2006 04-20
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
April 20, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 20, 2006, was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Newton-Huckabay,
and David Moe.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Jennifer Veatch, Joe Guenther,
Josh Wilson, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Mae - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting to order and begin
with the roll call.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: And he informs me that he will be here later, but couldn't be here for the start of
the meeting. To start off with, I'd like to have an adoption of the agenda and there will
be a couple of items that will change. There will be -- on Items 4 and 5, which are both
for Cedarcreek Subdivision, this project will be continued, I believe, until the May 18th
hearing. And the last two items on the agenda, one for Incline Village Subdivision, I
was informed earlier this evening that that project was not properly posted and so it will
have to be re-noticed and continued to a later date as well. So, anybody that would be
here for either one of those, neither one of those projects will be heard tonight. Other
than that, that agenda will stay, unless there is any other recommended changes.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, you can continue Incline Village to a date certain for the
property posting to catch up with it.
Rohm: Okay. Do you have a suggested date for that?
Canning: May 4th should be fine.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. With that being said, then, I would entertain a motion to
accept the agenda as adjusted.
Zaremba: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 2 of 88
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the agenda as suggested. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-009
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for restaurant / retail uses as
determined by Development Agreement for Bridgetower
Commercial by Primeland Development, LLP - southeast corner
of Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-008
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for restaurant / retail / general
commercial uses as determined by Development Agreement for
Lochsa Falls Commercial by Monterey, LLC - 2240 and 2300
Everest Lane:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 06-007 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,580 square-foot restaurant with
a drive-thru on .73 acres in a C-G zone for Conglomerate Drive
Through B by Afton-Pacific, LLC - southwest corner of Eagle
Road and Magic View Drive:
Rohm: Item 3 on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. And, basically, those are just
items that have been heard and acted on in the past and it's a formality to accept them
as finalized and the first one is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for CUP 06-
009. The second is CUP 06-008 for Lochsa Falls Commercial. And the third one is
CUP 06-007, Conglomerate Drive-Thru B. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent
Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Moving right along. The Planning and Zoning meetings have
taken on a new life over the last six months to a year and as we can see by the number
in attendance in the audience here, our agendas get very very full and one might ask,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 3 of 88
well, why do you put so many items on the agenda and the answer is there is so many
projects going, if we were to not expand the agenda, it would just make the next
meeting's agenda that much longer. We are going to go to additional Planning and
Zoning meetings whenever we can have a fifth Thursday, as along as the balance of the
Commission agrees to it. But tonight we have 24 items on the agenda and depending
upon how each hearing goes, we mayor may not get through that agenda. The way I
will notify you is at 9:00 o'clock or at the end of the hearing that concludes at or about
9:00 o'clock, we'll be able to tell how far along within the agenda we are and at that time
I will let you know if we are going to be able to hear the entire agenda and, if not, we will
cut those -- we will make notice and say Items 19, 20 through 24 will have to be
continued to a following hearing. But last week -- last meeting we were here until 3:00
o'clock and we probably won't do that again. So, with that being said -- oh, one other
little note that I wanted to pass on. Any presenter, if they have a CD that they would like
to bring forward to the staff for help in their presentation, it's best for them if they have it
now, just so that they can work it in and make sure that it's ready to go at such time that
your particular hearing comes forward. Okay. All right. With that being said, I think that
I will talk a little bit about how this procedure works. Each hearing is opened and we
ask that the staff make their presentation first. The staff presents the project as it
relates to Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. Their position is ostensibly neutral and
they just speak to it from an ordinance and Comprehensive Plan prospective. The
second -- and, then, we will ask staff any questions. But, then, the presentation of the
applicant is basically their opportunity to sell the project. Once that portion of the
hearing is over, then, that's when each of you have an opportunity to speak to the
project and if, in fact, there is a property owner or a president of a homeowners
association that is speaking for a larger group, we will give that individual ten minutes.
Otherwise, we'd like you to hold your comments to about three minutes and at that time
conclude and we will move onto the next person that wants to speak.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: 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:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: 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:
Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing for March
16th, 2006, for AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007, both related to Cedarcreek Subdivision and
begin with the staff report.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we are --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 4 of 88
Rohm: Oh, there you go. And that's one of the two that will be continued and at this
time I'd entertain a motion to continue these two items to the regularly scheduled
meeting of May 18th.
Zaremba: 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 May 18th,
2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-009 and PP 06-007 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of May 18th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Item 7:
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: AZ 06-013 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for
Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC -
south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: 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:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16,2006: 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. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on continued AZ 06-013
related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision and PP 06-011 and CUP 06-006, all
related to Canterbury Commons Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, this is, as you said, the
Canterbury Commons project. It's located on Pine east of Ten Mile, as shown on your
vicinity map there. The project includes several applications. There is annexation and
zoning, preliminary plat, Conditional Use Permit, and a private street application and it
also includes a variance application and, as you know, you won't be acting on that
variance tonight, but we will give you an idea of what that is as we go along. To give
you a little highlight of the development -- just a second. The site plan doesn't read very
well, so I will just explain what's going on. There is a number of four-plex units that front
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 5 of 88
a private street system. The private streets come -- try not to blind that man. There we
go. They come through here and around and, then, there is a public street system loop
also and they have townhouses proposed along the public street system. So, the
application includes the annexation and zoning of 21.77 acres. They are requesting R-
15 zoning on this property. The preliminary plat has a total of 122 residential lots. Now,
50 of those are four-plex lots and, then, 72 are townhouse dwellings. So, it's a total of
272 dwellings proposed. And they have ten common lots. The Conditional Use Permit
is to construct the multi-family development, which, again, is the 200 dwelling units, 50
four-plexes. And the private street is for the multi-family, so that we can get addressing
for those properties. And, finally, the variance request is to allow reduced lot sizes in
the R-15 for the -- for the townhouse units. We have a minimum of 2,400 square feet
for each of them. They are asking for a variance to go down to 1,900 square feet and
they are also asking for a reduction to the standard 12-foot rear setback in the R-15
zone. They are asking for an 11 foot rear setback. I do have some elevations of the
units tonight. Point out a couple of features. There is a drain on the northeast portion of
the site and also the western boundary is another drain. These are the townhouse
units. This is what would face the street, because they are front loaded. And, then,
these are a couple of the different apartment elevations. That would be the smaller unit
and that's the larger unit, I believe. The staff report has quite a lengthy analysis of this
project. As it's presented, it doesn't appear to comply with either the UDC or the
Comprehensive Plan, but staff has been reluctant to give you a recommendation on this
project. They would like to give the applicant an opportunity to address some of these
concerns. We did -- since the staff report has been prepared, we have gotten back a
revised site plan and I'll try and tell you which concerns that revised site plan has met
and which still seem to be some of the outstanding concerns. Just as a general one,
there was some landscaping notes that Mr. Hood had made that I don't believe have
been fully addressed yet. There is a question of the private usable open space and the
applicant should clarify how that private usable open space is being met. We don't have
the floor plans for the units, so we can't tell if they are providing that. So, we ask that
the applicant clarify that. Regarding parking, the submitted site plan does not show the
required covered parking spaces for the multi-family unit. It also doesn't show -- or not
all the units are able to meet the 20-by-20 parking pad required for the townhouse units.
So, again, the applicant should clarify how they intend to meet that requirement of the
UDC. With regard to amenities, there is a sliding scale in the UDC. For example, for 75
units you need to have four quality-of-life amenities and those would be one from each
category. So, that's quality of life, open space, recreation. At least one from each of
those categories. After a hundred, it's up to the Commission to decide what the
appropriate number of amenities are. So, in this case you have got 200 units and we
will need some clarification from you as to what you feel are the appropriate amount of
amenities. Right now this project has a 3,000 square foot community clubhouse and
fitness facility. All the amenities are kind of centralized in this -- this central triangle
here. That would be a quality of life amenity. There is property management office and
maintenance storage area and a directory for the area and a pool. The pool would be a
recreation amenity. There is a tot lot, another recreation amenity. As well as walking
trails. And there is some additional open space. So, staff recommends that the
Commission determine if the proposed amenities are sufficient for development of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 6 of 88
site and give the applicant direction regarding that. There are a number of internal
pedestrian paths. Staff had recommended some additional pathways. These pathways
have been depicted on the revised plat. Further, the applicant is showing a pathway
along the Ten Mile stub drain. It appears that the pathway, though, is within the
adjacent build-able lots, rather than on a separate common lot. So, we would like to
see that still addressed. This is the Ten Mile drain. This -- the one in the northeast is
the Eight Mile drain. And we would like to see those enhanced by leaving them open. I
don't believe that we have specific details on how they are going to be developed just
yet. Just as a note, because it's not addressed specifically, but the existing residences
and buildings do cross proposed lot lines, so those would need to be removed. The
multi-family setbacks -- the UDC doesn't have a specific requirement for setbacks from
a private street. The applicant is proposing five feet in some cases from the edge of
sidewalk. Staff is a little concerned that joint trench may not be able to get in that five
feet. Typically, they like to see ten feet. So, we would -- the applicant either needs to
describe where they are going to get joint trench or they need to increase that if it's not
going to be at the front of the building to ten feet. Refuse areas -- SSC had commented
on the proposed dumpster locations. They have revised it and they have -- they are
showing new dumpster locations. We are not sure if SSC has approved those new
locations or not just yet. The Pine Avenue street buffer was raised in the staff report.
The revised preliminary plat does depict the required street buffer within a common lot,
rather than on the build-able lots. So, that one has been addressed. With regard to
open space, the applicant states that there is 12.6 percent of the site is set aside for
common open space. By staff calculations we are only getting to about 8.8 percent.
So, the applicant needs to clarify how they are -- how they are calculating common
open space and how that common outdoor open space is -- complies with the UDC. I
guess the revised preliminary plat does show revised calculations and, then, they added
some open space on the northwest corner, as well as the southwest corner of the site.
But Mr. Hood notes that the applicant should explain where and how the open space
requirements are being met. Let's see. There was some discrepancy between the
preliminary plat site plan and landscape plan, but I think those have been addressed
with the new revised plat. There was a question about the parking area on the
northwest side of the development. That has been shortened to meet the fire
department requirements, so that one has been addressed. Regarding the density, the
revised preliminary plat shows 269 dwelling units, instead of 272. However, staff is still
concerned with just the design of this, not necessarily the development. There have
been some funny -- there was concern with -- let's see if I have the right -- there was
concern with a unit at this end of the project. They have relocated it to this end in the
middle of a four-plex unit in the middle of the townhouse project. So, there are definitely
some issues still with the layout of the multi-family. I think I already mentioned the
setbacks. And the final kind of design area that staff was concerned about is down
here. It's very hard to see. There is one unit that's kind of surrounded by all this
parking and asphalt and it's separated from the other ones. There is also -- the big
stumbling block with the design from staff's perspective is that you have a public street
here and you have the townhouses fronting this way and, then, you have the back side
of the apartments right along that street, but, then, they have a private street. So, it's a
very inefficient layout and would seem to have a lot more asphalt than perhaps it needs
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 7 of 88
to. With regard to the variance, staff is not recommending approval for that. We could
not find that we could meet the findings for the variance. There is no special hardship
on this property that would warrant having those reductions in the lot area or the rear
setback. So, what staff would recommend tonight -- because there is so many
outstanding issues, there is no way the Planning Commission could get through all the
design issues in any reasonable amount of time, but we would suggest that you take
public comment from those individuals that are here and, then, ask the applicant to
redesign the site and bring it back, addressing all the public and staff concerns and any
other concerns that the Commission may want to enumerate for them. With that I'll
answer any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like
to come forward, please?
Wardle: Commission Members, my name is Geoffery Wardle. I am an attorney with
Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley. We are counsel for the applicant American West
Homes. And we have -- I'll go ahead and provide those to you.
Rohm: Could we get you to state an address, too, please?
Wardle: Yes. My address is 877 Main, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Suite 1000. In reviewing
the staff report we are -- we are in general agreement with the comments that have
been made by staff with respect to this project. The staff report that you received
tonight, however, the oral report we don't think necessarily represents what were the
comments that were provided to us in the written staff report. To note, first of all, this is
a multi-family townhouse project with the intention of condominiumizing and coming
forward with a final plat, a condominium plat, for the multi-family component. In looking
at this site and looking at the zoning and looking at the surroundings, to the west you
have higher density use and more commercial use heading towards Ten Mile. To the
south you have the Union Pacific Railroad right of way. And along the southwest side
you have the Ten Mile Drain. To the east you have a -- I believe an R-8 development.
To better coordinate and better harmonize and make the transition from that, the
proposals has come forward with townhouses on the east side of the property and with
the multi-family condominium units to the west. Tonight we have here with us the
applicant Joe Reesey and Matt Gordon of American West Homes, as well as Lance
Warnick, who has handled the engineering on this project. And Mark Sanders has
handled the architecture. And to the extent you have any technical questions, I would
defer them to them. Like I said, we are in general agreement with staffs comments on
this site. We have gone back and attempted to address the issues that have been
raised. It's important to note that, obviously, we recognize that we must comply and
come forward with an application which is consistent with the UDC. It is your code. It is
our intention to do that. In doing that we do recognize that there was an omission in the
submissions and that the covered parking was not included. We are not contending
that we are not going to do covered parking as required by the UDC, rather, the plan
that you have in front of you does depict where the parking is, it's just a matter of
including that in later schematics. Additionally, with respect to amenities, we recognize
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 8 of 88
that it's discretionary on the part of the Commission to determine what amenities are
required for this type of project. The applicant has attempted to come forward with a
wide range of amenities from each of the categories required under the UDC and to
provide the variety and necessity to address the needs of this project. We do
appreciate the comments that Mr. Hood has provided previously and as you can see
from the revised site plan, many of the concerns and issues that were raised with
respect to the amenities were addressed. To the extent that there was concern in the
south portion of the property with connectivity, through the multi-family component, that
has been addressed with additional pathways. One comment that staff did raise is that,
yes, along that Ten Mile Drain, as you can see, there is a pathway and it is not within a
common lot. The reason it's not within a common lot is because it's impossible to meet
the setbacks along there and the easement requirements if they were to be placed
within a common lot. That will be included as a dedicated easement pursuant to either
the plat, if that's what you choose to require, or as part of the condominium association
declarations. Additionally, the revised preliminary plat and site plan, we believe, has
addressed all of the issues with respect to the 20-by-20 parking pad requirement for the
townhouses. We did take that back, we did attempt to comply with that. To the extent
that there aren't -- or staff has found that there aren't 20-by-20 parking pads, that's
certainly not an intention, it was an omission on our part and we do intend to comply
with that. Additionally, when we deal with the interface between doing town -- a mixed
component of product here with townhouses on the eastern portion, to better harmonize
with the existing residential development to the east, and the multi-family condominium
complex to the west, it does raise the issue that staff cites, namely, that you do have
that row of townhouses there in the center, which does have frontage on a public road
and parking on a private. As set forth in our comments, we recognize staffs concern,
but as staff notes that it is appropriate and proper to use private roads in these type of
multi-family projects. Typically, when you do a multi-family project like this, the multi-
family units will take up the exterior of the property with the amenities, parking, and
common area to the center. Where you attempt to mix it, like you have here, this is -- is
something that is unavoidable, yet we believe that adequate conditions can be imposed
and address the concerns that staff has, because, in reality, through landscaping and
through the use of those amenity -- or whatever requirements you have on that eastern
side of the property and across from the townhouses, it's not necessarily like that's the
back of the building. As you can see over here, we have elevations depicting what has
been proposed and what we intend to do with your approval, that these are units which
do have significant architectural features and we committed to staff that multiple
materials would be utilized and that there would be variation in product and design. We
think that those go to address many of staffs concerns. Ultimately, this issue of double
frontage can only be addressed with -- with a complete redesign of the development,
because it is an issue that rises from the fact that you have a townhouse component
and a multi-family condominium component. We don't think it's fatal. We don't think
that the UDC prohibits it. And we do think that it's the best use of the property to
provide the transition that staff has encouraged us to do. With respect to the open
space calculation, we believe that there is adequate open space that's been set forth in
the preliminary plat and the revised site plan and certainly our architectural and
engineering staff can address how that's calculated and where it's located. Now, with
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 9 of 88
respect to staff comments, we appreciate their support for the product that's been
proposed here. Our client has come forward with a product that they intend to offer for
sale. This is not an apartment complex. This is intended to be owner-occupied housing
and it's designed in this way to provide housing that is readily affordable for working
families. These are not small one bedroom units. The townhouses are three bedroom
units and the multi-family condominium units are two to three bedroom units, which
provide private common space as required under the UDC in the form of balconies, in
the form of porches, in the form of the types of amenities that individuals are looking for
when they move into these types of units. It is also important to note that as we look at
the design and we look at the issues here, we are only requesting one variance. In
meeting with Mr. Hood and going over the UDC, the variance request with respect to
rear setbacks in the townhouse component has been withdrawn. Mr. Hood pointed out
to us how we could meet those setback requirements and what we could do with
respect to the redesign that you have in front of you to address that. So, that variance
is off the table. As for the other variance, we do recognize staff's concern. There has
been a request on the townhouse lots, because 28 of the lots do not comply with the
2,400 square foot lot -- minimum lot size and the reason for that is simple. When you're
dealing with interior units on these townhouses, if you don't have a lot that's at least 90
feet deep, you can't get 2,400 square feet. Now, the footprint for each and everyone of
these townhouses is exactly the same, it's just the fact those interior lots in certain areas
don't -- aren't deep enough to be able to let you get to 28 feet -- to get to the 88 to 90
feet like you need to have 2,400 square feet. Now, that's largely a function of the
setback requirements, the amount of right of way that has to be dedicated for the public
-- for the public -- for ACHD for the public roads and it has to do with preserving the
integrity of the common area in the center of the project. Now, we certainly think that it
would be appropriate for you tonight to approve this project with conditions to address
the staffs concerns. We believe that we have attempted to do that and we believe that,
actually, Mr. Hood in his revised staff report, which came out earlier this week,
recognized that and pointed that out. Additionally, when we look at this project, we
recognize that this is an enclave within the City of Meridian, that the property to the
north, south, east and west has all been annexed. And we recognize that we do have
to come forward with a project which is in harmony with the surrounding uses. The
proposed -- the proposal you have in front of you tonight we believe does that. It
provides a mixture of uses, it provides a mixture of product type and a mixture of price
points, but most importantly it provides both single-family and multi-family use, which we
believe is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, has indicated, we
certainly are amenable to whatever conditions you think need to be addressed and
imposed to address the concerns that staff has tonight. We have worked diligently with
staff over the course of the last year to come up with a product type here at this site that
is acceptable to the city and conforms with your codes. And with that I'd stand for any
questions and I would be more than happy to bring up a member of our design team to
have them address any concerns you may have.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of the applicant?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Aprii 20. 2006
Page 10 of 88
Moe: Mr. Chairman. Just a couple things. As far as sse, did you guys discuss the
trash location and whatnot with them on your -- is this the revised plan here?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, yes, this here is the revised plan and we
did take staff's -- staff's recommendation to address the trash. I don't necessarily know
if engineering staff discussed it with SSC, but we certainly did attempt to come up and
utilize the design that staff required. So, to the extent I need to refer to our engineering
staff to answer that --
Moe: Let me ask another question first.
Wardle: Okay.
Moe: In regards to the public street where the -- that would be condominiums back up
to the street; is that correct?
Wardle: That is correct.
Moe: And townhomes are in front? Do you have a rear elevation of those
condominiums, then, that would face that street? I was just curious to see what that
would be.
Wardle: I believe in the packet there is rear elevation. That's the townhouse rear
elevation. That's the rear elevation of the multi-family component with the elevations
and materials depicted down here below.
Moe: Okay. That's it for me right now.
Rohm: I have a question for you. On the pathways along the west line of the property,
you said -- and maybe I didn't get this right, so I'd like you to talk about that pathway a
little bit more. You say the pathway lies within the lots themselves and there is an
easement back to -- who is the easement granted to?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, as depicted on the revised site plan, you can see the pathway
along the Ten Mile Drain. Staff is correct. That path is located within the lots located to
the north of that. We believe that -- well, first of all, we are not counting that. That
pathway is not being counted towards the common open space requirements. So, we
are not offering that as an amenity to meet that requirement, because, obviously, it's
located within the lot and it can't be counted towards that. But we do believe that
through the use of an easement, either on the plat or in a separate instrument or in the
condominium declaration in favor of the residence and if there is connectivity and you
seek to impose the condition that it's open to the public, it certainly can be. That's the
way we propose to address that, because we think that it provides an excellent amenity.
We have no intention of tiling either the Eight Mile Canal -- Eight Mile Lateral or the Ten
Mile Drain. We do believe, as depicted on the northeast side of the property, that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 11 of 88
pathways located there are appropriate under your code and that's what we attempted
to do.
