2007 01-18
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina
January 18. 2007
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 18, 2007, was
called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. ~ r
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Steve
Siddoway, and David Mae
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Watters,
Amanda Hess, Justin Lucas, and Dean Willis
Item 1:
Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Mae - Vice Chairman X Steve Siddaway
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I think we are now ready to go here and
we will begin this Planning and Zoning meeting with roll call.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there are
a couple of changes to this agenda and before we adopt it I would like to just announce
what those changes will be and the first change is the Kilgore Heights Subdivision
application has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be hearing that at all
and it won't be continued, it will just be withdrawn. Items 6 and 7 on the agenda -- no,
just six. Excuse me. For Waltman property. That item will be continued to the
February 1 st regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning due to improper
posting. So, if there is anybody here for that item, it will not be heard tonight, but it will
be continued to the February 1 st agenda. And those are the two changes and I
apologize for those that, obviously, came to see those items. So, with that being said,
could we get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Mae: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 2 of 40
A. Approve Minutes of December 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru
window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for
Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E.
Overland Road:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for a drive-thru
establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a
residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS
Architects - 1760 S. Meridian Road:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru
establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a
residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS
Architects - 1800 S. Meridian Road:
Rohm: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there are four items
on this segment and the first is the approval of the December 7th Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Item B is Findings of Facts and Conclusions for approval of CUP
06-039, Dickey's BSQ Drive-thru. Item C is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
for approval of CUP 06-035 concerning Southern Springs Building A. And the fourth
item on the Consent Agenda is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
approval of CUP 06-036 for Southern Springs Building B. Could I get a motion to
accept the Consent Agenda or are there any changes or modifications to the minutes?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the Consent Agenda as outlined.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: AZ 06-051
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an
R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point
Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road:
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: PP 06-052
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 3 of 40
common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights
Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644
W. Victory Road:
Rohm: Mr. Nary, do we need to even announce the withdrawal of Items 4 and 5 or with
them being withdrawn it's -- there is no real purpose to open them I don't think.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you don't need to open them, you
can simply by voice vote move to accept their request to withdraw that and, then, move
on. It was only announced you were going to do it. That would be the formal action of
the Commission.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept the withdrawal of AZ 06-051 and PP 06-
052.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the withdrawal of AZ 06-051 and PP
06-052. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68
acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by
Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane:
Rohm: Next item on the agenda is to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-063 for the
sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the
1 st. Could I get a motion to that effect?
Moe: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item AZ 06-063 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of February 1 st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Now, before we open the next item on the agenda I would like to just
speak to you for a moment about the procedures that we go through here and, then, we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 4 of 40
will open the next item. Basically, the first thing we do is we ask the staff to make their
presentation of each project from their perspective and what they will do is they will take
a look at the project as it applies to the UDC and to the Comprehensive Plan. They will
make a recommendation to the Commission based upon their findings. Once the staff
has given their presentation, then, the applicant, then, has an opportunity to make their
presentation. Basically, that's their sales pitch. And once those two presentations have
been concluded, then, we will open it up to the public. The public will each have three
minutes to speak and if, in fact, there is an individual that's speaking for a larger group,
we will give some leeway there, but once that portion of the presentation is completed,
then, the applicant will, then, have an opportunity to come back up and speak to those
items that have been brought up by the concerned public. Once that process is done,
we will close the Public Hearing and, hopefully, be able to render a decision or if not
enough information, then, we will have to continue to a later date. But that's the
procedure and when each of you come up and speak, if -- you need to state your name
and address for the record before testimony begins.
Item 7:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-013 Request for a Rezone of .43 acres from an
R-8 to an Q-T zone for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene
Property by Paradigm Real Estate Holding - 39 W. Pine Avenue:
Rohm: So, with that being said, we will start with the next item on the agenda and that's
at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-013 for Shepherd -- Valley
Shepherd Church of the Nazarene property and begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. I'd like to just begin -- the title of this
hearing is a little bit confusing. It is called the Valley Shepherd Church, but as you can
see on the presentation I put 39 West Pine, because this isn't referencing -- this isn't
referencing the actual Valley Shepherd Church, it's a piece of property that the church
owns or is in the process of selling and that's why it's going through this process to be
rezoned. There is a -- it's changing hands and so it doesn't really involve the church at
all, it's just a matter of the name of the project happens to be that. It's actually an
existing home that the church owned and used for their purposes and no longer will do
so. With that said, the subject property is located at 39 West Pine here in -- and it's
approximately .43 acres in size. Very close to Meridian Road. Just to give you a little
bit of the surrounding area, to the north is the -- is, obviously, Pine Avenue and this area
right here is the Meridian Elementary School and all of that area is zoned R-4. To the
east this parcel right here is -- is an approved office use. It was approved through a
Conditional Use Permit. It, actually, hasn't been developed as that yet, but it has OT
zoning and has a Conditional Use Permit approval for an office use on that ,site. To the
south are single family -- single family homes, along with to the west you have West 1 st
Street and also more single family homes. As stated earlier, this application is for a
request to rezone this property, the subject, from R-8 to OT to allow for an office use on
this site. We can move onto the aerial photograph, which gives us a different view of it.
The applicant is proposing through this application -- let me go to the concept plan,
which will help us. Basically, to redevelop this site using the existing structure, so there
will be no modification to the existing building footprint, but there will be some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18f 2007
Page 5 of 40
modification to the site as you can see. One of the main modifications is an addition of
the driveway, which is located here, is proposed to be relocated through the concept
plan provided by the applicant to the eastern corner of the site and the applicant is also
proposing to locate some diagonal parking to be used by this -- by this proposed office
building. And the diagonal parking, the interesting thing about that is it's located
partially within the right of way. At first staff was a little bit concerned about that, but
after it was reviewed by ACHD, they gave their approval and staff is also supportive of
this parking layout with a small parking lot here and some parking located within the
right of way. Staff views it as kind of a unique solution to the parking problem that we
really have downtown and it's a unique solution, because it -- it really -- the flexibility of
ACHD to allow some parking within their right of way. The proposal is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, because currently this parcel is designated -- or this lot is
designated as Old Town on the Comprehensive Plan and so the applicant is simply
requesting that designation, which is consistent, and the concept plan appears to be
consistent with the Unified Development Code also. There is a development agreement
proposed to be associated with this project and some of the special considerations that
are called out in the development agreement are, first, that in the future any exterior
modifications or enlargement of this structure need to be consistent with the downtown
Meridian design guidelines, which kind of govern development in the Old Town district.
Second, the applicant really should only -- should be restricted to that -- only that one
access off of Pine Street. Third, we are requesting that the applicant provide a 20 foot
landscape buffer along Pine Street, which is classified as a minor arterial street. That's
not really usual in the Old Town district, but because they are using the existing
building, staff thought it was appropriate to try to remain consistent with other
development along Pine and include that buffer. If, in deed, this were to redevelop in
the future and they wanted to place a building within that area, which would be allowed
in the Old Town District that would be allowed also through the development
agreement. And, lastly, the applicant is going to be required to submit a certificate of
zoning compliance to make sure that the occupancy changes is done correctly. Other
than that, staff is supportive of this project and recommends approval of by the
Commission. And I'll stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: One question, Justin. The existing driveway on the approved office lot to
the -- just to the east of it, is it just on the other side of that property line?
Lucas: I believe so. It is just on the other side. There was some issues -- I did a little
research on that and there turned out to be some issues with a utility pole that's kind of
existing right here and there is some guy wires that make kind of doing a shared access
or a cross-access just not very feasible on this site. The applicant also looked at it and I
did a site check and did verify that with the way it's currently situated it makes it very
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 6 of 40
difficult to link those two access points and that's why we went ahead and said it would
be okay to allow that driveway there and ACHD I think did the same research and found
the same thing. Really, in the future to redevelop that whole area you would have to
have multiple parcels come together and take care of that utility issue.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
McCallister: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Gary McCallister, 702 West Idaho Street,
Boise, Idaho. We are in concurrence with the staff report and in agreement with the
development agreement. Don't have any issues.
Rohm: Wow. Thank you. There is nobody that has signed up to testify to this
application, but the floor is still open. If someone would like to testify now is that time.
