configuration we would have a number of homes facing
those noise generating areas. As far as views, the -- essentially, we end up with a wall
of housing fronting these streets. It doesn't respond at all to the neighborhood or to the
intersection. It really turns its back we felt. The amenities that we tried to bring into the
project become very minimal. There are eight homes that would really enjoy that
amenity and if you were to take a look at which homes you would want to purchase, I
don't think you would want any of the perimeter homes, because of the noise, the solar
aspects. Even those homes now would have a street behind them. These homes
would be okay and we really have eight that would share the amenity. If we could go
back a slide, please. The whole concept that we developed for this site is there is an
existing water feature that meanders through this area here and what we did was we
looked at what made homes -- if you're a homeowner, what makes your home inviting,
what makes it something that's pleasurable to be at and a retreat to retreat after a hard
day at work and so what we built our concept on was the fact that place the homes first
in a way that makes sense and, then, let the streets develop to serve those homes,
rather than the previous mind that -- where you design streets first and, then, you force
communities and residences to fit around those homes and that's really the -- you know,
the bottom line here is that we feel that we have spent 11 months designing something
that seems that have been appreciated with every one that we shared with this and we
believe that our assignment after last meeting was simply to redesign the southwest
corner and provide for gates if that happens. Do you have any questions?
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant?
Zaremba: I do have a couple clarifications, if I may.
Phillips: Okay.
Zaremba: The display on the wall here slightly differs from the paperwork as I noticed it
only in this spot here. It looks like this dead ends. Is it the intent that that really see a
stub street that connects to the next property? Am I misinterpreting what I'm seeing on
this one?
Phillips: Commissioner, no, that will be a stub street. We just threw in a little
landscaping there, just so it didn't look like a stub street until --
Zaremba: But you don't really plan to put landscaping there or you plan to put some
and, then, remove it when it connects?
Phillips: Commissioner, we would put some there and, then, remove it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 7 of 82
Zaremba: Okay. Then, my other question -- there was a mention -- and, actually, this
was in the last staff report, but we never talked about it. Are you connecting one of the
regional multi-use pathways or are you only having internal pathways?
Phillips: That's a good question. We -- and I'm honestly not entirely clear on that. We
do have front -- you know Ten Mile Creek is down to the south here at some point and
so at this point we do have a pedestrian connection here and a pedestrian connection
over here and how that develops, you know, we need some more guidance on it.
Zaremba: Okay. We will ask staff to chime in on that, but where I was going with that
question is if it's a private pathway for the use of your people, I don't have any problem
with it having gates or fences on it, but if it's part of the regional pathway, there is a
mention that you plan to put gates and that wouldn't work on a regional pathway,
because people need the pass through it.
Phillips: Sure.
Zaremba: Let me ask staff if this does connect to the regional system.
Guenther: Let me just show you where the regional pathway actually is. Currently, this
phase of Tuscany right here is undeveloped. The pathway would come up to Ten Mile
here and it is on the south side of the creek in this location. What we looking at is
internal of Tuscany. There is an open space lot approximately here and we anticipate
that this property here, as well as this one, would connect through with -- it would not be
multi-use pathways, but will be micro-path connections to the regional pathway.
Zaremba: So, this project would have connection to it, but it would not be a through
portion of the pathway.
Guenther: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. Then I don't have a problem with the gates.
Phillips: Neither do we, then.
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: Mr. Phillips, I don't want to belabor this, but I realized that what you're proposing
now does not have the gates in there, but the simple fact that we are looking for
connectivity to the south and whatnot and that will be a thoroughfare through your
project and whatnot, I guess I'm -- I'm still a little bit confused why you worry about
putting gates in now when you are going to end up having to allow access through your
property down into the other subdivision to the south. So, I'm not sure why we are so
concerned about those gates. And the other thing I'm kind of curious about is -- as far
going to public streets, have you guys done any analysis as far as what that would do --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 8 of 82
and I realize you're talking about the setbacks and whatnot. I was just curious if you
guys did take at look going back to a public --
Phillips: Okay. Commissioner Moe, we did -- early on we did take -- we did make an
analysis, taking a look at public streets versus private. And, again, to fit the number of
units that we are proposing here, the width of the streets affected that, our number of
units, and -- the colored version was a lot nicer to look at. It did affect that -- the parking
for the activity center also was affected by that. And in talking with the owners, they
elected to still meet the ACHD standards for public streets -- private streets and -- but
take over control of those. And that's the simplest answer, I guess, as I can provide
you. Regarding the gates, we'd still like to see these gated, because the -- as we met
with staff, the overall plan is to really have -- this is a small parcel, but to have an overall
loop that goes around this piece and so that -- that this parcel, if this develops first, it
would still have access out through here and, then, our residents here would still have
the ability to come through the gates and out. And that when we first met with staff, the
idea of connectivity was -- in our minds it was presented more for pedestrian
connectivity, rather than vehicular, because this is a small development.
Moe: So, then, you're basically saying that you have talked to the developer on the
south and whatnot, so it's -- you're anticipating, then, that they will have access around
your property, so, thereafter, you will be able to, basically, have the feel of a private
street within your own development.
Phillips: That's correct.
Mae: And that's why you do want the gates?
Phillips: Yes.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Phillips: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: At this time I'd like to call Vickie Richardson.
Richardson: My name is Vickie Richardson. I live at 1835 East Victory Road. Our
property is directly east of this parcel. I have four questions, three of them pertain to,
basically, the same thing and it's the water issue and he brought up another one I didn't
even think of. He's talking about a natural water feature that already exists winding
through that property and I guess my concern is we were contacted six to eight weeks
ago about them piping or tiling the drainage ditches that exist that run through our
property, the parcel next to us, and back to this parcel, so that they could get the
property dried up. I guess I'm in question what they exactly are going to do to address
the runoff water from the other two parcels that wind through this property. And, then, if
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 9 of 82
they pipe it, it's got better than a 600 foot run across their property. It needs to be
adequate enough and somebody needs to make sure that they can maintain it and
clean it, because the nature of irrigation water is sediment. The third one -- let's see.
Whether or not they are using pressurized irrigation to water their property. If they do
that, our property is where the main irrigation ditch feeds that parcel with its irrigation
water. I guess my concern is if they are using pressurized irrigation, how do they plan
on doing it? And, then, my fourth one is something, I guess, that could be fairly minor
but we have livestock and, then, the problems that we have had with the rest of the
developments around there is the garbage. And with that being directly adjacent to our
property, I'm not really into huge vet bills because some body's picked up somebody's
garbage. Okay.
Rohm: Okay.
Richardson: Thank you.
Rohm: May have questions. Any questions of this testimony?
Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Richardson, are you talking about like construction garbage
or --
Richardson: Construction garbage.
Newton-Huckabay: -- household garbage?
Richardson: Everything. We have had beer cans. Beer bottles. Pop cans. Fast food.
Bags of concrete. Roofing. You name it.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: I had a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. You had several questions about
the runoff. You said you had met with the developers before?
Richardson: He had contact --
Borup: Did you call them to ask these questions to them?
Richardson: They told us that they were going to address it and so far I haven't seen it.
Borup: So, they told you they'd address it in this meeting, rather than just answering
your question?
Richardson: No. What they told us, that it was a -- they had planned on tiling it,
because they needed to dry the property up.
Zaremba: Okay. So, they never really gave you an answer you're saying?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 10 of 82
Richardson: No. No.
Borup: Now--
Richardson: And, then, legally they have to maintain that runoff ditch.
Borup: Yes. Yeah. That still -- and it needs to be sized accordingly to handle it and
everything else.
Richardson: That's correct. And it needs to be elevated, so that it drains.
Borup: And Mr. -- I thought I heard Mr. Phillips say earlier that your property --
someone was looking at it to develop it.
Richardson: No. South. Our is to the east.
Borup: Right. He's talking about eventually -- when he's talking about the loop road.
Richardson: Well, eventually -- I guess eventually. But right now, no.
Borup: Okay. No intentions right now?
Richardson: No.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Richardson: Uh-huh.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And, Caleb, do you want to come forward, please?
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Caleb Hood. Sometimes I
feel like I live at 660 East Watertower. I am going to read the memo that Mr. Phillips
referred to earlier on behalf of Anna Canning. Hopefully, it will maybe clear up, at least
from the planning departments, side things or Anna's side of things, that latitude that Mr.
Phillips talked about with the private streets and just kind of take you back maybe on
how we came to having new private street standards in the UDC. So, I'm going to read
that memo from March 13 -- dated March 13. As the Casa Meridiana project has
progressed through the review process, I'm increasingly concerned about the proposed
private streets. The purpose of this memo is to document my concerns related to, one,
the intent of the current private street provisions to the previous prior UDC private street
provisions, the interconnected street system, and, four, the applicant's stated desire to
have gated streets. The intent of the current private street provisions, as stated in the
UDC -- as the UDC was being developed, we recognized the need for a means to
address apartment complexes and commercial projects that did not have internal street
systems. For example, it was very difficult for emergency responders to quickly identify
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 11 of 82
an apartment unit that may have a Franklin address, but is actually tucked at the back of
a complex. You will notice that the standards for private streets are, essentially, the
same as a parking lot drive aisle. In apartment complexes you would typically have
drive aisles with 90 degree parking off of a drive aisle. This is the original intent of the
provisions. We later expanded the private street provisions to accommodate --
accommodate new developments. In that instance it, essentially, allows homes to
access -- to take access from the alley. Again, private streets were allowed so that we
could get addresses on those homes. Casa Meridian is being processed as a multi-
family development, because there are multiple attached and detached homes and
townhouses on a single lot. The intent of the developer is to submit a condominium plat
to create homes for individual sale. I'm very concerned about the precedent this project
may set regarding the use of private streets for, essentially, single family homes. Prior
to the UDC the zoning code did allow for private streets. Private street standards
mimicked the ACHD requirements for reduced right-of-way street, 29 feet back of curb,
with sidewalks on both sides in a residential district. This allowed parking on one side
of the street. The standards were purposefully based on ACHD requirements, so that
you did not have developers choosing private streets in order to avoid the higher
construction standards. Most developers opted to use public streets. The Casa
Meridiana design has a 24-foot back of curb, back of curb, with sidewalk on one side for
a portion of the project. I'm very concerned about the precedent this project may set
regarding the use of private streets in order to have reduced construction and
development standards. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan strongly encourages
an interconnected street system, so that people can travel within a section without
having to get onto the section line road system. Generally, those section line roads are
arterial roadways. In this case they are currently classified as collectors. We anticipate
that as more land gets developed to the south, both Victory and Locust Grove will likely
be upgraded to arterial roadways. The applicant's original proposal was for an L-
shaped circulation pattern that connected to both collector streets and did not stub to
either of the adjoining undeveloped properties to the south and east. ACHD has
pointed out that this is very similar to the Sageland Subdivision circulation pattern that
we struggled with for months trying to devise traffic calming solutions to discourage cut-
through traffic. The applicant has presented a revised site design that now addresses
the interconnectivity issue, but now we have new issues. We have had two pre-
application meetings with the property owners to the south of Casa Meridiana and we
anticipate they will submit and application soon. For a homeowner in that subdivision
that is headed east, the shortest path will be to use the Casa Meridiana private street
and, then, turn right onto Victory. Clearly, that homeowner should be traveling on
public, not private roadway. Again, I'm very concerned about the precedent this project
may set regarding a private street that connects two different public streets. Although
gates are not specifically noted on the current plan, the vision of the applicant for this
project includes gated streets. Staff acknowledges that gated streets will address staff
concerns about cut-through traffic and about a private street connecting two public
streets. However, gates are not an acceptable solution. The UDC specifically prohibits
gated streets. The applicants have not submitted a text amendment -- talked about that
earlier. The applicant -- the amendment to allow gated streets will not comply with the
Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on interconnected streets and circulation pattern within
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 12 of 82
each mile section. Because the only way this project works with private streets is to
have gates on them, I'm very concerned about the precedent this project may set
regarding gated streets within the City of Meridian. I will stand for any questions you
may have.
Rohm: Any questions of Mr. Hood?
Hood: Thank you.
Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. That is all that have signed up, but at this time anybody else
that would like to come forward and speak on this issue now is the time. Seeing none,
at this time we will -- would the applicant like to come back forward and respond to
testimony given?
Phillips: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe there were a couple questions that
were raised that I would like to answer. Regarding the water management on the site,
we are in the midst of engineering the site, looking at ground water levels and some
other factors, and as a possibility" we may end up, because of ground water separation
and storm water retention and separation, we may need to pipe the irrigation water that
comes from the east, which is, I believe, runoff water. We may need to pipe that water
to its outlet over at the -- at this corner here. So, it depends on the separation and how
the grading turns out. If that scenario happens, then, what we will do, as our kind of
seasonal water feature that runs through the center of this area, that will become our
storm water area and will -- so storm water will be diverted to this area, along with
plants that augment that field, and it will be designed so that within 24 hours any
standing water will percolate through the soil. That may entail three feet of sand. So,
hopefully, that answers that question. Regarding the maintenance of a tile or pipe
system, if we go that route we do have a very qualified civil engineer that will design this
system. There is roughly -- I believe something like six or nine inch drop in grade from
this point inlet to the outlet over here. So, they are working on that design now. And,
then, the homeowners association that will be developed for the entire site, of course,
will be in charge of maintaining that. Regarding the pressurized irrigation, I don't know
all the answers at this point, except that our civil engineers have been working with the
irrigation district and have mentioned that will bring that water from the south. And we
will use pressurized irrigation water for this site. Regarding garbage on the site, of
course, we have a six foot concrete block wall with stucco that goes around the
perimeter of the site. During construction that wall may not be the first thing built, but
I'm sure what we can do is like with any owner, any contractor, try and insure that they
keep a clean site. A lot of times merely putting up a construction fence will handle that.
When winds pick up it will take care of blowing wrappers from shingles or other building
products.
Rohm: So, are you saying that you would put up a construction fence during that phase
before the permanent --
Phillips: We can certainly make that a requirement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 13 of 82
Rohm: Okay.
Phillips: Let's see. There was one other -- regarding the irrigation water, the owners
have -- did contact the owner to the -- to the east and, then, also the owner to the south,
because right now we have monitored the ground water for a year and during the
summer it was at grade, but that's because this whole area was being flood irrigated.
At this time of year the water level is down I believe somewheres around six feet to
eight feet, something in many vicinity. So, what we are asking the owners to do is -- is if
they don't need to irrigate their property, it would give us a truer picture if they didn't
irrigate. If they had, then, to the east we could -- we would need to manage that water
and take it around the site while construction is going on and at the south we can gate
that water and that will be diverted around the site. So, that's all we are asking was
what their irrigation plans were for the year, so we know how to manage it during
construction. I believe I have addressed Mr. Hood's -- the letter he read. I addressed
our feelings on that earlier.
Rohm: I think that you have addressed them. I'm not sure that we are any closer to
agreement, other than you would like to see private roads and our planning staff has
concerns that private roads will set an adverse precedence and -- and I kind of think
that the stub street to the south gives indication that the intent is to have
interconnectivity between your roadway system and any future development to the
adjacent properties and in your earlier testimony it sounded like it was more of just
egress and no ingress and -- and I'm not sure that that's desirous within the
interconnectivity process and so I just throw that out and possibly other Commissioners
may have concerns along those same lines. So, at this point in time I'd like to turn it
over to the balance of the Commission if there are other questions of the applicant.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, a couple. Mr. Phillips, I think you have -- I'm not sure if you have
completely answered the Richardson's question on runoff, but I think you did say that
you have still got some studies and analysis to decide what you're going to finally be
doing there; is that correct?
Phillips: Yes. If there is any point that I need to clarify --
Borup: Well, I think, from what I understood what you said, maybe at this -- it's
premature to maybe answer completely, because you're not sure what you're going to
do until you finish that analysis. I guess what I'm asking -- I assume that you would be
contacting them once you do determine the procedure and coordinate with the
Richardsons. I mean that's where the water's coming from and I think it would be
pertinent to --
Phillips: Absolutely.
Borup: -- have that coordinated. So, you would be contacting them.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 14 of 82
Phillips: Yes.
Borup: The question I had, then, on -- you mentioned several things earlier in your
comments on the staff report -- and they have prepared a report, but I don't know if I
wrote completely which -- which items that you felt that you had a concern with and
which ones you felt okay. I'm specifically looking at section nine on page nine under the
analysis. I think that's -- that's the section that went into things that staff said, special
considerations, and also other conditions that -- that they felt were necessary. So, any
of those conditions that you had a concern with?
Phillips: Yes. I -- at least mine says page ten under special considerations.
Borup: Uh-huh.
Phillips: Let's see. The item one, two -- under three, ACHD staff report, regarding
public streets, that I guess we just want to reiterate that we would prefer to have private
streets, instead of public, and, then, under private streets, second paragraph, staff
would recommend that applicant consider eliminating Victory Road access after
construction is completed in the following fashion. And we do have an issue with that,
eliminating the access to Victory Road.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I might shed a little light. With this we have just a conditional
use request. We don't do the detailed site review at this time and typically we see a
pretty close site plan that's going to be what we anticipate seeing on the ground in the
future when we do staff level final certificate of zoning compliance. With that we still --
as the staff report details, we are going to have a redesign of this one, just because the
multi-family unit standards don't -- are not met with a lot of the design of these -- the
front of these garages. There are I believe 15 units that show 15 feet and we do require
20 feet to back of curb. So, there is a lot of elements that need to be addressed. Staff
wasn't necessitating that they do a loop design like they were showing, it would have
just been that if they are going to do a public street, that they provide one public street
and, then, possibly do an emergency access similar to what Sageland did to Victory
Road, so, then, all the traffic to Victory Road may be eliminated. Now, when we do
these compliance to CUP, that's what I was trying to get at with that portion of the
ordinance, is that when they submit a new site plan to us for final approval for certificate
of zoning compliance, that we can make substantial conformance to your approval with
those special considerations. If they used one, two, or all of the elements of them, that
would be something that we could also concern significant conformance. So, they were
not made or even put in there as conditions to be written into any type of design for final
approval, just as considerations for potentially alternate designs that staff would find in
substantial conformance to the UDC.
Borup: And that's kind of -- thank you. Because that was kind of the direction I was -- I
was wondering. So, it looks like -- I mean the staff report would not at this point require
a redesign of their project, necessarily, would it, for approval? I mean --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 15 of 82
Guenther: I would not. They have some design elements that need to be readdressed,
but staff feels comfortable with the design.
Borup: As far as annexation and zoning.
Guenther: That's correct.
Borup: Okay. Then I don't know that I need a -- I don't know if we need to answer, in
my mind, some of these other questions, unless some of the other Commissioners --
unless you wanted to -- well, again, depending on what -- on what direction it went,
those things would have to be addressed on a final plat and that you understood?
Phillips: Right.
Borup: Okay.
Guenther: Commissioner Borup, just to clarify, there would not be a final plat, it would
be a staff level certificate of zoning compliance.