Rohm: I don't remember ever seeing a pathway presented that way before and I just --
in my mind it really seems like it's something that would be part of your CC&Rs or
something, but it wouldn't be something that would be part of this package, in my mind,
because it's not a dedicated pathway to the city or it's not on a common lot and it just
seems like it's kind of an agreement between neighbors that we can cross this --
Wardle: And, Mr. Chairman, that's the way it would be prepared and preserved,
because if it were created on a common lot, then, obviously, there are setback issues
there that have to be met and, in fact, can't be met, because of the existing easement
for maintenance of the Ten Mile Drain and with those. So, we felt that while it's not
counted towards the common area -- the public common area or the private -- or the
private common area, because it's on individual lots, that it certainly provides
connectivity through the project and it can be handled via an easement either on the
condominium plat or via a declaration or separate instrument.
Rohm: Okay. I think we need to talk about the common area percentage a little bit
more, but before we go to that, if any other Commissioners have any questions of this
applicant before we ask your engineer to come forward --
Newton-Huckabay: I have one, Mr. Chair. I was just curious. How large are the town --
or not the townhomes, the multi-family units?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the multi-family units are two or three bedroom
units, anywhere from, I believe, 900 to 1,300 square feet. I'd have to ask my client to
come up and confirm that, but that's my understanding.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Would you go ahead --
Wardle: Sure.
Rohm: -- and ask your engineer to come up and --
Wardle: Yeah. We'll have Mr. Warnick come up and discuss the common area
calculation.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Oh. Go ahead.
Newton-Huckabay: Maybe we could take public testimony first, do you think?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 12 of 88
Rohm: Well, I'd like -- no, let's go ahead and --
Warnick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, my
name is Lance Warnick. My address is 1204 6th Street North, Nampa, Idaho. 83687.
To answer your questions about common area, I think the best way to do it is to identify
the specific common lots and their associated areas and they do correspond with the
revised plan that you have in front of you.
Rohm: Before you do that, did you and Mr. Hood communicate on this issue?
Because it seems to be a disconnect here and I need to know that staff is aware of your
calculations, just --
Warnick: I personally did not. The gentleman from my office, Greg Anderson, did meet
with the city and came back and has revised the plan to show the new areas here. It's
my understanding it's based in the staff report that Mr. Hood did not have a lot of time
to review that prior to completing the application and that's why I think they have made
that statement that they want us to explain it to you tonight.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Warnick: The common area calculations are composed of six lots. Starting over here in
the upper northwest corner -- see if I can get this turned on. This is common Lot 2.
There we go. Common Lot 2 in Block 1 has an area of 26,815 feet and in that lot there
is a pathway and there is also a green open space to provide some recreational
opportunities. The second common lot that we are including is, actually, Common Lot
40, which is the large area in the center of the site that includes the pool, the clubhouse,
and also additional grassed areas for recreation. That has an area of -- that has an
area of 60,265 feet. The next lot that's included is this grassy area located down here.
You're running out of batteries on this thing. Excuse me. Lot 31 -- Lot 31 has an area
of 4,540 feet in this location. The fourth area is in the northeast corner. It also has a
pathway and also the water feature on that side. The area of that lot has 17,223 feet. If
you would like, I can give you a copy of this little sheet afterwards, so you can see the
map, if that's helpful for you.
Rohm: That's -- okay. Thank you.
Warnick: Okay. The fifth area is, actually, Lot 34 of Block 2, down in the southwest
corner. Has an area 6,822 feet. Again, it's a green open area, more of some
interspersed recreational area. And the final lot is this lot that is in the middle of the
townhouse area. We have green space on the north, green space on the south, and a
connecting pedestrian path between them and that area has 18,840 feet. As you sum
those areas, you get 134,505 feet, which is approximately 3.09 acres, which is that
same common area depicted on the plat down in the development table. You take that,
divide it by the total area that does not include the road adjacent to Pine Street, 20.32
and it gives you a total percent open space of 15.2 percent.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 13 of 88
Rohm: Thank you.
Mae: Excuse me. You said minus the area on Pine?
Warnick: Yeah. The one difference that I do, as opposed to the annexation, when we
annex we have to annex to the center of the roadway. Currently there is a portion of the
roadway that's already dedicated to ACHD, so I'm not including that portion that's
already dedicated in my area, even though it is included in this annexation request.
Rohm: Thank you.
Warnick: Thank you.
Rohm: Any additional questions of the applicant before we move onto public
testimony?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, one thing that -- and you may be able to answer this -- I'm a little
bit concerned about is the variance and as you spoke earlier you were basically
concerned on lot size, as well as setbacks and everything else. My concern is did you
guys, basically, get designed out and, then, realize that we might have a problem and,
therefore, you weren't sure how you were going to get you more open space? I'm
concerned that there was a problem after the fact this was drawn out and now the
variance needs to be done to basically be in compliance and I was just kind of
wondering why we didn't maybe reduce some of these buildings and put some more
open space at that point?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, as indicated we are not asking for a
variance on setbacks. That has been addressed by staff. They pointed out how we had
miscalculated some distances and that's been cured. The variance has to do with the
size of those interior town home lots and they are 27 feet wide, because that's the width
of the townhome. And on 28 of those 72 townhouse lots they are less than 89 feet deep
and the issue with depth is why the variance is needed. Now, we have requested the
variance not because of any difficulty with setbacks, not because of any difficulty with
compliance, our client made a decision in evaluating this project, recognized that the
Comprehensive Plan could have permitted at this site a much denser zone, which would
not have had these lot minimums. The C-40 zone -- I mean the R-40 zone under the
UDC does not have a lot minimum. But rather than come in with that high of density,
where, ultimately, the density would have been built the same at 15 units to the acre as
proposed, our client came forward and made the variance request just because of the
nature of building townhomes. Now, that is, obviously, an issue that will have to be
addressed pursuant to that variance. I can assure you, though, it wasn't an issue where
we designed it and, then, came back and said, oh, we have a problem, it's an issue that
when you design a townhome that you can't make it all fit. Yes.
Rohm: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 14 of 88
Wardle: And one last -- if I may respond to one last issue, which I failed to. Staff did
raise the issue of five foot setbacks along some of the four-plex condominium units and
in coming forward with the revised site plan you have in front of you tonight, Treasure
Valley Engineering did come forward, did reevaluate that and has proposed an eight
foot setback. Now, it's important to note that we have complied with the setbacks
required under the UDC and we certainly recognize Public Works' concern about the
joint trench and where you put the water meters. So, we think it's workable in light of
the spacing between the units, to the extent that you may have to put some of those
facilities to the side of the units, as opposed to necessarily right in front of it, but we
have expanded that to eight feet from five. So, we believe that should address most of
the concerns articulated by staff.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Mark Sanders.
Sanders: Mark Sanders. 499 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. We are the architects
for the project. I don't think I have anymore to add than Mr. Wardle did. Other than Mr.
Reesey came in to see us last summer and was interested in buying this site and
wanted to put a building -- some buildings on here that we had had previous success
with and all three of these building types have been built across Idaho. Several of the
four-plex style condos have been built here in the valley in several communities and the
townhouses we have done up in Coeur d'Alene and as far as I know they have both
typically been pretty successful where ever they are built and we are sold out very
quickly before they are built.
Rohm: I didn't realize that you were part of the development team, so --
Sanders: Oh. Excuse me.
Rohm: For all intents and purposes that was just additional testimony that's not
necessarily required. Thank you.
Sanders: Yeah. I don't have much to add to what Mr. Wardle said. I think he covered
all the issues from our side. Thank you.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this
application? Okay. Thank you. Before we move on, I'd like to just kind of take a poll of
the Commission and get some thoughts and I'd like to start with Commissioner Moe.
This is the first time.
Moe: You bet. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, after going through a review of the
staff report and whatnot, I -- number one, I am in agreement to at least go back and get
quite a few of these things cleaned up. As I hear tonight, I know that the applicant has,
again, met with staff and have taken care of some of these items, but I think we are well
along to needing additional information to staff to take care of that. In regards to the
amenities after the engineer has kind of gone through where the open space is, I'm not
sure where you would put any other amenities. I, quite frankly, would like to see a little
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 15 of 88
bit additional amenities, you know, per the square footage of the area we are
discussing, but I'm not just sure what that would be at the present time.
Rohm: I agree with that.
Moe: So, therefore, I guess my point would be at some point I'd like to find out from the
applicant when they could possibly be ready to go back to staff and get this reviewed,
so that we could, then, set a date certain for another hearing.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you
have a comment?
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have a pointer? Okay. My comments are generally -- I
think -- it's -- when I do anything with my right hand it never works. This four-plex -- this
lot here I find a little awkward. I don't think it flows with the town homes very well. I tend
to agree with the director, I -- as I envision how this would look when it's done, I think it
would be one of those situations where you drive down it and go, well, who was on the
Planning and Zoning Commission when they approved that and I don't really like the
way that flows. I think I would like to see maybe townhomes or something would be
nice there fronting with the town -- the back of the town homes fronting the development.
Lot 30 down here, again, I think that's awkward placement there and I just create it -- we
have a whole -- a whole lot of asphalt going on in here that I just don't really care for.
And, then, the only other thing I think would be - amenity wise maybe something like a
basketball court or something like that. If you have -- I calculate about 1,000 people
that would be living, approximately, in this area, I think -- and there may have been one
on there and I just didn't see it. I think something like that might be a nice amenity to
have -- there is plenty of green space. I think one could be added in. But I do think
that something like a basketball court would be a nice addition. And that is the end of
my comments.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Similar comments to those that the previous
Commissioners have expressed. I think I'm satisfied with the open space calculation,
but within those open spaces I could see the addition of a half court basketball court or
volleyball courts or maybe a tot lot one place or another or a barbecue area on the ones
that are farther away from the clubhouse, but still visible in such a way that children
would not be playing in a place that's not visible. And if it is a half court -- basketball
court or volleyball court, that it would not be lit at night. But I think those additions would
be a good idea. I agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. In this middle section
that has a front and the back on a private street one side and a public street on the
other, it would make sense to me to have it be the same product that is across the
street on the other side and just move that transition half a block to the west, essentially.
Most of the other issues that staff has raised I agree with. As for the variance on the
size of the lots, my comment would be that the development of the new Unified
Development Code took about three years from the acceptance of the Comprehensive
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 16 of 88
Plan with very intense work during the last year and a half. Sizes in all of the different
zones were discussed very thoroughly. There was a lot of public input. A lot of
developer input. The sizes of the lots for each of the zones was picked with the thought
that we would stop having these variance applications and stick to them. It was
extremely common before the adoption of the new Unified Development Code, probably
two out of three applications requested a variance in lot size or multiple variances in lot
sizes and we had that very much in mind when we redesigned the Unified Development
Code. I'm satisfied that the Unified Development Code got it correct. And I don't think
we should have the same attitude about the variances on lot sizes that we had before
the new UDC. The requirement is that there must be some extreme hardship, which
would mean that, you know, the Ten Mile Drain or whatever it is runs square through
the middle of the property or there is Table Rock right in the middle of the property.
Those would be hardships. Just trying to get a couple extra lots in is not a hardship as
far as the UDC is concerned. So, I would support staff's request that the lots comply
with the zone. The only other issue I would raise is I believe we still do not have the
Ada County Highway District report or approval and for that reason I would continue it
also.
Rohm: Okay. I think to summarize the comments of the Commission, basically, there is
still work to be done and I think that if we were to act on this project tonight we'd have to
either make a motion to forward it on recommending either denial or passage with a
whole slough of changes to the design and, quite honestly, I don't believe that we
should be in the design business. I think that that's part of the work that is to be done
by the applicant. So, I think at this point in time what I would like to do is have the
applicant come back up and we will ask if there is a date certain that they'd like to
continue to and if that's not acceptable, then, we will act based upon the information we
have currently got before us. Just one of you. I just need one.
Reesey: Good evening, folks. My name is Joe Reesey and I'm the president of
American West Homes. Address is 295 Front Street, Suite 250, Boise. I have been a
developer for 31 years. We are just -- we bought a house and we are just moving here
after school let's out. I started my company in Nevada and, then, moved to Arizona.
Been developing in central California for about three years and we fell in love with the
Treasure Valley and we are moving here. And we have already bought our house and
built our office downtown in Boise. This design is born of a year's worth redesigns and
largely due to about a two hour meeting I had with Mayor Tammy de Weerd in terms of
what the City of Meridian really needs, what she thought it really needed and the
biggest concern was the lack of affordable housing for the critical workforce and we
have been in-fill builders now for 31 years and it's been our sincere desire to be able to
provide housing that in a critical workforce, people like teachers and -- you know, and --
Rohm: And thank you, sir. We -- what I -- all I need from you is whether or not you
want us to continue or act on this based upon the testimony received.
Reesey: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 17 of 88
Rohm: And that's all we need.
Reesey: We would be happy to redesign or address any issues that are brought up as
concerns and bring it back. We think we could have that work done within 30 days.
Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you.
Reecey: Thank you all for all the time that you have given us tonight.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. All right. So, we are --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I just would want to -- can I make one request that -- when we get
the elevations with the redesign, I would just like a copy that I could see that's colored, if
that would be possible when they come back.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: It's a little hard for me to see the elevations over there.
Rohm: And one of the things that we tried to encourage all applicants -- when you
make a presentation, if you will submit to staff jpegs or bit map on a CD or a jump stick
or some method for them to present those and display them up above, it makes it a lot
easier for us to depict that for the audience as a whole. So, when you come back bring
them as jpegs or on a CD if you would, please. Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Considering the applicant's offer that it would be roughly 30 days or a month
to complete their meeting with staff and doing their own redesign, my question to
Director Canning would be to establish the date to continue this meeting to, do we need
an additional ten days for staff that -- the hearing should be ten days after they are
through with that 30 days.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Zaremba, my concern is that for that hearing
Caleb has already taken on two huge projects and he's effectively our only planner until
we can get our planner trained. So, I'm just concerned that the 18th would not be an
appropriate date. We may need to put it to the first hearing in June just because I know
he's got two huge projects for the 18th already.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 18 of 88
Zaremba: That's, actually, what I was aiming for. If we went 30 days from now and,
then, added ten days, we would be at--
Canning: The first hearing in June.
Zaremba: -- a few days one side or the other of the first meeting in June.
Rohm: Well, it's of little value to continue it without having an opportunity come to a
consensus, so I think what I'm hearing is June 1 is a date certain and I'd certainly
entertain a motion to that effect.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion to continue Items AZ 06-013, PP 06-
011, and CUP 06-006, all relating to Canterbury Commons, to our regularly scheduled
meeting of June 1 st, 2006.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Item AZ 06-013, PP 06-011,
and CUP 06-006, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission on June 1,2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: 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: And thank you all for your testimony. It was much appreciated. At this time I'd
like to reopen the continued Public Hearing of AZ 06-008 relating to South Eagle and
Victory Road Property Owners Alliance annexation and begin with the staff report
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, this is the Eagle -- South
Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Project and, surprisingly enough it's
located on South Eagle and Victory Road. There we go. And it does extend south of
Victory Road as shown. I did want to remind the Commission before we get started that
this had been on your agenda before and it got to be very late on your last agenda and
you did go ahead and open up the hearing. Some of the folks that are here tonight may
have left thinking that you wouldn't have heard that hearing, so we just want to make it
clear to everyone tonight that although the applicant made a presentation and there was
one member of the public that spoke that night, that we were -- we are starting over
again tonight. So, staff will make their presentation, the applicant will remake their
presentation, and we would ask that the one member of the public that testified, please,
do testify again. We consider this as a brand new Public Hearing for this and no
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 19 of 88
decisions were made at the last hearing. There was some clarification, but this is the
beginning of this hearing. I want to make that very clear. The request that is before you
tonight is for annexation and zoning. The annexation comes with a Comprehensive
Plan -- or with a concept plan and this was requested from the Planning and Zoning
Commission as part of their Comprehensive Plan approval -- Comprehensive Plan
amendment approval for this to be mixed use regional -- I mean mixed use community
designation on the Comp Plan. Let me find my staff report for a moment. Here we go.
So, the question that's -- or the proposal that's before the Commission tonight is for a
mixed use project. They have some residential component and they have a commercial
component, but the first request as the application came in was just for C-C, community
commercial zoning, on the entire property. There are -- the applicant is now proposing
three zones and I will let them explain that a little bit more, because there seems to be a
discrepancy in the annexation and zoning legals that have been prepared and the
acreages discussed in the staff report. So, I think there may be some lines that have
shifted in response to staff's comments, but I don't -- what you see before you tonight is
the one that goes with the staff report as prepared. So, there was a proposal for light
office at the entrance road at Victory and, then, residential adjoining the residential
properties and the remainder of the property, the original application had it as C-C
zoning. So, in your analysis -- staff analysis of this, based on that, Mr. Hood did point
out that the proposed zoning does lean more towards the C-C zoning and less towards
the residential and the office and he questioned -- he recommended that the
Commission consider whether the ratio that the applicants are proposing of commercial
office and residential is appropriate and compatible for this area. There is a large
regional mixed use development to the north of the property. There is low density
residential and medium density residential pretty much surrounding the property. Some
scattered office uses and kind of preexisting commercial uses along Eagle Road. Mr.
Hood also asked that the Commission consider whether the detail provided by the
applicant is sufficient for you to feel comfortable forwarding this on to the City Council.
Over the last few years we have seen a variety of detail and concept plans, generally
the more specific they can be, the more comfortable Council is with making a final
decision on these. That's one thing that the Commission should consider. Have they
shown enough here that you feel comfortable that this will be a benefit to the city. With
regard to access as noted in the staff report, there was originally a commitment by the
applicants that there would only be one access onto Eagle Road. We are now seeing
three on the subject annexation properties, one, two, three, and I think staff is
recommending that that be restricted to one full access for a public street between Easy
Jet Drive and Victory Road. One right-in, right-out driveway north of Victory Road, if
approved by ACHD. Staff further recommends that only one right-in, right-out driveway
to Eagle Road be allowed south of Victory Road. Access to Victory Road should be
restricted to one full access, again, a public street, and one right-in, right-out driveway
on the north side of the road. And, then, only one access on the south side of Victory
Road. So, there are a number of access points. There is three shown on Eagle. I
believe another one shown to this property. So, that's a total of four on Eagle. There is
two shown on Victory and, then, one on the south side of Victory. So, those are the --
ail the access points in question. And, then, the staff report details a number of things
in the development agreement. Mr. Hood has worked with the applicants to try and take
.....~-_.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 20 of 88
the concept plan and incorporate the valuable components that the Commission found
in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He's tried to incorporate those into
the development agreement. Those are listed on -- in the staff report. There is about a
page and a half of them. On pages 10, 11, and 12. So, with that staff is recommending
approval of the subject application with the development agreement provisions as
shown.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one, actually, for Mr. Cole, I believe. On page five
of the staff report, the paragraph number seven about the comments meeting, next to
the last sentence recommends that the applicant contact Boise Project Board of
Control. I have never seen that requirement before and I wonder, one, who they are
and are we really asking applicants to ask Boise anything about Meridian?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, what page again?
Zaremba: Page five, paragraph seven, comments meeting. In the capital letters it says
note and the sentence following that says Public Works staff did recommend that the
applicant be required to contact the Boise Project Board of Control to see if they have
any concerns with the proposal. I don't understand that statement.
Cole: The Boise Project Board of Control is an irrigation district that we are going to be
running into more and more further south that we head in our annexations. You have
seen Settlers way up north, a lot of Nampa-Meridian -- Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District in the middle and the further we go south the Boise Project Board of Control,
they can control the Ten Mile feeder, the New York Canal, I believe, or one of the
components there coming off the New York Canal. I think Mr. Freckleton was in that
meeting and not me and I assume that he was -- there must be a waterway through this
that he feels is under the jurisdiction of the Boise Project Board of Control.