Seeing none --
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-013. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-013, as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of January 18th. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Ifs been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of RZ 06-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8:
Public Hearing: RZ 06-014 Request for a Rezone of 15.58 acres from an
R-4 zone to an O-T zone for Joint School District No.2 by Joint School
District No.2 - 911 N. Meridian Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-014 related to the
School District No.2 and begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 7 of 40
Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
rezone request for a property located at 911 North Meridian Road, which includes the
Joint School District's administrative offices and elementary school site. The subject
property is generally located on the northwest corner of North Meridian Road and West
Pine Street. The property is surrounded by single family residences. You can see here
on the aerial. Zoned R-4 and ~T. And a medical office directly north of the site here on
Meridian Road. The property consists of 15.58 acres and is currently zoned R-4. The
applicant is requesting a rezone to the OT zone, which complies with the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of Old Town. No new
development is proposed at this time. The school district is in the process of relocating
their administrative offices to another site and would like to sell the portion of the
property where their offices are currently. Rezoning the property to OT would allow for
commercial and office uses on the property, which are not allowed in the R-4 zone. The
elementary school would also be a permitted use in the OT district. The administrative
offices are accessed from Meridian Road and the school is accessed from West 18t
Street. Let's see here. At the north of the site. No landscaping improvements are
required at this time, but will be required upon development of the property. The historic
preservation committee submitted comments on this application late that were not
included in the staff report. They would like to have an historic marker acknowledging
the education heritage of the site installed on the old Pine Street school site. The old
school is located -- I believe it's right there on Pine. They would also like the applicant
to address at the Public Hearing where the school will be relocated. Staff is
recommending approval of the requested rezone as requested by the applicant and
stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward,
please?
Stiles: Shari Stiles. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario Street in Meridian now.
The school district asked for our help in -- our help in rezoning this property, so that they
could sell off the excess property that they will no long require once they move into the
Jabil site with the administrative offices. The existing Pine school -- or Pine Street
school is there, the old historic building. That was done in cooperation with the school
district and the city and the superintendent of schools for the Joint School District No. 2
and the Mayor will be working out the details of relocating that. It may be put on the site
there. Definitely once they have a buyer for the site where that building is situated that
will be included in their agreement that they know that they have to wait until that
building is relocated. We did have one question, if staff could clarify for us. It's on
Exhibit A under the fire department comments, under 3.3, it says the applicant shall
work with the planning department staff to provide an address identification plan and a
sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required
intersections. I'm not quite sure what that means. The school district will not be
developing the site that they sell off. Each -- you know, it could be somebody buys
each lot or it could be one entity buying all three lots. But they certainly want to work
with the Planning and Zoning staff and want to meet all the safety requirements, but
they just -- we had a little question about that particular item and how we would go
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 8 of 40
about that. Basically, the school district is doing this at the request of the City of
Meridian and to make sure that they have buyable pieces of property left when -- when
they adjust those boundaries. Right now, being zoned R-4, I don't think very many
people want to live in a single family home on that corner, so -- do you have any
questions?
Rohm: I don't believe so, but let's see if we can get a clarification from staff.
Watters: Commissioners, from what I understand, the elementary school itself is
addressed off State Street. The administrative offices are addressed off of North
Meridian Road. State Street does not go to this property. State Street goes to the
center line of North Meridian Road on the east side. So, the fire department was
concerned about emergency access, you know, finding the site should they need to,
you know, in case of emergency. The applicant was asked to contact Tricia Bieren in
the Public Works Department to coordinate a new address for the school site.
Stiles: And we have no problem with that. It was just about -- talking about addressed
identification plan and a sign which meets the requirement at the required intersections.
I'm not sure what --
Watters: I'm not absolutely positive what the fire department would like on that. I'm
assuming maybe that they meant if the address wasn't changed, that they would like a
sign, you know, directing people to the site, but I'm not positive. The fire department
could clarify that for you.
Stiles: Well, Commissioners, the school district would certainly work with both
departments, Planning and Zoning Department and the fire department to make sure
that there are no safety concerns with the addressing.
Rohm: That seems reasonable. Thank you.
Stiles: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Shari, for the existing old school, right now there is not a specific site that is
to be moved to. It may -- it may actually stay on site or it may be moved; is that correct?
Stiles: It will be moved from where it presently is.
Siddoway: Okay.
Stiles: Wendell Bigham is here and he could answer more specifically, probably, they
do own a single family home that is on their property and they have been discussing the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 9 of 40
option of tearing down that home and moving the structure to where that home was. I
understand that they have got an agreement with a home mover that has volunteered to
do that at no charge for the city.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
Stiles: Thank you.
Siddoway: Could we hear from -- Mr. Chairman, could we hear from Mr. Bigham?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Bigham: Thank you. Wendell Bigham. Address 911 Meridian Road here representing
Joint School District No.2. Briefly expand on where the house -- the old school house -
- I think that sitting right here is the existing Pine Street schoolhouse. We own a house
right here. We cleverly call it the west wing. It currently houses our substitute
placement office. Our plan for our house of cards kind sounds like this. We hope to
vacate all of these facilities over March spring break of this year, last week of March, at
which point here in the immediate future we would like to offer up these three parcels for
sale, with the condition that we move out of here, we move out of this house. This
house is, then, razed, the site is back filled, and a new foundation is placed and the
Pine Street school moves from here to here and any of the agreements that exist
between the City of Meridian and the school district for care, custody, control of it,
continues the way it is. We own the land, the city owns the building, and we are just
simply moving it over here, at which point it will be contiguous -- I think the Y now has
the building here, but it will be contiguous with the Meridian elementary campus and
probably will reside there for perpetuity.
Siddoway: Okay. One follow up. I think the best way to me to insure that that takes
place is probably -- since this is a rezone, with a development agreement that would just
say something to the effect that that historic structure needs to be moved or maintained
on the elementary school site. Would something like that be acceptable? Is that too
specific at all for you or --
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, I don't believe I have a problem with
that. That is truly our intent. That is the discussions we have been having. It ironically
took quite a period of time to dig through actually who might own what when it came to
that old school house in terms of the agreement, but I don't think that's problematic.
That is our intent. It's the most cost effective way to do it and it preserves it in the
neighborhood where it has existed.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Wendell.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 1 0 of 40
Bigham: May I ask one further clarification? Shari was bringing up the addressing
concerns. As a point of clarification, I'd like to know if we -- and maybe this is a staff
level discussion -- whether or not we have the option to maintain the State Street
addressing for the school, which for way finding works only because the school has
been there for 40 years and everyone knows the address and where the school is. Or,
more importantly, this is now the main entry of the school. There is a circular driveway
in here. I don't know that this photograph shows it all that well. But a change in
addressing we would probably be in support of the West 1 st change or the ability to
somehow get a sign out on State Street if that is, in fact, State Street, to identify the
school. So, am I interpreting it correctly that we have kind of two options available to us
to talk to Planning and Zoning about? Because, as Shari said, I don't understand that --
that sign comment. Probably the best solution is the change in the addressing to that
West 1 st.
Watters: Commissioner Rohm -- excuse me. If I could answer that. The city staff
would like the address to be addressed off of West 1 st Street.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, then, our -- our plan would probably be to have that addressing
changed the summer of '07 when school is out, so that the school opens in September
of '07 with a new address. Just in terms of time.
Watters: Staff has no problem with that.
Rohm: Again, I think that's going to be worked through staff and -- as opposed to this
body.
Bigham: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. We do not have any others signed up to speak to this
application, but now is the time to come forward if you have additional comments or
concerns. Seeing none --
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-014.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-014. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Siddoway, you had a couple of good ideas and, possibly, if you wanted to
make the motion.
Moe: Before that I just have a question if I might.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 11 of 40
Siddoway: Yes.
Moe: I'm just kind of curious. Would the fact that the city owns the building already -- I
mean I'm not opposed to adding something to the -- you know, the agreement, but at
the same time the city owning the building already, that prior to it being moved and
whatnot, the district is going to have to work with the city on that anyway, so I'm not
sure --
Rohm: It might be a bit redundant?
Mae: That's what I was --
Borup: Well, the concern is a place to put it.
Siddoway: Yeah. I'd like to see it kept on the Meridian elementary school site if at all
possible.
Moe: Okay. No problem there.
Siddoway: The other thing that I'm wondering about, Mr. Chairman and Sonya, may be
the -- that condition of approval regarding the addressing. I'm just trying to determine if
there is any additional wording needed to clarify, because I do think what was discussed
is reasonable. What was that condition number?
Borup: 3.3. I think it says needs to be worked out with staff. So, that leaves a lot of
flexi bi I ity.
Watters: Commissioner Siddoway, you could make that a requirement of the
development agreement if you wished to do so, if you are requiring a development
agreement.
Siddoway: To work out the addressing situation with staff and the fire department, with
the understanding that it would not have to be changed prior to the school opening in
fall of '07.
Watters: Correct.
Siddoway: All right.
Borup: It wouldn't have to be changed prior to the school letting out in the spring.
Siddoway: Letting out in the spring.
Borup: Yeah. It wouldn't have to be changed prior to that.