Borup: Okay. But -- right, because we are not doing lots and blocks. But the staff level
would still need to comply with the -- the same standards that they were addressing. I
don't know -- I don't know if I had anymore questions at this point, unless you -- you
were going through some of the things you had concerns in, but I think all of them
maybe are not going to affect the annexation and zoning.
Phillips: Commissioner Borup, yeah, I -- that's our understanding of this process.
However, I just wanted to insure that these weren't being conditions of approval listed
that way.
Borup: Okay. I think that was explaining that, no, they are not, but those are concerns
to consider in the future.
Rohm: Back to the public versus private roadway. Maybe this question is more of staff
than of you, but if, in fact, we were to make the applicant have a public thoroughfare
from the stub street to the south out all the way through to where it dumps out onto
Victory Road, where -- that connection portion of it, make that public and allow them to
have private roadway for their two cul-de-sacs, would, then, there be a requirement for
lots along the public roadway or is this -- could they still maintain the development just
as presented, except with a wider roadway?
Guenther: Well, I would have to defer that answer to any ACHD representative,
because it would come back to how do you dedicate that roadway without a plat and
since they are not doing a plat, that question I cannot answer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 16 of 82
Rohm: Okay. Well, ostensibly, that does answer it. If you have a public roadway, then,
you have to have a plat. Thank you. Are there any additional questions of the
applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Phillips: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: If we are commenting, just to kind of speak my mind -- and I'm not sure it will
help, because I could easily go either way on this. I'm very sensitive to the issues
raised by the director. They are important considerations for Meridian to think about
and incorporate into projects. I also know that at least, I, myself, and I think most of the
Commissioners always wish that we would get unique and interesting projects. This
appears to be one of those unique and interesting projects that I could easily support if
there weren't the controversy of whether the street's public or private. I like the basic
design of it, the basic idea of it. The only thing I would offer is that if we could somehow
make it clear that if we do recommend approval of this, we are not establishing a
precedent that everybody else can use, but this is a unique experiment to see how it
works and we wouldn't approve another one like it until this one has been in effect for
five years or something like that, just to see whether it works or not. But other than the
plat issue, I like the chairman's suggestion that a portion of the road be public and that
was exactly the portion I would suggest and, then, the cul-de-sacs be private. If that
means a plat, I don't have a problem with that either, really. So, now that I have not
given an opinion --
Rohm: Commissioner Borup, would you like to add any comments?
Borup: No. I think I feel a lot of the same as Commissioner Zaremba just expressed. I
like the uniqueness of the project a lot. It's nice to see something -- something that's
different and I think it offers some -- some opportunity. I think the -- I don't have a lot of
concern because of the size of it. It's close enough to the intersection that -- that if it's
gated -- I mean people don't need to cut through that. It's not that they are gaining
anything. So, I guess I'm saying I like the project.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay?
Newton-Huckabay: I was hoping for public streets through there and I would still like to
see public streets. I would be okay with the concession of the cul-de-sac arms of it
that's private, but I would like the connectivity to be public streets. And I -- oh, I do want
to add, though, I wouldn't mind private streets if the only access was through the south -
- the main access through the south. But I don't think that that's desirable for the
applicant to have no access to Victory. So, I would like to see at least the cut through
that -- for the north -- the south heading north or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 17 of 82
Rohm: And, then, that has other concerns, then. You end up with a plat requirement,
as opposed to the development as currently -- current application indicates.
Commissioner Mae.
Mae: Boy, it's always good to be last here in this explanation point. Actually, I concur
pretty much with the other Commissioners. A couple things I would like to point out that
I do appreciate the applicant -- since our last meeting, you guys did come back with a
different design that did address our concerns in our first meeting. I do appreciate that
immensely. Although I also feel that I want the public street basically from the stub
street out to the Victory Road point. I do believe that that should be noted as a public
street, although you'll have to go in for a plat. I do believe that -- other than that, I could
support it, because I do believe it is a nice project.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for staff. And I may be reading this wrong.
On page 13 we talk about staff recommendations and say subject to conditions listed in
Exhibit B. Is that supposed to be Exhibit C?
Guenther: That is correct. It should be Exhibit C, the conditions in this report.
Borup: Okay. That makes a lot more sense.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if we are mentioning typos, I have one also.
Rohm: By all means.
Zaremba: On page six, roughly in the middle of the page, there is a paragraph six, but
the paragraph that precedes paragraph six, in the middle of that it has a reference to
Amity Road and I believe that should be Victory Road.
Rohm: I believe you're correct. Okay. Then, at this point in time I have a question of
staff. If, in fact, we are going to recommend approval of this with standing the public
roadway versus the private roadway from the sub street to the south to the connection
on Victory, can we make that as a condition of approval and, then, the applicant would,
then, have to come back with a plat or how do you make a motion to that effect? I'm a
little --
Guenther: I'd have to defer that to the legal representative.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I might just mention one of the conditions that's already in the
staff report says the applicant shall contact ACHD to determine that the private roads
are not deemed a competing road system. The applicant shall certify on ACHD
letterhead that this finding can be met prior to City Council. Does that help clarify that
some?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 18 of 82
Rohm: Well, it clarifies if, in fact, it remains private, but if we want to make it a condition
of moving forward that it be public, then, that almost seems to be a moot point and
maybe at this point in time I'll ask legal counsel for his impression.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Council, I think that you can just make that a condition
of approval and he -- the developer will have to decide how they make that happen and
if that involves backing up and including a plat in this, then, that's what they will have to
do. I don't think you have to decide for them how they accomplish that, but if you are
going to make that one of your conditions, just go ahead and do it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I think -- I mean they still have the opportunity take it on to City
Council the way it is with our recommendation.
Rohm: Well, we are going to make -- one of you is going to make a motion forwarding it
on to City Council with a recommendation. How City Council reacts to that
recommendation is solely up to them. So, maybe at this point in time we will just make
a motion as we see it and City Council can react accordingly.
Borup: We don't always necessarily agree with ACHD, but in this case I'm inclined to let
ACHD determine what kind of street system they are comfortable with.
Rohm: Would you like to make a motion to that effect, sir?
Guenther: Mr. Chair, first thing is that you still haven't closed the Public Hearing.
Borup: Right.
Guenther: And, then, Mr. Hood wants to make a comment prior to a motion being
established.
Borup: And I did have a -- well, maybe Mr. Hood needs to speak first, but I did notice
that none of the director's comments were incorporated into the staff report.
Rohm: I believe the reason why is the director's comments came at a late hour and it
was best to make sure that it was included as public testimony.
Borup: Oh, yeah, that was quite late.
Rohm: And that's the reason for that. Caleb.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 19 of 82
Hood: I guess since I have the floor -- I was going to let it go. Just to kind of tag along
with what Mr. Baird said, your motion -- I know there has been some concern about
pressing on applications that you're not quite sure how they are going to look, so I was
just going to also give the option that you could, you know, continue this or make it a
condition that they need a plat and you want to see what that looks like, because the
applicant's testified that it is going to change what they have here. I mean there is no
doubt the roads get wider. There has been some comments about parking having to
change and things like that. So, I just wanted to also add that, that sometimes there
has been concern about pressing on projects, not seeing the final thing and, then, the
City Council approves something you never got to see. They have been a lot better
about remanding things back if it changes significantly, but I just also wanted to throw
that out as an option to just pushing it on to City Council.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: I'm ready to make a motion. I'm just wondering if the applicant has an opinion
on -- on what their preference may be.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Phillips: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, as you know, the -- you know, we were
here two weeks ago, we made the minor changes that were deemed necessary and we
have accomplished that. We would really like to move on to City Council level and,
meanwhile, talk to ACHD, as Joe mentioned in the last meeting, that if ACHD is
developing quite a back log and we could see that we are going to potentially get held
up for quite awhile going through this with the meeting and trying to work this out with
ACHD, get their opinion, then, if platting is involved and so forth. And so we would
really like to, out of respect to I think everyone, be able to move forward to the City
Council level and --
Borup: And that's kind of my question, as long as you realize that you have got things
to work out with ACHD, things to work out with City Council, and if everything was
approved as it is, you got a lot of things to work out with staff on the staff level process.
So, you understand that all those things still need to be worked through?
Phillips: Oh, yeah.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Phillips: Thank you.
Guenther: One final staff comment. Just -- I don't want to sound like I'm defending the
applicant, but ACHD has had four staff members comment on this and they have been
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 20 of 82
kind of inconsistent and he is correct in saying that it may be awhile before he gets
another written comment from them.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we close the Public Hearing --
Borup: Both of them. Go ahead. Were you going to repeat those?
Rohm: Yes. On AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date March 16th, 2006. End of motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, discussion?
Borup: Yeah. We don't have a second, so I guess it would be discussion.
Zaremba: I would ask that we add two elements. I agree with the basis of the motion,
but I would want to ask --
Borup: The motion is consistent with the staff report.
Zaremba: Well, the staff report asks for all public streets and I like the compromise
suggestion of a public street from the stub to Victory and private streets for the two cul-
de-sacs. But, then, I would also add an if and that is if the applicant puts landscaping
across the south end of the stub street, it's with the understanding it will be removed as
soon as there is a stub street available to connect to. I don't want there to be any lack
of clarity on that.
Rohm: And I think that what you're saying is consistent with the balance of the
Commission. I believe that the motion -- the intent was to let Ada County Highway
District make that determination and that's why Commissioner Borup cut his motion off
at that point, but maybe I'll let Keith respond to that himself.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 21 of 82
Borup: Yes, it was. And I -- unless I'm missing it, I'm not seeing where the staff report
required public streets. They said it, you know, essentially, needs to be determined by
ACHD. Unless I missed the sentence that had that. So, I think the motion is consistent
with the staff report, so --
Rohm: And so the motion, basically, is let Ada County Highway District determine if a
public roadway is necessary to meet their objectives. So, that's -- I don't believe that
Keith's motion would include your comments.
Borup: At this point it didn't.
Rohm: It didn't. So, I guess at this point I will see if we get a second. Okay.
Borup: Let's try another motion from someone.
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd entertain a second motion.
Zaremba: I'd be happy to try, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Very similar. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-067 and CUP
05-060, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 16th, 2006, with
the following modifications: One, that the roadway be a public dedicated roadway from
the stub street and including the stub street, through to Victory Road and the two cul-de-
sacs may be private streets if the applicant so desires. And the second is that if the
applicant chooses to put landscaping across the southern end of the stub street, it's with
the understanding that it would be removed immediately as soon as there is a
connecting stub street available on the property to the south. End of motion.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, with stated modifications to the staff report. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thanks very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: 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:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 22 of 82
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open up the continued Public Hearing from February 16th,
2006, of PP 06-002, related to Gateway Marketplace Subdivision and begin with the
staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is continued
from -- sorry. This is the section right here, again, from the development agreement site
plan. This is the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. This is the slide I wanted
to -- for the revised preliminary plat approval. It's for 18 commercial lots on 22.85 acres
in a C-G zone. This is an existing C-G zone. With this, the following modifications have
been made. This was originally six attached kind of medium large units, I guess you
can say, with -- and they originally had five small units at the end of the sixth one to the
north. The applicant has redesigned this with several amenity-type of uses. There is
one additional eight foot walkway. As you can see, they would all exceed the standards
for landscaping. In this location right here these three uses will share outside amenities.
Staff has conditioned that those would not go away with subsequent development,
which we would really like to see that happen. As well as in the corner of the -- their
cross-access, they are showing additional landscaping pads, that type of development.
Again, this is something that is more of an amenity, because outdoor seating seems to
be much more desirable when you're waiting for a table. As well as the staff has done
the modulation to the buildings to meet the requirements of the gateway corridor, has
broken up the parking lot by adding a pad site in the middle. Has provided the private
street style cross-connections with the sidewalks and additional landscaping as
required. The outstanding issue continues to be the connection to Eagle Road, which
will be at roughly the quarter mile mark. The application is showing the half section of
41 -- or a 42 foot wide road system. The applicant is also showing an additional 20-foot
landscape buffer from this commercial site to what, potentially, could be either an office,
residential, or an additional commercial site to the south of this project. Essentially, the
applicant has also redesigned the loading docks in order to facilitate large truck traffic
coming off of Eagle -- or off of Ustick and not off of Eagle and would not have to cross
traffic at an uncontrolled intersection. I guess the staff report has made findings for
approval of this site as conditioned. They have come back with a plan that seems to
meet the concerns of the Commission of the prior hearing and staff is recommending
approval of this site as designed. Again, similar design elements are still pending final
approval by City Council, which would be the access points to Eagle Road. We would
foresee that these points would be contingent on that, as well as a potential redesign,
but the applicant is getting the commercial plat, which we don't always see a very static
design come through at this level. So, this would be for, essentially, 18 general
commercial lots, which, as conditioned with the incorporation of the additional design
elements, staff feels comfortable recommending approval of this to the City Council and
the Commission. I'll stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 23 of 82
Moe: Joe, just a couple things I'm assuming might just be misunderstood. The
preliminary plat that I received, you're noting that it was redesigned March the 10th. I
didn't see any dating of the preliminary plat. Basically I have got a received by the city
on that date, but nothing in the revised.
Guenther: That is correct. The applicant's engineer did not re-stamp it. It still says
November 15th.
Moe: Yes.
Guenther: I stamped all of them in as received March 10th in order to indicate that
those were the revised drawings.
Mae: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson, landmark
Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way, Boise. February 16th I was before you. You
gave us some great direction. I think what we came back with, we are, actually, more
exited about it than our original. So, I think we did some good work there. Hopefully
you do, too. Joe, can you -- okay. I gave him a little disk to put up. I do want to note
that the preliminary plat -- the site plan that you see still is conceptual in nature. The
exact mix of where things are going to land may change, but staff has build in conditions
of making sure that certain pads have pedestrian plazas and that kind of stuff. So, you
should feel comfortable with that. We will comply with that, although, you know, the size
may get bigger or smaller or configuration may change a little bit. Joe went through the
specific changes with you. I did want to note just a little bit -- before we had a -- a very
straight driveway coming through here where we have made this one kind of meander
and we pushed out the center building 20 feet, pushed these back five feet, and, then,
we left these end ones where they were before. So, they are all staggered a little bit, so
nothing's in a straight line any longer. And, then, we do have our three points of access
to the west and, then, the one to the south, which staff was -- was requesting. There
are -- and, I'm sorry, I should have gotten with Joe prior to this, but I just noticed that
there is a couple areas in the staff report where there is some discrepancy for this
frontage-backage road that's required in the development agreement. In the 2004
development agreement it stated that this property was to have a frontage or a backage
road along Eagle Road and on the first page, page one, in the second paragraph, the
last four lines there, talk about the requirement of a frontage road and that staff feels
that the future collector road east of the site addresses the interconnectivity of the site
and -- but, then, there is other areas on page nine and eleven where it talks about we
need -- we still need to redesign the site plan in order to accommodate this frontage
road and so I just wanted to clarify that the intent is that -- and our workings with ACHD
has been that they want the -- the new Allys Way, which is on the east side on the other
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 24 of 82
side of the Una Mas property, that that be the back-age road and not another one
through our property. So, I just wanted to hopefully --
Borup: Do you know the specific paragraphs on those?
Thompson: I do. On page nine -- I'm sorry. That's a different one. Page ten, the
cross-access internal, it would be one, two -- the third paragraph down. Full paragraph
down. The middle of that it would be one, two, three, four, five -- the sixth line there --
Borup: There we go.
Thompson: -- it says the site should be --
Borup: Yes.
Thompson: -- redesigned to provide the backage road. So, first, I guess I would ask for
clarification from staff and, second, it would be that the intent is that the new roadway
Allys -- I believe it's called Allys Way, be the backage requirement. And just so you
know, we worked with ACHD on this and because that requirement would be coming off
of this property, we have agreed to pay for a portion of that road -- of the new roadway.
Borup: So, that was just left over from the previous report; is that correct?
Guenther: Yeah. I must have missed that. The intent of the development agreement
for providing that backage road has been satisfied with this development plan. I mean
there is three points of cross-access, with one of them being a future public, so staff
would find that -- that condition of the development agreement has been met with this
design.
Rohm: Thank you.
Thompson: Okay. Thank you. I guess there is just another one, Joe. With the
commercial cross-access points, it talks on page nine and page eleven -- this is the
other one -- where the -- that the preliminary plat does not include the cross-access
points. Is that left over? The last paragraph on page nine and the cross-access
paragraph, which is the second main heading from the bottom. It says the applicant has
provided a design not showing any points of access within the immediate vicinity and,
then, it asks for three points of access to the east and one to the south.
Guenther: I'll revise those.
Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Are we not going to get--
Guenther: No. It won't read your disk.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 25 of 82
Thompson: It's a good thing I printed it out. So, can we put it on the Elmo? The next
thing I wanted to go over Commissioner Moe had asked for some examples of loading
dock areas, of how we could mitigate the concerns of the neighbors to our east, which
are putting in multi-story office buildings. And I drove around town, took pictures of all
the ones I could find that had some sort of a wall there and I actually found two and
none them on Eagle Road and it was surprising that even some adjacent to residential
uses didn't have any type of a buffer or anything like that, but the two that I will show
you -- one of them is, actually, the really old Albertson's on Broadway and Beacon, has
a wall. This one is, actually, at the Crossroads center behind -- I don't think it's for the
Toys -- or the Babies R Us, but it's for the craft center. They have a very small -- a very
small wall here and what we would propose is -- I believe this wall to be four feet high.
But we would propose about an eight foot wall, so it would be a configuration just like
this and if the back -- if the building is a concrete block building, that there be a -- a wall
eight feet tall along the recessed dock, so that the adjacent neighbors would have both
a visual and a sound barrier. So, that's one. Can you flip to the next page, please?
This is, actually, the old one at Albertson's on Beacon. Theirs is about seven feet all
here at this one end and, then, it steps down, but -- so if we went like a foot higher than
that and just brought that back. And then -- one more, please. This one is out at the
Albertson's in Columbia Village and it's not for the truck dock area, but it's for the trash
compactor, and they have built a little -- a little wing wall here that's about eight feet tall,
that -- I think we should add that also, that there be a buffer for trash compactors and for
recessed loading docks. If it's just a surface -- some of the retailers, like -- I don't know
that all the retailers will have recessed truck docks, but those that do would have this
requirement and those that don't wouldn't. And, then, the regular trash enclosures
would be -- trash units would be in a trash enclosure also. But we haven't addressed
compactors, so I thought I'd show you a picture of that. The other thing that -- in our last
meeting that we talked about for the adjacent property is that we would make the -- the
landscaping larger along that property line and we have addressed that in the
landscape plan that we have -- that we have attached. The revised one that we
submitted. Lastly would be Eagle Road access and the existing development
agreement states that we need to work with ITD for approval and it also showed an
intent that Eagle Road access would be approved. I hope you guys all got the letter I
sent, the letter that Mr. Kissler was given by lTD. I brought more copies in case you
didn't, but -- so I just wanted to -- we are still working with ITD and right now it looks like
they will be granting us right of way approval. It went to their executive permits
committee Tuesday and they tell me a letter is imminent. So, we are hoping by the end
of the month that we will have that letter for the two access points. Thank you very
much.