Zaremba: Thank you. The answer that it's the name of an irrigation company --
Cole: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: -- helps me greatly. Like Nampa-Meridian Irrigation, I mean why are we
asking --
Cole: I don't get the microphone very often.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to
come forward, please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 21 of 88
Thomason: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Marty Thomason. I live at
2960 South Eagle Road and I am a member of the South Eagle Road and Victory Road
Property Owners Alliance. We have some slides that we will talk about in just a
moment, but I'd like to spend just a few moments in recapping the events that led us to
here, like Anna did, thank you for that, Anna. We are five property owners who have
joined together for the purpose of rezoning our property for a future sale. We are not
looking to develop the land ourselves. This isn't a development project that we are
proposing. You probably all remember that now after our last discussion. What we
have done is we have looked at the change in landscape around us and we have
decided that the best and highest use of our property is probably no longer medium
density residential and I'll explain some reasons behind that in just a moment. So, we
have banded together, joined together, and we are pursuing a rezoning without a
development project. So, I know that throws some wrinkles into the development plans
that everybody's accustomed to seeing. So, having said that, I'd like to share just a few
moments with you who the property owners are and if I could have you just move
forward, Anna, to the next slide. And again. Okay. There are five families involved
here. I am the northern most property and, then, next me to the south the Baughman
family, owned by Don and -- excuse me. Dan and Dolly Baughman. Continuing to
move south is John and Anita Sharp. Further south is the Carpenter family, Bob and
Nedra Carpenter. And, then, on the southeast corner of Victory Road is the Axlerod
property. Family members for each of these properties are here tonight and they will
make their comments during the public opportunity. As a group we have joined together
in the summer of last year and we determined that we wanted to pursue a rezoning of
our property and in doing that we determined that it was probably best to hire a
consultant. So, we hired Wayne Forrey to help us through that process. And in the
process of that Wayne did some research for us. He helped us construct a -- what we
called the Guides to Positive Neighborhood Development. These were the founding
principles that we will submit to a development agreement. Wayne also did some
research for us and determined where the -- if there would be a need for commercial
use of land where we are located. Wayne was in the industry and so he met with
realtors and developers and so forth and he helped us formulate our ideas as to
whether we should -- what we should ask in our mixed use designation. Originally, we
asked for mixed use regional. After neighborhood meetings and planning staff meetings
and our presentation here, we stepped that down to mixed use community. And, again,
the plan you will see later, after more meetings, neighborhood meetings and
discussions here, we determined that it would probably be more propose to have three
designated zones and I will talk about those in just a moment. Some of the changing
landscape around us is -- Ada County Highway District is widening our road. South
Eagle Road will be a five lane road soon, so will Victory Road in this area. This will be -
_ South Eagle Road is a major arterial. Realtors are interested in putting businesses
along these roads. They are more interested in putting them on these major arterials
than the minor arterials. One of the things that we -- that Wayne got for us was a letter
from Kowallis and Mackey and that's in your packet of information that Wayne
presented at the first meeting, but I would like to just read that letter again, because it's
kind of the basis for our presentation here. I have that here. You have asked me to
comment on the need for commercial zoning south of the complexes on Eagle Road at
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 22 of 88
Overland Road. Here is my response. There is a definite need for neighborhood
services, whether retail or professional office, south of the major commercial areas
growing up near the freeway. Just look at the homes currently in place south of
Overland and those subdivisions in the planning and building stages and the population
will continue to grow in a southerly direction. And everyone who lives there will be
driving north for shopping and services. There is land properly zoned available in
Silverstone and EI Dorado, but the price is getting prohibitive for neighborhood retail
and professional offices to afford. Tenants going into those developments and the
others, the Majestic Marketplace and Grand View, are trending towards regional players
and national franchises. How much do we need south of Overland? Just look north of
the freeway all the way to Eagle. There seems to be no end to the appetite of office and
retail users along that corridor. The residents south of Overland are not going to want
to drive along that congested corridor for essential services. Finally, with no other on
ramp to the freeway between Cole and Meridian Roads, Eagle is the natural funnel for
traffic. People will be driving it anyway, why not provide what they need there and keep
the car trips in the neighborhood. Best regards, Ray Frechette, retail specialist of
Kowalis and Mackey. The subdivisions continue to pop up south of us. There is the
Tuscany Subdivision that continues to grow. There is additional subdivisions, Kingsbury
approved out in that area. There is the assisted living complex south of Victory Road.
There are continued need to satisfy the appetite of residential buyers south of us and,
again, what we are talking about in our area is a business campus environment that
doesn't necessarily draw from the region, but services those people going up and down
those roads. And I'll explain that when I get to our concept map. But, again, a little
more recap. Given these changes we asked Wayne to present our proposal at an
October 17th meeting. At that meeting the motion was made to recommend approval of
mixed use community for our property, with three qualifications. That is that we would
submit an annexation application, that we would have another neighborhood meeting in
compliance with the annexation application process and, finally, that we would sign a
development agreement. We had another neighborhood meeting on January 5th. We
submitted our annexation application on January 11 tho We were put on the docket for
our meeting to discuss annexation on March 16th, but we were assigned a new staff
member -- or planning staff person between those two meetings and at the March 16th
meeting it was deemed more appropriate to provide direction for both the Alliance
members and the staff and help get us a little further along the process. So, no public
comment was taken. But I did have the opportunity to share this presentation then. At
that meeting Caleb used the opportunity to ask you for direction, as did we, the Alliance.
And we felt that there were five directives that were provided to us. My slides are a little
out of order. I'm sorry, Anna. That's okay. I can just do this without the slides, though.
We felt there were five directives that were given to us. The first was that our proposal
needed to include legal descriptions of each zone. Remember, we put in a request for a
mixed use regional initially. We stepped that down to mixed use community. Then,
further, we said that we are committed to a residential or landscape buffer along
Sutherland Farms. In our neighborhood meetings it was determined that those
occupants wanted residential, as opposed to landscape. So, we threw out landscape
and we committed to a residential buffer along Sutherland Farms. Our meetings with
the planning staff determined that the more appropriate use of the space along Victory
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 23 of 88
Road next to Sutherland Farms would be light office, something where there could be
landscape buffers that would be appropriate between the subdivision and between our
new R-4 designated area and to Victory Road and something that would be more like
an 8:00 to 5:00 environment, where it would be something like what's at Easy Jet and
South Eagle Road. The Stone Creek Dental site and Sight and Sound. Something like
that. So, we were asked to provide legal descriptions for each of these zones. We
were also asked to provide a vision of how we saw the land being used. And so we
have made an attempt at doing that and I'll explain that in the package you have in just
a moment. We were asked to describe in detail the feathering of uses of the C-C zone.
If you will remember, we had indicated that we were committed to a feathering of uses.
So, we have tried to detail that in the information that we are presenting tonight. We
were asked to work with the planning department to minimize curb cuts and access off
of Victory and South Eagle Road and, then, work with the planning department to
formulate a development agreement. We met with the planning department on March
22nd. Anna and Caleb were very helpful in sharing what typically goes into a
development agreement for a development project. We have taken the information
from that that we can commit to, because, remember, our scope is not a development
project, but a rezoning, and, then, we put that into the document. If we could put up the
concept map now, then, I'll just talk that through. There we go. This was provided in a
package of information -- I'm sure most of you have it, but I'm sure your file's gotten
pretty large right now, so if we will just look up here, I'll walk us through it. The first area
I will talk about is the area that's yellow green. That's the residential area. We are
committed to providing a residential buffer next to Sutherland Farms. This area would
be zoned R-4 and it is -- we intend that those lots would be of like size to the lots that it
backs up to on Sutherland Farms, which are approximately 8,000 feet in this area and
we envision that the structures that would be constructed here would be compatible with
the Sutherland Farms homes. The next area I'll talk about is the blue area. It's the light
office. That's 1.43 acres that's designated to the light office area. And, again, what we
see here is something similar to what's at Easy Jet and South Eagle Road, where they
would be single level structures, they would have roof lines that are consistent with
residential areas. They would probably be more like dental offices, that sort of thing,
located there. In our C-C zone, that's the brown zone, there are four different uses I'd
like to describe. The first of those uses is along the arterial roadways. Those uses
would be along South Eagle Road and Victory Road and what we envision here is more
retail intense type buildings or business interests. We anticipate the footprints of these
to be not to exceed 12,500 square feet. These would be something like what you see
facing Overland in the Silverstone and EI Dorado business parks, like where Me-Time
Coffee and Baird's Drycleaning are. Those smaller neighborhood serving business
interests we would see. It's what we would envision there. This -- the area I'm talking
about right now is just the north side of Victory Road along South Eagle and Victory
Road. Maybe on the corner what we'd see there is like a business like a bank branch or
something along those lines, okay? The next area I'll talk about is what we call the
interior transitional lots. That's the lots that would be against the residential area. They
would be on the opposite side of the proposed new roadway that runs to the back of the
property and these would be, again, lighter office-type settings. These would probably
have footprints in the 7,500 square foot range. They would be of similar construction to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 24 of 88
residential in terms of their look. They'd probably have roof lines along those lines. We
would envision that the windows in the front would face the residences. Parking lots
would be behind that towards the rest of the commercial buildings. They would be
joined by parking lots. Access to that would only be off of the proposed roadways. That
sort of thing is what we envision there. In the center, what we are going to call the
interior lots, we have the buildings that would be of a more business commercial
intensity. These might be multi-level. They wouldn't exceed, obviously, the C-C zoning,
but we are saying that the footprints for these buildings would probably not exceed the
20,000 square foot range. These would be, you know, contemporary business park
development would be used here where there would be shared plaza for gathering
areas, that sort of thing. We envision this to be the area that -- it's surrounded by the
retail on one side and the lighter office on the other. It's not right up against the
residential. Anyway, that's what we envision there. Finally, the area I'll talk about that's
a C-C zone is the area on the southeast corner of Victory and South Eagle Road. This
is, again, zoned C-C here, but what we envision here is something along the lines of a
development that is pedestrian friendly, kind of a retail office complex where the parking
is on external portions of it, but there is no parking internally in front of the buildings on
the inside. It's more of a walk through complex pedestrian focused type thing. That's
our concept map and, again, I know this was provided in the packet of information that
you all had and, unfortunately, this particular map doesn't reflect that. The one that I
gave you, if we -- can we show that on the scanner? Can you reflect it that way? It has
-- it has our buildings put on there and so forth. Oh, well, we'll move on.
Moe: This one?
Thomason: That's the one. Right there that's in your packet. Yeah. You know, in
response to the staff report, I'll take just a moment. Actually, will be faster than that.
We really agree with the staff report in general. The report that Caleb submitted last
Friday is, basically, the concepts that we have talked about. We appreciate the effort
they have put into it to understand our unique proposal. We have submitted only three
comments back to them. The first is regarding the interior lots, because in the
development agreement section it doesn't have the word in there for footprint and we
don't want to be misleading in that respect. We are talking about 20,000 square foot
footprint. The second is regarding the access points on the property on the southeast
corner of Victory Road and South Eagle Road. The intent of the property owners is to
develop the southeast corner as a pedestrian friendly retail office complex and the
restriction of access points may negatively affect that access. And the third is regarding
the areas in each zone. Or, excuse me, the acres in each zone. On the first page of
the staff report, the R-4 zoning and the L-O zoning, the acres they assign to that are just
switched. I think it's just a transportation on their part, because it's right later in the
document. So, we are in agreement with the -- in general with the document that's been
submitted. The information that they put in for the development agreement is right out
of our packet and we agree with that. We are willing to commit to those in our plan
here. Let me summarize. The reality is that these properties will sell. This Commission
will deal with changes on these properties. We all purchased our properties because
we liked rural settings. I purchased mine in '86. There was no on-off ramp. There was
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 25 of 88
a corn field across from me. A wooded area across from me. Hay fields across from
me. A horse ranch behind me. We bought a rural setting and well -- that's what we will
do again. So, these properties will sell. The City of Meridian and this Commission has
a unique opportunity here to actually manage the future land use of ten parcels of land.
Our collaboration and coordination we believe is a benefit to the city, because it avoids
piecemeal development and provides a more cohesive development pattern. The
Alliance believes we are proposing something that is positive for the city and the
surrounding area. I will finish with a recap of -- other people say it better than I do.
Brad Hawkins-Clark summarized the October 17th meeting with these words: There is
a higher likelihood of high density commercial and/or office uses being supported along
this corridor than residential uses. 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. And, finally, one of the things that Brad said was the Commission
believes the applicant's protections offered to Sutherland Farms Subdivision in the
proposed development agreement are sufficient to address many of the neighbors'
concerns. This includes providing residential uses at the common property line with
Sutherland Farms Subdivision. The Alliance requests the Commissioners approve this
application and move us onto the City Council meeting. We are currently on the docket
for May 2nd. We have taken input from all the parties involved. We have modified our
application and our proposal as much as we possibly can without an actual
development project. We believe we have provided significant detail for a development
agreement and we are committed to signing that. We believe our proposal has merit
and should be heard by the City Council. Thank you. I'll take questions if you have any.
Rohm: Thank you. That was a well orchestrated presentation and I know you folks
have put a lot of work into this and I'll just say that it's appreciated that you come as well
prepared as you have.
Thomason: Thank you, sir.
Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate that. Any questions of the applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one if I may.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Thomason, one .of the requests was that you supply the survey -- the
boundaries of the three different zones that you're asking for and I see that you have
complied with that. However, staff notes that that must also be stamped by a
professional land surveyor and are you going to be able to do that?
Thomason: Yes. That was turned in on the 19th and, I'm sorry, our response to the
staff was -- it takes all of us getting together, since we are an Alliance, and it was a little
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 26 of 88
slower than we had anticipated. But, yes, we have turned those stamped documents
into Caleb on the 19th, whatever day that was. I have forgotten now. Was that
yesterday?
Newton-Huckabay: Yesterday.
Thomason: Sorry. My days kind of run together.
Zaremba: It changes every day. It's hard to keep up.
Rohm: I think at this time I'd just like to get a legal opinion on if this application that we
have before us is to -- from RUT to C-C and the revisal is to have three separate zone
applications, R-4 and --
Thomason: Light office.
Rohm: -- light office is another one, would -- should this have to be re-noticed, so that --
that the public would actually receive notification of that application, as opposed to it all
being C-C?
Baird: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think that's a good thing to
discuss and I would like some input from planning staff. Generally, if what has been
noticed is the most intense use and the additional zones are less intense use, then, we
are usually satisfied that the notice has been adequate. And it appears that the
neighbors are aware of what's going on and this is giving them additional information by
being here tonight. So, I'm almost leaning towards saying, yeah, this is probably okay
and if there is any deficiency it can be cured with the additional posting for the City
Council hearing. But before we make a conclusion on that, I would want to get some
input from the planning director and see if there is some concurrence on that.
Canning: Chairman ROhm, Members of the Commission, my only concern would be if it
were just going down in intensity within a commercial district, but we are introducing a
whole new residential component to this that -- that would be my only concern. If it
were going from C-C to L-O and that were it, then, I wouldn't be concerned. But it is a
residential use, less intense than a commercial use. To most people, no, but -- or, yes,
sorry. But there may be somebody that would have feelings the other way.
Baird: And, Mr. Chair, it appears that the proposed residential uses do abut residential -
- other residential uses; is that correct? Yeah. And that's probably where you're going
to have the problem, because somebody who may have seen the notice said, okay,
office building, I'm gone during the day, it's no problem, you know, vacant on weekends.
This is a different use. So, with that additional information from the planning director, it
might make sense -- if they, indeed, are going forward with the three zones, it's basically
a new application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 27 of 88
Rohm: And I think to kind of summarize that, I think that it's still important to go ahead
and take the balance of the public testimony, but to continue this, so that it can be re-
noticed, so that all three zones would be depicted in the re-notice. Then, we would be
covered, so that anybody that would have differing views would have an opportunity to
speak to that as well. But I -- that doesn't take anything away from your presentation,
because I think you did an excellent job.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: If I may comment. I agree with going ahead and taking all testimony tonight.
My opinion is that the discussion isn't going to be a whole lot different than the
discussion we had when we were discussing the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
One of the requirements was that this Alliance go through the process that we are doing
right now. We have put them off a couple of times and I'll hang my opinion on one
sentence that Mr. Baird provided, which was that this will be re-noticed and there will
be another Public Hearing before the City Council. I -- not that I want to do everything
on behalf of the applicant, but I would be comfortable making a decision tonight and
feeling that not only had notice been appropriate, but that there will be a second
opportunity for noticing the zones as they are. Is that a safe --
Thomason: If I might interject. At our January 5th neighborhood meeting, which was
held at the police station in Meridian, this was presented and the attendees all
requested a copy of our concept map and they all received a copy of that. The very
next day I put that in the mail to them. The challenge here is this was a request of the
planning staff that we formalize this, rather than be just going C-C, because we have
made the commitment about the uses. This seems like an unnecessary road block to
us.
Rohm: And it may well be. Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chairman, due process for everyone involved should never be seen as a
road block. We try and do the decision right the first time. So, please, don't get us
wrong, we just want to make sure that everybody who is affected has been noticed.
And it's my understanding that under normal circumstances this would go onto Council
without an additional mailing notice; is that correct?
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Tara will have to help me out. I'm never quite sure. Does a
mailed notice get sent out between Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
hearing?
Green: Mr. Chairman, Anna, yes, it does. For the City Council meeting there will be a
notice sent out.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 28 of 88
Canning: And that notice gets sent out in approximately a week and a half, is that right,
for --
Green: Yeah. It has to be sent out 15 days prior to the Public Hearing.
Canning: So, we would need to change that -- we would need to make sure we change
that before -- description before City Council.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I guess before we continue this discussion on, maybe we should get through all
the public testimony and whatnot and see whether or not we have anybody in the
audience that --
Rohm: I'm all for that. Thank you, sir.
Canning: And, Chairman Rohm, I'm sorry to -- I know you want to move on, but before
any of the folks leave, the applicant testified that this would be heard by the City Council
on May 2nd and that is not correct. On May 2nd the City Council will decide what day
they will hear this on. It's been a -- this has been a very difficult one timingwise,
because you made the recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, we
had to forward that recommendation to the City Council, so it's been kind of just sitting
on their docket waiting to get scheduled. So, the purpose of the May 2nd discussion
regarding this item is solely to set it to a date for them to hear it based on your
recommendation. I just want to make that clear, so that -- you all don't have to show up
on May 2nd. That's all. Just wanted to let you know.
Rohm: Okay. At this time there are a number of people that have signed up for this
particular application and the first thing that I'd like to do is see if there is a single
spokesman for a homeowners association or a group that would like to speak for -- you,
sir?
Olsen: Mark Olsen. I'm the board treasurer for --
Rohm: That's all right. I'll take care of that. And could I get a show of hands -- those
people that he would be speaking for tonight? Okay. There was quite a number of
folks. And I guess what I'm asking is when he comes forward and speaks, unless he
does not bring up something that you feel is a very valid point, we would like to give him
a ten minute time slot and he is taking your time in speaking for you and unless there is
something specific that he omits, we'd appreciate it if it was just at your -- at the time
that your name is called, just let it be known that you have been spoken for. And so
with that being said, sir, would you like to come forward.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 29 of 88
Olsen: Commissioners, Chairman, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as
treasurer of Thousand Springs --
Rohm: You will need to state your name and address.
Olsen: Oh. Mark Olsen. 2969 South Givens Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. In
Thousand Springs Subdivision.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Olsen: As treasurer of Thousand Springs Homeowners Association and at our board's
urging and vote, with the consensus of many homeowners within our subdivision, I'm
here as a spokesperson of the association and surrounding groups, including Tuscany.
If I may, would you raise your hand if you're from Tuscany? And also from Sutherland
Farms. Would you raise your hand if you're from Sutherland Farms. Representing 380
homeowners in our subdivision alone and 950 people living in just one of these three
subdivisions at the intersection Eagle and Victory in Meridian. When you consider the
impact this proposed petition has upon the three subdivisions immediately surrounding
the intersection, there are literally thousands of people being affected by this single or
one petition. With me tonight are many who support, as I have just identified and live in,
our neighborhood and surrounding area at this intersection. We do not want wholesale
continued commercial development along Eagle Road south of the Ridenbaugh Canal
to Victory or even south further along Eagle Road from Victory. We moved all of us out
here less than seven years ago into an area that we were assured by then existing
designation zoning predominately was either rural or residential. Those designations
and zoning controls were, we believed, to be reasonable and had as a reasonable
expected outcome and influence upon everyone's decision to build, buy, and live out
here to raise our families. We find ourselves now already in the midst of development
so dense and impacted that it is, at best, nerve racking and really a challenge just to
drive in and out of the subdivisions respectively. Eagle Road and Victory are planned
for expansion, yet today and for at least the next 12 to 18 months, perhaps as long as
two years, we face the nearly insurmountable daily obstacle of a narrow farm-to-market
two lane road at this very intersection. Eagle Road has only two lanes from Victory
north until you pass Ridenbaugh Canal over a quarter of a mile. Victory Road is only
two lanes in any direction until you drive further east approximately three miles. There
are literally thousands of people dumping into a narrow two lane farm-to-market county
road on any given day from the hours of approximately 6:00 in the morning until 7:00
and 8:00 at night. With the combined population of several large subdivisions, the
Meridian School District has acquired new land. They have identified a location for a
new elementary school within less than one quarter mile of the Eagle and Victory Road
intersections. The traffic burdens and the vehicle travel trips through this intersection
has more than doubled in the last four years. They will more than triple within the next
36 months as homes being built right now come onto the market, as the school is built,
as the population of the students occur and as Eagle Road continues a rapid growth
and high density traffic volumes. Yet, we will have ourselves no real traffic relief
effectively for two years. Planning and Zoning staff have correctly published sound
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 30 of 88
reasons why this particular intersection at Eagle and Victory have some real and we
believe substantive issues. This will unreasonably impact the entire neighborhood
surrounding the area. The Planning and Zoning Commission has a potential interest in
this request, because, in theory, we believe it may be easier to administer and zone
larger tracts of land where both landowners and prospective developers can come
together to petition the Commission for just one or two classes of use under zoning
control. We believe this seems to be the case before you. And yet a closer
examination of the petition for commercial designation discloses some serious issues
and flaws within the petition from this coalition applicant. There are over 250 acres of
commercial land and currently zoned property in less than one half mile sitting along
both Eagle and Overland that, as commercial, are not even yet developed. With the
continued development of Silverstone and EI Dorado commercial plazas on either side
of Eagle Road south from Overland, it's reasonable to observe that the Ridenbaugh
Canal establishes a natural and cohesive break or barrier, a dividing line, if you will,
between that high density impacted commercial versus residential uses along Eagle
Road. All that said, we are still painfully aware that dollars talk. Right now these dollars
are shouting in commercial value along Eagle Road, even near the intersections
particularly at Eagle and Victory. We will need to compromise, no doubt. Planning and
Zoning will continue, albeit we believe, of course, unnecessary commercial
development in our residential neighborhoods. So, we have come to a conclusion, a
consensus, if you will, that we probably have a much more reasonable solution that
limits the use of the expansiveness of the commercial zoning, accommodating a
commercial demand in a limited manner and still encouraging responsible development
in residential, high density conditions such as exists within the petition circumstances
before you. Mr. Darrell Hines of Sutherland Farms has, in fact, put together with
several of us an alternative zoning designation design plan. We urge your positive
action now to look at and consider that alternative, thus to limit and accept the
commercial zoning changes and impact that are evident within our alternative proposal.