Siddoway: Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 12 of 40
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I'd like to make a motion. I move to recommend approval to the City Council
of file number RZ 06-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing of January
18th, 2007, with the following addition: I would like to add the requirement to enter into
a development agreement, which would state that the existing historic school that is on
the property shall be moved and maintained on the existing Meridian elementary school
lot prior to development of the parcel that's in question on the corner of Pine and
Meridian Road. Second of all, in that development agreement I would add some
clarifying language that the addressing for the school be worked out with the emergency
services and planning staff with the address change needing to have happen after
school lets out this summer and prior to school resuming in the fall of 2007.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council
recommending approval of RZ 06-014 to include all staff comments with the
aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit
approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS
by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-040 and begin with
the staff report.
Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Ada County Emergency Medical Service
facility in an I-L zone. The vicinity map's overhead here. The subject property. The
property is generally located a quarter mile west of Locust Grove on the south side of
East Pine Street at 963 East Pine. Directly north of the site is vacant property owned by
Ada County for future development, zoned I-L. To the east is industrial property zoned
I-L. To the south is Ada County Weed and Pest Control building, zoned I-L. And to the
west is rural residential property in Ada County, zoned R-1. The Unified Development
Code requires Conditional Use Permit approval for all public uses. Also, a condition of
the plat for Weed and Pest Control campus subdivision was that all future uses obtain
Conditional Use permit approval. One 4,100 square foot building is proposed to be
constructed on the site and will include an enclosed vehicle bay for the parking of two
EMS ambulances. The interior spaces of the building will include a visitor's lobby,
kitchen, day room, and sleeping rooms for the employees. The facility will operate and
be manned 24 hours a day. Here is a close-up view of the site plan. This portion of the
property is -- of the application is only for the southern portion of the lot. This site plan
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 13 of 40
shows the entire site, but the applicant has shown future buildings here north of the site.
Additional parking spaces were required by staff above the amount normally required in
I-L zones as shown on the site plan, as the proposed use is more commercial than
industrial in nature and requires additional parking. Access to this site will be provided
from East Pine Street via a northbound private drive constructed along the west
boundary of the subdivision that serves as a primary access for all the lots in the
subdivision. It runs right -- you can see it right here on the west boundary. A cross-
access easement was provided via the plat for all lots in the subdivision. The applicant
is only -- excuse me. The required landscape buffers along Pine and adjacent to the
residential land use to the west were constructed with the subdivision. Internal
landscaping will be provided on the site plan for the landscape plan. Building elevations
were submitted that show a pre-finished metal parapet roof, stucco, and concrete block
walls and metal down spouts, as you see here on the overhead. Staff is recommending
approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to
the conditions listed in Exhibit B. Thafs all staff has, unless the Commission has
questions?
Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
Wendell: Yes. I'm the applicant's representative. My name is Scott Wendell, I'm with
Lombard Conrad Architects,1221 Shoreline Drive in Boise. And we have reviewed the
staff report as the staff has presented it and we find no objection to that. We are totally
in agreement with it and ready to proceed ahead. With that I'd stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Thanks very much.
Wendell: Thank you.
Rohm: Boy, things are going way too smoothly tonight. Okay. Again, there is nobody
signed up to speak to this application, but if someone would like to, now is that time.
And seeing none, once again --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-040.
Siddoway: Second.
Rahm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-040. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Mae: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mos.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 14 of 40
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number CUP 06-040, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18,
2007. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Finding document to be
considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on February 1 st,
2007.
Siddoway: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Okay. We have three seconds. That ought to be sufficient. All right. It's been
moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-040 for the Ada County EMS, to include
all staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: AZ 06-046
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4
zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E.
Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-048
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots
and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt
Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432
& 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Rohm: At this time lid like to open the continued Public Hearing from December 21 st,
2006, of AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048. Both of these items are related to the Harcourt
Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is the Harcourt Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and
preliminary plat approval for 60 single family residential lots and five common lots on
23.05 acres within the R-4 zoning designation. The subject applications were
scheduled to be heard before Planning and Zoning on November 2nd, 2006. Prior to
that meeting the applicant and the planning staff were notified that ACHD requested
relocation of South Zepher Avenue -- punch forward to the site here to show you. South
Zepher Avenue is right here. Harcourt's access to Victory Road to align with South Bay
Star Drive, Sutherland Farms' access to Victory Road just to the north. And this
ultimately prompted a substantial redesign of the preliminary plat. Harcourt is generally
located on the south side of Victory Road approximately a sixth of a mile east of Eagle
Road. The primary access to the development will be from Victory Road as stated
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18t 2007
Page 15 of 40
before. Right here. The second access to the development will be via Falcon Drive and
that is a public street constructed within the Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision, an Ada
County subdivision. And that is along here. Three stub connections to the east will be
constructed to provide connectivity to the county parcels upon their redevelopment.
There is the first one, the second, and this can potentially be a stub in the future as well.
City staff is supportive of the proposed street layout. To the north, as stated before,
there is a proposed Sutherland Farms Subdivision No.1, also zoned R-4. Also to the
north in addition, to the south, east, and west, are residential properties within Ada
County. All of this is Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed
preliminary plat approval of 60 residential lots between 9,000 and 22,250 square feet.
The average lot size is approximately 12,000 square feet. The two existing homes on
the property are proposed to remain. The applicant has provided 1.42 acres, which is
6.4 percent of landscaped opened space, meeting the five percent minimum required by
the UDC. The majority of open space, as you can see, is provided in the form of
parkways throughout the entire development along all the streets. The only issue to
mention here is that perimeter fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or
the preliminary plat. The applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be
installed around the remaining perimeter boundary or the type of fencing to be installed
along the micro pathways and adjacent to the common lots and the applicant will need
to state this tonight. And that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission as
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward?
Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Amanda, you mentioned the road down here as a possibly -- that it could
possibly be a stub, but I want to make sure it is proposed to be designed as a stub with
the -- to be extended in the future.
Hess: I would imagine that would be more of a question for the applicant.
Siddoway: Okay. Didn't know if the ACHD report addressed that, that it had to be
signed, but I'll wait until the applicant's testimony. Okay. Thank you.
Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren
Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. Staff
did such a bang up job describing the application I'm not going to go back through it for
you. I would simply point out for you that your Comprehensive Plan does designate this
area for low density residential. That allows up to three dwelling units to the acre. We
have designed a subdivision with lots that average about 12,000 square feet and I don't
think I have anything in here less than 10,000 square feet. We achieve an overall gross
density of 2.68 dwelling units per acre, so well below the three that's allowed under the
Comp Plan. I would note all the public services have been extended in this area and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18t 2007
Page 16 of 40
are available to serve the site. This is a prime candidate for an in-fill development, as
your code recognizes. With regard to the question of stub streets, this is not a stub, this
is existing Falcon Drive here right now and it does provide access to a single family
dwelling on this five acre lot, which is not a portion of the project. So, this is not a stub,
it's an existing cul-de-sac. We have the two stubs along this property line here. With
regard to surrounding land uses, this area has been transitioning, as you can see from
the aerial. My client did develop this project to the north. We are endeavoring to extend
the irrigation -- pressurized irrigation from this project to the north and piggy back off of
it with some additional pumps and we are trying to workout those details with the
irrigation districts right now. Currently there is gravity irrigation that serves the property.
That ditch that runs through here, as you can kind of see. And it serves not only my
client's four parcels -- one, two, three, four -- but also Mr. Aldrich's property right here.
We have been working closely with Mr. Aldrich to accommodate his needs with regard
to irrigation and, of course, we will do whatever we have to do to maintain, since
irrigation is required by state code. This property right here was approved for an
assisted living facility by the City of Meridian. That has not been built to date, but I
understand that is still their intent to build that facility there. There is an existing single
family dwelling right here on approximately an acre and that will remain. This property
here was re-designated by the city or your Comp Plan was amended to designate that
for commercial land uses. We are in general agreement with the staff report. I don't
have any serious issues. I would just point out that condition 1.2.8 should be modified
to match page two of the staff report, which accurately states 1.42 acres of open space
or 6.4 percent of the total. Condition 1.2.8 has some other numbers in there and those
should be corrected. I think that's everything. If the Commission has questions I'd take
those now.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Mae.
Moe: Can you address the fencing?
Fluke: With regard to fencing, my client generally prefers to allow homeowners to
choose their own fencing and put in perimeter fencing and so we would be doing the
construction fencing on the perimeter, temporary construction fencing until the land
owners were to build fences. The CC&Rs do require fencing, but it allows for a range of
options within that. With regard to the required fencing along the micro-path, we will
certainly amend the landscape plan to include that.
Moe: Okay. That's -- you just brought up my next question. Basically in the report here
on a question of staff it says that the January 4th landscape plan was not approved and
so has there been another one since then?
Hess: That is correct, Commissioner Moe. And, no, we have not received an updated
plan to date.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 17 of 40
Mae: Okay. So, that will be taken care of prior to Council?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I viewed that as a housekeeping item that the
plan is in substantial conformance. There is a few little details that need to be changed
and certainly we will do that prior to final plat or whenever you guys want us to do it.