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant at this time?
Zaremba: I do have one, if I may. Joe, can you go back to the Columbia Village
picture? I pick on this one, because it has some decorative treatment, I'll call it, that
there is some variation either in color or material or something there and that was going
to be my question. Along this east side -- it's the back of these buildings, but it's not the
backs of the people that are east of you and along with your offer to do a screening wall,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 26 of 82
I think it would also be helpful to have something that breaks it up visually -- either
horizontally like this or I was actually thinking some vertical alternate colors or, you
know, sometimes there is different cinder block faces, alternate those or something. Is
that a possibility?
Thompson: Yes. And I believe from last time a month ago we kind of touched on that,
where material, whether it's, you know, horizontal blocking or some sort of vertical
blocking -- this is, actually, done just with paint. It's all the same block and they just put
some paint stripes on there, but it does give -- give some break for the residences that
are behind. What's back behind here is they have -- they have some parking garages
and, then, two story apartments behind that. So, the garages are kind of their buffer.
But I do agree that we should have that as -- at least color bands coming around or
horizontally or vertically, that staff, when we get our CZC, you know, for the building
permit, that that be a requirement.
Zaremba: Great. Thank you. I also want to say I appreciate your modulating the long
building. I thought that looked very nice.
Thompson: Good suggestion.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Okay. We do
not have anybody signed up to testify on this application, but if anyone would like to
come forward at this time, now is the time. Seeing none, maybe open to discussion.
Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 06-002.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on PP 06-002.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: It seems to me that we had the discussion last time and the applicant's done
everything we asked for and more and cooperated with the staff on everything. I see
some heads nodding.
Borup: Yeah. I don't know that we need a lot of discussion. I really like the looks of it.
I think it's going to have a nice feel to it. It's a nice project.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 06-002, to
include all staff comments for their meeting for -- of their memo for the meeting of March
16th, 2006, with the following changes: References to frontage or backage roads can
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 27 of 82
be deleted as being satisfied by the ACHD road that will be to the east of this. And
references to the cross-access are, apparently, also being satisfied. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of PP 06-002, to include all staff comments with stated modifications. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: CUP 06..002
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Equipment Rental, Sales and
Service Business on 2.49 acres in a C-G zone for Sunbelt Equipment
Rental by Franklin/Stratford Investments, LLC - 483 East Franklin Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public -- open the continued Public Hearing for --
from February 16th, 2006, for CUP 06-002. This item related to Sunbelt Equipment
Rental and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item actually has been
continued once before. It was not heard. The applicant actually met with staff the day
before the hearing, I think it was last time, or maybe the day of the hearing, went
through some of the issues. Staff was recommending denial at that time. We sat down,
had a very productive meeting, they have moved the site over -- and I apologize, the
computer doesn't seem to be working tonight. There is a presentation that would give
you the vicinity map. It's two lots within Bonner Park Subdivision, which is on the south
side of Franklin Road, right adjacent to the park. There is a Car Quest that is not too far
away. You may have noticed some of the construction that's directly across Stratford
from the cemetery. That's where we are at. So, this application is for a Conditional Use
Permit to operate an equipment rental, sales, and service business. I need to give you
a visual of it, anyways, but it's a 2.49 acre site and, really, there aren't a lot of issues. A
lot of the issues have been addressed with that meeting that we had and the staff
report. I'm going to go through some of the landscaping requirements. That seems to
be where some of the -- a majority of the comments and conditions that the staff is
recommending occur. The applicant is also concurrently with the conditional use
permit, had applied for alternative compliance for a couple of our landscaping
requirements around some parking aisles, just vehicle use areas, and just to run
through some of those conditions, in Exhibit B, page one, condition 1.2 just requires a
five foot wide landscape strip adjacent to all the vehicle use areas. So, the subject site
is this area here. The applicant provided this to me today or yesterday to bring to kind
of just show the overall area. The park would be in this area here. The landscaping --
they are proposing landscaping adjacent to the east and west sides of the northern half
of this project. So, the buildings are here, there is a drive aisle that runs parallel to
Franklin, and they are proposing a five foot wide landscape strip on either side of that
area. That condition that I just mentioned would also require landscaping along all of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 28 of 82
the vehicle use areas, basically all the impervious surface, asphalt, yard as well.
Number three. That basically -- that condition was born of a gentleman with Capital
Educators coming in and speaking with me. He had some concerns about their large
fleet trucks being parked on the private street and that's, of course, the street they use
and their customers use, so we thought it was a good idea to require all the fleet trucks
to be stored on the site. Again, because the park -- city park is right here, staff is
recommending that an eight foot -- the applicant's proposing an eight foot block wall,
again, on the north half, roughly, and, then, to put slats and chain link for the other half
to screen that outdoor storage area. Staff is recommending that that actually be an
eight foot tall block wall that entire western boundary. And, then, in addition, their
current site -- Sunbelt's current site over on Commercial has booms that are 30, 40 feet
in the air and staff did not think -- does not think it's an appropriate site to have those
type of equipment that visible on a major roadway and I bet you could see it from -- from
Main Street as well. So, that condition is that everything needs to be screened. And,
then, one that just says that through respect from the numbers, all the maintenance stuff
should happen inside. the thing I did want to point out as well and, I will conclude my
comments, is that there is a comment in there, it's not a condition, but there are some --
there is a fueling station and some docks that are also on the site and just -- there is
some concern -- and there are some standards that the planning department doesn't
necessarily enforce, you know, the fire department has standards for dispensing
flammable liquids and storage of those types of things. It is an accessory of this. I
understand that that's something that they really need to have on here, just to -- just a
concern, that it really is -- and, again, I apologize for not having an aerial, but it is, really,
a commercial -- a mixed use area and this really is going kind of towards that industrial
type of use. I mean it is -- they have large flatbed trucks that they move stuff around on.
I think it can work with the conditions in the staff report and they can be a good neighbor
to everyone around them and it's definitely better than the first go around. So, with that
I think I will stand for any questions you may have.
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, first a comment and, then, a related question. I understand
their request for not having internal landscaping, I'll call it. I work with large vehicles all
the time. I work with buses, but same situation. It's very difficult to move large vehicles
around in an area that's got landscaping put around the way it would in a normal parking
lot for a commercial thing, so I can understand their desire not to do that and, actually,
support it. There is one comment in the staff report that says they are asking that the
requirements be waived, as opposed applying for a variance. But I would like to
suggest that whatever landscaping they don't do in the middle of the truck movement
area, is added somewhere else. I agree with the alternate compliance. The staff report,
I believe, mentions heat disbursement, but there is also -- trees and shrubs help with
pollution control and I think that amount of material does need to be somewhere on the
property. That gets me to my question. The landscaping buffer, particularly along the
park and the wall, I wasn't clear which side which is on. Is the landscaping inside of the
wall to this property or outside of the wall?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 29 of 82
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, we -- with the UDC there is no longer any
landscape buffer that's required. That landscape strip -- five foot landscape strip would
be required on this side of the property on this side of the wall or fence or whatever, to --
and not because it's a park, but just to your property line we require a five foot wide
landscape strip.
Zaremba: So, what would border the park is actually the wall?
Hood: Correct. On the property line or just off the property line. So, there would be
asphalt, essentially, up to the wall, wall, park site. And I think it's mentioned in the staff
report the reason for that -- usually there is not fencing right on the property line in most
commercial cases. They are not screening their vehicle use areas, they are open
parking lots or whatever. There are several reasons. One is usually you got cars
parked and we are afraid that they will overhang onto someone else's property, so it
automatically pulls you back at least five feet, so you have two or three feet to
overhang. Trees are also usually in there, so you need an area for a tree to grow and
the root system for shrubs and things. So, five feet is your landscape strip that you get
the trees in. It also helps with water runoff. Sometimes there is a storm event, they are
not all designed the way they are supposed to be, so it keeps some of that -- if by
chance runoff were to flow toward someone else's property, it keeps it on site anyway.
So, that's some of the reasons why that standard is there. And also the landscaping
internally, I -- it was a tough recommendation for me, the landscaping anyways. The
one that is in the staff report, though, not -- that I would like to touch on that I didn't --
and I'm sorry to switch gears. It's still in the same area, but on the end of the -- they
have got 19 parking stalls in a row here behind the gates that are enclosed. I do have
some concern about this parking -- a planter being on the end of that row, capping that
row really to protect, just from what you're saying, driving large vehicles and not
realizing someone may be parked there and running into that. And that was one of the
reasons we do require the parking islands on the ends of the rows. I didn't touch on that
in the conditions, but that is one of the conditions I did want to just mention briefly. But
that five feet landscaping, to go back to your original question, would be on this
property.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Back on the internal landscaping again. If I understand
this staff report, you're saying not required to do planters, et cetera, but you're still -- the
staff report's still requesting some internal landscaping, even though this is not a parking
area, just an equipment storage area? Is that what I understand?
Hood: Yeah. And that's where the -- Mr. Chair, Commissioners, that's where the fine
line is. I mean I would look at all of this as a vehicle use area. None of it's defined as
being storage here and here are your drive aisles as your standard parking lots would
be. So, my interpretation is that if it's paved it's a vehicle use area. And so by
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 30 of 82
ordinance, if it's a vehicle area, you put landscaping adjacent to it. The staff report,
then, says you put landscaping adjacent to all of those areas. So, that's what that
condition is, that condition 1.2. Now, the landscape plan is a separate issue, but those
are, really, the two alternative compliance requests that the applicant has applied for.
The alternative to not putting in the five feet on the southern portion is to put up a fence.
So, there is some alternative proposed, it's just to put up a fence there to prevent cars
from overhanging and doing some of those things that I mentioned earlier.
Borup: We'll get some more clarification from the applicant.
Rohm: I think that's a good place to transition. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please.
Larsen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
My name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray in Boise, Idaho. I'm here tonight
representing the applicant, who is actually home ill with the flu. So, we had -- as Mr.
Hood had mentioned, met with staff before the last meeting and elected to present a
different design to you to try to alleviate some of the concerns staff had. So, the design
that's before you tonight is, in fact, an attempt to alleviate some of those concerns that
were mentioned earlier on. As we have read the staff report, we had a -- some of the
same concerns regarding landscaping and where it was placed and some of those
things. So, I'd like to take just a minute if I could and tell you some of the things that we
have done as we have moved through the new design. Last time the applicant was
here in town we did meet with the parks department to discuss what we could do along
the park side of it and the two buildings that you see here that are under construction
and this building here that's under construction, are buildings that are already going or
are up on the site. They are owned by the same owner that would own the Sunbelt
Equipment facility. On these two buildings there is a sewer easement that runs here.
The sewer line is six to eight feet off of the property line. When we met with parks
originally we had talked about putting a block wall here. We were concerned about
having a block wall close to an existing sewer line, so we had -- we went ahead and met
with the parks department and asked them what we could do here and they told us we
could plant additional planting on the park side and -- to screen these particular
buildings and put some -- the planting out there and that they would go ahead and take
care of it and maintain it. We would put the planting in at whatever they directed to do.
We used the same philosophy from here to here, so there was some consistency along
the park and we did have Elroy Huff, which I have a copy of a drawing that he initialed
that has writing on it basically saying that he would like to see chain link and slats there
along the park, so that it was, basically, consistent with what we were doing. Again, we
would be adding plant material out here based on his direction. Part of the reason for
doing that was because when we started these two buildings we had met with staff, Mr.
Freckleton, and we were really concerned about having a wall close to that sewer line
and wanted to maintain the openness of that easement. And there is an easement
there. Putting a wall on it, I'm not sure we can actually even put the wall on it and
comply with the terms of the easement of the plat. So, in any event, I do have these
handouts that I can give to you and staff and to Mrs. Green so you have those for your
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 31 of 82
file. The particular document you have is -- is the meeting that my client had last time
he was in town with the parks department regarding the proposal to work along that
boundary of the new Sunbelt site. In addition to that meeting, we had -- we had
concerns, too, as staff had mentioned and the gentleman from the credit union about
what the yard might look like from the street and from there the credit union's building
and we had proposed to put a block wall in this location to screen it off. This building to
the south has landscaping here. They have a yard in here that would be available for
their use. This was chain link. And from there up to the block wall that exists up here
was chain link. Part of our reason for the chain link here was not knowing what may go
on on the building to the west that's -- or, excuse me, the east that's under construction
and they were very similar uses, so the question was did it need landscaping or did it --
was it fine without the landscaping along this boundary separating them. We found
from time to time that as tenants move and owners change things, that having some of
these landscape buffers in here on building -- these flex type buildings is very difficult for
them to utilize it in the future without tearing that out or doing some additional things to
make it work for them. So, consequently, our philosophy was to try to screen from the
street and to be consistent along the park boundary and also taking into account that
there is a sewer easement along that boundary. We do have a block wall from
approximately the end of the park out to the end of the building on Sunbelt, which is
also paralleling the easement and we do feel that that's very necessary, because that is
also screening from Franklin Road and as the buildings going this way get built, it will
eliminate some of this need for the block wall, but at this point in time we did feel like
there was a need for a block wall there and over here along the corner that's also
fronting Franklin. In the condition 1.4 there is noted that they wanted this to construct
an eight foot block wall and that's what we prefer to do, although there may be
something in your staff report. We did receive comments from the police department
saying they'd like to see a six foot wall, because it was easier for them to scale and
easier for them to see in the yard. We would prefer to maintain the eight foot wall at this
point in time. On item 1.3 -- the Sunbelt people don't have a problem putting their fleet
trucks inside the yard and off of the street. What we would like to do is we don't have
control over what the public might do as they use that site from time to time. So, what
we'd like to do on 1.3 is just note that all Sun belt fleet trucks be stored and kept inside
and not parked out on the street and et cetera. On item 1.4, again, we were -- we were
reluctant to construct a block wall over on the west side and east side of the project,
because of the flexibility on the east side and because the sewer easement and the
arrangement we had reached with the parks department on the west side. On condition
1.5 we want to note that we want to keep all the booms down on the equipment.
Sunbelt has agreed to keep the booms down on the equipment. They do have 13
pieces of equipment that are, actually, over the eight foot height, just because of the
way they function. They have 12 of them that are 8.6 high when the boom's down and
locked down in position and we have one that is nine foot six high that is locked down
when it's in position. Those pieces of equipment would theoretically stick up above the
eight foot limit of the wall, but, in reality, if you're standing on the ground that eight foot
limit actually grows as it goes into the middle of the yard. So, we would want to make
sure we mention that to you. We had no issues with 1.6, 1.7, 1.8. We did -- staff did
note that there were some fuel islands and docks out here. Those are fairly integral to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 32 of 82
the business that we do need to get equipment that's transported or brought into the
facility off of a truck and we need a dock to do so and it's an above-ground dock. We
also need a fuel island, but -- obviously, to put fuel and gas in, whatever, lawnmowers
or pieces of equipment that are rented out. With that I would be happy to answer any
questions. I do have a -- since Caleb's computer wasn't running, I do have a colored
rendering of the buildings that I have brought along, some colored prints, if you had
questions regarding the look of the buildings. And I'm not sure how you want me to do
this. I've got four of them.
Rohm: I think possibly go ahead and give Caleb one and he can put it up.
Larsen: And I did have some -- actually, some printed versions of the overall site plan
that shows all of the buildings, kind of the master plan that's been developed in that
area. If you want copies of that I have that available as well. With that I'd be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Larsen, I'm just curious and -- what -- as I understand Sunbelt
Equipment, that's heavy equipment, Caterpillar, John Deere, is that incorrect?
Larsen: They have boom trucks. They have man lifts. They do have some heavy
equipment, some that we had -- we show a graveled area here that would store some
heavy equipment. They do have some fairly good sized equipment. They are not huge
Caterpillars, but they are track equipment that they do use.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. What type of things would be inside the store that --
Larsen: They would have things like lawnmowers, chain saws, small tools. They would
do their maintenance on those vehicles inside the store that they might have out for
rental. They probably have lawn yard aerators, power rakes, the typical rental things
you would see. They also do have larger equipment that are -- typically goes out to
construction sites for contractors to rent. These would be boom lifts or man lifts or
those types of products.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Larsen, is it the intent that they are going to move from their existing location
into this site? Is that the plan?
Larsen: Mr. Chair, Mr. Moe that is correct. They would be moving from their existing
site. They are willing to lower all their equipment down. They do like this site from an
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 33 of 82
exposure standpoint. They are trying to gear themselves to a more public retail sales
base, as well as the contractor base.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Larsen, on 1.3 you mentioned on the fleet trucks -- I don't
know if I caught that. You said just limited it to Sunbelt fleet trucks. Is there a concern
there is going to be other trucks there around the site? You mean -- or were you
referring to trucks that had nothing to do with -- with the Sunbelt business?
Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, Sunbelt has their own trucks that they use
to deliver equipment. We would want those stored inside the facility. If a person that
was going to rent a piece of equipment shows up in a truck, it's very hard for us to
control which direction they might come from, but as far as being able to tell the Sun belt
people as a tenant of the owner that they have to enter in off of Scenery Lane, we can
control that. Our point of not being able to control something is what the general public
would do.
Borup: Okay. I was referring -- I guess I misunderstood. I was referring to the parking.
Larsen: No. The parking would be inside.
Borup: Okay. You're just saying all three --
Larsen: Yeah.
Borup: So -- yeah. Okay. That makes sense.
Moe: Mr. Chairman? Oh. Sorry.
Borup: On 1.4 you had mentioned that, but in the way the staff has that worded
presently, doesn't that satisfy your client and -- because it says a combination of chain
link and block wall.
Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I'd probably have to defer to staff, but I
think staffs recommendation was that there be a block wall on the west side along the
park and that there also be -- but the wall -- excuse me. But the fence between the
existing building and the Sun belt could remain chain link, as well as on the south side
could remain chain link.
Borup: Okay. So, you weren't -- Mr. Hood, you weren't talking about chain link on the
park area, then, in your --
Hood: The only change to what the applicant proposed was along the western
boundary adjacent to the park, that that would be a block wall, rather than the chain link
with slats on that side. All other perimeter fencing I'm recommending approval as is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 34 of 82
Borup: Which was -- it sounds like not consistent with what was done to the south,
then. All right. Then on the boom, would -- you had mentioned some of them are half a
foot taller. So, I'm wondering if the statement saying that all the booms would be locked
down at all times. Would that comply?
Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that would be our desire is to keep all the
booms down at the lowest level that they can be --
Borup: Rather than have the eight foot height limit statement.
Larsen: Correct.
Borup: Mr. Hood, does that make sense?