Without timely action now to help us responsibly develop our area, we will continue to
bring issues like these and, unfortunately, we believe perhaps even worse, before the
Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, even the City Council now and in the years
to come. We, like you, on the Commission, want to avoid an otherwise unnecessary or
negative and destructive public review process and we, too, want to strike a responsible
pose, while still limiting an otherwise degrading event or impact to our home values and
the very lifestyles of families for our neighborhood and our future. Thank you. Three
and a half minutes.
Rohm: That was pretty good. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Darrell Hines. From the audience he's deferring his testimony until we have
heard from another individual.
Romello: Hello. I have a slide presentation, if you could get that ready for me. Under
Tuscany, the disk that I gave you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 31 of 88
Rohm: What was your name, sir?
Romello: My name is Scott Romello. I live at 3293 South Capulet in Meridian. That's in
the Tuscany Subdivision. I have been volunteered by my neighbors to voice some of
the concerns Tuscany has regarding this development. I did a dry run earlier today at
about 13 minutes, so I hope that I'm not cut off if I go a couple minutes over, because
I'm speaking for quite a few people in Tuscany. I'd like to thank the chair and the
Commissioners for the time and the opportunity to address you tonight. First, I want to
turn into the board, if I made, some signed petitions that we collected for the March
meeting from Tuscany homeowners who are against commercial development at Eagle
and Victory. As of last week Tuscany had 391 homeowners of record, which is just over
a thousand residents. Approximately 594 additional homes are planned in Tuscany
over the next two years with more on the way after that. First, I would like to start on
something that we all seem to be able to agree on. We are very supportive of South
Eagle Road and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance mutual decision to come
together to have all of their properties zoned and developed as one larger parcel. We
believe that this is good for the City of Meridian, good for Eagle Road, and good for the
neighborhoods in the immediate area. We understand and also have compassion for
the situation that these homeowners have been faced with, having to see the
neighborhood transition from rural to urban, as well as having their pieces of their land
involuntarily taken away for the upcoming widening of Eagle Road. I'd like to state that
the preference for the majority of residents in Tuscany is for there to be no change to
the Comprehensive Plan and for the residential zoning that was originally planned for
this corner to take effect. We, along with our neighbors in other communities to the
north have bought property here with the understanding that the immediate area would
remain residential. We do not want the mistakes of Eagle Road north of 1-84 repeated
south of the interstate. It is our desire to keep this corner residential. If our desire to
keep this corner residential is found to be impossible, we will continue to work towards
the lowest possible impact of commercial development, meaning for us light office uses
and restricted hours. If you can go to the next slide, please. I think you -- you went a
couple too far. I had a couple maps in the beginning.
Canning: I got it. I thought you had forgotten to tell me to forward it. I'm sorry.
Romello: Okay. I'm sorry.
Canning: I will wait for your instructions from now on.
Romello: Okay. I'm sorry. You don't possibly have a pointer that I could use, do you?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I was borrowing one, so--
Romello: Thank you. If you look at this map, these are the properties that are in
question and it is, basically, surrounded on all sides by residential. You have
Sutherland Farms. You have Thousand Springs. You have Tuscany. You have the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 32 of 88
future Medford Place, which is duplexes. It's already been approved. And I also
wanted to state I think maybe the reason that Boise Control was brought in was
because of the McDonald Lateral, which is an irrigation ditch, does run across this
property and I don't know if that was talked about in their development plans. If you'd
go to the next slide, please. If you can pull back a little bit and look at the area past our
immediate region, within three miles we see an area that is literally awash in
commercial, industrial, office, and mixed business use. The original staff report from the
October 2005 meeting was very thorough in refuting most of the Alliance's claims and
statements that this corner has no choice but to develop in a commercial manner. I will,
essentially, paraphrase a few parts of this report several times this evening to support
some of our points. If you can go to the next slide, please. These are the major points
of concern I would like to address on Tuscany's behalf this evening. Commercial
development will make a bad traffic situation only worse on Eagle Road. Second, there
are compatibility and design issues with the existing neighborhoods. Thirdly, there is no
pressing need for further commercial in this part of Meridian. Four. We want to know
what the impact will be on a future Tuscany elementary school, which is very close to
this project. Five. This project seems to contradict many of the goals and objects of the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan of 2002. And, six, we request clarification on the state
statute regarding the CPAs. So, I'll go a little bit in depth, if you can go to the next slide,
please. About the traffic situation. Turning this corner into commercial would negatively
impact the traffic on an already very busy road. In the afternoon during rush hour traffic
backs up at the Eagle exit from the interstate for sometimes a quarter to a half mile.
These are people illegally pulled over onto the shoulder just waiting to exit the interstate
onto Eagle Road. Eagle Road is already straining from the existing traffic today. This is
not projected traffic two years from now, this is traffic this afternoon. Eagle Road
between 1-84 north to Fairview Avenue is the most congested road in the state of Idaho.
And according to the Idaho Department of Transportation -- transportation department,
in 2004 the 1-84 interchange at Eagle was handing more than 52,000 vehicles in a week
day. This interchange was designed originally for no more than 30,000 vehicles a day,
which it's currently operating at 40 percent beyond design capacity. Anyone who is
fortunate enough to be driving south on Eagle Road from the interstate in the afternoon
or, who knows, you sometimes have to wait ten minutes just to get past -- just to get
south of Victory. Mr. Thomason in his eloquent presentation to the board last month
stated to us that there may be as many as 9,600 homes and 24,000 people living within
the area south of Eagle within the next few years. We see this fact as an excellent
reason why not to put commercial development at this corner. Many of these people
are going to want to reach 1-84 and get to work and most of them are going to be driving
past this intersection on a daily basis. Commercial and retail development will mean
more traffic, slower speeds, more traffic lights, and more curb cuts will be required.
There are already three existing traffic lights between 1-84 and Victory Road, which is a
drive of less than a mile and this commercial development will probably require even
more. We believe that prudent city planning would be to place community shopping
hubs away from the interstate as shown in the 2002 Meridian Comprehensive Plan, not
next to it, in order to reduce the traffic demands on these crowded arterial collector
roads next to the interstate. And paraphrasing from the staff report of Brad Hawkins, if
the additional 50 plus acres of commercial and office use is constructed south of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 33 of 88
Ridenbaugh, another traffic signal would likely be needed. However, traffic signals
often function best when served by four legs of traffic. Since all the mixed use land
south of the Ridenbaugh Canal would only be on the east side of the road and no high
volume east-west street to intersect with Eagle Road, it is questionable that traffic
warrants would be met or that the city would function as well. If you can go to the next
slide, please. Our second contention. Compatibility and design issues. Directly from
the 2002 -- Brad Hawkins' staff report: One reason for designating specific commercial
area on the Comprehensive Plan is to minimize negative impacts upon nearby residents
and the general public. This is one of the objectives of the neighborhood centers. And
separately on this point, currently the Ridenbaugh Canal serves as an excellent
buffering transition from the intense commercial activities in Silverstone and EI Dorado
business parks to the residential uses there upon Eagle. If you can go to the next slide,
please. There is absolutely no need for additional commercial in this part of Meridian.
The Silverstone and EI Dorado business campuses alone, within site of this project,
offer a potential total of over two million square feet of commercial space on Eagle
Road. This is just between 1-84 and Victory. Coming from the staff report again: By
adding additional acres of land designated for mixed use in Meridian's area of impact,
staff is concerned with the potential over-supply of commercially zoned land, especially
office uses. Meridian's 2005 office vacancy rate has been noted by the chamber of
commerce and other real estate sources to continue to be high. We are concerned
about extending more retail and office uses south of the Ridenbaugh Canal and believe
other locations are better suited for these uses. Southstone Subdivision located at the
intersection of Eagle and Easy Jet provides three acres and eight building lots of light
office zoned land. And the Sutherland Farms Subdivision provides an additional five
acres and seven building lots for this area. Staff finds that between these two projects,
which already provide more than eight acres of nonresidential uses, there is adequate
commercial land supplied along this corridor. Furthermore, in an area south of 84
between Locust Grove and a half of Eagle Road there is over 250 acres of vacant or
undeveloped land either designated as commercial or mixed use regional on the future
land use map. This does not include Silverstone or EI Dorado or any land north of 84.
All of this property is within a one and a half mile radius of the subject properties.
Furthermore, there are two mixed use centers noted along Victory Road. Staff has not
seen commercial development plans for either of these centers and this would,
generally, indicate there was not a very high demand for nonresidential uses. That's the
end of the staff report on that matter. We would also like to comment for a moment on
the commercial developments already south of the canal in Southstone and Sutherland
Farms. Both of these were done without ever having to go through the formal rezoning
process. They are sitting on what was supposed to be a residentially zoned land. One
was done with an exception, from our understanding, and the other on a variance.
Homeowners woke up one morning to see commercial office parks springing up next to
their property. If signs had been placed and we had been noticed that these were going
to be built, we probably would have shown up to oppose them. Now, their presence on
Eagle Road outside of their originally assigned zone, is basically being used as
justification by the owners to force commercial further down this corridor outside the
guidelines of the existing Comprehensive Plan. Also, to address an Alliance point.
They have stated that several real estate appraisers have told them that land is -- that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 34 of 88
land is not residentially at its highest and best use. We would like to make the point that
just because an appraiser believes a parcel is not currently zoned for its best use, this
does not automatically make it so. I'm guessing that the land and the buildings that St.
Luke's occupies might be worth commercial ~- more commercially as a multi-story
corporate headquarters than a hospital, but it's not zoned for that use, so it doesn't
matter. But our way of thinking, just about any land at a major intersection would be
worth more commercially than residentially. If you will go to the next slide, please.
Tuscany Elementary. How will this change in zoning affect the future Tuscany
Elementary School, which is currently projected by Meridian School District to be open
in the 2008-2009 school year. Within a few years there will be an elementary school
opening less than a quarter mile from this intersection. The school board already owns
the land. It's not a matter of if it's going to open, it's a matter of when. This is not going
to be a high school. It's not going to be a junior high. This is going to be an elementary
school. Young children that live in Thousand Springs, Sutherland Farms, Tuscany, and
the future Medford Place will, in many cases, be walking to this school. This means
children as young as five having to cross some of these roads. Turning this corner into
commercial does not help create a safer environment for them to get back and forth to
school every day. If you could go to the next slide, please. This development
seemingly contradicts the Comprehensive Plan guidelines and some of these points
were addressed in the October staff report. I'm going to paraphrase once again for
time. To allocate and identify locations for industry and commercial business parks.
The primary tool to accomplish this action is the future land use map, which was created
in 2002 after more than 18 months of public workshops and hearings. That map
designates the industrial business park areas and staff believes represents an adequate
land supply for the total build out population of Meridian. The subject area was not
designated for such uses and the residents and prospective buyers have now made
purchasing decisions based on the fact that this is planned a residential area. Another
guideline. Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within your impact
area. Staff believes commercial opportunities have been planned and that the subject
property is not one of them, nor should residential land be removed from the area of
impact to accommodate additional commercial land in this area. And the last guideline.
Protect existing residential properties from incompatible use development on adjacent
parcels. This policy touches on one of the primary objectives of zoning, to protect the
public health and welfare. It is the city's obligation to insure existing properties, both
county and city, are protected from harmful, disturbing, or unnecessary encroachments.
Go to the next slide, please. We also ask for clarification from the City of Meridian the
following State of Idaho Code -- State Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 65, states that
commission may not recommend amendments to the land use component of the
Comprehensive Plan to the governing board more frequently than once every six
months. We would like to be -- we would just like to know when was the last date
Planning and Zoning Commission formally recommended CP amendments to Meridian
City Council. A Comprehensive Plan by statute is not something that's permitted to be
changed more than twice a year. Next slide, please. The way this whole project has
been moving forward, we believe is problematic. In order to have an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, local municipalities providing the essential services and nearby
neighborhood are to be consulted to give input. Since the Alliance will not end up being
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 35 of 88
the final developer of this property, they are primarily seeking a zoning change. Their
original application did not include an annexation request or a development plan.
Without a formal development plan the municipalities servicing this area have not been
able to comment or give proper input to Planning and Zoning. This is not how the
process has been designed to work. It is our opinion that the Alliance is seeking a
change in zoning first and foremost for financial reasons. They are only now applying
for annexation and submitting a development plan to achieve a zoning change, by their
own admission at this very meeting tonight. We do not doubt the desire to work with
their fellow neighbors in piecing together a large parcel to be developed together. We
actually applaud them for it. But they also have financial reasons to do so as well. The
parcels joined as a whole are worth more than they are individually. They are worth
more h more commercially than they are residentially. They have already somehow
convinced Ada County Highway District to pay commercial rates when they were selling
residential land for right of way on Eagle Road and they now wish to have commercial
rates for the rest of it as well. They are attempting to cash out selling their rural and
residentially zoned lands at commercial prices and they are basically going to leave the
neighbors in the area to deal with the aftermath of this commercial development. Last
slide, please. In closing, we have identified several standard guidelines the city uses in
approving commercial rezoning that are being violated with this annexation and
rezoning application package. First, we believe it's going to worsen an existing traffic
problem. Secondly, this is a strip-type development which is generally to be avoided.
Third, it is a commercial development surrounded by existing low density residential
neighborhoods. Fourth, it is one side of the street commercial development only. The
west side of the street is going to remaining residential. Five, we don't believe that it
has been proven that there is a compelling need for additional commercial
developments in the immediate area. Six, there is an overwhelming opposition to this
plan from both adjoining and nearby property owners. To our knowledge, not a single
homeowner, not one, has come forward saying this will be good for the neighborhood,
that what they really want, shopping options around the corner for easier convenience.
Number seven. There is an elementary school being planned right down the road that
has not been taken into consideration at this point. And, eight, it goes against Planning
and Zoning Department's own staff report recommendation from October 2005 when
this issue was first brought before the board to keep this area and develop it
residentially. We ask you to reject the commercial development plans for this corner. I
am quite confident in saying that most opposition to this development would cease if
they would decide, instead, to develop this corner with low to medium residential units.
If the Commission does not agree with our view, we would assure we will be at City
Council there once again to voice our oppOSition to the nature of this project. I'd like to
thank you very much for your time.
Rohm: Thank you. Wow. Before we take additional testimony -- and thank you, I --
that was very well put together as well. And I know there is other people that want to
speak, but we also need to move on tonight, too. So, what I'd like to do is as each of
you come forward, I would like you to keep your remarks to items that were not brought
up by previous testimony. If you're in support of testimony already given, that's well and
good, but if it's just going to be restating what's already been stated, then, that doesn't
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 36 of 88
add any value to the decision-making process. So, with that being said, we will
continue taking testimony and -- but, please, keep your remarks to items that have not
previously been brought before the Commission.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I know you're working your way through the list. I would like
to ask that at the point where you feel we have heard from all the group spokesmen --
Rohm: I think we have one more.
Zaremba: Okay. After that, then, if that's not Mr. Harris, it was suggested that Mr.
Harris an alternate suggestion. My thinking would be to hear that next after we are
done with the spokesmen, before we go on to individuals.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: That's a request.
Rohm: Mr. Hines, would you like to come forward, please.
Zaremba: Apparently I had the name wrong. I stand corrected.
Hines: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Darrell Hines. I live at 3471 East
Publisher Street in Meridian. 83642. That's part of Sutherland Farms Subdivision.
And, no, I don't have that fire. Maybe I should change my presentation. Mine's pretty
soft compared to that. Let me just begin here tonight by reading a quote from one
Commissioner from the minutes of the March 16th meeting and this was addressed to
the Alliance and I quote: Conceptually, this Commission is in pretty substantial
agreement with what you have here already and it would be that additional
communication with those that are your neighbors, how you address that through your
development agreement or otherwise. Then, another quote from the Commission: We
are 99 percent on board with you. And, finally, the devil is in the details. Well, we are
those people, the neighbors, and we want to present some ideas and an alternative
concept map. Our ideas are based on the Alliance's guiding principles for positive
neighborhood development. We hope to have input on that remaining one percent, the
details. As you may recall, we opposed the CPA at the October 17th hearing, because
we felt it wrong to drop 23 acres of commercial development in the middle of our
residential neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods being what's already been stated,
Sutherland Farm to the east, Thousand Springs and Wood Haven to the west, and
Tuscany to the south and west. Your planning staff agreed with us. There is no
shortage of commercial land supply in the general area of the Alliance properties. In
fact, the most recent staff reports -- and I would just ask you to keep in mind, we haven't
had any input in this process since October 17th. So, I'm going a couple of staff reports
back. They point out -- and I know you have heard about 250 acres within a mile and a
half radius, so I won't restate that, because you asked me not to do that, so I won't go
through that. But there are other staff -- staff things that have been said consistently in
all three reports and I will review some of them later on. Commissioners, even though
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 37 of 88
we oppose the CPA, it is apparent to us that the Commission has decided to take the
course it has and we are hear to put -- to be a part of this continuing process. We have
reviewed the March 16th meeting minutes and the extensive discussion between
Commission, your staff, and the Alliance. Even though we were quite disappointed that
we were dismissed from the March 16th discussion, that process, we are here and
ready to move on this process. The minutes reveal that the Commission was expecting
more detail on this 16th than was seen on either the Alliance's concept map or their
written application for annexation and zoning. After my personal review of the
application file, I felt exactly the same that being not enough detail, nothing much on
which to base a development agreement, which is a very important part of this process
for us. It's our guarantee. The file contained an old version of guiding principles for
development, not the revised version that we were handed on January 5th, the
neighborhood meeting which this Commission requested that the Alliance have. We
share the Commission's view that final approval of the CPA comes after a firm basis is
established on which to write a development agreement. To quote a Commissioner,
quote: I was expecting annexation and preliminary plat before we matched up with a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. That, again, is exactly what we expected also. I
hear the Commission's desire to see each specific area of this development zoned
appropriate according to what the city wants to see developed. At one time you used
exceptions to designate land use within a big zone, but I understand you no longer do
that. Following that lead, our concept map includes varied zoning within the
development to accomplish your goals and to achieve the feathering of land use
intensity as described in principle two of the Alliance's guiding principles for
development. In March the Commission seemed to be looking for suggestions for
transitioning from the Alliance's R-4 residential on the east side of their internal roadway
over to the west side of the roadway and beyond. We have provided for that transition
in our concept map. Your planning staff has recommended additional residential
zones/uses and land use buffers to insure compatibility and provide a mix of uses as is
in the intent under mixed designation. The staff states that commercial zoning should
be limited and not a majority of this mixed use development. The Alliance. The Alliance
from the beginning has expressed their desire to promote a neighbor friendly
development, which could include light office and professional buildings. However, the
designation that is pending before this Commission carries a very large and heavy
footprint. Frankly, we don't understand why the Alliance needs a designation any
greater than mixed use neighborhood, which still allows the type of development they
want to promote on their properties. Mixed use neighborhood limits residential to R-8,
which permits only single family or two family dwellings. The Alliance has on several
occasions said they have turned away buyers who want to build high density residential.