Rohm: The fencing being left to each of the individual lot owners, have you done that
before in other developments? I guess where I'm going with this is the consistency of
fencing has been something that we have tried to promote in all developments and have
requested that they have a continuous fence all the way around the developed property
and I'm not sure that I see any reason not to do that with this development.
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have a problem with that and if that's something
the city wishes to see -- and this is a high quality development with large lots in here, I
mean those are -- that's a cost that can be passed to the buyers of the lots, so if that's
something the Commission feels strongly about, we would not oppose a condition of
approval to that effect.
Rohm: Well, it's just for discussion. I don't know that I'm necessarily prepared to make
it a condition of approval without discussion amongst the balance of the Commission,
but just typically that's what we have seen as projects have come before the
Commission. Thank you.
Moe: Another question in regard to that, I guess. I would say -- you said you guys have
a multitude of types of fencing. What would you anticipate in that subdivision?
Fluke: Well, I would anticipate that either vinyl, cedar, or wrought iron fencing will be
allowed.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Daren, back to my question of the stub street. This existing cul-de-sac --
you mentioned that you're not -- it's not considered a stub street per se. You also said
that it does provide access to this lot east of it; is that correct?
Fluke: That's correct.
Siddoway: Because it would be my desire to see in that this -- if this lot were to ever
redevelop that it would be able to have access to that and that would be the case, would
it not?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in our plat that would prevent that from
happening. In fact, the owners of this parcel are here tonight and I'm sure they may
have some feelings on that, but if somebody wants to do that in the future that owns that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18t 2007
Page 18 of 40
lot, you know, that would be their prerogative upon redeveloping. The photo doesn't
show it very well, but that is an existing dwelling right there at the end of the street. So,
there is nothing to preclude it, other than the house being there, and the desires of the
landowners.
Siddoway: There is no land on the plat between the edge of the cul-de-sac and that --
the property line?
Fluke: That's correct. That cul-de-sac is existing right of way. This is a public street.
Siddoway: Okay.
Cole: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Mr. Cole.
Cole: Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: Yes.
Cole: A quick glance at the plat shows that there is 92 feet of frontage along that cul-
de-sac, which is plenty of footage to get a 50 foot. right of way through there if the next
property so desires.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Any additional questions of this applicant?
Borup: Just one clarification. Mr. Fluke, I -- you mentioned you're in agreement with all
the staff comments, the one on adjusting the lot line on 13 and 14, so it did have the
double frontage, that's already something you have looked at?
Fluke: Actually, that has been corrected, I think. If it hasn't, we don't have a problem
with --
Borup: Yeah. That's pretty minor --
Fluke: Yeah. In fact, we found a couple of those things after we submitted --
resubmitted the plat to the staff. I should have mentioned that we were ready to go long
ago with this project, but ACHD, after giving us an initial go ahead the way we had it laid
out, wanted us to change the street design -- or the street location onto Victory Road,
which completely messed up the layout that we had done and necessitated all sorts of
redesign. And just to prove that no good deed goes unpunished, we did lose a lot by
doing that. So, we are trying to keep everybody happy.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18t 2007
Page 19 of 40
Rohm: Thank you. At this time would Margaret Stern like to come forward, please?
Did you want to speak? Oh. From the audience she said that she didn't want to speak,
she just is neutral on the development. The next name on the list is Michael Reedy.
Reedy: I'm not much of a speaker, but, anyway, I currently live in the Dartmoor
Subdivision.
Rohm: Would you state your name and address for the --
Reedy: Oh. Michael Reedy at 3702 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I live in the
Dartmoor Subdivision on the -- butting up to the Kingsbridge Subdivision that was just
gone through your -- the hassle of the experience of the comprehensive deal of Victory,
to Eagle Road, to Cloverdale, to Amity, the majority of those lots are five acres, 20
acres, I'm currently a 1.3 acre lot. Kingsbridge is an R-2 approved, which has so far
been a really nice deal. They put a solid vinyl fencing along us that's four foot with a
lattice on top of there around their outside -- the rest of their perimeter. I feel that this R-
4 is a little condensed than based on the rest of the subdivision -- the square mile. It
has been -- you know, most of it is less than R-1, although a lot of these lots can be
broke down, but Selatir is five acre lots. Terri's is two and a half to five acre lots. The
couple that -- 11m sure they are here that live on that lot that's isolated in that big corner
there. They were part of the big battle with Kingsbridge that we had. I'm just a little
concerned by the flow of drainage coming off the property on this lower half here as it
comes down to our neighbors and comes -- which would come into our ditches that we
have come -- these come off the farmland and comes around. Anyway, I don't know
how to explain that very well. But it comes into our settling ponds, it is our water source
for pressure irrigation and fire, because we are not part of the city limits, we are not in
the city limits, which, then, they would be, but we are concerned about that.
Rohm: So, you're concerned that you're going to lose the runoff?
Reedy: No. We don't need the runoff anymore, because we are just concerned by the
runoff coming from their streets, because it is sloped quite a bit from Falcon Crest down.
Siddoway: There is a pointer --
Reedy: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see that. Okay. This is Falcon Crest right there. Okay.
11m sorry. This is Falcon Crest right here, this is sloped quite a bit and it used to be
when it was farmed all the time -- the same way with all this back here, there is ditches
that run behind our subdivision and comes through the property line right here, that --
what used to go into our settling pond right here and the concern about that water
flowing off of their streets is contamination -- that was the biggest thing with Kingsbridge
of getting their plots changed and getting their settling ponds -- they had to build a new
settling pond back here to prevent the overflow off their streets, because that is quite a
bit of slope. I'm approximately ten, fifteen feet below.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 20 of 40
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I'm sure the applicant will respond to your questions.
Thank you. Bob Aldridge.
Aldridge: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Bob Aldridge. It seems like I have
been living here. We have had a number of projects in this area. I'm the house right
here and --
Rohm: State your address, please.
Aldridge: 3300 Falcon.
Rohm: Thank you.
Aldridge: I guess now technically East Falcon. We have been changed. The two areas
that I think are of concern to me I think will be dealt with. One is the fencing along here.
This is, essentially, my back and front yards. I would concur that a consistent fencing
would be nice, as I intend to live in that property I would hope another ten years and it
would be nice to have a single view fence along there, rather than something chopped
up. The second issue is the irrigation. Currently there is a pump house down here and
pipe that comes up and, then, there is a split here that originally served all the different
properties. Trying to integrate the pressurized irrigation in this area with flow irrigation
here and, technically, on this lot and this lot, which haven't used them for decades now,
is going to be difficult, but I'm convinced, in my discussions with Mr. Fluke, that we can
work that out. Additionally, it should be noted that there is a pipe that comes from over
in this area off the New York system, comes along Falcon Drive here to the front of the
property here, comes under the road and is serving the property across the road that's
being developed and that will have to be watched for, because there was no survey
done of where that is. I have an approximate rough idea, but it was done by a guy in a
backhoe kind of wandering about. So, that's the other concern is that there is that
irrigation that will have to be preserved. Subject to that I have no problems. I believe
it's good use of the property and I think that the type of property will augment the area
well.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual? Thank you. Harold Kruzinski.
Kruzinski: My name is Harold Kruzinski at 3475 East Falcon Drive. So, we are the
property in question here and it is correct that our house does sit right about there and
we would certainly prefer it not become a stub street, because we don't intend to
change things, and certainly one of the things we are concerned about is the change.
We, essentially, lived in a nice, you know, five acre community and all of a sudden it's a
subdivision and we want some assurances that we are not going to have encroachment
along our property line and certainly having -- if there is going to be the subdivision
there and fences, we would prefer some consistency and we had spoken earlier back in
June, there was a neighborhood meeting where they discussed the plans and we were
given some assurance that there would be fencing along there and Trevor Roberts, I
believe, was the owner of the property and he had indicated they would probably put
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 21 of 40
vinyl fencing there and we just want to make sure it's something that's attractive and
consistent with some of the other properties nearby. We were a little concerned when
Kingsbridge came in right about here, they came across our property line with the stub
street -- actually paved across the property line and put a manhole right on the property
line, so we would like some assurances that anything that happens along the borders is
-- that there should be no encroachment. I can't see anything that would cause them to
have to cross the property line with utilities or anything and we'd like some assurance
that that would -- anything happening would happen on their side of the property line.