Hood: It makes sense. I'm concerned about maybe other equipment, though, being
screened. If the booms are the only ones that may exceed it by six or a foot or 18
inches or whatever, that all other equipment needs to be screened -- fully screened from
view. I'm okay with it -- you know, if there is an exception here or there or booms that
can't go any lower than eight feet and exceed that minimum, that's fine.
Larsen: I think, Mr. Chairman, that's our intent is that the pieces of equipment that are
on site, they be kept as low as they can and that nothing be allowed to go above that. I
would hope that they would be able to maintain that and we can certainly control that as
best we can by lease.
Rohm: Well, possibly if we put a ten foot limit, then -- my concern would be that at
some point in time you may come back with equipment that has, you know, a 14 foot,
you know, minimum height and that at some point in time we are getting to a point
where we are exceeding the intent of the -- of the comments from the staff.
Larsen: I think we would concur with that. I mean we want -- we want some limit, but
we want you to know that there is some equipment there that we cannot get below a
certain height.
Rohm: Right. That makes sense, too.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman that makes sense to me to say like a ten foot limit. The way
staff put it is not limited to booms, because there are, you know, man lifts and cherry
pickers and other things that can be extended and I agree with the requirement not to
be as visible. I would suggest that ten feet's a good idea.
Larsen: If any of the Commissioners have been by their existing site, the booms are
extended for reasons of advertising and, again, if moving to this gets them better
exposure and -- they can move those booms downward.
Rohm: Good. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 35 of 82
Zaremba: I was going to make the comments that it's exciting to see a Meridian
business growing and expanding and needing to move into another -- my first
impression was that this was kind of an odd spot for it, but I think staff has covered and
you have agreed to things that would make that a good spot. I appreciate your
providing the drawings of the front of the building. What scares me is the Car Quest
building which is near by is -- in my opinion, takes the price for being the ugliest building
in Meridian and when I saw you were going to do a metal building, I thought, oh, no, we
are getting another one. But the facade makes me comfortable with it. So, thank you.
Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we have had that discussion before on
the building and our instruction to our staff was not to duplicate the Car Quest building.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any additional questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
Rohm: At this time would Richard Cummings like to come forward, please. Okay.
From the audience Mr. Cummings said he had nothing additional to add and he is in
support of the project. At this time is there anybody else that would like to come forward
and speak to this application? Seeing none, move to discussion or close the Public
Hearing.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-002.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-
002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just -- I want to make one comment that me, personally,
as far as the building goes, the interior rental, chain saws, et cetera, I think that's an
appropriate use for that area. I think it's a completely inappropriate use for heavy
equipment in that -- that part of Franklin Road. I don't think it marries well with what
else is going on around there and I just think it's a bad location for that type of business
with heavy equipment. I feel that's more industrial use, so that's --
Rohm: And you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Newton-Huckabay: I would be not in favor of the project for that reason.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 36 of 82
Zaremba: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would agree that was my first thought as well. I would
visualize a yard like this being farther west on Franklin, maybe in the area of the bus
barn and Sanitary Services Company or maybe on Overland west of Meridian where
there are similar things. But that to me would be a more obvious place to put this
business, because it would blend in with the surrounding things. On the other hand, I
was satisfied by the conditions that staff has put on it and applicant's willingness not to
be a blight on the landscape, so to speak.
Newton-Huckabay: I guess I just want to preface my thoughts on -- the heavy
equipment is loud and, you know, you have the backup alarms and all of type of thing,
which are required and I just don't think that it's -- I just don't think with the park right
next door, the public pool, it's not an appropriate use in that area.
Rohm: Okay. Any other comments before we entertain a motion?
Borup: The only thing that -- in my mind I wasn't -- know if it's settled, seems to be a
problem. The only thing that there was any -- any differences between the staff report
and what the applicant wanted was on the west wall. Staff's talking about a block wall.
He had said they talked to the parks department and the parks department would prefer
the chain link with landscaping on their property, but the parks department comments
don't say that, so --
Rohm: Maybe we could get clarification from staff.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup. The parks department's conditions were from
the original site plan. Now, I don't -- I did not touch base with them afterwards, but I
would imagine it's the same use up to the same site, so I have not talked with Elroy -- I
did work with Elroy and Don at Mr. larsen's office when those other two buildings
further to the south came through and I was familiar with what was going on and putting
the landscaping on the park side. Those were a little bit different. I mean they are flex
uses. They weren't -- and they do have some -- some storage areas or potential
storage areas there. This use, though, is more intense as far as the outdoor storage
than those ones were. They were more geared towards internal businesses. So, the
parks department's conditions were based on the original site plan, so --
Borup: Okay. Well, my thought was -- I mean if it's the parks department's preference
and they are the neighbor that we are talking about here, if they preferred that it be
consistent along their property, that seems to make sense to me, which is -- which is
different than the staff report and, you know, there would be a condition added about
off-site landscaping.
Rohm: Yeah. I tend to agree with you on that and maybe just adjust the staff report for
-- in your motion so state something to that effect.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 37 of 82
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Would it be appropriate to ask the parks department to comment
before City Council on the new site plan?
Borup: That might handle that. And be a little more specific in their comments.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Zaremba: Well, the applicant did supply a drawing that was signed by the parks
department.
Borup: But nothing was mentioned about landscaping.
Zaremba: Yeah. That's true.
Borup: Just the fence.
Mae: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just state that because of the fact that we are
looking to do the block wall to the north portion up to the upper portion of the property
continuing all the way through, I think it's going to blend better with this property,
number one, and, number two, I think Huckabay's comments in regards to the noise and
whatnot with the eight foot block wall as a screening between this property and the park,
i.e., and the pool and whatnot, you will get some sound abatement at that point with that
block wall and that block wall would be in the yard area where all this equipment will be
parked. So, I think that staff's comment is to continue that block wall all the way through
and I think that's probably the way we should continue on.
Newton-Huckabay: That makes more sense.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd also ask staff while we are sort on that subject, for
alternate compliance -- I have sort of felt like I was satisfied by Mr. Larsen saying there
is going to be plant material, it's just going to be on the park, instead of in their property.
Is it all right to approve off-site alternate compliance?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that's exactly what we did on the other two
lots to the south, because there is a sewer line there, they couldn't really provide it
where it's supposed to go anyway. So, we worked with the applicant and said, hey, if
you can get the parks department to okay you planting it on their side and maintaining it,
that was something that we could support. And, again, it doesn't meet all of the intents
that are in the code for requiring that, but, yeah, that is something that -- that alternative
compliance is geared for or circumstance like that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: I'd entertain a motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16. 2006
Page 38 of 82
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'll make an attempt at it and people listen and correct me if
you need to. Did we close the Public Hearing?
Borup: Yes, we did.
Zaremba: We did. Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and
public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-002 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of March 16, 2006, with the following modifications. On page
one of Exhibit B, paragraph 1.3, the mention of all fleet trucks can be all Sunbelt fleet
trucks. Paragraph 1.4 I would leave as is. Paragraph 1.5 I would change the shall not
exceed eight feet in height to ten feet in height. Shall not exceed ten feet in height.
Paragraph 1.8 I would add a bullet that says for alternate compliance, plant materials on
the park site to the west are acceptable. I believe that's it.
Moe: Mr. Zaremba, do you want to speak to the lock down of the booms under 1.5?
Zaremba: I think as long as we have a ten foot height limit that would -- that would do it.
Moe: Okay.
Zaremba: That's the intent of the ten feet height limit.
Hood: Mr. Chair, can I ask the maker a clarification question? For clarification, your
added bullet, does that take the place of the first sentence in 1.2? I know that was a
topic. That five foot wide landscape strip, do we want to strike -- because they are kind
of in conflict there, if you add that bullet that -- I think the intent is that they provide the
landscaping on the park side, but 1.2 requires it adjacent to all their --
Zaremba: What if we change that sentence to read that -- in 1.2, construct a five foot
landscape strip adjacent to all small vehicle use areas, because there are places where
you want it; right?
Hood: Uh-huh. Yeah.
Zaremba: And the large vehicle use areas don't need it.
Hood: I think I understand the intent, yeah.
Zaremba: Okay. So, I would -- on Exhibit B, page one -- this is part of the motion.
Paragraph 1.2, insert the word small after all, so that it reads construct a five foot wide
landscape strip adjacent to all small vehicle use areas.
Mae: I'll second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 39 of 82
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto -- no. We approve
CUP 06-002, including the report with the mentioned changes. All those in favor say
aye.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before we vote, I left part of the motion off. I need to add to
the motion.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: I'd further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to
be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on April 6, 2006, as part of
the previous motion.
Mae: I will re-second that.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-002 to include
staff report and all amendments to that staff report. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Rohm: Motion carries. One dissenting.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Rohm: At this time we will take a short recess and reconvene at 9:30.
(Recess.)
Item 8:
Public Hearing: AZ 06..010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50
acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big
River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way:
Item 9:
Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28
building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for Cardigan Bay Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500
Larkspur Way:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to re-open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, March 16th, 2006, and begin by
opening Public Hearing AZ 05-010 and PP 06-008 for the sole purpose of continuing
these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008 relating to
Cardigan Bay Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 20, 2006, for the
purpose of receiving and assimilating the ACHD staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 40 of 82
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: AZ 06..011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific
Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road:
Item 11:
Public Hearing: PP 06..009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88
building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603
North Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-011 and PP 06-
009. Both of these items relating to Basin Creek Subdivision and begin with the report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Basin Creek
Subdivision lies generally northwest of the intersection of McMillan Road and North
Locust Grove Road. Surrounding area consists of an older county sub named
Larkwood. Recently approved Tustin Subdivision came through the Commission and
Council last fall. Saguaro Canyon to the west. The Reserve to the north. Arcadia to
the north. And the previous item that did have to be continued is Cardigan Bay and is
directly to the south of the site, located on two lots here. So, Basin Creek consists of
29.69 acres, currently zoned RUT. The applicant has requested to rezone -- or to
annex and zone to an R-4 district for the preliminary plat approval of 88 single family
residential lots and the request states ten common lots, but there is -- I did confirm with
the applicant that there is only nine common lots in the request. The preliminary plat
has -- was modified from the original submittal at staff's request to match up with a stub
street proposed by Cardigan Bay. The initial submittal did stub the road to the LDS
Church, which we felt it was more appropriate to connect to the proposed stub in
Cardigan. This site does have some really good connectivity, end up with an access --
a new access off of Locust Grove Road, connecting to an approved stub in Saguaro
Canyon and an approved stub in Arcadia, stubbing to an undeveloped parcel to the
north and, then, connecting to Cardigan Bay to the south. So, the traffic circulation is
quite excellent on the site and they have -- staff is quite pleased with the number of
stubs and the layout of the subdivision, with the changes that were made with the
revised plat. A few things I will mention. The submitted preliminary plat did not have an
adequate landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road. As an arterial, Locust Grove
Road does require -- well, it's actually, an entryway corridor on the Comprehensive
Plan. So, that does require a 35-foot landscape buffer. The submitted plat did have a
25-foot landscape buffer, so we would condition the plat to increase that to the required
35 feet to be included in the common lot along Locust Grove. The parkways with trees
that were proposed as part of the subdivision -- and I can go into some landscape plans
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 41 of 82
here. The application has proposed a detached sidewalk with a parkway on all the local
streets within the subdivision. However, ACHD requirements and City of Meridian
requirements do require that those are eight feet wide. They were shown as seven and
a half feet. So, in order to include the trees within those parkways, those do have to be
increased to eight foot wide and those trees would be restricted to class two trees. The
Meridian fire department had concerns about parking along the entry road from Locust
Grove due to the landscape island and the configuration of the roadway. They did
include a condition that there would be no parking from -- and that is East Halpin Street,
that there would be no parking from Locust Grove to the intersection with Pasa Tiempo
at this location. The open space for the project consists of a -- sometimes referred to as
T-shirts. This one really isn't so much one, but you have a larger area of open space
that acts as a landscape target for that entry drive into the subdivision that, then,
extends with a pathway down the middle of this block of homes and intersects with
another neighborhood park in this location. Get to some landscape plans.
Unfortunately, they are kind of chopped up, so it's a little bit hard to see -- a lot hard to
see. I'll let the applicant -- they have an overall on the board, maybe they can point out
a little bit easier there. But we are supportive of the open space design. It does meet
the -- it does meet and exceed the minimum requirements for landscape open space
and has amenities that will -- that will benefit the neighborhood. I will just mention, too,
that the R-4 zone does have a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet and all homes
within the subdivision would be required to be at least that size. I think with that I will
end staff comments and take any questions from the Commission.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one. In the first paragraph in the staff report you mention
that there is discrepancy whether there is ten common lots or nine. Has that been
resolved?
Wilson: Yes. The applicant did confirm that there are only nine.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Ford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'll try this again. Good evening, Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Commission. My name is Ashley Ford, I'm a planning project manager
for WRG Design. My office address is 453 South Fitness Place, Eagle, Idaho. And I'm
here tonight on behalf of my client Pacific Landmark Development. As staff has stated,
we do have a proposed 88 lots within this development for an overall density of just less
than three dwelling units per acre. We are really proud of this development and we
worked very hard on this and we believe that this has maintained the delicate balance of
being compatible with the surrounding developments in this area and meeting your
Comprehensive Plan, which says three to eight dwelling units per acre for this site. We
envision this development to be more upscale. It is a single family residential
development. The CC&Rs will require a minimum lot size -- or a minimum home size,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 42 of 82
excuse me, of 2,500 square feet. And we will have very strict architectural standards.
While it is difficult to speculate what our end prices will be, we assume we will be
starting in the 400,000 dollar range. So, this will be a very nice development. The
architecture will reflect that within the controls and I think the landscaping will go above
and beyond. What you have in front of you is, basically, just a concept plan that we
have right row. We will be refining this even more as we work through the final plat and
the construction document base. We will be providing vinyl fencing within the
development. The only exception for this will be all the lots adjacent to open park areas
and, then, wrought iron fencing will be required. We have provided detached sidewalks
throughout the entire development and we will provide -- we think this will provide a
much more enhanced streetscape throughout the development and will look very very
nice. From a pedestrian and vehicular connectivity standpoint, we have worked with
both the city and ACHD to provide adequate stub roads and pathway connections. We
have proposed stub roads to the connections -- to locations planning staff requested
early on and to provide for future interconnectivity to Cardigan Subdivision to the south.
Would are proposing an extension of the ten foot pathway, which will -- sorry, I forgot
my laser pointer, but will start at the west end of the site from Saguaro Canyon all the
way to Locust Grove. It will meander through the large park site through the center T-
shirts park site if you will and onto Locust Grove and to the south and, basically, this is
the last leg of the Comprehensive Plan pathway and so we will be finalizing this
connection. We do understand that we will need to be tabled this evening, because we
do not have an ACHD staff report. We just hope to open the Public Hearing, hear if
there are any concerns on your part, and if there were, then, we could address those
before coming back for our next meeting. We do have tech review with ACHD
tomorrow. It is my understanding, from what the proposed conditions will be, that there
will not be any issues with our site plan and we will be on the consent agenda for March
29th. I guess all in all we are in agreement with the staff report. Josh has been great to
work with and makes -- has made the process relatively painless for us and we
appreciate that. And I'm just happy to stand for any questions you may have this
evening.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Mae: Ashley, you had made the statement in regard to the wrought iron fencing, you
said will be required? Are you not planning to install that?
Ford: It will be placed upon the development -- the home builders at the time and so it
will be placed in the CC&Rs and the ACCs that that will be required for each
homeowner.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 43 of 82
Rohm: Any additional questions of the applicant?
Ford: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Good. Thank you. Ryan Tuttle.
Tuttle: Thank you for your time, Commissioners. I'm Ryan Tuttle, Pacific Landmark
Development. I just wanted to make myself available to answer any questions. I think
Ashley covered everything for the most part. And we appreciate staff's time and input
on this subdivision and we are very proud of the outcome.
Rohm: Good. Thank you. There is nobody else signed up for this, but at this time
you're certainly -- anyone is welcome to come forward.
Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road right in the middle
of this project. I think it's a darn good project, as I thought of our last subdivision
proposal, which was passed by this good body of people, and I think our minimum lot
sizes -- there is no Conditional Use Permit this round, which is -- should be in our favor.
The minimum home construction size far surpasses the subdivisions of lessor quality
across the street and behind us and I think it's a good project and look forward to your
passing this as you did our last proposal. Thank you. I'm in favor.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Discussion amongst the Commission?
Moe: I really don't have any questions, other than the applicant -- you said you're going
to ACHD March 28th?
Ford: Commissioner Moe, we are planning on going to tech review tomorrow morning
and planning on the March 29th ACHD commission.
Moe: So, as far as the continuance, you would pretty much be ready on our next
meeting the 6th, but I realize our hearing is full. So, the 20th would be the next one
that --
Rohm: Well, what I'm wondering is if -- if ACHD approves this as designed, why we
can't just forward to City Council with the assumption that ACHD's response will be in
the affirmative and, if not, then, it will be kicked to us from City Council at the point in
time.
Borup: I was wondering the same thing. I mean normally I like to see the ACHD report.
I think it most times is pertinent and could affect, but here they tied into every -- every
adjoining stub street and they have provided one extra to the undeveloped property. I
don't know what ACHD could do any different. Has there been any preliminary
discussion with ACHD staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 44 of 82
Ford: Commissioner Borup, yes, there has been. We met with them very early on to let
them know that we were planning on -- the stub streets that we were planning on doing
and also there were reduced street sections that we are planning on doing throughout
some of the development and parking on one side and just to make sure that they were
okay with that and we had their buy off at that point in time verbally. Of course, I did try
to get a draft staff report for tonight's meeting, but, unfortunately, they are a little under
staffed and are rushing I think to get -- put things together for tomorrow's tech review.
Borup: Because people keep quitting.
Ford: I know. I know.
Rohm: Thank you.
Ford: Thank you.
Rohm: Maybe at this time we will ask our legal counsel if he sees any problems moving
forward with this with some assumptions in mind.
Baird: Mr. Chair, I think the applicant would have to go on the record and agree to this,
because they are taking a risk, because if it doesn't turn out as you think it will, there will
be additional delays, because it will have to go up to Council be -- possibly be
remanded back. Whereas the sure thing to do would be to continue it for a date certain,
so that you could review the report. So, you can go either way, but I think there is
additional risk to the applicant for further delay if you make an assumption about how
the ACHD report will turn out.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward once again, please.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I could just -- real quickly just kind of talk about what was done
in the past in this situation and, then, in the recent past. If you remember Bear Creek
West, and Knight Hill Center, both within the last couple of months, same situation,
didn't anticipate any ACHD problems and there ended up not being any ACHD
problems on those. But we did continue those out until we had that approval before this
body gave their recommendation. So, just kind of some history there. You can do as
you may, but I thought I'd just mention that.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would add that I'm one of those that really does like to see
the ACHD report before we move it on. It's unfortunate that ACHD is having problems
and that impacts developments, but I feel it's -- even if it's going to be a slam dunk, it's
still important to see it.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to provide comment?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 45 of 82
Ford: We will agree to whatever the Commission deems is best. If you do feel that you
can recommend approval to the Council this evening, we would be willing to take that
risk, just because of the level of conversations that we have had with the ACHD staff
and the comfort level we do have that we are meeting their requirements, but,
accordingly, we will respect the decision that you make this evening.