It seems like mixed use neighborhood would be all they would ever want. Finally, we
have a concept map that we believe provides a sufficient detail on which to write a
development agreement and avoid your recommendation to the Council being
remanded back for lack of clarity. We have listened closely to the Commission and your
staff and we have fully implemented the Alliance's guiding principle number two, which
reads -- and I quote -- this is an important part of it as far as we are concerned. The
quote: The development approach will be to feather land use intensity from residential
to professional office and business uses. The most intensive land use will occur along
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 38 of 88
Eagle Road and Victory Road, with less intensive land uses farther away from the
arterials. We offer a compromise that hopefully satisfies basic needs of the
Commission, your staff, and the Alliance and the surrounding residential community. It
is not perhaps anyone's ideal, but it's a reasonable compromise. If you can project that
up, Anna. Oh, you got it. I'm sorry. First, let me just say please forgive the crude map,
but, hopefully, it tells you what we have in mind. Our concept map uses zoning to
accomplish the feathering of land use, rather than the limited zoning that you see on the
Alliance's map. They have a large C-C area that they have tried to distinguish different
types of buildings on. To me, as I listen to the Commission, through the minutes that I
read, because we weren't here and participating, it seemed like you were looking for
that same thing and that you don't ~- that you like to see things done through zoning, not
through exemptions and so on. So, following that lead, this is how we came up with this
plan. What you see there on the right in the greenish yellow is the residential area that
the Alliance proposed and it doesn't say on there -- I didn't add it, they have already
proposed that for R-4. What we have added, because there seemed to be a lot of
conversation amongst the Commission about what could be done across the street,
how do you transition, and what I heard from at least a couple of Commissioners, as I
read the minutes, was that possibly some higher density residential across the street.
And that's how we would see it, too. And so our proposal would include R-8 across the
street from the R-4, which would permit single or two family units, condos or duplexes.
And, then, behind that light office, which would -- do I have a pointer?
Rohm: There should be one right there.
Zaremba: If that's not working, I think I got mine working better.
Hines: Oh. Okay. The light office that they designated was just this little corner down
here. I'm suggesting the feathering should include light office going the full distance of
the middle of this property. And also in the staff report was a mention -- there is a single
family residence to the north of here. So, keeping that in mind, it's not a development,
but just single family residents where a family lives. And with that in mind, that's why I
have included the piece that goes across the northern part here. And, then, I have
restricted the commercial and I'm suggesting C-N, rather than C-C, because I think it
allows them to do everything that they want to do. So, I'm restricting the heavier
commercial and I'm carrying out what's been suggested all along, certainly by the
Alliance, that want to feather the land use from here to here to here to here. So, I'm
adding one more as we go across there. It's really difficult for me to imagine people
buying homes here that look across at commercial and I think I heard the Commission
say that at the last hearing. You were wondering the same thing. Well, I think this
offers a solution to that. And the last thing here that I might want to mention is as we
look at the Alliance's map, that is not the map that we were given at our neighborhood
meeting. Now, I know when Mr. Thomason said that he probably had something else in
mind, but the map that was up on the overhead at that time was the latest thing that
they have submitted. What was submitted to us I'm sure is in your file. I don't know if
it's the same one or not. But it was very simple. It showed the R-4 residential a little bit
different, kind of a split down there on the lot at the bottom, but I understand why that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 39 of 88
changed. The rest of it all designated commercial. And it showed just entrances into a
parking area. But what we see on the Alliance's map are major roadways that,
essentially, link Publisher -- this is the street coming from Sutherland Farms that's
proposed to come in and tie into this -- this internal roadway that they have suggested,
which is fine, but it's shown as T-boning on there and that's the way it was presented to
us and I speCifically asked Mr. Forrey at that neighborhood meeting, who was
representing the Alliance at that time, if there would be any direct tie between this
internal roadway, which would attach it directly to Eagle, and his specific answer to me
was, no, only if you wanted to wind your way through the parking lot. Now we see two
major roadways that do that, which is a threat to the Publisher link into our subdivision.
So, that -- we consider that a deviation from the commitment that was given to just at
that meeting that the Commission directed them to have. Also you notice we have very
limited access and I'm not suggesting this is the final result, but also if you look at the
meeting minutes on October the 17th, our first hearing, one Commissioner asked Mr.
Forrey -- he said in light of this internal roadway that you propose to construct in order
to avoid curb cuts, how many curb cuts do you anticipate in addition to that and his
direct answer was to the Commissioner who asked the question was one. But what we
see in the proposed map today is considerably different than that and that causes us
great concern. So, we think we have offered a compromise to limit. We would like to
see this smaller. I'd like to see it go away, as, obviously, Tuscany would, too. But we
are trying to deal with reality. We are trying to be compromising and we are trying to
take direction from the staff, as well and their recommendations, which they have stated
over and over, that there is no shortage of commercial. And I might just suggest -- I
think I missed a page of my notes in trying to hurry through it. You know, the statistics
that are presented by the staff have no monetary motivation and I think they deserve
special attention for that reason. They have pointed out in all three staff reports there is
not a need, there is not a need, there is not a need and this is inconsistent with the
area. And this is a compromise. Limit it. Limit. Limit. And protect the residential area.
The staff has again and again restated the need to protect the residential area. This is
dropped in the middle of thousands of homes. This has already been very clearly
stated and a point made tonight. Any questions?
Rohm: Any questions of this individual?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's not, actually, a question, but I would ask if I could
comment while he's here.
Rohm: Please do.
Zaremba: I am one of the people that you quoted and I appreciate that. And I would
also say that I am known as being supportive of wanting to consider what the Alliance
has been putting forward. But I believe I'm also the one that when this Commission
recommended to the City Council that they consider the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, I believe I'm the one that added the requirement that it wait until we really
saw what the details were before the City Council acted on it. I very much appreciate
the drawing that you have provided. That is what I expected. What you have shown is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 40 of 88
what I thought we were going to see from the Alliance. I would be happy to consider
what you have provided. And one of the reasons that I'm willing to consider changing
this from all residential is when you consider traffic patterns, the traffic from -- for lack of
better words, residential traffic is a push and commercial traffic is a pull. There is some
benefit in believing that the services that would be provided on these properties would
save you all from having to drive the other side of the interstate to get the services and it
could actually turn out to be a benefit. But the point that I wanted to make is if it were to
go ahead, not only with the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but also with the concept
as provided, what you are showing is what I expected and I would be very in favor of
this suggestion.
Hines: Thank you. And if I just might add one more thing, that was the comment I got
when I took this in for review with Caleb at staff. He said that would be easy to use to
write a development agreement. That's the kind of thing that we like to see, so -.
Zaremba: Well -- and the other advantage, as you point out, there is only one access
on each of the -- what will be arterials.
Hines: Yes. And we put it clear at the top for what we feel is good reason. We don't
have any problem wandering through parking lots. People generally don't do that to try
to find cut-through routes. But if there is a cut-through route by road, they'll find it. And
this is directly aligned with Thousand Springs -- one of the Thousand Spring entrances.
That's why it's there. And it is one of the roadways that was shown on the original
concept map that the Alliance presented to us, which we took that to mean an entrance
into the parking lot area, not a roadway as we see shown on the Alliance's very
extensive roadway system.
Moe: Mr. Hines, one question I had for you would be -- this concept is great. What
about the south side of Victory?
Hines: Well, I'm glad you asked, because I don't have a clue, because I think, you
know, even though they are a part of the Alliance, it's separate. It's a piece they want to
make all commercial, it's completely surrounded with R-4, low density residential. It's
just kind of there. What do you do with it? It's an odd shaped piece and, personally, I
think it should be dealt with separately. I don't think it belongs in this application. I think
it should be separate. And, quite frankly, I think that's how staff feels about it, too. It's
an awkward -- what do you do with it? I really don't know. I might just say that in this
division that I have here, that's -- the way that's divided up, it's 6.4 acres of C-N, 4.7
acres of combination R-4 and R-8. and 7.3 acres of light office, for a total of 18.4. So,
it's a good -- it's a good mix, which we don't see on the other plan.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 41 of 88
Zaremba: I would just suggest that the record note that Commissioner Borup has joined
us.
Rohm: Welcome, Commissioner Borup. There are --
Zaremba: And he's dressed very natally this evening.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes, he is.
Rohm: Should we start over? Okay. There are quite a number of other people that
have signed up for this, but, quite honestly, I think that the ones that have spoken have
addressed most of the issues, so what I'd like to do, as opposed to going through each
of the individual names, I'd like to just open it up and say if there is somebody else that
would like to speak to this, we will take them one at a time and they are welcome to
come forward.
Merical: Thank you. My name is Tonya Merica!. I reside at 2994 East Tipple Avenue--
or Tipple Street in Tuscany. 83642. One thing I would just like to paint out, with all of
the conversations around widening of Eagle and Victory Roads, it's my understanding
from ACHD that that is only going to be widened from the Ridenbaugh Canal through
the entrance to Tuscany and, then, it will narrow back down to a two lane road. So, the
widening is not going to have as much of an impact on the traffic. It may help us get out
of our neighborhood a little bit easier in the morning, but it's not going to be a major
arterial as was referred to earlier and that it's going to be five lanes in all directions for a
great distance. So, please, keep that in mind. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Please come forward.
Ernesto: My name is Brent Ernesto. I live at 2950 East Taluka. I just wanted to also
address EMS. We have a new fire department that's been placed on South Eagle
Road. We have concerns about with the traffic congestion as far as the EMS response
time. Also, I personally, along with a couple of other people from our neighborhood,
visited virtually every residence of Tuscany yesterday and spoke with them on this topic
and it was unanimously no, that nobody wanted this to happen over there.
Rohm: Thank you.
McKibben: My name is Dennis McKibben. I reside at 2820 South Eagle Road, directly
north of the subject property. I will be short. It is commercial, you know, there. As far
as I'm concerned I'd rather have light commercial, light office, compared to any type of
residential. This map here is not a bad idea. I wouldn't care if there was an entrance
road coming down the south side of my property line. That would create a buffer for the
kennel itself. And as far as the residential against Easy Jet, there are -- the ranch over
here, that would be -- would have no complaints with that either. But as everybody is
complaining about the traffic, I don't see how this -- if it was light office is going to put
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 42 of 88
anymore traffic on the street, compared to putting how many more subdivisions they are
going to put out there. I mean I bought there in 1988, rural area, that's what I wanted. It
changed on me. They bought here because they thought it was all residential.
Unfortunately for them, it's changing much faster. So, I'm pretty much okay with
something like this, as long as the residential is kept back away from my kennel, so I
don't think anybody in this room is going to want to buy a residential property within 150
feet of a commercial dog kennel. That's pretty much all , have.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Sharp: My name is John Sharp. I live at 3020 South Eagle Road, Meridian. I am one
of the Alliance members and I moved there in 1986 and just the complaints that the
neighbors have about people moving in and surrounding them and traffic is the same
one that I had. So, unfortunately, the problem of the traffic is the -- all of us and the
additional traffic that we put on there for this small commercial area probably isn't going
to be anymore than what the residential would be or maybe even less. This concept
plan that we had here that -- or that's suggested here, the original one we had looked a
little similar to this. It didn't have any colors on it, but we went to the planning staff and
we revised it about four times in order to get to the point we are, assuming -- or thinking
that we were doing what we were being asked to do. The connections of the roads and
the access points on there were a suggestion of the staff and Ada County Highway
District. We were following what we thought were the recommendations of everybody
that was giving us advice on this. What we had for total things of being commercial is
what we proposed to do. We met with the neighbors and worked out a compromise --
or at least what we thought was a compromise and we keep hearing things differently
and I guess if I lived next to it and it was being changed, I may have the same idea, but
we -- when they came in and moved in on us, we had the same concept and same
arrangement that they have towards us. I'm not necessarily in favor of what they have
here, but we've looked at this several times and what we have put together is what we
thought was being required of us and that the early concepts that we had, we had only
two entrances on Eagle Road and two on Victory Road for the north properties. The
southern properties we had the same thing and since they have changed to a different
concept on the parking areas and things, we've had to modify that a little bit. But
through this whole process we have tried to look at everything that we were doing and
take the advice of the planning staff as we went along and the concept we have now is
what we thought was a concept we was being asked to put together. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. As far as the applicant, I think it's probably best if the group of you
respond as a whole in rebuttal to opposing testimony and not that what you said wasn't
important, but to group all of you in a summary, which is -- you're given a ten minute
rebuttal to all the testimony probably would be the best way to do it, is to have the group
of you testify together. Sir.
Carpenter: Bob Carpenter, 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. Don't want to
ignore the comment you just made, but I got some stuff. I have seen red lights up there
all night, so -- currently we have four lots varying in size from .2 acres to 4.8 acres on
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 43 of 88
that corner South Eagle Road and Victory. We have had several offers in the last 18
months to sell one or more of these lots for development similar to the previous
testimony you heard earlier tonight on Canterbury Commons, which would be
townhouses and four-plexes and things like that. It's currently a medium density R-B. In
the comp plan it's still RUT Ada County. So, it's not in Meridian. I'm of the opinion that
the proposals that we are proposing would make a lot more sense than Canterbury type
subdivisions. I thought the neighbors were of the opinion of that also, that they would
rather have a buffering of homes coming down from R-8 to R~4 and, then, going into
office and retail uses, rather than larger apartment complexes, which is what you're
going to get before you if we sell these properties separately. There is ten separate
properties involved. When we moved out there in 1990 it was rural and I have
calculated, as the one gentleman mentioned from Tuscany, there is a thousand homes
in the Tuscany part that's been proposed south of Victory Road between Eagle and
Locust Grove and Victory and Amity and, then, there is other subdivisions in there, too.
And so you calculate that out, in the nine square miles between Cloverdale and
Meridian Road and Victory Road and South Columbia, there was nine square miles, you
take two and a half houses per acre, you're going to have 36,000 people out there.
They are going to funnel up Meridian Road, Locust Grove Road, and Eagle Road and I
just think you're going to need a little more commercial than you got putting it all at the
freeway or above. So, I thought we had pretty much gone over that in the previous two
meetings. Staff had -- we thought we had come to an agreement with this and they
have recommended approval and moving on. We are ready to move on with it, but if we
can't, we are ready to sell and move out of there. That road is starting in six months.
The first of October. So, we have had the neighborhood meetings, we have met with
them, I don't have anything specifically against what Darrell is proposing there, other
than I think we have a better plan and I don't think we should need to buffer our own
residential with more residential. It doesn't make any sense. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Baird: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Mr. Baird.
Baird: If I could reiterate what -- the point that you just made is that in order to provide
for an orderly hearing, we do need to hear from all of the residents first before we hear
the rebuttal from the applicant. If we start getting a back and forth, we are going to be
here all night. So, I know that's the point you're trying to make and so if there are any
other members of the Alliance, they will have their opportunity to rebut after we have
heard everybody else.
Rohm: And well said.
Baird: No harm done, but--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 44 of 88
Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application?
I'm pretty sure we are there, but -- and thank you for your comments to Mr. Carpenter.
With that being said, what I'm going to do is I'm going to give the last time slot to Marty
Thompson -- Thomason to -- any concluding remarks that you would like to make in
reference to all testimony --
Baird: Mr. Chair? And, again, sorry to interrupt. Getting -- before we take the final
testimony from the applicants, I do think we need to revisit the issue of whether we need
to continue this hearing. During the testimony I have concurred with staff -- conferred
with staff, I have looked at our CZC or our -- I'm sorry, our UDC with regards to hearing
notice and I do believe that because of the way this application has changed, we do
have a defect that needs to be cured before you make your decision. It specifically
mentions that the notice is to provide a summary of the application that is to be heard
before the Planning and Zoning Commission and if you were to summarize the three
districts that you have before you now, as compared to what they originally were, it may
not be that much of a change of intensity, but it is a different nature of use that needs to
be properly noticed before you make your decision. Not trying to have additional delay,
but that also might give Commissioner Borup the opportunity to review the minutes from
tonight's meeting, so he can participate in your final decision. So, if you are inclined to
take our recommendation to continue this, so that the matter can be property re-noticed,
I would encourage you to take the concluding comments from the applicant at that next
hearing.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Baird. I appreciate what you're saying. Basically, what it
boils down to is we are going to need to continue this, because of the application taking
on a little different characteristic from the zoning perspective and all of the testimony
that's been heard tonight is -- should be responded to in your concluding remarks. So, I
think that what I would like to see is a continuance only to provide the adjustment to the
zoning application and to hear your concluding remarks in response to -- as a rebuttal.
And we would not at that time take any additional public testimony, but your responses
to testimony already received. Can we do that, Mr. Baird?
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, you would be obligated to hear
testimony from the public for those who may be affected by the change in the nature of
the application. However, I do want to reiterate that everybody that's spoken tonight,
the testimony is valid, it's on the record, we are not going to start again. There is no
reason to have to re-testify. I think everybody tonight has -- your testimony has been
well received.
Rohm: And I guess we will address that at the time that we reopen it and just limit
testimony to the change in application for rezone and that alone.
Baird: And those affected by it, yes.
Rohm: Those affected by it. Okay. So with --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 45 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, may I ask a question?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Baird, are you saying with certainty if we were to close this
Public Hearing and move it on to City Council, that a notice for the City Council hearing
will not be legally sufficient on this -- my concern is this: This is, I think, the third or
fourth time that we have looked at this. I think everybody -- the property Alliance and
the homeowners need to get their day before the Council and so I'm just concerned that
we just keep delaying and everybody has to get up and testify again.
Baird: Thank you, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
I do empathize with you and, in fact, that's why initially I was leaning towards looking for
some way to cure the defect that we have here. It's a procedural due process issue.
It's a technical legal issue, and our advice to both this Commission and City Council is
always the most conservative advice to cure any potential defect before moving
forward. You are free to ignore my advice and act otherwise, but, you know, we are
here to protect everybody's interest and to make sure that these things are clean. And I
don't think that we will need to hear from everybody else again and I'm encouraging the
people who are here tonight and who have spoken and whose points have been made
to leave that record be as it is. I -- frankly, I don't expect that many additional people to
be surprised by the new notice, but as a legal matter it is different. The way I'm
interpreting the code we do need to proceed in that fashion. In talking with the planning
director, we can't think of an instance where there has been something of this nature
that we have attempted to cure it on its way to City Council and I'd hate to set a
precedent tonight.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I guess my question of you is when do you perceive
that you can have -- be ready to re-notice with the proposed new zoning designations?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before he answers that question, I would ask that we have
some discussion on what it is we are proposing him to change.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I agree.
Zaremba: And I think that will be appropriate for this meeting before we continue it,
rather than to have to keep -- ,I don't want to keep giving them one change every time
we see them.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Zaremba: I think we need to get it all on the table based on the public testimony that we
have just heard and, then, let the applicant move forward with considering all the
changes that we have discussed.
Rohm: Would you care to take a stab at it, Commissioner Zaremba?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 46 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- Mr. Chair, can I ask one more question?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: If we do that, then, are we not obligating ourselves, because we
have made suggestions beyond the zoning designation, to have to reopen the
opportunity for everybody to testify again on the changes, because, then, we bring in --
and don't get me wrong, I appreciate the alternative proposal and I think -- I think that's
wonderful that that was put forth, but to comment on that and all of the testimony
tonight, are we -- do you understand what I'm saying? I can't see how we can just open
up the hearing and forward it on. So, I'm just kind of unclear on whether or not -- I mean
I thought that the requirements had been met. So, Mr. Thomason, on that I --
Thomason: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: -- I believe that you guys -- I had believed originally you had done
what you were asked to do. I guess what I would just like to see is how -- how we can
most quickly get this on to City Council and they can -- because, in essence, it is setting
some -- a bit of a precedent and I think it's something that's going to come through --
this type of thing is going to occur again and again as density gets so -- so thick in these
outlying areas. So, I guess that's a question I need answered.
Rohm: Wow. That's a good question. Personally, what I kind of felt was the answer to
that question is the applicant is going to have an opportunity in his submittal for rezone
to take into consideration the public testimony that he's heard tonight and in that
application for the specific zone changes to incorporate into your -- in your application
the comments received from the public and whether you concur with their specific
recommended changes to the zoning or if you come up with something that's an
alternative to that and, then, you will be responding to all the testimony that's been
received and we would, then, only be addressing that application as amended.
And that's -- that seems logical to me, because that's just your response to public
testimony. But that's as I perceived it.
Thomason: If I might make a comment, without stealing my rebuttal thunder later, our
concept map is one that it takes into account all parties involved and I appreciate
Darrell's comments and his attempt at a concept map for us, but our concept map
involves discussions with Ada County Highway District, multiple discussions with the
planning staff, multiple discussions amongst the Alliance members, conversations that
Wayne had with property developers, commercial developers, and so forth, and we
thought we had a compromise map where we already put in a residential buffer and,
again, from Bob's standpoint, his comments, why do we have to buffer our own
residential again? And it limits our opportunities when we offer this up for sale. We--
our map is a compromise already. We went from mixed use regional to mixed use
community, adding in residential, adding in light office. Yes, it's not what the existing
property owners behind us want, but what they are suggesting is not what we want.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 47 of 88
That's what compromise is, is that you come as close together as you can and I'm
having a hard time understanding that if the only way you're going to approve it is if we
come back with the plan that Darrell presented, that doesn't take into account all of the
other discussions that we have already had with other members and other entities. Our
-- I get what you're saying about the legal issue. I don't speak for the entire Alliance
group when I say this comment, because this wasn't rehearsed beforehand and agreed
upon, but it's unlikely that we will come back with a different map. The map that we
have submitted is the one we are willing to compromise on at this point. And so I don't -
- again, I don't want to steal my thunder, but I want to make that clear. Yes, we have
heard these comments and I hear them, I have empathy for them. The fact is is that we
are making a compromise and so the plan we are going to resubmit is the one that we
have -- I say this without the Alliance agreeing to it, but this is our -- my feelings at this
point. So, what we need here is, I guess, the clear direction that a new annexation
application gets submitted with the documentation that supports the three zones that we
have proposed and, then, we come to another meeting here, anybody who hasn't
spoken gets to speak, and, then, I have the opportunity to deal with any rebuttal issues
on that and, then, the decision is in the power broker's hands as to whether we move
forward or not. Is that what I'm hearing?