The cul-de-sac, of course, is a county road at the moment. Our irrigation comes off the
ditch right here and floods across our property and drainage comes out here and I
believe, as was just pointed out, flows into the culvert below Dartmoor. So, we would
need some assurances that we have a way to drain our flooding there and we also have
another ditch that comes out here, currently floods into a ditch along East Falcon and
want to make sure we have some way to take care of that with piping. Of course, we
were very appreciative that the agreement with Kingsbridge turned out to be R-2. And,
obviously, the less density we can get the better, although they have a fairly decent
plan, but no huge complaints with it, but, obviously, density the lower the better to keep
consistent with everything that is currently around there and that the cul-de-sac we were
wondering if we could get the developer to work with us on some way to maintain our
front yard there. There is a lot of large trees in front, which looked to me like they are
going to all have to come down for that cul-de-sac and if there is something we can do
to work with them to find a solution to that, we would certainly appreciate it and anything
we could put down formally now that would make an agreement where we would have
the ability to negotiate with the developer for any of those kind of issues would certainly
be appreciated.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Kruzinski: I guess that's --
Rohm: Yeah. And I'm sure the applicant will address your concerns when he comes
back up. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman --
Rohm: Before you sit down I guess we have one question.
Borup: Mr. Kruzinski -- and I appreciate your comments. I still was confused on your
last comment on the cul-de-sac and the trees. Are some of your trees, then, over your
property line?
Kruzinski: Well, they are. We purchased the house from a previous owner and,
obviously, they landscaped back when it was county --
Borup: That used to happen a lot, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 22 of 40
Kruzinski: Excuse me?
Borup: Yeah, that used to happen a lot --
Kruzinski: Oh, J'm sure it did.
Borup: -- back a number of years ago.
Kruzinski: Now, we spoke with Mr. -- I believe back in June and he -- he indicated that
he didn't think they would necessarily need to finish around our side of the property, but
I'm sure that -- you know, I don't know where that would actually go when time comes.
Borup: So, they can work something out with you you think?
Kruzinski: I would hope so. And in here --
Borup: W~II, I'm sure they would just as soon not take any trees out if they didn't have
to.
Kruzinski: ACHD, essentially, said that they did not require East Falcon Drive to be
redone in its entirety, only within the boundaries of this subdivision.
Borup: Yeah.
Kruzinski: And I guess I don't know that little 90 foot frontage there if that's considered
within their boundaries or -- I don't know how that would be viewed in --
Borup: I think they are required to have the -- they are required to have the cul-de-sac,
so a vehicle could turn around, so whatever they can do to do that is probably what they
need to comply with. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. There is nobody else that has signed up, but it's still an open hearing and
I saw you folks come in, so I presume that you're going to testify.
Turner: Sorry I'm late. I wasn't anticipating being through the agenda so quickly this
evening.
Rohm: There you go.
Newton-Huckabay: Nor were we.
Rohm: Please -- yeah. Please state your name and --
Turner: Yeah. Good evening. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3678 South Caleb
Place, which is this property right here. I am the president of the Dartmoor
Homeowners Association. I'm speaking for myself on behalf of the Dartmoor
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 23 of 40
homeowners this evening. In addition to my written comments that we submitted to
P&Z, my letter dated October 24th of 2006, I would like to reiterate -- add the following
concerns with the proposed applicant's development. We have expressed concerns of
this development to the applicant in letters dated April 11 th and May 27th, 2006. To
date the applicant has been unresponsive and has not addressed our concerns.
Transitional lots. Kingsbridge Subdivision lots directly adjacent to Dartmoor range from
23,000 to almost 25,000 square feet. In contract, Harcourt lots range from 11 ,000 --
excuse me -- 10,000 to 11,400 square feet. These lots are on the smaller end of the
sizes within the Harcourt Subdivision and, therefore, cannot really be considered as
transitional lots to the acre plus parcels within Dartmoor Subdivision. When we
contacted the applicant again within the last week to inquire if they were planning on
having an informational meeting to review their revised plat, we were told they were not,
since there was no significant difference between the original plat and this current plat.
We disagreed with that statement, since the original plat is part of the applicant's
September 19th, 2006 application had lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor ranging from
12,000 to 21 ,000 square feet. This further supports our argument that the applicant has
been unresponsive to our concerns. We feel that the lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor
Subdivision need to be on the order of 20,000 square feet, consistent with Kingsbridge
to be considered transitional. The City Council has also agreed with us that this area on
the fringe of the Meridian city area of impact should remain estate style low density
housing. This is supported by the R-2 zoning of Kingsbridge. Furthermore, Napoli
Subdivision was approved with mixed zoning of R-2 and R-4 with lower density adjacent
to surrounding five acre parcels in an area where the Comp Plan called for medium
density zoning. The applicant has also not documented any landscaping transition to
mitigate the impact of their development. This would include landscaped berms and
fencing between Harcourt and Dartmoor, as well as 25 foot rear property line setbacks
on lots adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision, again, consistent with the Kingsbridge
Subdivision. Since this development is also uphill from Dartmoor and consistent with
the transition between Dartmoor and Kingsbridge, which is also uphill from Dartmoor,
we ask that Block 4, Lot 6 through 8, be deed restricted to single story homes to further
mitigate the impact of the development and avoid large two story homes staring into our
bedroom windows and help to retain our foothill views. It was discussed already
drainage from the applicant's property flows directly onto our property and into our
irrigation water supply. The applicant has not explained to us how they intend to retain
runoff within their property to prevent contamination of our irrigation water. For these
reasons we ask the Commission to deny applicant's request for annexation and zoning
and plat until our concerns our adequately addressed. Thank you for your
consideration.
Rohm: Wow. Thank you. I think we are going to let the applicant respond to your
testimony, but thank you. Again, there is nobody else signed up, but would you like to
speak as well or -- okay. Thank you. Daren, would you like to come back up, please.
Fluke: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Daren Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise.
Let's just go down through the issues. I don't think there is anything here we can't work
with. I'm going to group the issues into four categories, density, fencing, drainage, and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 24 of 40
transitional lots, and we will just deal with them in turn. With regard to density, I would
submit to you that in the 1970s when Golden Eagle Estates was platted with five acre
lots that that was a big change from what was out here. This was a very rural area with
very large parcels, ag uses, and five acre lots looked like a high density subdivision
when it went in next to what was next to it. I would submit to you further that when
Dartmoor Subdivision went in in the early '90s when I was working at Ada County, that it
was -- looked like high density development next to the five acre lots and the other large
agricultural parcels in the area. And so it makes complete sense to think that 12,000
foot lots on average look like high density next to acre lots or five acre lots. However,
when you have to build a subdivision that has to extend sewer, water, street lights, you
have to make accommodations for parks, you have streets with curb, gutter, and
sidewalk and wider street sections, we have to deal with drainage that. all has to be
piped, rather than swales next to the streets, that -- I would submit to you that that sort
of density is appropriate in this area. The City of Meridian has made a large investment
in infrastructure, including upgrades to its wastewater treatment facility to accommodate
growth in this area. My firm worked on the master plan for the City of Meridian and I
know very well what the city was planning for when they upgraded their treatment plant
and when they did their Comprehensive Plan and sewer master planning for the area.
So, this is what was planned for the area by definition, three units to the acre and less,
is low density development. With regard to fencing, as I stated previously, this is not a
deal breaker for us. If the Commission wants to see perimeter fencing and our
neighbors want perimeter fencing, I think that's something we can certainly do to be
good neighbors. I would prefer to confer with my client before I tell you what kind of
fencing that is, but I will commit to submitting a revised landscape plan before the City
Council hearing that has fencing details on it, proposing either vinyl fencing -- I assume
the two choices will be vinyl or six foot cedar fencing. So, we will certainly do that and
do it gladly. With regard to drainage, as the Commission notes, we are required to
accommodate all drainage within our project and we will do so. In certain cases you are
allowed to discharge at historical rates and that is a number that you can calculate
based on the land area and assuming some rainfall and other things and we have not
yet designed the drainage system, of course, because we don't have an approved
project, but we do have conditions of approval that we do maintain all of our storm
drainage on site and we will do so. So, I don't have the answers for you about our exact
solution to the drainage issue, but we know that we have to accommodate the drainage
coming onto the property now and we know that we have to -- just like we have to
accommodate the irrigation that comes onto the property and leaves it now, those
details are worked out at the final plat stage. But it is a condition of approval that will be
dealt with. Let me just -- I had just done a quick exhibit for you, because I anticipated
that this transitional lot issue might come up. I have seen it come up before. Quite
honestly, I disagree. These are single family dwellings against single family dwellings
and I don't see what the incompatibility is with the lots that we have proposed there. I'm
going to go ahead and pass this picture around to you. What it shows is an aerial
photograph with Mr. Turner's lot on there, in addition to our proposed lots against his
project and detail the lot sizes on there as well. Amanda, could we see the plat, please,
for the southern portion. What you will see here is that the Turner's house is
approximately 124 feet away from the rear property line. Right here. Their house sits in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 25 of 40
this area here and it's about 124 feet away. You will further see that this lot line that
they have across here, because of the cul-de-sac configuration, is 336 feet,
approximately, across. That presents a real design challenge for us. We went through
a number of iterations of trying to make this five acres work where we looped the street.