Rohm: Good. Thank you very much.
Ford: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would recommend that we continue this, but I think it will be a
small enough order to put on the April 6th --
Borup: I'd agree with that. There shouldn't be anymore testimony or anything.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Because it was a similar situation with Bear Creek West, we
were able to move that through pretty quickly.
Rohm: With the sale provision of obtaining the Ada County Highway District's report, so
that there would be no other issues open at that --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before we do that I would add one very small comment,
probably a typo, and that is that on their revised preliminary sheets, the cover sheet,
page CO-1, still shows the original design. All of the other pages, C-2 through C-5,
show the new representation that I believe we all prefer. But the cover sheet is not
correct.
Rohm: Okay. All right. With that I would entertain a motion.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Wait a minute. I'm sorry. We are not doing that. We are going to continue it.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: I didn't make a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009, relating to
Basin Creek Subdivision, to our regularly scheduled. meeting of April 6, 2006, for the
sale purpose of receiving and assimilating the ACHD report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 46 of 82
Mae: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items No. AZ 06-011
and PP 06-009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: AZ 06..012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43
acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge
Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane:
Public Hearing: PP 06..010 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single-
family residential lots and 4 common lots for Hendrickson Subdivision
by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane:
Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06-012 and
PP 006-010, both relating to Hendrickson Subdivision, for the sole purpose of
continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both relating the Hendrickson
Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006, to allow us to receive
and assimilate the ACHD report and have full discussion at that time.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010 to
April 6, 2006, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Item 15:
Public Hearing: AZ 06..009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road:
Public Hearing: PP 06..007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single-
family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision
by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 47 of 82
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on AZ 06-009 and PP 06-
007. Both of these items are related to Cedarcreek Subdivision and begin with the staff
report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Cedarcreek
Subdivision is located approximately one quarter mile east of Meridian Road on
McMillan Road. As you can see here it is bounded by Paramount to the north and this
is the undeveloped section of Paramount through here. This long narrow strip is a
collector road from Paramount. This is Solitude, Amber Creek, and there is vacant
property to the west of the site. As you can see, there is one small parcel right here that
is an out parcel. The site is currently all agricultural with a -- I believe there is two
residences located in here. I guess I'm being indicated there is only one residence, but
there is multiple buildings in there. With this there is a request for 85 single family
residential lots and 12 common lots. The applicant is meeting the R-8 standards of the
ordinance. Most of these lots are 5,000 square foot lots, with the required landscape
buffer to McMillan Road. And all of the connections to Paramount, as well as to the
east and to the north to Paramount, as well as to a stub street to the undeveloped
parcel, which would provide for future connections in that location. Again, this is one of
those staff reports that has ACHD conditions of approval that are pending. Staff doesn't
know what else this applicant could do, since they are connecting to all their stub streets
that are required of the site, but this will go to tech review tomorrow, same as Basin
Creek. Probably would have conditions next week for -- in a draft format. The main
issue with this subdivision is the out parcel here. I wish I had a blow up of it. You can
kind of see that this neck right there is left out. This is, actually, most of the -- there is a
canal here and there is a maintenance road in there that is along that canal. And that
also serves a purpose of being the driveway for this parcel. In this one you can see the
-- their house is right off this property line. My guess is that is five or six feet to that
property line and their garage is right here, which is almost right on the property line for
what is going to be the future common lot in this location. Now with that there are two
other lots in here, one for future right of way and, then, one for the required 25 foot
landscape buffer to McMillan Road. Now, if the applicant does -- the applicant will be
required to adhere to the City of Meridian UDC, which says that they are required to
provide that 25 foot landscape buffer, which is, essentially, going to take that driveway
access away. So, that will limit the use of this -- this residential property here and they
most likely will have to make application to ACHD for another access point to McMillan
in the future. Or some other resolution needs to be adhered to. But those are mostly
off-site improvements that staff has not brought into this staff report at this time. The
applicant's agent is here and I would request that they address that in greater detail.
The only real comments that were conditions would have been that this is landscaped,
which is what staff is requiring and that the common lot be maintained by the
homeowners association. The other comment was that this alley is shown as a
common -- or as a common lot. The alley should be dedicated to the public right -- or
as public right of way as conditioned in the staff report. Staff is -- has prepared findings
for approval and conditions accordingly and is recommending approval of this project
with -- I guess there is some contingencies of hoping to try and get some resolution with
this project here and get some off..site improvements, namely, similar comparable
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 48 of 82
conditioning as what Solitude recently did and Amber Creek, which would be to provide
the sidewalk connection at a minimum across the frontage here in order to better
facilitate any type of pedestrian access across the front of these properties on out
parcels. However, that would be, again, off-site improvements. Staff has not made any
conditions, but that could be requested or offered by the applicant and the out parcel
residents who are here tonight. And at that I will stand for questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one, and if you said this I didn't hear it, but I will ask the
question that City Council will ask. Are we absolutely certain that the out parcel is
owned by people who have no relation to what we are studying now?
Guenther: That is correct. The first thing that I asked the applicant to do was to provide
deeds that predated 1984 and they give me a deed for this property at approximately -- I
believe 1981.
Zaremba: Thank you.
. I
Rohm: Any other questions? At this time would the applicant like to come forward,
please?
Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 838 East
Winding Creek Drive in Eagle, here tonight representing Centennial Development and
the Cedarcreek Subdivision. Staff's done a good job of explaining the whatnots of the
project. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval. Again, this does meet
the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance -- the current zoning ordinance as
far design, density, compatibility. As staff stated, we are providing stub streets to
existing approved stub streets. We do have a tech review meeting in the morning with
ACHD. I have reviewed our report, they did get that to me today, and it's a pretty
straight forward staff report. We would like to, obviously, continue to move, but it
sounds like your advice from your staff is to continue this on. So, I'll leave that with you.
But we are confident and receptive of the draft staff report from ACHD. Again, we are in
agreement with staff's recommendations. I guess the only outstanding issue that we will
probably discussion tonight is this out parcel and I think staff has done the right thing
with his conditions or his recommendations and that is that we work with the property
owners on issues of sidewalk and issues of the driveway, the existing driveway, and we
will continue to do that. The developer has had some discussions with the
representative for the Reidermans and I believe they are here tonight, so let them speak
and, then, we can continue on the conversation. And I'll stand for any questions you
have right now.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 49 of 82
Moe: Shawn, in the report staff noted that the landscape plan that's been prepared and
was not accepted. Is there another one planned or are you just going to take care of
the conditions that are noted?
Nickel: What we will do, Commissioner, we will revise that prior to City Council, rather
than waiting until the final plat, once we figure out -- or get your recommendation and
incorporate what needs to be incorporated, we will get that revised.
Mae: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Nickel, I know, as you have indicated, that you have read the staff report,
but I just wanted to point out on page three, public works comment, that this
development isn't sewerable until Paramount brings sewer to and through. I just want
you to be -- to make sure that you have seen that and you're aware of whatever risk
you're taking in delay waiting for Paramount to act.
Nickel: We are aware of that.
Zaremba: Okay. That was it.
Rohm: I guess my only comment at this point in time -- and I'm sure we will receive
testimony from the Reidermans, but I would think that with that out parcel being so
much involved with this project, that there would have been greater effort put forth to
resolve all outstanding issues with the Reidermans before this meeting and I would just
strongly suggest that that would have been my preference to you folks early on. And
with that being said, I think we will just close it at that and we will take testimony from
the Reidermans and move forward.
Nickel: Great.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. At this time would Carl Reiderman like to come forward,
please?
Reiderman: Carl Reiderman, 770 West McMillan, the out parcel in this project, and
what else. Anything else?
Rohm: Just your address.
Reiderman: Oh. 770 West McMillan, which is the out parcel. We have tried numerous
times, without any success whatsoever, to communicate and have discussions and
resolve this issue with the applicant. They have said no to everything we have
proposed to them. We have proposed to them to buy us out. We have proposed that
Meridian Planning &; Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 50 of 82
we could possibly develop this at the same time they are doing this with them and
somehow in cooperation with them. They have turned us down. We have offered to
take this out parcel, this extra 50 foot, off their hands, because we have been using it for
eight years as a driveway. The owner Chester Dallas -- Dallas Chester -- I'm a little
nervous -- promised to us many many times that he would not cut off access to our
shop. That's exactly what they are proposing to do. The landscape plan that we see --
get my little pointer here. These trees right here block off the doors to our shop. It's on
their landscape plan that our shop is there and that's where the doors are. They have
been out to survey this many times. And almost feel like they are acting in spite against
us, somehow or other. I don't know why. We have tried to negotiate. They just keep
saying no to us. Paramount has told us they want to do this ditch in cooperation with
the developers and they got up and walked out of the meeting with them. Paramount
has no plans to bring sewer to them within the next three to five years. They have told
us that. So, my understanding is the application is null and void after two years. Why
would you approve it when he's not going to get sewer to it? That's one of the
questions. We would just as soon that he just buy that from us and we could go away.
We are not real happy with 85 lots going in next to us, when all of Paramount has much
larger homes, much nicer homes than what Corey Barton is going to be putting in here.
So, we are really opposed to this and at bare minimum we would like them to work with
us, which they have not -- not shown any good faith whatsoever to do that. Any
questions?
Rohm: That's pretty straight forward. Thank you for your testimony.
Reiderman: Thank you.
Rohm: Bonnie Reiderman, would you like to speak, too?
B. Reiderman: My name is Bonnie Reiderman and I'm at 770 West McMillan Road.
And I am the owner, my name is on this property, and we had talked with them in
regards to buying us out. Again, they wouldn't pay us. The property to the left here,
which is -- we are surrounded by it. When we originally bought the property, the owners
of the parcel that we bought said that we own all the way out. Well, we found out we
didn't, you know, and so in the meantime we had already had a shop out there,
because, you know, we thought where we were at and we weren't and so, anyhow, now
they are trying to cut us off and they put landscaping coming down the road there.
There is -- we have two shops out there. They have put trees and kind of at the shop.
They wanted to cutoff the back of us at one point in time and give us this other side and
I said, no, we don't want that, because there is encumbrances on it, because there is
easements, there is -- I'm not really sure. There is two different easements on the west
side of us. And so they said, no, there isn't. Well, we had it researched by the Idaho
Power Company and they said there is, actually, four owners of that parcel. So, I don't
know, I'm concerned as to what's happening to us, because we are surrounded by all
four corners of this. Okay? Even on the front we are surrounded by -- and so if they go
and do this to us, that means where the lane goes down and cuts into our property,
there will have to be a cul-de-sac in there. Okay? And which means if we would ever
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 51 of 82
develop, we don't have enough land to develop to make it worth our time and so it's just
-- you know, everything we do it -- it cuts us off our shop, you know, that's our living, you
know. I don't know. I'm concerned that he's taking away our livelihood and I don't want
him to do that. You know, if he wants to buy it out, we would be happy to sell to him.
We don't want to fight with these people, but we want to have a fair evaluation of what's
going on.
Rohm: Thank you.
B. Reiderman: Is there any other questions you might --
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a couple. You had not addressed staff report's comment
about the sidewalk in front of your property.
B. Reiderman: I was not aware of that.
Borup: Okay. Do you have any problem with them putting a sidewalk along the
property that would continue on --
B. Reiderman: Well, first of all -- I'm sorry. On the front of our place we have these big
beautiful blue spruce trees and everything. I don't know what's going to happen. We
have been told it would be three lanes when McMillan -- or we have been told it will be
five lanes. We are not sure what's going to happen. If it happens, they will take off our
front carport and our -- part of our -- our office to our house. That means that we have
to remodel our house, turn it around, remodel the back of it and, you know, again, a lot
of expense to us, because of what this project is doing to us and so --
Borup: But you're talking about ACHD widening the road. The comment -- the question
right now is just the sidewalk along there.
B. Reiderman: Well, I was not even aware of the sidewalk issue. Nobody has --
Borup: That's what I'm asking you right now.
B. Reiderman: Oh. I don't know. It depends on where it goes.
Borup: Okay.
B. Reiderman: Where is it going? Is it going to take our carport off? What's it going to
do?
Borup: No. No. The sidewalk would be out -- further out and it wouldn't -- it would just
be within that buffer, the highway buffer. I don't know. They'll need to work that out.
B. Reiderman: There is not very much --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 52 of 82
Borup: It hasn't been addressed. It sounds like when you -- when you bought your
property you did not have it surveyed; is that correct?
B. Reiderman: Well, we were told that if we had it surveyed, we would have had to
survey 640 acres. That was an awful big expense to survey --
Borup: So, you didn't even have property pins or anything?
B. Reiderman: We had -- the owner stated out there -- we said to the pins and they said
yes. No, we did not.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: I have a question for you. What is your current access to your shop that's out
on the north end of the property -- northwest corner? Do you have an easement to -- on
that strip of land to gain access to the shop area?
B. Reiderman: No, we didn't. We do not have easements, but we went to Chester
Dallas, which was our neighbor, and we said could we buy it from you and he said, no,
but we said can we use it and he said, well, I'll never cut you off of it. And so the
previous people that owned that had used it for -- that road for 27 years. We have now
used it for going on eight years and we have maintained it. We have landscaped it. We
have done everything to take care of that and so I don't know what our next move is.
We are trying to -- what your wishes are, sir.
Rohm: Okay. Well, I was just curious if you had an easement or if it was by -- I can't
remember what kind of -- what's the right way when you have been using it for a
number of years?
B. Reiderman: Adverse possession.
Baird: Prescriptive easement, Mr. Chair. I don't want to give legal advice to these
individuals and I would certainly hope that they have sought their counsel on that
matter. But it's -- it's not something for the city to declare.
Rohm: Right. I understand that. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
B. Reiderman: Thank you.
Rohm: Doug Eden.
Eden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, fellow Commissioners. My name is Doug
Eden, 1735 North Mansfield, Eagle, Idaho. And I've known the owners of this out parcel
for quite some time. I have, actually, been the realtor involved with them on several
dealings, including this particular parcel. We have tried to have communications with
the developer for over five months. Over five months ago I pointed out to the developer
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 53 of 82
that that particular piece of ground right there had been used open and notoriously for
over 30 years by the owners of that particular parcel. The folks that own it now have
used it for over eight years. They were under the understanding that they owned that
property up until it was recently surveyed for this development about two years ago.
When it was surveyed for the development, that's when they realized they didn't own
the property. That's when they went to the owner at that time and said could we buy the
property from you and the owner at that time was already in negotiations with the
developer and didn't want to cut off another half acre that he might get 100,000 dollars
per acre for. So, he said, no, you can't buy it, but I'll never cut you off of it. These folks
-- and, then, talked to -- we have talked to -- I've, actually, tried to initiate these
discussions with the developer and several times I even said to the point was just make
us any offer, any offer at all. And their exact quote was we are not making you any
offer. Period. You know, we don't want the house, we don't want to buy the house. We
don't want to make you an offer. And in regards to this -- this over here, I've actually
gone over with the developer, I have told them this is notorious, this is prescriptive
easement, yeah, I have gone to real estate school also and know this. You can go talk
to your attorney and find out about it and they were like you can buy it from us, but we
don't have to buy it from you. I mean we don't have to give it to you, we don't have to
do anything, so -- and as for the sidewalk issue, if you put a buffer zone and a sidewalk,
you will be cutting off their only access to the property, you will also be cutting off
probably about three or feet of their carport, because they have a carport on the east
side of the property, in addition to the shop on the north side. So, you will be cutting off
their carport and you will be cutting off the upper piece. And it's really a very ill-
conceived how this subdivision fits in with this other piece. And the only other issue I
have with this property is, you know, we have got -- compared to the last subdivision we
reviewed, you have got the same amount of lots and ten acres less ground. Thirty
percent less ground. These are 5,000 square foot lots. My three minutes are up.
Thank you so much.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Shawn, you want to come back up? Before -- let me ask if
there is anybody else that would like to offer testimony on this application? Seeing
none, Shawn.
Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Shawn
Nickel. What I just passed out is a little history of correspondences that have gone on
between the developer and the folks in the out parcel. There has been approximately
eight attempts at talking -- or communications back and forth, including one as late as
this afternoon, from what I understand. And this is -- this is a tough situation when you
got a piece of property like this and you have got an existing house that's situated where
it is. However, in -- and if the staff could put up the plan that I gave them. We, actually,
have revised this plan and it was supposed to be in the file. It does show the
landscaping out of this, which does indicate that we are willing to work with the
Reidermans on resolving this. However, you know, a couple of the issues were -- you
know, there was some verbal agreement from the previous property owner as to access
to their house over his property. There was an attempt early on at swapping property --
trying to swap this piece here for an equal piece right there, which was denied by the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 54 of 82
neighbors. From what I understand from my developer there was a -- there was a -- an
amount given by the Reidermans to the developer that the developer felt was too high
to purchase that property, so there were other things that have been gone on. We have
provided a stub to the western boundary of our development to provide for future
access, not knowing what is ultimately going to come out. But as I stated earlier, I think
staff did a good job at -- at recommending that we work with the out parcel neighbors,
which we will do, as I have indicated on that revised plan. We are not trying to cut them
off. We can't be forced to buy a piece of property that is either overpriced or can't be
utilized by the developer. If it's something that has to go to court, it has to go to court,
unfortunately. I'm hopeful that my developer is going to work with the Reidermans and
get this resolved. But, in any event, it's my understanding that we can't -- we could not
extend the sidewalk and line up with our sidewalk, because it would go through their
carport. So, I know what -- I don't know what to do on that -- on that issue with sidewalk
on a piece of property that we have no control over. Our intentions are to do our proper
landscaping and everything along our portion of our frontage, which at this time is this
piece of property. How that is -- how that ultimately comes out I don't know, but I think
we are on the right path as far as the city is concerned, in that something's going to
have to be worked out between the two property owners. It's just going to have to be.
So, I'll stand for any questions you have or suggestion, advice.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: Based upon your correspondence that you just handed out, am I to assume, then,
that the -- the other property owners have not gotten back to you or your developer in
regards to that -- purchasing their property?
Nickel: I think they talked to the developer this afternoon about 4:30. I wasn't involved
with that conversation. I have not been involved with most of these conversations. The
developer has.
Moe: Okay. I was just getting the understanding that there was no communication
going on and I read this, now I see that there has been some communication. I don't
know how close they are getting to that, but --
Nickel: You know, it probably hasn't been the best communication with either side, but
there has been communication from both sides and it's something that's going to have
to continue -- going to have to continue on to resolve whatever it ultimately is.
Rohm: Thanks, Shawn.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 55 of 82
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: What's this one?
Nickel: Where did that come from?
Newton-Huckabay: It was attached to this thing you gave me.