Rohm: I believe that encapsulates what we would like to direct --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go kind of on record to make you understand that we
are not suggesting that you have to take any of the testimony this evening and make
changes to what you are wanting to do. It's just the point that you do have to come
back to us with the zoning change and whatnot. We want you to consider what was
discussed this evening. If you do, you don't, that's entirely up to you. Just come back
forward with the new zoning request.
Thomason: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: I wanted to make sure you understood that we are not trying to tell you which way
to go at all.
Thomason: Okay. Thank you.
Baird: And, Mr. Chair, if I could further clarify his concept of what's going to happen at
the next meeting. The planning director pointed out to me that, really, the only
significant change is the addition of the residential component. The L-O and the C-C
are similar enough that we have heard everything on that. What we haven't heard is
anybody who was affected by the addition of the residential. So, the recommendation is
that testimony would only be heard on that matter, which is going to significantly limit
the length of the next hearing.
Rohm: Hopefully so. Thank you, sir. Okay. Just a date certain. We are still looking --
it looks to me like either the 4th or the 18th. I don't think they -- can they get everything
through by the 4th? Tara? 18th.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 48 of 88
Thomason: May 18th.
Rohm: May 18th. Would that work for you?
Thomason: Yes. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I make a motion now?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: I will. Okay. Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton.Huckabay: Director Canning, do you -- you look like you have something that
you want to add before I --
Canning: Commissioners -- Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I'm not sure that it
wouldn't be appropriate to have the conversation tonight, since we have come this far.
If there are changes you want, then, he should know now. He can decide if he wants to
not change it, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't be appropriate to give him direction now,
rather than waiting until the 18th to give further direction. I think it -- Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay, you expressed a concern that we are just having him change one
thing every time. This would be your opportunity to express to the applicant any
changes you want to see. We are going to re-notice it. Hopefully, we could wrap it up
that night.
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, that was Commissioner Zaremba's statement. Two times
I have seen what I thought I was going to see come before this Commission regarding
this application. So, I have nothing further to add on it myself -- is regarding whether or
not to forward it on to City Council. I mean I -- I don't know what would be -- specifically
need to be added. Are you talking about like the layout of the zoning and -- that
specifically or --
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if all the Commissioners
are comfortable with what they have presented, then, they might want to hear that. But
I think that now is the opportunity to have the discussion, so that we can tie this all up
on the 18th. But that's all I was encouraging the Commission to do. I'm not trying to
direct you in what those comments should be, I just would like to have the discussion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 4g of 88
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I guess is what I'm saying is that each time we have ended
one of these hearings I have thought that everyone has come back with what our
expectations were. I feel like both times I thought the expectations that we laid out were
met and I kind of get the feeling that before we are done we are going to have
developed this property and I would just like to get it on to City Council and -- we don't
know how they are going to act on something like this and I feel like we are -- I would
just like to see closure for all parties involved, an idea of how the city is going to handle
this type of situation, because I don't think it's the last time we are going to see this type
of thing. And I will say nothing else.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just continuing on, Commissioner mentioned that the only thing
we are really looking at is zoning designation and the areas that's been designated for
those zones; is that correct? We are not -- we are not looking at access points or
anything else. That's all going to have to be approved by ACHD and a further staff
report when a plat comes before us. So, it's -- I mean we are spending a lot of time
talking about that kind of stuff and I think that's very important. I'm going to be very
interested in that at the proper time. But at this point we are just nothing more than just
the three zones and if those locations are appropriate. Is there anything more
complicated than that?
Rohm: I think that pretty well captures it. So, I think the bottom line is -- is I think the
applicant needs to take into consideration public testimony in his re-app and if he -- if
the association still conceptually believes that their proposed layout with the re-app
depicting the three zones is what they want to -- as their proposal, that's well within their
province and it's not this Commission's position to tell them how to formulate their re-
app and there is -- I don't believe that there is anything that this Commission has seen
from the application that is conceptually offensive from our perspective and how they
adjust to public testimony is up to them. That's kind of the way I capture or--
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I made the alternate opinion on that and even though I'm very
supportive of considering that this group of properties might not be all residential as
previously established and that I'm very much in favor of appreciating that this is an
Alliance of people, we keep saying it's easier to put together big properties than it is to
deal with small ones. I still feel that in the discussion with Mr. Forrey, what he described
is much closer to the alternate that was proposed and -- which is why we needed to see
the concept. I realize a concept is just a concept, it's not a plat, it's not etched in stone,
it's variable, but it is an assumption of how that property is going to develop and I am
not supportive of all those accesses, even as a concept. I am supportive of even if it
had to be four different zones and I may be the only one, but I would suggest to the
applicant -- my full support would be behind something much closer to the alternate
proposal.
Rohm: And that being said --
Zaremba: And I may be in a minority, so that's fine.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 50 of 88
Rohm: Fair enough. I think that we are ready for a motion. Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay, I think you got started and, then, we got kind of side-tracked. Would
you like to make another stab, please.
Newton-Huckabay: So, we are continuing to the 18th of May?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to continue file number AZ 06-008 to the hearing date of May 18th, 2006, for the
following reasons -- and that's so that the applicant can modify their annexation request
to include the residential; correct?
Zaremba: And re-notice.
Newton-Huckabay: And re-notice the property and we will only be taking public
testimony at that hearing on May 18th regarding the addition of the residential piece. All
other testimony received tonight will continue onto that point.
Borup: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: End of motion.
Rohm: Good. It's been moved and seconded that we continue the continued Public
Hearing of AZ 06-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the date of May 18th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried. And thank you all for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: May we take a break?
Rohm: Well, I'm going to -- we will talk about where we want to make the break,
because we are not going to get through the entire agenda and I don't want to stay until
3:00 o'clock tonight, so --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? We are allowed, I believe, even now, to rearrange the
agenda. Would there be any value in asking if the majority of the remainder of people
are here for one issue and deal with that one out of order?
Rohm: I'm not opposed to that. Quite honestly, I think we are getting so -- we are
getting to a point that we got have to do something a little differently, because what we
have been doing in the past isn't working any longer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 51 of 88
Zaremba: The clerk might be able to look at the sign-up sheets and give us some
direction on that.
Rohm: Well, the Wells Street Subdivision has the most people signed up, so is it your
suggestion that we hear it and --
Zaremba: I would suggest that we attempt to do two more tonight, that one and maybe
the second one -- if there is two of them that have a majority and, then, continue the rest
of them.
Newton-Huckabay: Would it be --
Zaremba: Which we do, of course, after we take a break.
Borup: Do we know how long -- do we know how long these others are going to take?
Some of them are fairly simple.
Rohm: That's an alternate view is you take all the ones that don't have anybody here.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd like as few people as possible to see my hair turn into snakes at
1 :00 a.m. in the morning. I mean --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that staff does note on the Wells Street
Subdivision that will have to be continued anyway, because we have no ACHD
recommendation, so is staff requesting that --
Rohm: At this point we are going to take a ten minute break and we will reconvene at
10:15.
(Recess.)
Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
April 20th, 2006. Okay. And what we have decided is that we will take Items 9 through
15 and if, in fact, we -- it's not midnight yet, we will continue on if, in fact, the people that
have signed up to talk to Item 16 forward are still here in the audience. But we will hear
Items 9 through 15 tonight and anything beyond that is subject to time and we are not
going to open any public hearing after midnight.
Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could interject. Again, a due process issue and notice to people
who are here, I don't want to end up in the same situation that we had with the prior
hearing where people went home thinking something wouldn't be heard. I would
encourage the Commission to make a firm decision in which numbers will be heard and
which ones will be continued, so that people would know with certainty at this hour
what's going to happen tonight.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 52 of 88
Rohm: Well, if that's the suggestion from counsel, then, it would be my
recommendation that we take through Item 15 and continue everything beyond that and
I apologize for any of you that are in the audience for those hearings that were slated for
tonight, but we take them in the order and we will have to continue those beyond that
point.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Baird, the other thing we did discuss is -- and I'm looking for
your opinion, if one of those others had no sign-ups with anybody in opposition, would
there be a concern if those were opened, if there has been no public sign ups?
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission and Commissioner Borup, if you
make the decision to leave it on and hear it, that's one thing. But I wouldn't make a
decision based on what -- who's signed up. There may be somebody who is sitting here
wanting to hear what the presentation is and decide after they have heard the staff and
the applicant's presentation whether they want to testify. So, I don't think we just rely on
the sign-up sheets in deciding whether or not to make a decision on that. Again, I would
encourage with certainty. If there are no people on the sign-up sheet, you can certainly
make the decision to hear that matter and if the hour is late, you may have to send
people home if you decide not to. But, again, I don't want to put the Commission in a
position of giving people an indication that something won't be heard and, then, it is
heard. That's what I would like to avoid.
Rohm: Anybody want to stay until 3:00?
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Borup: No. I think we are all in agreement on the midnight. I'm just -- my only thought
is if we got done by 11 :30, could hear another one or two -- well, that's not going to
happen, but the opportunity is there.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we hear through Item 15 and continue
everything else.
Rohm: I think that's an excellent suggestion. Would you like to put that in the form of a
motion?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would add to that that we should give all the rest of the items
priority at our very next meeting.
Rohm: Absolutely.
Newton-Huckabay: So, do I need to open each one from 16 through 25 and continue
them to --
Borup: We could continue those later. Make a motion that we will do it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 53 of 88
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, it would probably be -- at some point
in tonight's meeting you will have to open them up and continue them to a date certain.
However, you can make a motion now telegraphing what you're going to do when those
items come up and that would give the people the certainty, as long as you don't
change your mind between now and the time the items come up.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we commit to continuing Items 16
through 25 on our agenda, dated Thursday, April 20th, 2006, to the date certain -- is it
our next meeting? Of May 4th, 2006. End of motion.
Rohm: It's been moved --
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: -- and seconded that we continue Items 16 through 25 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of May 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: 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 11:
Continued Public Hearing from March 16, 2006: 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: Okay. Okay. That being said, at this time I'd like to open the continued Public
Hearing from March 16th, 2006, for Items No. AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. Both of
these items are related to Cardigan Bay Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Cardigan Bay
Subdivision was continued from the March 16th hearing in order to allow ACHD to
complete their analysis and make a recommendation on whether or not there should be
a public street connection to Larkwood Place from Cardigan Bay Subdivision. The site
is located northwest of the intersection of Locust Grove Road and McMillan Road,
adjacent to a recent subdivision called Tustin. At your last hearing you heard Basin
Creek, the old Leeshire project, that's directly to the north of this project, and an older
Ada County sub named Larkwood is directly to the west. And, then, there is Saguaro
Canyon, Arcadia, the proposed Reserve here as well. The applicant has proposed
annexation and zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to R-4 for the -- a preliminary plat of 28
single family residential lots and three common lots. A couple -- I will jump into one of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 54 of 88
the first staff recommendations. It's -- here is the preliminary plat. This subdivision kind
of has the -. I guess a split personality if you will. The new roadway that connects to
Tustin Subdivision and, then, up to the recently heard Basin Creek, is a pretty typical R-
4 subdivision with lot sizes that you would see in a fairly typical R-4 subdivision. The
portion of the subdivision which will take access from Larkwood Place has much larger
lots, in the 20 to 25 thousand square foot range, I think, maybe a little bit smaller, and
has definitely much more of an R-2 characteristic to it. The first -- the first staff
recommendation I will touch on. We would ask that you consider whether that western
portion of the subdivision should be zoned R-2 and, then, the eastern portion zoned R-
4. I don't recall if this body did it, but a recent one up on Black Cat Road and just .-
Sunstone, a similar split zoning. There was an adjacent county sub that had larger lots
and they buffered larger lots with larger lots of their own. They initially came in and
proposed all R-4 and, then, I believe it was City Council that required them to change
half of it R-2 and half to R-4 to kind of get that transitional zoning. So, there is some
history of that and we would recommend that you consider that. A couple other issues I
will touch on. I did mention that ACHD did not ask for a connection to Larkwood Place
and we as city staff felt that was okay as well. Larkwood Place is a substandard county
road that was not designed to handle the volumes of traffic that could be generated
through Tustin Subdivision, through Cardigan Bay, through Basin Creek, through
Arcadia, through Reserve and so on and so forth. So, we are -- we are comfortable with
no vehicular connection to Larkwood Place. The applicant did provide a pedestrian
connection over to Larkwood Place, which we feel is important and does kind of tie
these two halves of the subdivision together and make it a little more cohesive. So, we
are in support of ACHD's finding on that. The Public Works Department did ask that the
common lot does extend -- it has a -- I guess a flag nature, for lack of a better term. It's
long and skinny and, then, attaches over here on the new roadway. That is all one lot.
Public Works did ask that the leg of that be increased in width from 20 feet to 30 feet to
better accommodate their sewer main that's going to go through there and so we did
include that as a condition of approval. The Meridian Fire Department had some
concerns about having no parking around the island located on the new roadway that --
the landscape islands, so we did include that as well. And, then, there were some
accessory buildings that will cross -- will be on lot lines when they are platted, so those
would need to be removed prior to signature on the final plat. Other than that, I don't
think I have any comments. There will be a minimum house size, because this is in the
R.4 zone of 1,400 square feet. If the Commission took the staff recommendation and
made the western portion R-2, I think the R-2 does have a 1,500 square foot minimum
house size. So, that would need to be included as well for the applicant's awareness.
Other than that, I think I will stand for questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Stiles: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, my name is Sheri Stiles. I work at
Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens Street, Suite B, in Eagle, Idaho. We have
worked extensively with the president of the homeowners association for the Larkwood
Subdivision and we did come to an agreement on some of the terms that they had
asked for. The developer and applicant has agreed that after construction, the houses
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 55 of 88
that front onto the road in Larkwood Subdivision will abide by their covenants and also
that they will pay any dues that are attributable to their lots within that homeowners
association. I just briefly asked the developer if he would have any particular problem
with rezoning those lots to an R-2, provided everything can be met. I think there is a
minimum of 17 or 18 thousand in an R-2 zone and all of these are well over that. I think
the smallest lot on the western side is approximately a half acre. This will, eventually,
connect into what's called Basin Creek Subdivision, as Josh explained, and the lots are
quite deep and we would hope that it could be accommodated all under the R-4, it's just
a condition of approval, but we would be willing to look at that. I want to make this short
and sweet. I think it's a pretty straight forward project. These are large lots and they
will typically have larger homes on them. As you know, with some of your 8,000 square
foot lots going for over 100,000 dollars, you're not going to get even a small house on a
lot of those 8,000 square foot lots. So, that's really all I had, unless you have any
questions.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Just a quick one here. You guys do agree to all conditions in the staff report?
Stiles: Yes, we do.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you. There is not anybody signed
up for this, but if there is anyone that would like to come forward and testify, now is the
time. There is not a lot to rebut, then, is there. Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Discussion?
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-010
and PP 06-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 56 of 88
Zaremba: After consideration all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend -~
Borup: Do we have any discussion?
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chair, I was just curious -- before you make a motion, I am curious what the
other Commissioners think about the western portion going to R-2 and R-4. I would like
to see that go --
Borup: I think it makes sense.
Zaremba: I would and I was going to add it to the motion.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Okay. Let me begin again. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-010
and PP 06-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006,
with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement. Actually,
modifications to Exhibit B, paragraph 1.2, site specific recommendations on the
preliminary plat. Paragraph 1.2.3 and paragraph 1.2.4 I would combine and reverse.
1.2.3 appears to be a statement about the other one, so I would combine 1.2.3 and
1.2.4 and reverse the sentences. Then, I would add a paragraph 1.2.9 requiring that
the lots identified on the western boundary be zoned to R-2 and that the proper legal
description for that be provided.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.08
acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) zone for
Quarterhorse Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road:
Item 13:
Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval with 14
single family residential lots and 2 common lots for Quarterhorse
Subdivision by M2 Land LLC - 710 Black Cat Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 57 of 88
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-016 and PP 06-
010 and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request
for a 5.08 acre site at the intersection of Black Cat and Pine, which is next to the EI
Gato Subdivision, as well as the Castlebrook Subdivision to the north, which is an R-4
and R-2. The Comprehensive designation for this site is medium density residential and
the applicant is proposing an R-4, medium low density residential site with 14 lots.
Currently the area is very much developing. There is low density residential to the west,
as well as there is four existing homeowners that immediately surround this property
and also take access from the Quarterhorse Lane. With this development the
Quarterhorse Lane, which is currently a private lane, does exist at the south border of
the property. That is the lane that provides access to -- there is one, two, three and,
then, four homes. This lane will be dedicated to the public, which it currently resides 50
feet on the southern property boundary. The applicant has met with ACHD and is in
agreement with the ACHD conditions of approval. There is currently a building site on
the property in this location. Obviously, some of those buildings cross property lines.
Anything that does cross property lines would removed and the applicant has not -- the
applicant has agreed to all conditions of approval and staff is recommending approval
with the conditions listed in the staff report. I'll stand for questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward,
please?
Carney: Good evening. My name is Ryan Carney; I'm with Lochsa Engineering, civil
engineer on the project. Address is 1311 West Jefferson in Boise. 83702. I guess I
would just reiterate that I'm in agreement with all staff recommendations.
Rohm: That's pretty clear. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, actually, I have a question. I'm just curious why we
chose a cul-de-sac, rather than a stub street to the east.
Carney: To the east --
Newton-Huckabay: Apparently, Joe wants to answer that.
Guenther: That was our idea. We didn't think that they should connect Pine and -- to
the east they are providing a stub connection right here.
Newton-Huckabay: You can finish your statement--
Zaremba: In discussion of that --
Newton-Huckabay: In my defense it's getting late.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 58 of 88
Borup: Not yet.
Zaremba: -- it is shown that what we were seeing as a private road, which it currently
is, but your staff requirement is that that portion of it be converted to a public road;
rig ht?
Guenther: Well, it is ACHD's condition, then. That is the design.
Zaremba: Okay.
Carney: Yes. It will be dedicated as a public right of way.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't think I was clear on the question I'm asking. You're talking
about the southeast portion. I'm talking about in the middle, why there is no -- stubbing
into what -- that agriculture -- right there.
Carney: Why we are not adding an access to the eastern property line?
Newton-Huckabay: I would just think it's -- it's unusual -- it's unusual to see a parcel this
small come through that doesn't give stub streets for when the one besides them
develop, if they decide to develop.
Borup: They have got access on Quarterhorse.
Carney: Yeah. I'm guessing they have got access. Their property line probably is
somewhere near our southern property. I don't have that officially, but the dedicated
right of way does grant that property to our east.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Carney: Public access.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Gary Casey.
Haneke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Staff, my name is George Haneke. I reside at
4600 Quarterhorse Lane. And in a moment here I will have a few thoughts on the
proposed subdivision to share with you. Planning and Zoning Two.
Canning: Is Planning and Zoning Two yours?
Haneke: Yeah. I think. This just summarizes from our perspective the proposal in front
of you. You can see -- and I think -- getting ready to arm wrestle you guys. Sorry.
Okay. So, this is the proposed property for development. I own the eight acres to the
east here and I own the two acres to the south. I'm representing the Alexanders and
the Caseys. I have a couple of concerns about the proposal. One is that the dedication
of the Quarterhorse Lane up to this point right here -- pardon me for shaking so much
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 59 of 88
on the light. It really provides no turn-around space from the development. If you'd go
to the next slide for just a moment, please. You can see that -- what you're seeing here
is the corner of my property and the Quarterhorse Lane that's being proposed to be
dedicated to the city terminates right here. I have a gate here and I have another gate
on an entrance to my property here and the Caseys have a gate just a little bit further
down the road here. So, really, what's going to happen here is the traffic will come
down here; they will turn around into the Alexander's property and exit. Now, the gates
exist here and on my property, because we have been raising Alpacas and sheep for
many years. With the advent of the subdivisions, I have bermed and fenced and
landscaped the entire eight acres here around it to provide some sort of insulation for
the critters. I'm very concerned about the lack of turnaround space here and we put the
gates up here, because we had people driving down the road into our property and
dumping beer cans, garbage, and other such stuff. If you could go back to the previous
slide for just a moment. The other point that I want to make is in the development of
this subdivision over here, this is a dead end street with this piece of property right in
this corner here being dedicated as a park. So, there will be no through traffic going this
direction here. It's closed off. So, we are concerned about that. Forward one, please.