We tried not to bring a new street in here, because our neighbors here didn't appreciate
that or wouldn't appreciate the street coming in and so we did a number of things. The
first plat that we submitted, the city staff really didn't like the solution that we had for this
five acres, so when we went back to redesign because of what ACHD asked us to do
here, we went ahead and reconfigured this more in align with the city staffs wishes.
What it ended up with was one additional lot here, because of the way the streets fell in
here. These lots are about -- this is about 130 feet right here. I think the shortest line is
right here, which is about 108 feet and I think we are 111 right there, more or less. So,
what you're looking at with the setback off of the property here, which is 124 feet now,
and a -- right now there is 15 foot setback that would be required on this rear line, if the
neighbors feel more comfortable with the 25 foot setback, we are perfectly happy to do
that and we would submit to that conditions of approval. Go ahead and give you this
now and finish up my comments. If you just want to pass that down. We are further not
in favor of restricting those lots to single story units, just because of the fact that the lots
are so large. With a 10,000 square foot lot you would be expecting at least a 3,000
square foot house on there and it makes them awfully difficult to sell if you're telling
somebody buying a hundred thousand dollar lot and looking at putting a 300,000 dollar
house on there that they can't have a second story if they so choose. So, again, we feel
like the setbacks there are adequate now. The house is well off the property line. We
will submit to the larger setback and we think that we really accomplished a decent
transition there in trying to maintain the wishes of the staff and ACHD and, you know, do
what's right for everybody. So, if there is anything that I didn't hit on, I apologize, and I
would be happy to take questions or touch on those subjects now if you can remind me
what I missed.
Rohm: Thank you, Daren. Any questions of this applicant?
Siddoway: One, Mr. Chairman. Daren, I was looking at a copy of the previous plat,
which had a road that comes down to this area, and it had, I believe, four lots that
abutted Dartmoor. Now we have got four -- five and, yet, you have lost a lot in here.
Did the lot sizes elsewhere increase or -- can you go over again why you ended up
losing that lot?
Fluke: Well, when ACHD asked us to realign -- or to relocate the street here, we had
previously had the street here and had a couple of cul-de-sacs over here and a single
stub street approximately right here. When we came back in and realigned it here, just
the way the geometry worked out, in addition to the Meridian city staffs requirement to
put an additional second stub street here, we just ended up losing a lot. So, they didn't
necessarily get bigger, at least, you know, 50 feet of it went right there to do that stub
street. And if you -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if you look at -- if you're looking at
the old plat you -- I'm sure it stuck out to you right away how awkward that layout was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 26 of 40
down in that five acre piece. We spent a lot of time and effort on that five acres and this
is about the sixth iteration of something and we feel it's the best layout.
Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fluke, I -- obviously, there is a lot of concern on the
drainage and you mentioned that would be taken care of. So, again, for those here to
emphasize that. And I assume -- you said there may be -- if there did need to be any
discharge on an historical basis, I assume that, again, would not be going on to
adjoining properties, that would be going to an existing drainage area or --
Fluke: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, just as we are required to maintain drainage
that comes onto this property now, so are adjoining properties. Now, our preference
would be to design it such that we don't have any drainage leaving the site, but it's
dependent on a number of factors, including topography and ground water levels and
just what we can fit into the project. What the irrigation districts have historically
allowed, but are now moving away from, is for us to discharge our predevelopment rate
at the historical point of discharge. So, we -- we might have the option -- and I don't
know until we get into the drainage and actually do the calcs and design the system,
whether or not we are going to need to take advantage of that ability to discharge at
historical rates at historical points of discharge.
Borup: But there wouldn't be any at any new locations?
Fluke: There would not and I would further point out that everything that we do will be
new and piped and so all the storm water that we captured through drop inlets would be
run through sand and grease traps and, you know, to clean the water up somewhat
before it leaves the sight, because now it's coming off the streets, rather than coming off
of agricultural fields.
Borup: Okay. Then, the other question I had was on the fencing. Mr. Kruzinski
indicated at one of the neighborhood meetings that the property owner indicated that
they ~ere planning on vinyl fences. Do you have any reason to think that was not what
was said at that meeting?
Fluke: No, I don't. That's entirely plausible and, again, we don't have any issue with the
condition requiring fencing.
Borup: Right. And I mean if he made a statement to a certain type of fence, I think that,
in my mind, goes a long way. If he didn't want to do that he should have not said
anything at all. Thank you.
Fluke: Thank you.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 27 of 40
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to ask a question of staff. Can you remind me what
the final decision was on the Eagle Victory Property Alliance? That didn't go through
City Council -- that got denied, didn't it?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that
Eagle Road Victory Property Owners Alliance application, the Comprehensive Plan
amendment application was approved by the City Council. The annexation application
was denied. So, they approved changing the designation to mixed use community, but
their request for C-C zoning, L-O zoning, I think a strip of R-4 zoning, that application
was denied. But the Comp Plan did get changed. So, that designation on that one --
one five acre piece right on the southeast corner of Victory and Eagle has changed
designations to mixed use community now.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you. We heard about the existing trees at the end of the existing cul-
de-sac and I'm wondering if the landscape plan that was submitted shows where that
existing tree falls in relation to that cul-de-sac improvement?
Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, no, it does not. It does not show any existing
landscaping on the property or adjacent property.
Siddoway: Is that one of the changes that you required for the landscape plan to come
into compliance?
Hess: It is not. I have not added that as a requirement, no.
Siddoway: And, then, a question for Mr. Cole. We have had a couple of people bring
up issues related to drainage and maintaining an existing irrigation. Could we just get
on the record Public Works staff's perspective on how that will be handled through the
final plat process?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, as far as
the drainage there, they talked about drainage leaving the streets and entering their
property, as Mr. Fluke stated, he's accurate, that those will all be routed through catch
basins and taken to some sort of a -- cleaned up through the sand and grease trap and,
then, taken to some sort of -- either a pond, a drainage swale, a seepage bed,
something along that nature. Sometimes they do allow historical discharge, but they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 28 of 40
have to enter into a discharge agreement with the receiving body prior to that -- to that
leaving the site. In fact, all of those plans will be reviewed at final plat stage with the
construction plans by ACHD, the drainage leaving the roads, and to make sure it meets
all of DEQ's best management practices for cleaning up the water leaving the right of
way. As far as the drainage -- or the -- 11m sorry, the irrigation lines, those will be
reviewed by either the entity having jurisdiction, if it's in MID or Boise Project Board of
Control, they will review those plans. If it's a user's lateral, Public Works reviews the
plans to make sure that they are engineeringly sound, but we also have a new
requirement that they get downstream user approval prior to construction plans being
approved. That means if the ditch running through the middle of their site goes to the --
the water running through that goes to the western parcel, they will have to get a letter
from that landowner stating that this system meets our needs and is going to deliver our
water adequately and we don't approve the construction plans until we get that. That
way they can't build it. There is an out in there that if it's being unreasonably held, the
city engineer can make that determination that it's a sound system, it's being
unreasonably held by a landowner just to stop the development, we can approve it in
their stead, but state statute requires that they deliver -- state code requires that they
deliver that water to that historical point of discharge. So, it's all reviewed prior to plan
approval.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. Typically, what I have
done in the past on applications like this, I will poll the Commission and usually start at
one end and move from one end to the other to get final thought. Commissioner Mae,
would you like to speak to this application?
Moe: Yes. On all, I think that the applicant's done a pretty good job representing the
project. There are a couple things that I do want to see and that was going to be -- I
would anticipate that we would want to have a perimeter vinyl fence around this
property. That would be something that I would definitely want to see put in for
acceptance for tonight. As far as the transitioning and whatnot per the Comp Plan, I
think he is meeting the requirements of the Camp Plan and so, therefore, I don't have a
real problem with the transitional lot sizes and other than that I think it's a very good
project.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would prefer to see a vinyl perimeter fence around the entirety of
the property. I would want to add the condition of the 25 foot setback for the houses on
the south property line. And also I would like to see some resolution or some comment
regarding the trees for the Kruzinskis. And I apologize if I misspoke your name. The
only problem or conundrum, if you will, that I have is as we sat through the Kingsbridge
development and all of the arguments and passion and redesigns that went into that
project and, you know, we did require that developer, if I remember correctly, to put
those larger almost half acre lots on that west side of the property against Dartmoor and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 29 of 40
whether that logic still holds today, I do have trouble not applying that same logic to
another subdivision. Although I mean there is some density closer to that, but, again, I
do -- I mean I do remember the logic behind that. I suppose I would like to see maybe
one less lot on the south against Dartmoor or shifting of some lot lines. I -- they have
done a really good job up against the Kruzinski1s property only having -- it looks like they
have got a total of four properties only backing up to them and given the way their
property is wrapped around by the development, I think that's -- that's done pretty good
there. That's the end of my comments.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on the issues of drainage and
irrigation, I do believe that the concerns are adequately addressed in the safeguards
that we have in the conditions of approval and the process that will move forward.