Nickel: Oh. Probably--
Borup: We have all got a copy of that.
Nickel: Oh, it's an old -- yeah, it's a very old plan.
Newton-Huckabay:
southwest.
Well, it looks a little more beneficial to the property to the
Nickel: Yeah. I think that was the plan if we were to swap the property. That's what it
would have looked like if we would have swapped the -- now it's all coming back to me.
If we would have swapped this piece right here with that piece right there, that's what
the design would have looked like. I didn't realize that was part of your packet.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, yeah. And, Mr. Nickel, I was only going to comment that I
believe what was worked on in the agreement across the street about a sidewalk across
an out parcel was not that it aligned with their permanent sidewalk, but that it, actually,
was a temporary sidewalk, even of asphalt, totally within ACHD's right of way. And it's
just to make a connection for people walking and bicycling to school and it wouldn't cut
off a driveway or access or -- it, actually, wouldn't be on their property.
Nickel: And I -- and, Commissioners, I think that would be appropriate, as long as it's
understood that that's what it would be, a temporary sidewalk or pathway that wouldn't
necessarily line up with the permanent concrete sidewalk along the rest of the
development, so -- because if it did, it would definitely go through their carport.
Zaremba: Staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what the resolution was
across the street.
Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, your recollection is correct. I know that across the
street was -- in Solitude that had to go around a bunch of large trees as well and they
did not create the sidewalk connection that would have been fully within their 25-foot
required landscape buffer.
Nickel: And the Amber Creek one, actually, was on the other side of a ditch, so --
Zaremba: Uh..huh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 56 of 82
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment regarding this development. I think that
the developer needs to work with the neighbor and maximize the design to the west that
will most allow the neighbor to develop -- if they don't want to purchase their property, to
develop it in the maximum way possible. The connectivity -- and I agree with
Reidermans, that what they have now most likely would require a cul-de-sac, which
would take up a huge amount of what's left of their property. I do believe that your client
is in the power position in this point and I think that something needs to be -- they need
an opportunity to developer their land as well and I don't think the connectivity that's
provided now allows them to do that and get maximum use of their land. I think some
other design maybe similar to the one you have here would possibly work better, but I
think at the end of the day we are going to end up with a development that looks really
weird, for one, because you're going to have Cedarcreek and, then, you're going to
have this little out parcel and what's going to go on that little out parcel?
Nickel: Okay. But you do understand that we have no control over that out parcel.
Newton-Huckabay: I understand you have no control over the out parcel, but you do
have control over how you provide access to that out parcel and you can work with that
neighbor, just like you would work with neighbors in any other development that you
have done, I believe. I mean you have to -- you can't look at that and say, oh, they have
a multitude of opportunities left here. I mean we are kind of creating a bizarre in-fill area
and I think that we are in a position that could be avoided, potentially.
Nickel: And not to be -- I'm not trying to argue with you, but if you do look at that sheet
that I had on that last page, that did show the opportunity to do that and the neighboring
property owners choose not to work with the developer on the swap that would have
created what you would call a better design or a better ability for them to develop. So,
we only can do what we can do, which is to provide them with the best possible access,
which if you look, that is the best possible access for them to redevelop their property
and we have looked at that. We did not -- you know, we did not locate it down here, it's
not located over there, it's located in the area that could be cul-de-sac'd and would
retain their -- their house. So, there is not -- it's not that big of a piece of property that's
left over, so there is only so much you can really do to provide them secondary access.
So, we have tried to do that. We will continue and, obviously, we are going to be tabled
for the ACHD issue, so I'll make sure the developer is aware of the comments and we
will give it another go with trying to speak with the neighbors.
Newton-Huckabay: I mean could you give them a stub on the north and a stub on the
west -- or on the east?
Zaremba: That would make it worse to develop it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 57 of 82
Nickel: It would be worse. It would take out more property.
Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I just would like to bring up the overall
aerial photo again one more time. I'm sorry.
Nickel: And, again, I'm not trying to argue with you and we will -- we will look into this
before the next meeting.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean -- but it looks to me that in -- I think that Commissioner
Rohm made the point early on is that all the right people haven't sat at the same table
and so, then, these arguments and disagreements come to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and me personally, this is the type of thing that I find really annoying.
Borup: Well, it's only about an acre.
Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and that's fine if it's only about an acre, but my point being is
that you still have an acre surrounded by development and what are you going to do
with it?
Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that's what I'd like to address here
quickly. What we could proceed on is this parcel is completely undeveloped and this
road is most likely going to have the stub to here, because there is no other connection
across at this point and, then, there is a Paramount stub at this location. If this is
stubbed to the west here, then, they potentially could continue the 5,000 square foot lots
across the front and, then, two more lots in this area, which is probably the maximum
benefit that that parcel's ever going to get anyhow. That's mostly going to be an ACHD
call for tomorrow of how they would like to see that redevelop. Unfortunately, this spite
strip is what this is turning out to be --
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Guenther: -- and that's the biggest problem that we have and that's why the -- these
two -- the applicant and the Reidermans need to work together to resolve how that's
going to redevelop. That's as staff foresees as being the biggest problem.
Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners -- and that's one reason I did revise that
after looking at it today, because I didn't want to give the impression that we were
planting trees and trying to cut them off. Unfortunately, that's going to get downloaded
on the --
Rohm: Well, just from my perspective it looks like that's exactly what was taking place,
is that they were being cut off. But that's just from -- from my perspective looking at the
development as it currently is drawn, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 58 of 82
Nickel: With this layout no trees on this -- or landscaping at all on the strip. Is that what
you are referring to?
Rohm: Well, with the trees that were shown.
Nickel: Right. And, again, that's why I did present that. And, again, we will give it
another shot to work with them, but I just -- just so you know, when we come back in
two weeks it might not be resolved. It's an issue that might have to be resolved outside
of the city.
Rohm: I think the -- I think we have examined this long enough.
Nickel: Okay.
Rohm: Both parties know that it's this body's position that you get it resolved. We are
not here to resolve that for you.
Nickel: Okay.
Rohm: And I think that's enough said about that. Okay. Thanks, Shawn.
Nickel: Okay. Thanks.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that I agree with I think what everybody else
is saying, that hopefully in the interim while we are waiting for the ACHD report that the
parties will resolve this, but I would also suggest whatever happens when this comes
back, we will probably have further discussion and where I'm going with that is I would
rather suggest we move this to April 20th, rather than April 6th.
Rohm: I concur with that.
Zaremba: April 6th is pretty full and we have already moved a bunch of them there, so -
- that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007,
both relating to Cedarcreek Subdivision, to our regularly scheduled meeting of April
20th,2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007 to
our regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 06..013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77
acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16. 2006
Page 59 of 82
Item 17:
Item 18:
America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten
Mile Road:
Public Hearing: PP 06..011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122
residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots
on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons
Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue
and east of Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 06..006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family
dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on
21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons
Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue
and east of Ten Mile Road:
Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearings AZ 06-013, PP 06-
011, and CUP 06-006, for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly
scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Public Hearings AZ 06-013, PP
06-011, and CUP 06-006, all related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision, to the
regularly scheduled meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19:
Public Hearing: AZ 06..008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39
acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and Victory Road Property
Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road
Property Owners Alliance - east side of South Eagle Road on both the
north and south sides of Victory Road:
Rohm: Okay. And now the last item on our agenda. I'd like to at this time open the
Public Hearing on AZ 06-008 and begin with our staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property is
located on the northeast corner of Victory and Eagle Roads. It is approximately 23
acres of roughly 50 acres that was part of a Comprehensive Plan map amendment that
you guys reviewed late last fall, early fall, later last year, and recommended approval to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 60 of 82
the City Council. The Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance at that
time applied for the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designation of the
property, which included the subject property that's up for annexation this evening, in
the baby blue highlight, from low and medium density -- this parcel was low. I believe
most of this is medium, to change those from -- those designations to a mixed use
regional designation. This body sent a recommendation onto the City Council for a
mixed use community designation. There was extensive discussion at that time with the
Alliance properties about the designation -- appropriate designation. Several neighbors
from Sutherland Farms and most of them were new neighbors in Sutherland Farms
were at that hearing. Some of the existing residents in Thousand Springs on the other
side of Eagle Road were in attendance. There was no specific proposal or concept plan
at that time, it was just a -- to paraphrase, I guess, the request from the Alliance, it was,
basically, due to all of the commercial uses in EI Dorado and Silverstone that Eagle
Road really is not appropriate anymore for residential, that commercial uses belong in
this area. The planning and zoning staff actually recommended denial. Like I said, this
board forwarded onto the City Council with a provision that the City Council not act until
an annexation application be filed by the applicant. So, the City Council had been
waiting for the annexation application as you requested they do. Staff had a little bit of
an issue, I guess, with -- the applicant did submit an annexation application. I think
what may have been the intent was that there would be some type of a development
plan to look as well, because an annexation application really doesn't -- it's just zoning.
There is really no concept necessarily with just getting your zoning. So, the reason that
I wanted to have this hearing tonight is to see -- if you tell me to press forward with the
concept plan that they submitted, I will do my best to work up a staff report. This is the
concept plan they did submit. It will just touch on that real quick. There is a stub street
coming into the property in that location from Sutherland Farms. They are conceptually
showing to extend that street one lot depth and, then, run a north-south street. This is
an existing kennel in the county, zoned RUT. This is your use exception in Sutherland
Farms. So, there is office, other nonresidential uses in that area. And, then, Easy Jet
Drive. So, this would be Victory. There was one parcel on the south side of Victory, the
other -- I think there is maybe four property owners that own eight or nine separate tax
ID parcels on the north side. The legal descriptions submitted for this whole property
proposed a C-C zone, community business district zone. However, there is an office
zone shown right on the corner, as well as seven or eight residential lots shown
adjacent to the existing single family homes in Sutherland Farms. Some of the things
that were discussed -- and I won't go into it too much, but just to kind of refresh your
memory a little bit, because a lot of those neighbors aren't here this evening. But there
was some concern of how do you transition from these new single family homes and at
least a couple, if not several of them testified that when they bought they were
assuming it was going to be residential, because that was the designation. I'm not here
to say that you made a bad choice last time by amending the Comprehensive Plan map,
it was simply just to point out that there wasn't a concept plan before and my question to
you, I guess, is one row of single family homes enough of a transition to, then, the
commercial that takes up a majority of the site. Something that I envision, I haven't
drawn anything, is maybe just another row of some residences, which it does a couple
of things, in my mind. If you remember Brad brought up that he thought -- and based on
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 61 of 82
a study that we had Thornton Oliver Keller do for the city that we already had enough
commercial designated properties anyways. Our vacancy rates for office were -- were
pretty high and didn't think we needed anymore. This, in my mind -- and I agree with
what the Alliance was saying at that point, too, that residences right on Eagle Road
probably don't make sense. But some compromise of that -- and in the staff report I'm
saying approximately half of the property zoned to a residential zone, that still leaves
you some decent size commercial businesses that you could put in there and it provides
that -- that transition -- more of a transition, anyways, for the Sutherland Farms folks,
and there are residences on the other side, too. So, I think if we get too much
commercial in this area, there could definitely be a negative impact on the
neighborhood. On the other side of the Ridenbaugh where EI Dorado and Silverstone
are, it's not the same situation. You don't have existing residential subdivisions. So,
this is -- it's really an in-fill piece that we have got to make work into an existing
neighborhood. Granted, most of it's a newer neighborhood, but it still exists. So, just
based on the concept plan, again, I didn't think there was enough information to
recommend approval, but I think there is possibilities here to recommend approval, just
not -- I wanted to give the Alliance a chance, really, to bring some concepts before the
Commission and the Council has said that, too, that they really want to see detail. I met
with -- with most of the Alliance members here on Tuesday, I believe it was, for a little
while, and -- and staff realizes that those concept plans don't always come to fruition in
how you -- you know, best laid plan. They really don't know. They are just trying to get
zoning to market this and find someone or maybe a couple few entities that can develop
this property. So, they really don't know how it's going to develop and I understand that.
I respect that. At the same time the city, I tried to explain to them, is looking for some
details where we can say, hey, this is going to be a good addition to the city with these
concepts or these provisions. If it's going to be a roadway system or all of the buildings
are going to have, you know, 30 percent windows facing Eagle Road and there will be
double side architecture, so that the residences aren't looking at the back of buildings,
something, some other provisions. Now, I have provided seven or eight guiding
principles with the application and most of those are pretty good. I think some of them
we are going to need a little tweaking. But just based on the detail and the motion, I
guess, the question to the Commission is -- is this what you expected to see for this
area when you said we like the idea of changing you from just straight residential to a
mixed use designation, come back when you have an annexation application. I mean is
this all the detail you really expected to see or were some other -- some details as far
as, you know, acreages -- because, you know, our policies in the Comprehensive Plan
for the mixed use areas have provisions for residential, different types of commercial
businesses, offices. Here would just be, you know, all that's zoned C-C would be a little
concerning to staff and without -- I may chime in a little bit later, too, but some of the
other concerns, I guess, is without showing a concept plan I was really concerned about
at least a portion of this lot, primarily the perimeter of this whole lot, and how it relates
and how it relates -- these properties are still designated low density residential on the
Comprehensive Plan map. So, how do you have a C-C right adjacent to low density
residential and what do you do, especially with the strip, you're going to have a
landscape buffer required on Eagle Road, one to buffer, and now you have got -- I
mean I don't know how much room's in there, but it makes it quite difficult to actually
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 62 of 82
utilize that area for commercial businesses and how do they relate to these anticipated
low density -- existing low density and anticipated low density properties around that --
that site. So, those are just some of the things that I would like to see addressed, you
know, by the applicants and, again, get some guidance from the Commission on, you
know, staff, this is what you need to work from and this is good enough for us, we think
that it can be approved with this or we want to add a couple provisions, but this is good
enough. I think --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if I may comment, I would add what I remember my
expectation to have been and I probably was the leader in discussion with Mr. Forrey
the alternatives to making it entirely commercial and he made the offer that there would
be residential along the eastern side that I think pushed most of us over the side that --
to say, well, maybe the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be okay, but you're
absolutely right, we wanted to see it. And I'll tell you my expectation was to see an
annexation and a preliminary plat, not just a concept. I was expecting as a backup for
whether the Comprehensive Plan amendment really should happen or not, to really see,
essentially, the final detail. And my expectation, I believe, was pretty much as you
described it, there would be residential on both sides of this back street, commercial
along Eagle, but that there would be some depth to the amount of residential that was
there, that we would see what the final location of the roadway would be. So, your
instinct certainly matches the way I remember it, except that I would go one step farther
and I don't know if the words were ever said, but I was expecting annexation and
preliminary plat before we matched it up with a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Moe: I concur as well.
Zaremba: I see other people nodding their heads.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I remember very clearly that Mr. Forrey made the comment that
there would be one row of houses on the east side.
Zaremba: On each side?
Newton-Huckabay: On the east.
Zaremba: Oh, on the east side.
Newton-Huckabay: I remember that to be his only promise to the Sutherland Farms
homeowners that there would be one row of houses on the eastern side of the property,
with -- I don't know if they agreed to a size specifically as far as lot size, but it wasn't
going to be like apartments.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 63 of 82
Hood: Of similar size I think was basically the language.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. And I want to make -- if I may comment, too, that the one
like that I think is important here was -- what was important for me at the time was that
this can come in as one development or this can come in eight developments. And I
really like the idea of it coming in as one development and I also think this is a critical
corner, it's going to have -- I mean it's going to be a very critical corner. We have, what
is it, Tuscany something Village and, then, we have got Kingsbridge going in right down
below it, and, you know, I think there is going to be a need for services and
neighborhood commercial on that corner. And I also think that those -- those other
three big lots right there on Victory, once the road expands to the southeast, are likely
going to want to expand in some type of commercial and, then, was this not also the
property that Ada County was assessing as commercial property or something like that?
They had stopped -- I remember Anna sitting here -- actually came to that meeting and
said this is the first that had happened, where the county was designating a property
different than the city.
Hood: The assessor's office oftentimes does make assumptions that aren't based on
our Comprehensive Plan. They very well may have been being taxed as a commercial
property. I don't know that. An appraiser can look at highest and best, but if you're on
an arterial intersection, they, generally, aren't looking at our Comprehensive Plan map
either, which is a better guide than the appraiser saying what your highest and best is.
But that -- you know, all that aside, I guess I think -- I agree with you -- with the -- you
know, going back to the residential there, you're right on, your memory is right on, but I
didn't think that that would be a minimum, like it has to be only one row of lots. And
that's my question to you, I guess. If that's -- if that's what you understood you were
getting, that's fine, I'll work with that, but that's not -- I didn't interpret that meaning to be
that's a maximum. You can only have one row of houses and we want to see the rest of
it be commercial, that's the question, I guess, and I -- without having the details in a plat,
that's why I want this kind of open forum to see when you envisioned changing this to a
mixed use designation, were you envisioning this. And that's my question.
Borup: And my -- now that I think about it, my feeling was that that was correct, that
would be minimum on the east, and it seems like that was something that Wayne
committed to at the meeting and maybe saying he'd need to go back, they need to
discuss it and work on a design and I don't know that we knew what we were getting,
other than that would be a minimum. And I was not expecting a plat.
Newton-Huckabay: I was not either.
Borup: I was expecting maybe a little more detailed concept plan.
Newton-Huckabay: I agree.
Borup: But not a plat.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 64 of 82
Hood: And I have just a -- to kind of finish, I did this morning -- Mr. Carpenter came into
the office and dropped off a new plan and that doesn't show up very well. I have got a
color rendering. It's basically the same plan, however, they have shown how their
access roads can -- their driveways from Eagle can tie back in internally and back to
that proposed north-south roadway that I mentioned earlier, so I'll put that up on the
screen, too.
Zaremba: While you're setting that up, I admit that my memory is sometimes faulty, but
I -- now that I think of it, I remember some discussion, whether it went anywhere or not,
that along the east property line would be single family dwellings of equivalent to what
they backed up to and that on the west side of that road there might be a higher density
of residential.
Borup: It makes sense.
Zaremba: Before the commercial along Eagle Road. Whether it was apartments or
something else. I thought the subject was open to have more residential than just that
one row.
Hood: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, just -- I was going through the
minutes of that meeting just before we had this one, just to kind of refresh my memory,
and that was discussed and at least one, maybe two of the people in Sutherland Farms
says we don't want apartment buildings there either. So, it's tough and I don't know
what it is, but it just -- and maybe that -- if that's what -- you know, that was a separate
hearing. I'm just saying that that was discussed, but it really wasn't a consensus that
that would be any better.
Zaremba: Well, among the other discussion I also support the idea of actually
identifying different zones, that it should not all be one zone. The zone should be
appropriate to what we think is going to be put there.
Rohm: Caleb, thank you, and I think, really, at this point I'd like to have the applicant
come forward and just kind of walk us through some of your own thought processes as
to how this -- you envision this developing.
Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Marty
Thomason, I am a member of the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners
Alliance and I drew the short straw, so I'm making a presentation tonight.
Rohm: Lucky you.
Thomason: My address is 2960 South Eagle Road. We came here tonight with the
understanding that we were making a presentation on annexation application, but the
discussion that has occurred so far leads me to the understanding that we really need to
rediscuss the October 17th meeting and I have -- I have prepared for that, so I will lead
you through that. To begin with we are not developers, we are property owners
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 65 of 82
pursuing the rezoning of our property as a group for its best use. We hired Wayne
Forrey last year to lead us through the Comprehensive Plan amendment phase,
because our purpose at that time was for a map change, not annexation. The October
17th meeting -- and I'll just direct your attention up here to some slides that we have
prepared. We walked away from that meeting with the understanding that we had an
approval for a map change with three conditions. And I'll go through those quickly now,
but, then, I'll describe them later as well. Those three conditions were have another
neighborhood meeting. Develop a development agreement that included our guiding
principles that we had willingly put forth. And, third, to apply for annexation. And so we
applied for annexation, my slide is basically about tonight, assuming we were going to
have an annexation discussion. We applied for annexation and submitted our
application on January 11 tho Six days ago we received a staffing report that was quite
contrary to what we had understood we would be receiving. The initial summarization
that we had received was almost opposite of that. Tonight we thought that we would
show how we had complied with the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission
from the October 17th meeting. And, then, I was going to move into a summary. But
I'm going to be a little off of that tempo tonight. First of all, if I could have you move to
the next slide, please, Caleb. I'd like to thank Caleb for his synopses and for his review.
I know that he wasn't involved with our project at the time and I recognize that also two
of the Commissioners weren't here at that time. And so this is probably a very good
discussion, so that we are all at the same -- at the same place. Caleb went through
where our properties were located, but the area is South Eagle Road and Victory Road.
The northern most property is my property and, then, I will introduce the other families
here in just a moment. But when we made our application for a zoning change, we did
it based on 50 acres in this area and which were -- only our properties are now going
forward for the annexation application. If I could have you move to the next slide,
please. Thank you. Okay. Here you see where the properties are located. There are
five families and ten tax parcels. We have come together because Ada County
Highway District is widening South Eagle Road. The families are, starting from the
north, my property, the Thomason family. Moving to the south we have the Bothman
family. Then we have the Sharp family. The Carpenter family. And, finally, on the
southeast side of Victory Road is the Axlerod family. All of those people are here
tonight, thinking we were going to provide evidence -- or testimony, excuse me, of what
we were doing here. If I could have you move to the next slide, Caleb, please. We
have worked proactively with all of our neighbors. Again, we are not proposing a project
or a development, we are proposing the right zoning for our property based on where
it's located and the pressures that are happening in that area. And I'm going to quickly
run through the things that we have done. If I could have you hit the space bar again --
or the down key again. We developed guiding principles. We put those forth. Wayne
helped us develop those after neighborhood meetings, meetings with the planning staff,
and with meeting with ACHD. We came to our map CPA meeting with the idea that we
would be multi -- excuse me -- mixed use regional. We changed that designation to
mixed use community. The recommendation that came out of that meeting actually
states that. In our development agreement we said we want to restrict not big boxes.
And we have created an internal roadway to minimize curb cuts on South Eagle. We
have accommodated Sutherland Farms desire for a transition. Our original
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 66 of 82
recommendation is that we would have a landscape buffer. They weren't interested in
that. The next recommendation was that we would have like size lots on our eastern
border, of like size -- of like construction that would be the transition. And the challenge
with what's being presented is, well, the transition just keeps transitioning. And in a
moment I think we -- I'll point out where we made the conclusion at the last meeting that
is that nobody is going to live there. And I will point that out here in just a second. And
last we are in total agreement with taking the guiding principles and putting them into a
development agreement. Our understanding is that following this meeting, if there was
to be an approval to move forward, a development agreement would start to be
developed, which would be finalized following the City Council meeting and we put forth
our guiding principles for the very purpose of going into that. We are not proposing a
project, we are proposing a rezoning. And the annexation request was that this body
had recommended that, as the appropriate way to take the guiding principles and attach
it to this property on a go forward basis. If I could have you move to the next slide.
Thank you. Here is the area that we are talking about and we are located -- actually,
let's just go ahead and fill this whole screen out. I think it's for -- one more. Thank you.
There has been a lot of talk about mixed use regional and there being a lot of available
commercial land set aside for commercial land development, but I'd like to address that
for just a moment. And this was in Wayne's presentation at the last meeting. Where
the 36 percent is located, that is 36 percent of the land designated as multi-use --
excuse me. Mixed use regional is located in that area. That's the Ten Mile interchange
area. And the fact is that that's probably several years away from being developed. If
we move down to the ten percent, that also -- that's south of where we are located.
That's probably also several years from being developed, for the simple reason that
there are not services out there. We are located in the lower 27 percent. In fact, our
property is directly below that seven, if I can get this to point there. Right in here.
That's where we are located. And, yes, there is -- there is a lot of multi-use -- mixed use
regional in the Silverstone and EI Dorado, but there is no mixed use community out
through here. And the growth that's happening out there is outrageous. Let me just
lead you through what's happening around us. I'm the northernmost property. My
southern -- or my northern border abuts against Kibby's Kennels. That is a commercial
interest. It has an exemption to be a dog kennel there. Next to them, moving towards
Ridenbaugh, is a Sutherland Farms lot. There is an old residence there. I will be
commercial. That's going to be just like on the other side of Easy Jet where there is
Sight and Sound, Stone Creek, and another building already going up. And, then,
further, right next to Ridenbaugh, across from the new department that's been built out
there, is another Sutherland Farms vacant lot, in essence. They have an old residence
there. And that will be commercial, too. The reality is that the east side of South Eagle
Road to my property line is already going to be light office or business interests of some
sort. We are simply saying that's probably the appropriate use to continue down to
Victory Road. Now, if I could just paint the picture for the rest of the area. East of us is
Sutherland Farms. Yes. West of us is the Thousand Springs Subdivision. But let's go
south. We have already talked about the Golden Eagle Estates. We have heard
rumors this week that that's going to be more than -- more like light offices and
apartments going in there. Be that as it may, let's go a step further south, that's Bob
Aldridge's property. He's commented at the last meeting that he was in agreement with
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 67 of 82
this, because the reality is is that the ease is developing faster and is under more
pressure than was originally anticipated. And if go further south, it's a proposed
assisted living complex. If we go further south in the area that is bordered by Victory
and Columbia Road, and bordered by Cloverdale and Locust Grove, that's an area of
over six miles. Since the year 2001 there have been 2,500 housing units approved in
that area. If we just take a simple projection and say 2.5 houses per acre in the
proposed subdivisions that will be out in that area over the next several years, that's
over 9,600 homes. There will be 24,000 people living there in a few years. The reality
is is that Meridian has no mixed use community, no mixed use neighborhood sort of
commercial setting to service those people. That's what our proposal was all about, is
providing that in an area where the reality is that it's already being perceived that way.
If I could have you move to the next slide, please, Caleb. And let's just go ahead and --
a couple more times. Thank you. Thank you. We know that realtors are looking at this
area. They have commercial buyers that have uses along South Eagle Road, but they
are not interested in minor arterials where a mixed use community is already set up.
They are interested in highly visible areas and South Eagle Road is going to be that. It's
going to be a five lane road. Ada County Highway District has already purchased
easements along all of our properties. In every case they paid commercial value for
those. I'm not sure how they record that in their accounting purposes, but every one of
us collected commercial values for the easements that they have bought from us. They
recognize that South Eagle Road and the southern area from where we live is -- will be
developed in the next several years and they are recognizing the need for that arterial to
be wider. Wayne presented this at the last meeting, that investors, developers, realtors,
and public agency appraisers want to acquire the land on 1-84 for proximity business
parks. We are right in the center of that. The interchange at Ten Mile is likely going to
be delayed. Growth is going to be continued for us. The funding is probably going to
be the issue there. Ada County appraisers already look at this and question whether it's
commercial use. Several years ago when Thousand Springs was developed up to my
front door, and Sutherland Farms was beginning to develop, I had an appraiser come
out and I talked to them about getting an appraisal. One of the things he asked even
then was should I appraise this for commercial or residential, because he viewed -- he
saw that the potential was going to be there for commercial. And as I said also, the
Ridenbaugh and Eagle Road area is already being used and will be built out for
business purposes. This is how we left the last meeting and I will go into that in just a
moment. But, basically, we believe that many of the issues that were raised in the staff
report that you have all read were actually resolved at the October 15th meeting and the
recommendation that was made, really, we thought resolved the residential issue. We
have worked with our neighbors -- if I could have you move to the next slide, please.
Oh, I'm sorry. Let's go through this real quickly, just one, two -- I think -- there we are.
In September 21 st, 2005, Wayne reported this at our last meeting. The Idaho
Statesman reported that we are not building office space fast enough to keep up with
demand in one of their articles. It also stated that a strong housing market increased
demand for office and services. And, finally, the office park growth is going to be on 1-
84, the Eagle Road corridor. This is part of Wayne's presentation. I found it interesting
that the people that they interviewed drew the conclusion that this is where the growth
was going to be in office park and offices and services. If I could have you move to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 68 of 82
next one, Caleb. Thank you. This was the summary that we believe came out of that
October 17th meeting and in just a moment I will just read the issues that we were
working from. We believe that there was a vote recommended to approve our
Comprehensive Plan amendment application with three caveats, three qualifications.
Those three were a neighborhood meeting, an application for annexation, and a
developed agreement. We -- the Planning and Zoning agreed with the property owners
that a development agreement would address the future development issues and it
would include our guiding principles. And, finally, our understanding was that the
Planning and Zoning requested that we make this application with a mixed use
community designation. This is where we stand and, again, Mr. Hood's report came to
us on March 10th and so we were preparing our response -- or not our response,
excuse me. We were preparing our presentation based upon the meeting minute
summaries that Brad Hawkins-Clark had done following the October 17th meeting and
before I get to that, I'll just read what -- if you don't mind, I'll just quote to summarize a
couple of the statements out of that October 17th meeting and not to pick on anybody,
but Commissioner Borup, I thought you summed it up best, so if you will allow me, I'll
just read what it was that you said.
Borup: Okay.
Thomason: I quote: I don't know that anybody in this neighborhood or anybody in this
room would live in that location with single family residential. So, it looks to me like the
choices, if it's going to be, is going to be high density or it's going to be commercial or
office. I mean that's the way it is -- that's the way Eagle Road is to the north, that's the
way Meridian Road is developing from the south. I think it is one of the realities. Now,
that's not to pick on that, we just thought that was the best summary of the whole
discussion about this area was going to be moving towards more of a business use.
The recommendation, if it's okay, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I'd like to just read
your recommendation.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Thomason: Okay. Mr. Chairman -- and I quote: Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of
CPA 05-001, request to amend the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan for
approximately 50 acres from medium and low density residential to mixed use
community by the South Eagle Road Property Alliance. There were three qualifications
that are at the end of this recommendation and I will just quote those as well, if that's all
right. And I quote: And we would like to request that City Council hold action on this
CPA until the applicant can make an annexation application and it will catch up with this.
So, an annexation application. Which would, then, bind them to the development
guideline principles that they put forth in their presentation and we are also asking them
to organize another neighborhood meeting. Out of that that's what we have done. We
have made every effort to comply with those. We had another neighborhood meeting
on January 5th. We presented to the neighborhood our concept plan, which has one
row of housing, which we had committed to, and only one row of housing which we had
submitted it, if like size lots and similar construction along the east border, right next to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 69 of 82
Sutherland Farms. We have initially proposed two things. One of two things.
Landscaping buffer or residential. They all were in favor of residential and they were
not in favor of a transition that included higher density residential. They were in favor of
the residential that we have -- are similar to their lot sizes. At that meeting we also --
they all requested a copy of our concept map and we mailed that to them. I personally
mailed that the very next day to each of them that was in attendance. The next thing
was that we have a -- provide an annexation application and that's what we have done.
We did not see stipulations here that we had to put together something further that
required more of a development idea. Please understand, we are not developing this
land. Our purpose is to rezone this property. The annexation was a request of this
body at the last meeting, so that the guiding principles we had put forth could be
attached to it appropriately. Our plan is to market this based on its best use with the
documents that lays out a clear limit and clear potential for a potential purchaser only.
It's not for us to go in there and develop it. I came here prepared to talk about a
recommendation for approval, but I'm still going to bring that up, recognizing that the
body has -- already understands that there are some issues, perhaps, to continue to talk
about. But we believe that now is the time to move forward with a decidedly clear
decision. That helps the planning staff that helps us put together the right kind of
development agreement. It allows us to proceed with a development agreement. It
provides us with a clear direction and clear limits when we market our property. It
propels this land forward on its best use and eliminates further delays. Please
understand, the development will happen here. All of us purchased our property,
because we want a rural setting. The vast majority of us have been there for 20 plus
years. We will all find another rural setting. When the road widens, this property is --
these properties will start to sell. Here is Meridian's perfect opportunity to work with
property owners who are bringing ten parcels, five different owners, into this annexation
proposal or application and this is a way for the City of Meridian to have a coordinated
and cohesive go forward on this project -- or on this property. And now I'll summarize,
using Brad Clark-Hawkins, because I like what everybody else says, as opposed to
what I say, as you have already noticed. This is a summary report we received from
him following the October 17th hearing. This is on the final page, last paragraph,
section nine, Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. This is how we
thought the meeting ended as well. Number one -- excuse me. The Commission
recommends approval of this application for the following reasons: Number one. The
property owner collaboration and coordination is a benefit to the city, because it avoids
piecemeal development and provides for a more cohesive development pattern.
Number two. South Eagle Road is rapidly changing. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan
could not have foreseen this degree of growth and pressure. The plan needs to be
flexible and reflect changes to the area. Number three. There is a higher likelihood of
high density commercial and/or office uses being supported along this corridor than
residential uses. Number four. The Commission supports adding commercial uses to
the city limits where ever it is feasible. We want to encourage people to shop and
spend money in Meridian and allowing commercial uses in this area is one option to
accomplish that goal. Number five and, finally, the Commission believes the applicant's
protection offered to Sutherland Farm
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 70 of 82
Subdivision in the proposed development are sufficient to address many of the
neighbors concerns. This includes providing residential uses at the common property
line with Sutherland Farms Subdivision. Commissioners, thank you for your time. The
Alliance members bring this annexation application before you based on our
understanding of the request of October 17th. We think the case for the land to be
rezoned has been made and the decision, based on a recommendation of October 17th
is why we were here tonight. Annexation of this land binds with the Alliance through a
development agreement and to the guiding principles that we willingly put forth. And it
moves this land forward on its best usage. Now that I have said all that, I'll stand and
take your questions.
Rohm: Thank you. And I would comment that you did an excellent job --
Thomason: Thank you.
Rohm: -- of recapping the past and very much appreciated.
Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Question of the applicant at this time?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that. It was an excellent presentation.
And, basically, I think we are already in agreement with that, because Mr. Forrey did an
excellent job of convincing us of the need. It's unusual for us to pass a recommendation
along to the City Council with strings on it and the reason that we put strings on it is that
the devil is in the details and what we wanted to see before we made it an absolute
recommendation was some of the details and, again, I state we are 99 percent on board
with you. What you're talking about is exactly what most of us envision should happen
there. That's not the issue. The sort of the details of how we satisfy the neighbors is
the issue and, again, I think you made an excellent presentation, but we still want to
work out the details.
Thomason: Thank you, Commissioner.
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: I just -- just kind of reviewing this, I realize you're not developers and whatnot and
you're going to the point that was made in the last hearing, but I'm just kind of curious.
Has there been any thought whatsoever within your group -- you're putting the R-4s on
the east side, what did anyone envision would be on the west side of that proposed
street going through there? Just commercial at that point as well, so everyone living in
those housing is going to be looking directly across the street at commercial properties?
Thomason: Thank you for that question. Again, I appreciate your understanding that
we are not developers and we are also not planners in that respect either. Our goal
here is to provide an area of land that has the right kind of zoning that a developer
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 71 of 82
would look at and, then, be able to see, okay, I'm going to have houses across there
and when I make my proposal for my development project, I'm going to have to deal
with those houses. Yes, we have had discussions. I have driven around the City of
Meridian and seen where this sort of thing is already in place. One has a church in one
area and it has a row of houses in another and a Pizza Hut across the street. I could
answer you and say, yes, we envision that same sort of thing, but the truth of the matter
is is that we -- we are not going to propose a project here and we want to have a clear
cut development agreement that includes our guiding principles, which does say things
like no big box. The mixed use community has certain limits on what the footprint of a
building can be regarding -- it has to be 25 percent of the total space and so forth. It
has rules about what the landscaping will be. With all due respect, I -- that's where we
think we are going when we put together the developed agreement, is to that point,
rather than putting out a limitation that -- or a potential that we might see, we are, really,
looking for the guidance of a development agreement to -- and, of course, the planning
and development rules to help support that.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to make the comment that when I went away from this
hearing, the big benefit I felt like that we were getting from this -- and I stated this before
-- is avoiding the situations like we have had at Eagle and Ustick where we have got
three parcels that are small trying to develop at different times and that type of thing.
Basically, in essence, this is the majority of that land that's left between the Ridenbaugh
and Victory Road and I don't -- for me, that was the big benefit, is that ultimately you're
agreeing to develop all this together and I guess for me that's important. I am
comfortable with getting conditions of approval with this the way it is, because of the
alternative if we don't move forward with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, is this is --
is this R-4, R-8 on the Comprehensive Plan, is that --
Thomason: It's RUT.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, on Meridian's Comprehensive Plan.
Thomason: Oh, I'm sorry.
Hood: Medium density.
Newton-Huckabay: Medium density. Which, you know, each one of you could come in
with six four-plexes or something.
Thomason: That was a discussion at the last meeting, where it was discussed that a --
the opportunity to bump up a level existed and I don't know what that means to me,
since I already have a commercial interest that's operating right next to me. I don't
know what I could actually bump up to. I don't know the rules for that. But the reality is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 72 of 82
that, yeah, there has already been interest expressed in our land for higher density
housing.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. But I guess I don't want to lose sight of the fact that I think
for me personally that's the thing that I think is really important to me is that we have got
now 58 acres that's going to develop into something that's a little more similar to -- I'm
going to guess like the Gateway that came through tonight, but on a much smaller
scale.
Thomason: If I might just make one qualification. The Alliance owner -- the Alliance
property owners own 20 -- well, it's 23 acres we will say, roughly. The 50 acres was a
recommendation by the staff when we were doing our Comprehensive Plan amendment
and it involved some of Sutherland Farms and it involved Kibby's Kennels and the land
just a little bit to the south of the Axlerod property. Our property that -- the owners --
Alliance owners represent is 23 acres.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: Kind of to wind this down just a bit, I think that you're in substantial agreement --
or this Commission's in substantial agreement with your concept plan, even as it is
before this Commission. I see from the sign-up sheet that there were a number of
people that signed up that are -- were against your development. Just from that, I ask if
you've had an additional neighborhood meeting to put to rest some of their fears or if --
if any of that has taken place or -- would you like to speak to that just briefly?