Can you hear me okay? Sorry. The other thing that I'm concerned about is with the
landscaping plan and such that was submitted with the proposal. There, apparently, is
no fencing proposed or landscaping on the east side of this development, which abuts
my property over here and I think that at a minimum there should be some sort of a
privacy fence consistent with the privacy fencing that's going on in the area and that I
have installed around the property that I have here. There is an alternative and if you
go to the next slide, if you just flip that top plan, you can exit the property on West Pine
and achieve virtually the same thing and leave this dedicated road here or private road,
which if I could get the light to work I could show you. That's an option that I'd like
considered. And I certainly would recommend that we do something with respect to the
border on the east side here. In lieu of that, given the hodgepodge of property that you
guys have to deal with from time to time, it might be beneficial to see if there would be
way to do a multiple development with the R-1 property over here, some pieces of the
Alexanders, which they might be willing to entertain and combine these two in some
way, manner, shape or form. Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I didn't really follow your last statement.
Haneke: Which one?
Borup: About combining.
Newton-Huckabay: Combining -- are you indicating we should tell the developer to go
develop the Alexander's property?
Haneke: I'm suggesting that if this plan here doesn't work, to do something here, that --
to flip this exit up to this side --
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I understand.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 60 of 88
Haneke: -- that there may have to be something to get access down in this area here to
develop it, because it's not going to happen over here.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Got you.
Haneke: That's what I'm saying.
Borup: Are the Alexanders interested in that?
Haneke: I would say that this party down over here and this party over here might
entertain a cohesive development of that in some way, manner, shape or form, so that it
doesn't -- first of all, we are very pleased with the layout here. Sorry, I'm taking
medication for this and drying out pretty good. So, if you saw what was there before,
you would say, geez, what are you complaining about? So, I'm not really complaining
about that. It's a giant step forward. But, we'd like to see it avoid a problem here where
we have a dead end street that doesn't solve anybody's problems. Other questions?
Did I address your --
Newton-Huckabay: Yes, you did. Thank you very much.
Borup: And I just wondered -- have you had any discussion with --
Haneke: No.
Borup: -- the property owner -- they have never called you, you have never called
them?
Haneke: Who? The Alexanders?
Borup: No. No.
Haneke: The developer?
Borup: Yes.
Haneke: I have been trying to buy that property for about 16 years and not from --
Borup: Right. But you haven't had any discussion on trying to combine --
Haneke: No. I'm just offering that up as -- if he can't -- if it can't be flipped, then -- then
something needs to be done, so that we don't end up with a mess down here.
Borup: Well, it makes sense to me. I'm just surprised there hasn't been some
conversation earlier.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 61 of 88
Haneke: Sometimes it's hard to get that, you know, through the barriers and -- you
don't want to open up a hornet's nest if you don't have to. Any other questions?
Zaremba: We will eventually ask the applicant that question, but I have the exact same
instinct you do when I read through the file. It seemed to me access off Pine was a
reasonable suggestion.
Haneke: It makes perfect sense to me and I'm going to guess that if you go back one
more slide I'll just show you that we will be -- sorry. One more. When you look at this
property over here, there is an irrigation ditch and some day -- my wife informs me it's
after my bones are long shiny on that land -- somebody will want to connect that and it's
landlocked, so it will have to be connected to Pine somehow, because there is a
subdivision on this side right here. Three houses.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to just shed a couple of points -- and, Mike, can you
back me up on this one? The sewer that came down -- the sewer that came down
Black Cat, they put a manhole approximately here, which is why Quarterhorse is most
important, because sewer and water was stubbed to the property -- will be stubbed to
the property line here, which would be the facility for getting this property developed. If
they came in off of Pine, then, the sewer and water stubs would not exist for these
properties down here.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is water in Pine now. They
could extend water to their development from Pine, but there is no sewer in Pine that
touches their development. They'd still have to get their sewer from Black Cat. If that's
what you were asking.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that among the things to consider, along
with previous testimony, when we had some developments further down Pine, this
continues on over to Ten Mile as a private gravel or dirt road, I believe. When this
development, and I think the one here, were approved, there was a requirement that
that be gated and I suggest that might be -- if the gate were put -- if the configuration
was the way that the applicant is presenting it with the loop coming in here, there could
be a gate right after that entrance, similar to what we did on Pine, not to access the
continuing private properties at the end of that.
Rohm: That would certainly solve the problem of trespassing to --
Zaremba: And not being able to -- getting stuck and not being able to turn around.
Moe: But at the same time, I think you are causing a problem with gating to where they
can't go to their own property unless they open the gate.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 62 of 88
Zaremba: That's true. Actually, it would have been reasonable for me to have asked
you that question while you were here, so -- yes.
Haneke: Adhere to the protocol of the moment. That is exactly what we did here is we
have an electronic gate at this place here, because we would -- did not want to have our
-- have to get out in the rain and the mud and the muck and the mire in the middle of
winter to open a gate to get back and forth and so if something is proposed here, it
needs to be of at least similar --
Borup: Similar to what now?
Newton-Huckabay: An electronic gate.
Borup: Oh. With a --
Zaremba: With a remote opening.
Haneke: Correct.
Zaremba: Or even a key pad, if you could reach out the window, even in the rain.
Thank you.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application? Would the
applicant like to come back forward, please?
Carney: If I could address the issue on access off of Pine -- and I really don't need to
go to that slide, but I had met with the highway district and their planning department
suggested that there is a future light at the intersection of West Pine and Black Cat and,
then, we would need to be 440 feet away for a potential access and suggested I don't
access Pine, which is why we came up with this configuration. And that was the only
reason that we had brought the access in off of the newly dedicated Quarterhorse Lane.
And we don't have enough space to access Black Cat, as we are only 300 some feet,
so -- there is the reasoning behind where the access is where it's at and I wouldn't
suggest that a potential agreement between the two southern properties is out of the
question either. I'd have to make a phone call, but --
Borup: I don't understand. You said it is out of the question?
Carney: No, it's not out of the question.
Borup: Oh.
Carney: And, then, if I understood the last discussion, are we proposing -- one option
might be an electronic gated entrance at the very eastern edge of Quarterhorse, is that
what was proposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 63 of 88
Rohm: I think the suggestion was right here, because --
Carney: Oh, just beyond --
Rohm: -- they drive all the way down here, then, they are kind of--
Carney: Then there is no turnaround?
Rohm: Right.
Guenther: Mr. Chairman, you can't gate a public road
Borup: Right.
Guenther: So, if there was a gate, it would have to be on the Haneke property.
Carney: And another solution -- and if you mirror it east and west, the entrance to the
cul-de-sac would be say whatever that lot depth is away from the end, which still is an
inappropriate turnaround, but it's -- you'd get access to the cul-de-sac and turn around
and leave. Whether anyone trespassing would do that or not, is -- so, I don't know that
we can have access off of Pine, the discussion I had with the highway district, but I think
it's been denied.
Zaremba: Well, maybe an alternative suggestion is a sign that says dead end road or
something like that, just as you pass the entrance into your subdivision off of
Quarterhorse. I mean there needs to be some warning to people that there is no way to
turn around down there and I think that's a fair request. How to solve that, maybe we
need ACHD's opinion or -- I'm trying to think of suggestions. Signage is a very minor
one. People can ignore signs, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, excuse me, Mr. Chair.
Zaremba: I agree is hard to gate a public road.
Newton-Huckabay: Was the -- I guess I missed -- the gate's out of the question?
Borup: On this property.
Newton-Huckabay: But would the developer considering putting it on Mr. Haneke's
property if he agreed to do it?
Zaremba: I don't think that helps. You got a car trapped or a truck trapped that can't
turn around.
Guenther: Chairman Zaremba?
y~~'~'i~~' have to keep-i~' mind they dOt~av~=v~d:;:~di;i~nT~~~;~uf~~I~~';f~l;~ ~~~..~ ~;~~
a five foot landscape buffer here, so ey t f temporary turnaround there and, then, if
get to the lot. So, they could do some sor 0 accommodate development here or
the roadway is either extended to the south I tOr whatever might be -- that's for future
further through to accommodate another p~rce 0 '
development that ACHD ends up commenting on.
h d whatever to me makes -- seems to
Borup: A temporary Iturnal~~~~h~k~~:;~~g ~~ b~r a lot of traffic down there. So, to ?e
make sense to med. tWOtUh that do makes sense without having to do a major
able to accommo a e ose '
redesign.
. th t ys not a through street or
Zaremba: And with that I would suggest a sIgn a sa
something.
-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 65 of 88
Borup: Yes. I would agree with that. And it still makes -- I mean there may be some
design considerations in -- with the neighbors to the south. Even if they didn't develop
immediately, you know, there could be some configuration that would make the total
project go together better.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask a question and I honestly don't know
what the answer is, but I'm just curious. Would it -- could it be, rather than ending in a
cul-de-sac, could it just not flow back through down that Quarterhorse court, come back
down through to Quarterhorse Lane and so you have a circle, in essence, and, then,
you get your access down into the Alexander property -- or natural, I would say, for that
development and, then, same with the Haneke property to the west and, then, put -- I
mean, then, at least you're not having a dead end, you're not having to have people try
to do a bunch of turnarounds.
Borup: You would lose that common lot.
Carney: In a sense that would permanently eliminate one of the residential.
Borup: Which residential lot would it eliminate?
Carney: Well, we would have to replace that common lot, which makes up our five
percent open space requirement.
Borup: Oh.
Carney: And, then, we need to replace it with a former residential lot. So, it's possible,
it's --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, don't take this wrong, but I'm not -- I'm more concerned about
what's going to work 20 years from now, than what works for, you know, lot count, so to
speak. But this is just very awkward to me, this whole thing. I'm having a hard time
getting my head around it as a good plan.
Moe: You may have made a comment earlier and maybe I just didn't pay attention, but
you -- when you talked about basically mirroring this thing, basically, putting that
entrance down towards the east and just flip flopping that, if you did that I would see
that you have enough room, basically, to turn around and go back out if, in fact, that
that's not what you need to deal with. I think if you just flip that over that takes care of
the concerns, but still put your signage there that it's not a through street. But I'm not
trying to design this property.
Newton-Huckabay: We all are.
Zaremba: Well, I don't know if this helps, but Quarterhorse Lane, even if all of the
properties depicted here developed into more dense residential properties than they
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 66 of 88
are, Quarterhorse Lane can never go any farther than the far end of the Casey property,
because there is a large canal and, then, another subdivision that has no stub street to
it. So, this is never going to be a major road going anyplace. We just need to solve the
problem for now of people not coming down into other people's yard to be turning
around.
Rohm: I like your idea of just signing it not a through street and leave it as it is.
Zaremba: Let me ask this: If you were to get together on the other two pieces of
property that have been suggested might be interested in talking together, would that
just be an addition or would you see significantly changing this portion of it to
accommodate the rest of it or would it pretty much stay the same way anyhow?
Carney: Well, one thing I'm noticing, if we do, like you said, the southern -- which is
listed as R-1 right there and, then, a portion of the -- I believe it's the Alexander piece,
Quarterhorse Lane as it now sits is still an access easement to the property to our
immediate east. So, that access road will be there no matter what we do north and
south of it. So, the other option, I suppose, is looping it back to Black Cat and that
would eliminate any dead end stub street right there. So, yeah, it would be reworked as
a plat layout and, in theory, we could eliminate dead end stub streets. Now, also -- and
I'm speaking planning here. I think they would mandate the vacation of that easement
and the dedication of right of way up to that -- our eastern property line, to eliminate that
portion of a private drive, but --
Moe: You just got me confused again. You are suggesting go back out to Black Cat?
Carney: I'm saying if we -- if there is an agreement to develop a large piece of property,
namely, a big chunk to the south of us here, you could eliminate a dead end on our
southeastern corner by putting in the 90 degree that goes south and, then, access this
back down to Black Cat, assuming that the separation requirement can be met that
ACHD's going to mandate.
Mae: That's my concern right there.
Carney: And I don't -- I haven't done the math, so I don't --
Zaremba: I guess the reason I ask that is would you rather make it -- that we make a
decision tonight that only involves solving not having through traffic go down there or
would you like a chance to talk to the neighboring property owners and possibly bring a
redesign?
Carney: That's a good question. I think I would rather make a decision tonight and,
then, I'm going to -- I'd know what I had do to solve it, so -- rather than me offering that-
- a new development potential to the client, I don't -- that could waste a month, so --
Zaremba: And even if we took action that doesn't stop you from talking to them.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 67 of 88
Carney: Right. Exactly.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Carney: If one gives me two options, I'm going to pick the one that gives me two
options.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you, sir.
Carney: Thank you.
Rohm: Discussion?
Zaremba: 'don't know if staff has commented on whether signage that says not a
through street would be helpful or --
Guenther: Well, if you're going to go in that direction, the applicant's offer to flip this
around would also satisfy, because he would, essentially, be providing a hammerhead
84 feet from the property line, which would serve for an approved turnaround by ACHD
standards and, then, as well as a dead end or no through traffic signage at the
intersection would also probably eliminate a lot of the potential traffic -- the
nonresidential traffic down that road.
Zaremba: Is flipping it a significant change that would require renotice or --
Guenther: It's not. It would not be, because ACHD would be the one mandating that
condition, which Meridian staff can, essentially, qualify as substantial conformance,
because --
Zaremba: Well, I know we discussed it, but I'm not sure whether the applicant said he
would be willing to flip it that way.
Carney: The applicant would be willing to mirror this project to create a hammerhead
approximately 84 feet from the eastern property edge and to sign it as not a through
street.
Zaremba: Works for me.
Rohm: Thank you.
Carney: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Is that an agreeable solution?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 68 of 88
Rohm: I know that we have -- that's outside of our province at this point. We can't have
back and forth continually and we already asked for the rebut of the --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Just lost my thought here. Forget it. I can't remember now what I wanted to ask.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, is there any discussion before we--
Moe: Now I remember what it was.
Moe: I guess the question I would have is are we going to have to continue this, so that
we see this -- the plan change or are we going to consider making a motion to do
something --
Zaremba: This is one of the few that I probably would be satisfied not to see it. Nothing
else changes except flipping it as a mirror image. By the shape of the property that
doesn't appear to be a problem and I would be willing to make the recommendation and
pass it on.
Moe: That's--
Zaremba: I usually take the other angle, but --
Moe: And that's exactly what I was asking, because I just -- I felt the same way. I don't
see this as being too difficult if we are just going to flip it and, again, I think it takes care
of the problem.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-016 and PP 06-010.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing AZ 06-016 and PP
06-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Do we want any discussion -- do we need any discussion on fencing?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 70 of 88
Rohm: Thank you very much. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP
06-010 related to Cherry Crossing Drive-thru and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Cherry
Crossing Drive-thru is a use request for an existing building. The existing building did
receive certificate of zoning compliance approval I believe last fall. The site is, again, at
Cherry Lane and Ustick is to the east of the site. The access is off of Cherry Lane in
this location. It has a neck up and the drive-thru request is on the building in that
location. The applicant has proposed -- or has already installed and is in the process of
finishing the certificate of zoning compliance, which does provide the landscaping to the
__ what would be the residential component to the west of the site. The residences in
this location are the reason for the use request for a drive-thru. The building elevation --
or the building picture that the applicant had submitted, this is the drive-thru window.
The applicant is not currently proposing to use this as a type of -- with a speaker system
or a reader board or anything along that line. They are proposing to use this as a coffee
shOp type of use. The neighbors, I had conversations with them, they are concerned
about the noise, vehicular traffic, and, essentially, the engine noise on some of those
properties and staff does still feel that the landscaping would appropriately
accommodate that. But if there is any other concessions that the Commission wishes to
try and mitigate, then, you should try and listen to the -- or use your own interpretation if
the landscaping is appropriate. It's getting late for all of us. Of course, it's nice; this is
my last Public Hearing. The police department did comment on the island in the middle
here. Currently, this site does have a little bit of an odd ball -- a professional word, of
course -- access in here where the traffic does come in on the right in this location and
does take access through the drive-thru and does force the drive-thru traffic to cross an
oncoming lane of traffic to get out to Cherry Lane. This is such a long distance that this
__ planning staff is not concerned with that crossing over. This is a ten mile an hour
area, it's not a cut-through area, and staff is not recommending any changes to the site
plan via the landscape island in there should sufficiently divide the traffic in that location
to not create a problem for them. With that, before I say anything else, I will stand for
questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Joe, I just -- I'm having trouble getting oriented. Is Pizza
Hut just -- would be to the left of the screen; right?
Borup: To the right.
Guenther: To the right. The residence is to the --
Zaremba: The photographer would have been standing next to --
Newton-Huckabay: Got you. Okay. That's where I'm -- entering in on the west side of
the Pizza Hut.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 71 of 88
Zaremba: Yes. Yes.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Robnett: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Mike Robnett and I
live at 655 West Oakhampton, Eagle, Idaho. I'd like to start by giving you a little bit of
history to explain why we came up with a newly constructed building with a drive-thru on
it with no Conditional Use Permit for it. We acquired the property in '03 from Hawkins
Company, who developed the commercial corner, along with the residential behind it.
They had originally intended on putting a Rite-Aid in the corner basically where you see
these -- this one building here, with a drive-thru on it in a very similar position and they
had the Conditional Use Permit, which was done in 2001 for that drive-thru. We
purchased the property that has these buildings, as well as Total Woman Fitness on it.
We went through a lot split conditional use for Total Woman and a few other
applications and we incorrectly assumed that the Conditional Use Permit from 2001 for
the drive-thru was still in place or was still valid. We designed, constructed, and,
obviously, built a building with the intention of using the drive-thru. It was on inspection
that we were informed that, no, there was no Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru on
that property due to the lot split and the reconfiguration of the building. So, with that
being said, we do have a tenant that has signed a lease on this space. It is a coffee
shop. It is a small ma and pa coffee shop, if you will, meaning it's not a franchise, it's
not a Starbucks or a Moxie Java, and we really did try to work with a lot of the neighbors
in constructing this site as far as elevations. We shrunk the building down, because we
did have to lift the site up to make it work as far as watershed. We moved all of the
HVAC units off the roof inside the building, which was a little bit more expense, but it's
very esthetically pleasing versus having your units up top. I have talked to a couple of
the neighbors that are immediately adjacent to the drive-thru and told them that I'm not
opposed to additional vegetation. I would even go as far as putting trees in their
backyard, because with our landscape plan you can only go so many trees with a
canopy width. But if they wanted, I would pay for and have installed trees along their
rear property line as an additional buffer. And, you know, if their -- put additional
vegetation on this side, I would not be opposed to either. And with that I agree with all
of the conditions in the staff report and that's about it.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this applicant?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, actually, I do. Can we go to a plan view? That one. Perfect.
I live out beyond this and took the opportunity to drive through the property on my way
to this meeting. The hardscape, I'll say, the way the building and the island and stuff is
laid out, as far as I can see, works. There is just a couple little wrinkles that I would like
to comment on. From north of this area, if you're proceeding south, there is a ridge line
about here and the property drops off, which means cars traveling south there -- this
island isn't very noticeable to them. I realize there is a little white painted arrow in there.
My suggestion would be you would be able to perhaps put some signage here that says
do not enter, paint this curb yellow and put a sign that says keep left and maybe put
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 72 of 88
two-way arrows over here? Those things would solve the problems that I think I had
with circulation on there and perhaps even the police department.
Robnett: Yeah. I wouldn't have a problem with any of those. The signage that would
be, I would assume, a condition of the Conditional Use Permit, and not need an
additional sign permit?
Zaremba: Yeah. Usually directional signs are not -- advertising signs need the sign
permit, but traffic signs don't usually. Am I correct in that? Let me ask staff.
Guenther: Yes. Directional signs are exempt.
Zaremba: Okay. Then the only other thing that I would discuss is even though,
apparently, your potential client at the moment doesn't desire a speaker system, I would
think we need to -- clients change and this is something that's good forever and I think
we would need to put some requirements on a speaker system, one, that they face
away from the residential, which, apparently, this would happen anyhow, but what other
conditions do we usually put on? Certain decibel level at the proper line or -- just so
that if some future tenant said, well, yes, we do need the speaker system.
Robnett: Well -- and I don't know that this tenant would not want a speaker. At this
point he has not mentioned anything. He signed the lease a couple of weeks ago and
we are just getting to start to draw the plans on his interior. I would imagine he may
want a menu board and possibly a speaker on that menu board and I'm not opposed to
screening it from behind, so it's not visible and definitely face it away from the residential
and, generally, you want your speaker boards one to two car lengths behind the
window, which if you look at the plan it would position it basically facing directly -- right
in that area facing directly towards Pizza Hut.
Zaremba: I'm just saying I think it make sense to provide for that now, as opposed to
having it be a separate application later.
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, it's a little disconcerting that
we are hearing now that they do want a speaker and a menu board. That would affect
the design of the drive aisle. We agreed that perhaps what they have got as far as the
separation and the designation of the drive aisle was sufficient, because they weren't
having any stacking lane; it was just kind of drive up right to the window. So, I'm a little
concerned that we are hearing that, basically, they want to redesign the site, so that we
don't -- but we are at the hearing. So, I am a little concerned by this, the way the
conversation is going.
Zaremba: Would lengthening the island to the south help with that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 73 of 88
Canning: Yes, except that you have this very odd traffic pattern there where you have
got people crossing -- well, if we were driving in England it would all be fine, but it's --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would suggest, then, if the applicant wants us to consider a
speaker system that this needs to be continued or he's going to have to come back at
another time with that request. Is that kind of where you're going, Anna? Which I think
is completely reasonable.
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: Let's take the public testimony at this point in time. Zane Bowerman.
Bowerman: My name is Zane Bowerman. I live at 1650 North Gold Falls Place in
Meridian, Idaho. If we could back up I think one slide to show the -- one more. That
one there. Yes. I have -- I have a number of concerns. I spoke with Joe Guenther this
morning on the phone and my understanding is that at this time there is -- the business
would have one sign and it would be facing southeast. Is that correct?
Guenther: That was what we were attempting to determine here and that was -- that
when you look at this, the sign would be on the wall here facing southeast, which is
typical of these types of uses. On the site plan the applicant is not showing signs in this
location that's what the -- the Commissioners were just discussing about where the
speaker is and the reader board would end up being.
Bowerman: Okay. Ideally, I would not like to see this in my backyard. If -- the biggest
concern is noise, because if it -- if they are wildly successful and they have four or five
cars backed up, the proximity to Meridian High School, with it being just down Linder
Road and the easiest access to get back onto Linder would be to go to this coffee shop,
rather than the Moxie Java that's kitty-corner and, then, have to cross traffic, if there are
four or five cars backed up and say they are high school age, a lot of them have cars
that have more money invested in their stereos than they do in there car itself. My
concern is is that my house is -- is right there and from the curb to the back of my house
it's under 50 feet and I don't know that simple landscaping is going to provide sufficient
noise control. You know, my master bedroom is back there and my youngest
daughter's bedroom is back there. The big concern that at 6:00 o'clock someone may
pull up in their car, you know, with their stereo thumping or in their truck, you know, with
their diesel, with their exhaust kit on it that makes it sound like a tractor and wake my
wife and daughter up. I don't necessarily want to have my wife call me when I'm at work
-- I get to work at 6:00, so it wouldn't impact me, but, you know, I answer to my wife, not
to myself. I'll admit it up front. Another concern is the elevation when they come up to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 74 of 88
the drive~thru, when they come up towards the window, as they come up, they come up
to a level where they can look directly down into my backyard, as well as my neighbor's
backyard. That's not an ideal situation for me. Especially since they are going to be
open until 1 0:00 o'clock at night. I just -- those are a number of the concerns that I have
and I don't know that landscaping and trees is going to allay those concerns. I don't
know if there could be a sound barrier built along the length of the drive-thru, because
the drive-thru -- it does cut in to where the normal drive is. If you drove through that,
you saw that it -~ you know, you kind of go on a little jog. You would cross traffic to get
there, as has been mentioned. But that just makes it closer to my house.
Rohm: Before you conclude, I just have a question of staff and, then, I'd like to redirect
it to you. This same lot had a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru for another
applicant prior?
Guenther: That was for the Walgreens. That would have been in the corner here.
Rohm: Oh. Oh. Okay. So, not on this structure, then?
Guenther: This whole property received a CU for -- for the full development, including a
drive-thru.
Rohm: Okay. That changes -- I was going to ask you if you would come in and been
opposed to the drive-thru when the application came through the first time.
Bowerman: I, actually, didn't move into my house until October.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Bowerman: Of 2005.
Rohm: That's all I have. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Mr. Bowerman?
Bowerman: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: So, if I'm reading you correctly, then, you are not interested in
taking up the developer on his offer to provide additional landscaping on or near your
property?
Bowerman: That would not be my first choice. However, if it--
Newton~Huckabay: But you are asking for a brick wall is what you're saying?
Bowerman I'm asking for a -- both, actually.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 75 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Bowerman: You know, if I -- I mean it's -- because I would want a sound barrier,
because that would block most of the noise from mufflers and a lot of the cars that have
the big stereos seem to be lower to the ground as well.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Bowerman: That I -- you know, I don't -- I just am trying to throw out ideas that would be
palatable to -- you know, if I can't not have a coffee shop there.
Newton-Huckabay: Got you.
Rohm: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: I would suggest that in addition to whatever else we come up with to help the
situation, I have seen in other drive-thrus again signage, a little sign next to it that says
please be considerate of our neighbors and turn your radios down and don't rev your
engines.
Newton-Huckabay: You know -- and high school students are so good at following
signs.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Rohm: Rob Frederickson. Okay. From the audience he said that he had nothing to
add. Mike Walling.
Walling: He covered most -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm Mike Walling. 1632 North Gold Falls
Place. So, Zane is my neighbor. And so I'm actually directly to the south. And for me,
discussing with my wife, the vegetation is going to cover it for me, most likely just
because the fact that since I'm further south it's probably just going to be the occasional
stacking where they will be able to be parked there and look right over my fence,
because of the elevation difference. I, myself, don't want another brick wall there,
because there is already one that the developer of our subdivision put in, so I don't
know how -- I think it would be nice for the noise, but I don't know -- I have tried to think
about how you would do it and make it look right, two bring walls, you know, as far as a
sound barrier. I don't know how else to go about it. I can understand it, because, you
know, I don't want vehicles idling right outside my property line either. But I'm more
concerned with just the privacy So, anyway, I just -- myself, I don't know any other way
to go about it, except with vegetation that's a lot closer together than it is now. They
have some stuff in there where that berm is at, but they are spaced, you know, so far
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 76 of 88
apart that I understand there is canopy concerns, but it's not ever going to be close
enough together where people still can't see in and, you know, you have no privacy.
And that's all I have got.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Walling, I was just curious whether the developer was offering
to put vegetation on your property or -- is that what --
Walling: The developer that I was talking about was of our subdivision. He's the one
that put that fence in.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no, no, no, no. I understand that. I'm talking about this
developer just in his testimony saying he would put vegetation on your property --
Walling: That's fine with me. I've got a lot of room.
Newton-Huckabay: That would be your preference?
Walling: That would be my preference.
Borup: Have there been any thought or discussion on what type of plantings you would
like?
Walling: Well, I mean the only thing I thought about is I'd have to talk to a landscape
architect, because I don't know anything about it, but it would have to be something that
maintains its foliage hopefully close to year around and -- I mean I have got a couple of
pine trees in my backyard now that keep the -- you know, it keeps its pine needles year
around, so it helps block at least our view of the fence, but as far as -- I don't know what
type of trees would do that. I'd probably have to leave it to an expert on that. Or my
wife. So, yeah.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Walling: Thanks.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application?
Easley: Good evening. Almost morning. My name is Mike Easley. I live at 1668 Gold
Falls, which is directly north of where Zane is at. And I'm probably the most impacted of
the three of us, but I have talked extensively on and off in the last year -- almost a year
and a half now -- with the developer, excuse me, Mr. Robnett, and he has come forth
with foliage and plants, how to solve the noise problem, but on the one slide, if there is
-- I guess two head or whatever, that shows the elevations, might give you guys a
perspective of the elevation problem with the yard. I know talking with Mr. -- yeah, next
one. I'm sorry. It shows the -- it, actually, shows the parking lot. I guess the regular
picture. The normal picture. Photograph. There. If you could see to the left, you would
notice that there is probably about two foot from being level with our -- my back
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 77 of 88
bedroom window, my wife's and I's bedroom, and our neighbor's yards -- I mean a
person can stand on this sidewalk that you can see to the west of the building and
literally look down like I'm looking down at the shoes of these people right here on this
row. It's probably exaggerated, but I know it's by the drainage design. So, trying to
back up is what Zane was mentioning with the wall or some kind of sound barrier,
because there is nothing to stop the planned foliage of noise cutting across there. I
mean it's so high that it's going to -- it going to go across there. If a sign was posted by
the window and there is no speaker or anything, personally, that would probably satisfy
me, because, then, I would realize you might only have three cars deep at the most and
nobody is yakking until they get to the window on a box and, hopefully, the sound is
down, because there is maybe signs posted that people might read. But I know that,
again, Mr. Robnett has done -- he's been very forthcoming on the whole situation and I
think our -- the neighbors and all of us could come to resolution on making this work, it's
just the privacy concerns and the foliage and maybe somehow -- I don't know if there is
a plastic -- I think you had mentioned before a plastic barricade, if that was a word, right
along the curbing, with arborvitaes or some kind of greenage that's year around that
could mask some of the diesel noises or exhaust noises or whatever might happen in
the wintertime when everybody is going to want their hot coffee. But that's all I have,
unless you had any questions for me.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up, please?
Robnett: I understand and appreciate your concerns. It sounds like one of the biggest
issues is the visual from looking from the drive aisle into the backyards. And that would
be a concern of mine if I lived there. I understand that. I have got little kids. I wouldn't
be opposed to along that curb line, lining that curb back. You know, in a coffee shop
generally you're going to have stacking of three, maybe four cars. If we line that with
arborvitae they are a year around six foot plus vegetation that grows together to great a
wall that's not as offensive as a block wall. And, yet, I think it would -- it would definitely
-- you're going to have the one break in the sidewalk and we could look at putting the
tree beyond the sidewalk or something of that to make it so that --
Newton-Huckabay: Are we creating a tunnel where there is no line of sight between a
fence and the trees by putting it along the curb?
Robnett: In a sense you would be, yeah.
Zaremba: Well, the solution to that might be instead of putting them along the curb line,
put them along the fence line, if that's not an easement for a sewer or something.
Robnett: The problem I see with that is you have about a three foot elevation
difference, so they are going to have to be nine foot tall to get six foot of relief. They get
that tall, though.
Zaremba: Eventually.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 78 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: What if -- Mr. Chair? Would it be appropriate, since the neighbors
seem more than willing to work with Mr. Robnett and he seems more than willing to
work with them on a landscaping solution, that we allow them to do that before their City
Council hearing and --
Guenther: This is the approval hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, this is. You're right.
Zaremba: We are final.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Would it be appropriate to give them ten minutes to work it
out? Take a ten minute --
Borup: Our next one --
Baird: Here's the -- the last matter, continue this to the end of your agenda.
Borup: The next one should only be about that long.
Rohm: Well, we can just table it and not close it and, then, you guys can figure out
what's acceptable and, then, we will continue after we have heard Item 15. So, let's just
do that.
Borup: Is there -- one other thought. And I don't know if this is the time to discuss that.
The subject has come up of the speakers. I know we have had previous testimony
talking about some of the new speaker systems, how the -- it doesn't have a lot of
sound travel, that there are very directional, they are very -- the hearing distance is very
short and I'm not sure what type those are, I know we have had a lot of testimony that
that's an available type of speaker system that --
Newton-Huckabay: Actually, Mr. --
Borup: Somebody.
Newton-Huckabay: Borup.
Borup: Oh.
Newton-Huckabay: That does happen to be a history that -- a technology that the
industry I work in is that we deal in and it's very true, technology is evolving now that's
direction related. So, there is a lot of new technology out there relating to sound
directional speakers.
Robnett: It doesn't sound like the sign is going to go through with this condition --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 79 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: I know it isn't, anyway.
Robnett: That's going to be a different plan and conditional use. If and when the tenant
decides he wants a speaker.
Borup: Okay. There should be some area out there -- maybe all the neighbors could
go out and discuss --
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Do we need a motion to table it to the end of the meeting?
Rohm: Let's do.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second. Third.
Rohm: It's been seconded and third to -- to table this Item CUP 06-010 to a later point
in time. All those in favor say aye. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.65
acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Williams Pipeline by Northwest
Pipeline Corporation - 1301 Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-020, related to
Williams Pipeline and begin with the staff report.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an
annexation request from RUT to C-G. It's 4.65 acres located where the new Locust
Grove overpass will be placed. The road has been approved to approximately this
location and it does provide access to the existing Williams site. The overpass, as the
applicant has shown on their site plan, does taper down and it comes right about three
or four feet from their existing buildings. So, the site plan that they are showing here is
just a conceptual site plan. This will need to be approved and submitted for a certificate
of zoning compliance for their new office complex that will be taking access at a more
southernly location on the site to Locust Grove. The applicant is proposing to work with
ACHD to keep this existing building and just return it to some sort of storage
maintenance type of a use and it would be, essentially, where their offices would be
located. With that, staffs recommending approval to forward to the City Council. Stand
for questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 80 of 88
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just an observation. Generally, when we are discussing a
property that has frontage along 1-84, ITD sends the applicant a letter that says it's their
responsibility to do any noise attenuation or vibration attenuation and I don't see such a
letter. Should we add something like that?
Guenther: It doesn't actually front on 1-84.
Zaremba: Uh?
Guenther: As you can see there is the C-G parcel that fronts on 1-84 and this fronts out
on Locust Grove.
Zaremba: I didn't realize that. I thought they were connecting to both of them. Then, I
didn't ask that question.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Steele: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Wes Steele, Habitate
Architects, 1250 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle, Idaho. And the applicant concurs with
staff comments and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: We are good to go.
Newton-Huckabay: I bet you wish you were up earlier this evening, don't you?
Steele: Yes, I did. But that's okay. At least we made the cut. Okay. My only comment
would be that on behalf of the city I think we welcome you wanting to join the city and be
annexed.
Steele: They have and -- Williams has had no problems with that. They have been in
that location since about 56 and they didn't realize they weren't a part of the city.
Moe: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you very much.
Borup: So, do we -- is that overpass going to get -- I mean it's scheduled for this year,
is it not? And it's really happening? Yeah. From what Mr. Siddoway has told me, they
are pouring the forms somewhere down in Garden City right now.
Rohm: Good. Good. Seeing nobody else in the audience, I guess we --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 81 of 88
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-020.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-020. All in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of File No. 06-020 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, with no modifications.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-020 and to include all staff comments with no modifications. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried. Thank you. Thanks for being
so patient.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.79
acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B
Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street:
Item 17:
Public Hearing: PP 06-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 84
building lots and 14 common lots on 11.79 acres in a proposed R-15 zone
for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715
Wells Street:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
18 multifamily dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street
Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public hearings 06-017, PP 06-017, CUP 06-012
for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled of April 4, 2006. All
this in --
Moe: So moved.
Rohm: May 4th, 2006.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 82 of 88
Zaremba: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: And seconded. All those in favor.
Newton-Huckabay: Second
Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 06-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
drive through within 300 feet of a residence for Cherry Crossing Drive Thru by Mike
Robnett - 1760 West Cherry Lane:
Rohm: You're on.
Robnett: Thank you for that opportunity, by the way. I think we have come to some
agreement. Can you show the plan or the slide with -- that shows the facility with the
lots behind it? Okay. There is basically three lots in question. The one on the south
corner and the two directly north of that. In talking with the neighbors, I don't have a
problem lining the complete rear property line of the Bowerman residence with six to
seven foot arborvitaes on our property side against the block wall. In talking with Mr.
Egge, we will continue those arborvitaes roughly 20 to 30 feet into his property. And in
addition to that, we will put a couple of pine trees and a deciduous tree in his backyard.
Newton-Huckabay: Does that take care of it? Isn't there three?
Walling: So, there is a question of the area of impact --
Newton-Huckabay: Use the microphone and your name.
Borup: Right there.
Walling: So, there is a question of the area of impact --
Newton-Huckabay: You need to say your name.
Walling: Mike Walling. 1632 North Gold Falls. Right here. But it shows the area of
impact down here, at least on the sheet that they sent me, and so that's why I'm here.
He's saying that it will never stack back to here and if that's the case I'm fine with that,
but first I heard it was a Moxie Java and, then, if that was the case I know it would be
stacked back there, so -- I mean I'm happy staying the way I am, but there has got to be
some understanding that if there is stacking back, you know, into this area where it
comes passed my property line, that I get taken care of and that would make me happy.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 83 of 88
Borup: Mr. Robnett, didn't you say you're willing to put those in right now, though?
Robnett: Yeah. We will put them in now.
Borup: That would be easier, just to take care of it now, wouldn't it?
Robnett: The property line in question is almost 200 feet from the window as far as
down the drive aisle. It would take quite a bit of stacking, but I don't have a problem
running the arborvitaes down his property line a little bit as well. Twenty feet. Twenty
feet.
Zaremba: Sounds like a good solution to me.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Thank all of you.
Rohm: Okay. Good. I think we are done. Thank you. Any discussion before we
entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: Don't we just incorporate Mr. Robnett's comments?
Zaremba: Suggestions. And I think at this point we want to point out that the speaker
system is not approved with this CUP.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Is that where we are going?
Rohm: I believe it is.
Newton-Huckabay: I think we are there.
Zaremba: If they want a speaker system, they need to come back with another CUP
and notify the neighbors. Right?
Rohm: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Moe: There is a question.
Zaremba: It's up to the chairman.
Rohm: Very very quick.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 84 of 88
Bowerman: Zane Bowerman. 1650 North Gold Falls. If the -- if the client changes -- if
they change their mind and want a sign put on the southwest facing --
Rohm: We are not doing signs.
Bowerman: Okay.
Rohm: We are not doing signs tonight.
Zaremba: Well -- but to answer the question that's probably coming, no sign facing a
residence can be an internally lit sign. Pizza Hut put up a big sign and had it internally
lit and they had to -- the sign is still there, but it can't be internally lit and I think the
neighboring properties probably understand there is no pOint in putting a sign on your
side, because it can't be lit. That's one of the new rules. Actually, it was an old rule,
too.
Rohm: I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-010.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-010. All
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: We close this regularly scheduled meeting --
Rohm: First of all we have to --
Zaremba: I'm searching for the details. Hang on just a minute.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, gosh, the CUP. I can't get used to that.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file No. CUP 06-010 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6,
2006, and the site plan labeled SD-1, dated February 15, 2006, with the following
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 85 of 88
modifications to conditions of approval: On Exhibit B, under the planning department,
we will add paragraph 1.9 that specifies that a speaker system is not approved with this
application, although a new CUP may make that request. I would add a paragraph 1.10
that says the applicant has offered to provide additional landscaping on both sides of
the fence relating to the three southern most properties adjoining this property. Is that
the way everybody understood it?
Rohm: End of motion?
Zaremba: End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-010, to include all staff
comments with the modifications as presented. All those in favor say aye. All opposed
same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 19:
Item 20:
Item 21:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-001 Request for a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8
to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans
Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
Public Hearing: PP 06-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12
commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Sundance
Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction ~ northeast corner of
Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-011 Request to modify the previous
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 01-026) by
adding additional office lots, changing building and parking layout and
allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance Subdivision No.5 by
Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian
Road:
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you're on.
Baird: Item 19 and --
Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to do it? Okay.
Rohm: She's going to do them.
Baird: Good.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, 1--
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20. 2006
Page 86 of 88
Zaremba: You have to open them first.
Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. I will open and, then, you can move to -- at this time I'd like to
open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-001, PP 06-014 and CUP 06-011, for the sole
purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 4th, 2006.
Moe: So moved.
Rohm: It's been moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: And seconded to continue Items 19, 20 and 21 to the regularly scheduled
meeting of May 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 22:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-019 Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from
RUT to an R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC -1255 West Ustick Road:
Item 23:
Public Hearing: PP 06-018 Preliminary Plat approval of 42 building lots
and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Southwick
Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018 for
the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 4th,
2006.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of May 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 24:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01
acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) for Incline
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 87 of 88
Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane
west of Black Cat Road:
Item 25:
Public Hearing: PP 06-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 64
single-family residential lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village,
LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-018 and PP 06-16 for
the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 4th,
2006.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, discussion.
Rohm: Discussion.
Zaremba: Again, I live out that direction and I drove by this property on my way to the
meeting tonight. I could find no evidence that it is or has been posted. The applicant
needs to be notified that that condition needs to be met.
Newton-Huckabay: Incline.
Zaremba: Incline on Cherry Lane.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: I also don't find any affidavit of posting, so apparently --
Baird: Can they do it in time?
Rohm: Okay. Will that preclude them from meeting the provisions of the May 4th
hearing?
Zaremba: I'm looking at staff.
Rohm: That being said, I opened it for the sole purpose of continuing it to the May 4th,
2006, regularly scheduled meeting.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items AZ 06-018 and PP 06-
016 to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
April 20, 2006
Page 88 of 88
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: We beat it by two minutes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :58 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)