Thomason: On January 5th we held the neighborhood meeting that was requested
after the October 17th Planning and Zoning meeting and, again, at that time the big
issue was that they wanted to have a residential buffer and that's where we put in the
concept map the residential row of houses right next to Sutherland Farms. Beyond that
there has not been anything specifically expressed to us. I know that Darrell Hines had
wrote a letter and had sent that into the planning staff and one of his comments in there
was regarding the light office -- if I could have you put our very last slide up, I think I
have our colored concept map on there, Caleb. Thank you. There is an area on the --
next to Victory Road and on the corner where Sutherland Farms is located, where we
had initially had single family dwelling or R-4 all along our back row, but when we
submitted that concept map to the planning staff, there was a request that came back to
us to actually make that entire block light office. One of Darrell Hines' comments was
that it -- what he sees on the new map is not what he saw on the concept map I mailed
to him on January 5th. And, again, that was the planning staffs recommendation right
after we turned in our annexation application. We are willing to accommodate that
residential slice there again. I mean that's -- we have been willing to accommodate
many things, obviously. You know, our original proposal was for the mixed use regional
and it's turned out that it's best mixed use community. A transition is the right thing to
do. So, we have accommodated that. We have put in our concept plan, as you can see
here, we have a -- there has been mention in the staff report about a roadway that goes
through. We have done that. We have identified these access points, because those
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 73 of 82
were ones recommended by Ada County Highway District. I should just mention about
access points quickly. Wayne Forrey had met with Ada County Highway District and
one of the things they were concerned about is when the widening project is done they
will have 13 access points to our property, not all along South Eagle, some on Victory.
But there will be 13 access points to all these different properties. They were excited to
see that come down to seven in this kind of a proposal, when it's only dealing with
rezoning and annexation and not a project. You know, they were -- they liked that idea.
But what we have done here on this final map is we have identified where the business
settings would be and, again, I leave those open to the rules that would be applied with
any development in terms of the landscape based upon footprint of the building and that
sort of thing. But the light office I was talking about is right over here and we at one
time, when we submitted this, had this area right here still as single family dwelling, but
that was a requested change by the planning staff. And I can't tell you what the logic
was behind that. I'm sorry, I wasn't involved with that. I suspect it might have had
something to do with the fact that it's right along Victory Road, which is going to widen
to five lanes and the property probably across Victory Road is probably not going to be
residential, but rather be light office. I suspect it had something to do with they had
more vision than I did about what the area will look like.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: Again, I would comment I'm absolutely on board with what you're saying.
This particular drawing I think is part of what the issue is. Rather than zone all of that C-
C, part of it should be zoned L-O. That's probably the gray area. And part of it should
be zoned R-4 or whatever the other -- yeah, it backs up to R-4, so it would need to be
R-4. And the reason that we want the concept plan or the preliminary plat, which ever
one you bring, is to identify those zones. Years ago the city used to zone a big piece of
property and, then, use exceptions. Sutherland Farms has one of those. We don't do
that anymore. We like the underlying zone to be what's there. And, you know, I
certainly can see that my memory is wrong about how much residential, but even if it
was exactly this, we would want to see the annexation be for three different zones, not
all C-C. And I think that's where we are going in wanting to see the details, agreeing
where the roadways are, where the accesses are, and concept plans are flexible, but
we think the zoning needs to be accurate to what's there and that isn't very flexible.
Thomason: Thank you for that. I appreciate that. It's very straight forward. Thank you.
Rohm: I guess in conclusion, I think that some of our local developers could take notice
from the work that you folks have put into making this thing move forward in a timely
fashion and with good forethought and thank you for all your hard work.
Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
-... -_._~-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 74 of 82
Rohm: With that being said, I don't think we are going to be able to move forward with
this, because we have dismissed everybody that has intended to speak out on this, so
I'm looking for a date that you feel you would like to see this continued to. The 20th?
Thomason: The sooner the better.
Rohm: Would the April 20th work for you?
Thomason: If it's okay, I'd like to turn around and look to my neighbors to make sure
that that's an appropriate time for each of them. I don't make this decision alone,
unfortunately. If I could paraphrase that just for the record, we started this process July
of last year. We had our meeting in October for the Comp Plan amendment and, then,
our concern is if that has any sort of ramifications if we are delayed very long, what
those ramifications would be to that Comp Plan amendment. What kind of process we
have to go through again and that sort of thing.
Rohm: I don't think that that would enter into it. It appears as if from the discussion
from the floor that the best date available would be the first meeting in May, which
would be May 4th. We can't -- we can't put you on the 6th of April, it's already --
Borup: How full is the 20th?
Rohm: The 20th -- the 20th there is plenty of room, but--
Borup: We added a lot to it tonight. That's why I was wondering.
Rohm: I think we still have room on the 20th, but some of their people aren't available
to --
Borup: No, I understand that. They may want to decide if they feel the others can
represent them properly.
Rohm: And that works for me.
Thomason: We might prefer to go for the 20th and supply written testimony from those
neighbors who wouldn't be able to attend.
Borup: That's what I was going to say. If they feel comfortable that the rest can
represent them properly, that shouldn't make any difference.
Rohm: Well -- and I think conceptually this Commission is in pretty substantial
agreement with what you have here already and it would only be that additional
communication with those people that are your neighbors how you address that through
your development agreement or otherwise. So, to continue it to the 20th is fine with us.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 75 of 82
Thomason: Since I'm a novice in this process, if I could ask what would the body be
looking for in that 20th meeting?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Very good question.
Zaremba: I, actually, was going to ask a similar question of Mr. Hood. Commissioner
Borup pointed out to me that one of the drawings in the packet actually identifies zones
-- it's near the end of it. This one. And each of the pieces of property shown, granted,
as a concept, does have a zone designation. And my question to Mr. Hood is the only
thing we need to revise this annexation application is actually legal descriptions of those
different areas.
Hood: Correct.
Zaremba: You know, that's going to be a five minute discussion when we reopen the
hearing.
Borup: And, then, also included in the application some C-C and L-O and R-4 on the
application.
Hood: Yeah. I mean I have got to work up development agreement provisions, so I
think some of that discussion should be had. Now, I may have to maybe do it twice,
because of the neighbors or some other folks that left early or may not be here. If I
may, just some of the questions that I have and maybe I can run it by you and if you
say, no, we want to go another way, we can save some time in front of everyone else
next time. I know it's getting late tonight, but -- because, you know, I have got worked
up some of them, I just didn't think that it was enough to recommend approval at this
time. So, just access is probably one of the bigger questions I have for the
Commission. We were quoting minutes from that last meeting and Wayne Forrey asked
-- Commissioner Borup asked him how many accesses on Eagle Road and he said he
envisioned one between Easy Jet and Victory. And that was for the entire property
between Easy Jet and Victory. This is two-thirds of that property and they have got
three proposed. So, that doesn't seem to be consistent with the testimony there. And
so that's -- and I'm not saying that three is right or wrong, but that's not consistent. Staff
-- I would like to see maybe a maximum of two. I understand that they have got streets
that they are aligning with and ACHD would allow them to construct those, but Eagle
Road is a classified roadway and that's consistent with other plans. So, just to bring it
out there. I mean if you guys want to give me a fixed number, that's fine, but just so you
know, that's where I'm going is to limit access points. I don't know if it would be to the
one that they originally envisioned, but at least limited from what's proposed. It sounds
like that's the biggest thing for the -- if that's all the provisions that you want to put in is
just, you know, access points -- and this is a concept plan, just as a disclosure, I think
it's going to have a tough time at City Council. They are going to want to see some
more details. So, if there is something else that they can maybe provide -- and I'm just
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 76 of 82
saying that to really help the applicant. It's going to be an uphill battle. The City Council
is not -- I do not think going to give them just here is a C-C zone, develop. And they
have the seven guiding principles for positive neighborhood development. Some of
them are a little bit how do we enforce them type things. You know, they say the intent
of the alliance is to do this or that. We really need to require it be that if it develops -- if
they all develop together, well, how do you do that? Do you make them form an LLC
and have one property? How is that carried forth? And I guess I'm going to have to
work with the legal department a little bit on putting some of these intents into actual
requirements in the development agreement provisions and I can work with -- with them
a little bit on that. But some of the other as proposed -- it sounds like some of the
neighbors -- you said there was a consensus that they all wanted to see houses, rather
than the 40 foot landscape buffer that was an option before. So, I guess I'm going to
propose that that be changed and we'll let them testify and say, hey, yeah, we agreed to
do that or, no, we didn't. But that's something that I would -- I would make as a change.
Or if you have any suggestions, too, if you want to throw them at me for any of these --
these things. So, restricting the individual site development -- and I agree with you,
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that, you know, it's just something that we don't see
very often, property owners getting together, not piecemealing things, we can really look
at a master plan for the area. Just wish there was some more details, but I won't go into
that, really, too much anymore. It wasn't really talked about, though, and I would bring
this up as a separate kind of talking point, is the property south of Victory, how does that
-- I mean they are in the Alliance. Are we going to say that if every -- if all these Alliance
people develop together that that person also has to develop on the other side of that
roadway? That doesn't seem to fit and I doubt that that's going to really happen, but,
yet, they are asking for the same zoning and to really tag along with the other ones that
are all part of this. So, that's -- that's something in my mind that -- how does that play in
with the rest of this, not only with the rest of the Alliance properties, but those other
properties there. With all due respect, I mean Sutherland Farms mayor may not have
purchased properties there and have these ideas to do L-O or multi-family even I have
heard. The Comprehensive Plan shows low density residential. If they wanted to do
either one of those, they are going to have to amend the Comprehensive Plan map just
like you guys did in November. So, it's not going to be anything that's just going to be a
guaranteed use. So, again, if you have any -- those are some of the sticking points that
I had when trying to formulate a recommendation. But I will work -- I mean I can work
with this concept plan and bring some provisions back and we can discuss further, but if
you have any guidance now on the front end, that would be great, too.
Rohm: I guess my only comment to that is I agree with your statement that limiting the
number of accesses on Eagle Road is always in good keeping and I'm not saying that
two is the right number or what they have got on this concept map here, but anytime
you can reduce the number of accesses, it makes for better traffic flow along your main
corridors.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 77 of 82
Newton-Huckabay: I want to explore a comment that Caleb just made regarding an
uphill battle at City Council. I don't want to, one, direct all these property owners to say,
okay, this is what we think we will work and, then, have you end up at City Council and
you're, you know, remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and so we
probably do need to consider that it is a very real possibility that no more detail than this
could cost you time at the City Council level and get you remanded back to the Planning
and Zoning Commission, based on them wanting more detail than we were requiring,
which is their right to do. So, I think we do need to -- well, you, the Alliance, need to
consider that as how you want to move forward with that, because that is a risk you are
going to take, but their decision -- our decision doesn't guarantee their decision is going
to be the same one. And so we do need to keep that in mind.
Thomason: Thank you.
Rohm: And to that -- to that end, working with staff very closely on your concept may --
may help you with City Council. And I think with that being said, I'm ready to wind down
here.
Thomason: Thank you.
Borup: Maybe I just -- Mr. Chairman, one additional comment, because we are looking
for input for them to take. I mean they have got a concept plan here. We do not have a
copy of that in our packet. But looking at some of the notations I have from Mr. Hood's
-- on the staff report, I had some of the same concerns or questions, anyway, that he
brought up. One was on the zoning and that was my thoughts and Commissioner
Zaremba mentioned if the site plan that was submitted with the application, if that would
take precedence on the zoning, then, it would just be a matter of changing the
application itself. And, apparently, the legal description also. But I think limiting some
access points on Eagle Road is consistent with the guiding principles and it says that -- I
mean number five was to construct an internal roadway to minimize curb cuts on Eagle
and -- that's still a lot of curb cuts on Eagle in that -- in a short section like that, so -- I
take it that that's something I would like to -- maybe just two -- I don't know if there is a
-- if that's the right number, but at least -- I mean one may not be enough.
Thomason: We appreciate that comment and Wayne's comment at the last meeting
was prior to his last meeting with the Ada County Highway District and the curb cuts that
you see there, that came out of the meeting with representatives there and --
Borup: Because they are lining up with those across the street.
Thomason: Well, the -- no, we had not shown any proposals of roadways on the
internal side. That's simple the road cuts that they had put in on the plan. So, those
aren't set in stone. I guess that's the comment I trying to make here. Ada County
Highway District, I just got their report today and the bottom line of that report --
because they were responding to something Wayne had sent to them when we were
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 78 of 82
still working with this on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The bottom line of that
report was that this is a rezoning and annexation, not a project, and so they listed all the
other things we'd still have to be held accountable for. But, in essence, they were listing
that since it's a rezoning and not a project, they have no problems with that -- with what
we had talked to them about. So, the bottom line, I guess, again, is that we were talking
in a none project mode and another discussion with them will, obviously, reduce those
cut cuts down, because they will be interested in that as well.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Thomason: If I could, I will give each of you a color copy of the map you have now.
Borup: The only other question I had, Mr. Chairman, is if we had anyone else here to
testify that was not part of the Alliance?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I didn't think we were taking any public testimony?
Rohm: That is a good question and --
Borup: Well -- and if it would be something pertinent for them to consider before the
next meeting. I don't know if it would be or not.
Rohm: Absolutely. If you would like to come forward, sir.
Borup: And what I was interested in is something that would give some input for the
next meeting.
Romello: Well, my name is Scott Romello. I live at 3293 South Capula Way in
Meridian. I mean we have had, basically, a discussion here about the future of this
property and at 7:00 o'clock when I first walked in you dismissed all the opposition to
this property, so no public statements were going to be heard, so I had people from my
development Tuscany, there were people here from Sutherland Farms who got up and
walked out and at this point all we have sitting here are people who are for this project
and we have some -- we still have some concerns about this project and I feel like it's
being pushed through here at the end and they are assuming that there was a zoning
change and at this point as of the October meeting, there wasn't a zoning change
approved, so --
Borup: Yeah. We all understand all that stuff. Did you have anything pertinent that you
wanted to share?
Romello: Just that, basically -- I guess not. I mean I guess we -- we have had
everybody who was going to come out and say something against this has left at this
point and you're, basically, having a discussion about this without any of the people --
Borup: That's why I asked you to come up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 79 of 82
Romello: Yeah.
Borup: And you don't have anything to say, either, you're saying?
Romello: Not specifically -- not without all the people that were supposed to be here,
no.
Rohm: We are not going to dismiss anything that they have to offer. That's not the
intent of this at all. We just knew that we were not going to be in a position to act on this
-- on this application tonight and that's why we gave them the option of leaving, so that
they could come back at a date certain that this would be continued to and still have
every opportunity to testify at that point in time. Nobody is going to be eliminated from
the opportunity to testify.
Romella: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: And I was just hoping that you might have had some input on what they would
say, but --
Romello: Well, yeah, I have talked to a lot of the owners in Tuscany and I have talked
to Darrell Hines just recently and we are not -- we are still not satisfied with the plans.
As you have said previously, this is a very sketchy development. I mean I could go into
a lot of details, I know it's late in the evening, so I'm not going to go into a long
presentation like they did, but there are some concerns we have about this project and
the impact on the area and the fact that you're basically putting the commercial that's
already existing that was referenced earlier today, was all on a variance, and you're still
plugging a commercial right into existing brand new neighborhoods. Sutherland Farms
doesn't have an active homeowners association. Tuscany doesn't have an active
homeowners association, because those neighborhoods aren't even finished yet and
the developer hasn't released us to have that responsibility to even have an
organization --
Borup: Your objection is to the zoning, then?
Romella: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Romello: Of course. That opposition is to the zoning.
Borup: All right.
Romello: I don't understand -- we just saw a development -- plans earlier tonight where
people were putting subdivisions into 20 acre parcels and somehow it's assumed that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 80 of 82
this is automatically the best use for this property is to be commercial oriented and we
don't necessarily agree that that is an absolute as far as the homeowners in the area.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does someone else have --
Rohm: Yeah. In no way were we trying to circumvent anybody's opportunity to testify.
Romello: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just for the record, I want to restate that
the intent of the discussion tonight was to flush out the staff concerns and to let the
applicant know that more detail would be desired and that it would be more efficient to
have that detail be presented before we heard from the opposition, so that they could be
commenting on a more fully formed plan. So, indeed, when this does come back, there
will a full discussion of those for and those against and those who are neutral.
Rohm: Thanks, Mr. Baird. With that being said, I'd entertain a motion to continue this.
Zaremba: One question before we do that. Are we, as a group, comfortable directing
both staff and the applicant to work with the concept plan as presented, but give legal
descriptions for three different zones and try and eliminate at least one access on
Eagle? Is that all we are asking for or are we asking for more residential?
Rohm: I think from my perspective, just as you stated it is where I'd like to see them go
with the zonings for the three different areas and -- and reducing the access to Eagle
Road.
Borup: I think we are relying on -- on what the consensus was at the neighborhood
meeting. Without that neighborhood -- that's all we have to go by.
Hood: And Mr. Chair?
Borup: Even though we questioned it.
Hood: Commissioners, just to save -- and I talked with the applicant on -- all my days
this week are running together. They have a surveyor that's either a property in there or
they know one. If it's fairly inexpensive I guess it would be to have those zoning
designations. It would be just fine to press forward with the zoning as proposed now
and, then, after that meeting, the next meeting, prior to City Council we actually get the
legal descriptions here that show those different zones, because I would hate for them
to do new legals and, then, it changes something else and they need revised new legals
-- so, we can work under the assumption that we have got three different zones that
represent what's on this revised concept plan and I would be fine with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16, 2006
Page 81 of 82
Borup: Well, I'm very comfortable with that, too.
Hood: I mean I will just make a condition in there that prior to City -- you know, ten
days, at least, prior to City Council provide revised legal descriptions for the properties
as discussed at the meeting.
Moe: I guess my point would be as far as any -- our motion to continue, they can
comment anyway, for the simple fact, we still have a Public Hearing to hear when we go
back in. So, it's a simple matter of just doing a continuance to the 20th and go forward.
Rohm: I agree with that.
Borup: Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah, I don't think we need a legal description
either. I mean the road could shift two feet and, then, they have to do it all new.
Rohm: I'm open to a motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, recommend we continue Public Hearing AZ 06-008,
request for annexation and zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to C-C for South Eagle and
Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation, to the date of April 20th, 2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-008 to the regularly scheduled
meeting of April 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: I would entertain one more motion.
Mae: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Good night.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 16,2006
Page 82 of 82
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :48 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
~I 6 I () G
DATE APPROVED
ATTESTEDJ~Þ-~ ~
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., ITÝ CLERK