Second, regarding fencing, I would concur with the requirement for vinyl fencing.
Regarding the landscaping and the Kruzinski's existing tree, I would like to see that
existing tree added to whatever additional changes are needing to be made to the
landscape plan to bring it into compliance prior to City Council. Regarding the
transitional lots, that was my only conundrum also. I was on staff when the original
Kingsbridge came through that had a lots roughly this size up against Dartmoor and
was denied and, then, a separate application came through later that increased those
lot sizes to the 20,000 square foot range up against it. It would seem consistent to
apply the same reasoning here if that was truly the direction of this Commission and
Council at that time. To do so would require losing two of those lots, though, and I
might -- knowing also the cost of extending things like water, sewer, street lights, things
that Mr. Fluke mentioned if we were to lose any, I'd probably limit that to a single one.
That said, I am conflicted. The additional setbacks -- you know, these are still much
larger than average lots for the City of Meridian. In general, those smaller lots tend to
be better maintained than the much larger ones. I'm not saying the ones in Dartmoor
aren't. It looks from the aerial photo that they do have nice landscaping, so I don't mean
to imply anything there. But I have seen instances where when the lots get too big to
maintain that they tend not to be as nice. So, I have conflicting emotions on that one,
but could support a reduction there if the Commission felt going that way was consistent
with the Kingsbridge. Finally, on the two story versus one story, I believe that this
project should be allowed to build two story homes. And that's the end of my comment.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I think -- I agree with what's been said on drainage and the tree mitigation for
the one property, other than ACHD is requiring a turnaround and where the streets need
to be extended and there is trees in that area, I don't see there is any choice on leaving
those. Well, I'm assuming there is probably some of them that can't. The statement --
expounding on transition. I think there is one difference here between this project and
Kingsbridge. Kingsbridge Subdivision accessed -- their entrance into their subdivision
was through Dartmoor, right down the middle of it, driving down, you know, the streets
they had had. So, I think there was a much direct impact. This subdivision has got
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 30 of 40
back property lines joining it and there, really, is not -- I mean my experience from
seeing -- seeing subdivisions over the last ten years, there is not a direct impact. I
happen to live in an acre lot subdivision that had this size lots and smaller up against it
and the impact was probably just the opposite, as far as what it did to property values
and such. So, I don't feel that any -- I mean and as a staff -- the comment addressed all
this. Same thing with the -- in relationship to the Comp Plan and being in compliance.
So, I'm in favor of leaving it like it is. And I have never been -- and I guess I could go
either way. I have always been completely opposed to a two story restriction.
Commissioner Huckabay mentioned that the 25 foot setback -- or someone did. That
could possibly be in there, maybe. If it's a two story it would need to be 25. If it's a
single level, then, it would be normal setbacks, could maybe compromise on that. I
know it's hard for the city building department to enforce those things and it makes it
very difficult. So, that's probably a reason not to -- not to get into that. But the lots are
large enough that I don't think that's a problems. Most people want to get as large a
backyard as they can anyway and it would have to be a pretty large home to encroach
on that. I think that's all I have got.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my final comments on it would be that it -- if, in fact,
the applicant is willing to have a 25 foot setback along all of those lots, that would
remove any concerns over single or two story homes from the Commission's
perspective and possibly a motion to that effect would address that issue. And I believe
that the applicant has adequately responded to the drainage and the irrigation issues as
in there is existing ordinance and state law that address those issues. And so I'm sure
in the final plat all of those things will be considered -- will be addressed. On the
fencing, I think that, again, a motion that would make it a requirement that perimeter
fencing of vinyl construction is definitely in order. And that concludes my comments.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if there is no additional public testimony, I'd move to close the
Public Hearing.
Borup: Second.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-046 and
PP 06-048. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I may have missed -- missed a comment by Mr. Fluke. You said
he did -- he did volunteer to do a 25 foot setback?
Rohm: Yes, he did.
Borup: Is that what you said? Okay. I had missed that earlier. All right. Am I doing
this?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 31 of 40
Rohm: Absolutely.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-046 and PP 06-
048, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, with the
following modifications to the conditions of approval. And, you know, I didn't put where
we want to insert these, so I guess we will let staff take care of that. To add vinyl
perimeter fencing around the subdivision. That on the far south side of Block 3 -- that is
the right block, isn1t it? That there be a 25 foot rear setback. Did I get the right block?
Block 4.
Rohm: I think it's Block 4.
Borup: Okay. I'm looking at an older plat that had Block 3. So, change that to Block 4.
A 25-foot setback. And that in the -- that the landscape design will try to accommodate
the existing trees that are on the east end of Falcon Court cul-de-sac. Those that can
be preserved will do so. Anything else? And I think that was understood, that the
revised landscaping plan needs to get in before -- ten days before City Council meeting.
End of motion.
Mae: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending approval of AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048, to include all staff comments with
the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Newton-Huckabay: Aye.
Rohm: We have four in favor and one against. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-032
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on
6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes,
LLC - NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue:
Rohm: Okay. Before we open this last one, does anyone feel the need for a break?
Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing -- the continued Public Hearing
from November 16th, 2006, for Item No. CUP 06-032 and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is a Conditional Use Permit to -- let me jump forward in the slide show here. Okay.
To modify the conceptual planned development for the Fairview Lakes - Devon Park
Subdivision. The proposed changes to the planned development affect a portion of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 32 of 40
development located northeast of the North Lakes Place - Fairview Avenue intersection
on Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No.1. And that is right here. The
Fairview Lakes - Devon Park development is generally located north of Fairview Avenue
at the half mile between Meridian and Locust Grove Road. To the north Devon Park
Subdivision No.1. To the northeast Settler's resubdivision right here. It's a residential
subdivision. To the west is Fairview Terrace Estates mobile home park and south some
residential and commercial properties within the City of Meridian and Ada County. The
subject application proposes a new development plan for all of Lot 4, Block 3, Devon
Park Subdivision No.1. The applicant has submitted two concept development plans
for Lot 3, Block 3. The first depicts a 2,200 -- approximately 2,200 square foot structure
with a drive-thru window. The second shows a 4,300 square foot structure with no
drive-thru. The applicant seeks approval for both plans tonight as a future use of Lot 3,
Block 3, is unknown at this time. There are three proposed access points to the
proposed shopping center. The first is a full access driveway from Fairview Avenue
located approximately 500 feet east of the North Lakes - Fairview intersection. And that
is located right -- yeah. Right here. The applicant has also provided two accesses from
North Lakes Avenue located approximately 200 and 340 feet north of the intersection.
And there is the first and there is the second. Staff is supportive of the proposed cross-
access with the property to the east, which is Dirty Harry's Car Wash and that's over
here. The applicant has also provided -- there we go -- detailed elevations of the
buildings to be constructed. As per the conditions of approval for the Fairview lakes
planned development, the applicant was required to supply two amenities on site. The
first is a ten foot wide pedestrian pathway which runs throughout the entire project and
has already been constructed with previous phases of development. The second
amenity is proposed as public gathering area to be located in front of retail building
three and this is retail building three right here. I guess the issue to mention here is that
the applicant did not provide detail on the proposed plaza area and he should address
that tonight during the hearing. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward,
please?
Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, I
reside at 1124 Santa Maria in Boise, Idaho. And I pretty much concur with staff's
findings and conditions of approval. I have got two requests, though. Is on item
number 1.5 where she talks about the proposed plaza, one of the biggest fears to
retailers is sign blockage and so what we would like to do, instead of a 1 0 by 17
covered seating area, what we would like to do is -- we will go ahead -- there is a trade
off. What we would like to do is create a water amenity. You know, one of the things
that we have had in our -- in our overall planned unit development have been waterfalls.
We put a small one here in front of Smoky Mountain at their entrance, so instead of
having a 1 0 by 17 covered seating area, we are going to -- we gave it a little detail that
we would have raised seating areas around these trees, but we would also, you know,
create some kind of water amenity in the middle of this plaza in exchange for a 10 by 17
covered area. The other thing is I'd like to have a clarification on the 25-foot wide
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 33 of 40
landscaping, so that's condition 1.12. What we would like to have approved is we have
one existing home here and, then, we have one home here and, then, we have got a
large park here. We spoke to the neighbors that live in this house and so we agreed
that we would put a heavy pine tree landscape buffer here, but as far as the 25
landscape -- the 25 foot landscape setback, weld like to have it apply to this area here
and along this area here, where ever our commercial development abuts or is
contiguous with residential. Because of the design of our project, we would like to be
able to maintain a 25 -- a 20 foot setback along through this section of it here and, then,
as it gets to this corner here, then, we would go to the 25 foot landscape buffer along
through here. So, just a clarification on 1.12. I think on our detailed site plans we
showed it that way, so -- but other than that I'm just here to answer questions.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I'm going to direct this to staff, but you stay up, because in addressing that
question of the buffer between land uses, is the requirement by city code along there for
25 or is that considered a street buffer -- street buffer landscaping along Carol Street?
Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, the area that he is talking about being 25 feet is -- is
the one we were concerned about and that is along this area along the northeast
boundary and along the east boundary.
Siddoway: Okay. So, as long as that maintains 25 feet, then, that meets your
concerns?
Hess: Correct.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant?
Tamura: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. 11m pretty sure there is nobody else to testify.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on continued Public
Hearing from November 16th, 2006, for Item No. CUP 06-032. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 34 of 40
Rohm: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Question for staff. Does the condition 1.5 currently require the 10 by 17
covered seating area?
Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, yes, condition 1.5 does require that the 10 by -- I think
it was 1 0 by 17 covered seating area and that was explicitly to get a little bit more
information from the applicant about what we would like to see and what he was looking
at putting in on that site. So, if he had proposed any changes to that, that would be
addressed.
Siddoway: Any direct concerns from staff on the water amenity as a replacement?
Hess: Staff does have a little bit of concerns about that. A plaza, as stated in the staff
report, is defined as a covered seating area and we would like to see, since -- since the
applicant suggested during the planned development phase at the beginning of this
project that he would be providing a plaza, I imagine -- not being here at that time, but I
imagine that staff believed it would be a plaza area where there is covered seating,
there is benches, not necessarily an open slab of concrete in front of a building.
Siddoway: Is that definition of plaza that includes the covered seating in the definition
section or where would we find that?
Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, plaza is not explicitly defined in the UDC. Staff got
their definition of plaza from the encyclopedia.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment on -- on the plaza. The development on --
the Fred Meyer on Federal Way and all the adjoining developments around that out by
Commissioner Mae's and lis office, does have a plaza like that that's set in front of a
retail area like that and it has -- it does block the view of the businesses that are there,
to the point where the business signs for the businesses that sit behind the plaza had to
have the business signs hung on the plaza roof, so that you can see them and not have
them blocked by the plaza roof. Right? Commissioner Mae, I think you probably would
concur --
Moe: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: -- with that statement and what it ended up doing was taking what
was a very nice sun shading idea and making it look very awkward and tacking -- yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 35 of 40
Thank you. So, I -- although I think having a plaza is a good idea, right in front of the
retail businesses I think there maybe could be some compromise, because I would hate
to see that in this -- something like that end up being in this development or end up
having possibly some retail spaces that were unappealing to a business, because they
couldn't have their sign seen from a fair distance. But I just -- every time I look at that I
just have to believe that the developers go, oh, you know, that just didn't work out how
we thought it should have. And so I -- that's my comments on that. Possibly someplace
else a plaza could be placed maybe.
Hess: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, one suggestion would be, if all of you recall,
the Centre Pointe development where Jonathan Seal was the presenter on that and
there were three plazas that were provided with generous walkways out within the
parking lot -- out to the parking lot. Excuse me. Out through the parking lot to the plaza
area that might be an option to think about for this.
Siddoway: Meaning the plaza was centered in the parking lot area?
Hess: Correct.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: I kind of think that maybe a marriage between a plaza and a water fountain type
deal may be in order. Benches around the water fountain, so there is seating area and
let them have the water fountain to -- as an attraction, as opposed to a plaza that would
compromise their ability to market their retail section and that way we get the seating
and the comfort and their retail is not adversely affected.
Borup: And I was thinking the same thing. I mean when I think of a plaza, I think of a
place for people to gather. That may not be the full -- all the dictionary definitions, but,
you know, Center on the Grove, is that called a plaza, where they have all the events?
Newton-Huckabay: No. Center on the Grove.
Borup: Yeah. But I have heard it referred to as a plaza. Same thing at the movie
theaters in Boise, they have got a plaza, they got a fountain with benches around, and I
could see that would be a real amenity with a water feature and, then, as long as there
is a place for people to sit around it, that's going to attract people there. It's nice just to
sit and listen to water, central meeting place for people to shop in different stores and to
me the purpose of that would be a place for people to gather and if it accomplishes that,
I think they are the same thing.
Rohm: I think that that's a healthy compromise. I guess we will have to just ask them to
come back up and give us his weigh in on that.
Siddoway: We closed the Public Hearing. We may have to reopen it if you want that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 36 of 40
Moe: I think that the applicant had already said that that was kind of what he was
proposing to do, so --
Borup: He just didn't expound on seating around it and I think that's something, from
my standpoint, I'd like to make sure there is seating around the plaza, whether it's part
of the water feature, you know, a wall around it to sit on or some other benches or
whatever. I don't --
Rohm: I guess the only other thing that I'd like to say to this is at the time that this
application came before us when we were taking a look at the other portion of this
development, this plaza was offered up as something that once this phasing came
through, the applicant did make that obligation at that time, so I think that we need to
make sure that we stay with the intent of that and knowing now what we do about how
plazas can adversely affect the retail, I don't see any problem with a compromise here,
but we definitely want to maintain the seating and the intent that --
Borup: And I remember when that came up and I didn't -- in my mind I wasn't picturing
a covered area, I was picturing a gathering area. But I don't know if that was discussed
at that time.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Borup: If it was I didn't catch it.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Yeah. A question and a comment, then, I think I'm about ready for a motion.
But the question I have is to make sure I'm thinking correctly. As a CUP, this is not
going on to City Council, so there is not an opportunity to have the applicant show some
details at Council, this is where the CUP has its final action; correct?
Rohm: That's correct.
Siddoway: So, you know, there is -- a water amenity could be many things and without
any details I'm a little nervous, but I think we can probably craft something into a motion
that allows it to move on. I certainly am amenable to the idea of a water feature. To me
the key thing has been reiterated again and again is this -- that it incorporates seating,
that it is a gathering place. This isn't just a little token thing that bubbles water, you
know, that doesn't really add to the space in terms of it being -- functioning as a plaza.
An area that comes to mind in the Crossroads shopping center, I believe in front of -- is
it Babies R Us, they have got an area that has a wider sidewalk, a couple of trees, but
it's not much in terms of a plaza amenity, it's probably similar to what we see on there
right now, and I would just say it needs to be more than that. It needs to, in my mind,
incorporate this water amenity and some seating in a way that does make it a gathering
place.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 37 of 40
Borup: Like Generations Plaza?
Siddoway: Generations Plaza is great. Maybe a little bit more than --
Rohm: One of the things that maybe would be in order is just the dimensional size of
the plaza area, that the water fountain and associated seating would be dimensionally
the same as what was in the quote, unquote, proposed plaza.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we can go ahead and put some specifics down, but I
wonder would it be appropriate, even though the -- to reopen the hearing and let the
applicant put on record what he would propose and, then, we would have that on
record.
Rohm: I think thafs a great motion.
Borup: I move to reopen the hearing.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the hearing. All those in favor say
aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think -- I think our -- your
thoughts are the same as my thoughts. We e-mailed Amanda kind of a concept of at
least the trees. We were thinking that the trees would be a raised planter that had
bench seats around there, so we were thinking in lieu of the covered -- covered seating
area that, you know, the trees would act as a canopy, so we would have built in
benches around both trees and I can see that, you know, in between our plaza area --
or in between the two tree areas we could put a nice, you know, kind of a -- what we
have been doing is we have got a place that we have been getting rocks out of Marsing,
so we could do a nice, you know, a waterfall, natural -- you know, a little pond and
waterfall. So, you know, something -- I don't know if you guys have been to Smoky
Pizza -- Smoky Mountain Pizza, but we have one at the entrance, but probably
something, you know -- you know, twice as big as what we have at Smoky Mountain
Pizza that, you know, creates some noise. We'd probably keep the pond relatively
shallow, so if a kid got in there to play and stuff it wouldn't create a liability for us, but we
are thinking with the -- you know, and we could create some nice seating around those
trees, but our concept was a raised planter area around the trees for the benches, with
a nice pond in between.
Borup: So, you're saying pretty much what's up there, these trees would have the
benches around them?
Tamura: Uh-huh. And we would put a pond in between.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 38 of 40
Borup: In between here?
Tamura: Yeah.
Borup: With room to walk around it?
Tamura: Yeah. Uh-huh. Because it seems like that's always a great place for kids to
go out and --
Borup: What is this depicting here, these --
Tamura: We have got two -- we have got handicapped stalls on both sides for the
convenience of that plaza. So, those are just --
Borup: Okay.
Tamura: -- four designated handicap spaces.
Borup: And what's the distance between planters?
Tamura: I believe the sidewalk in front of the larger box stores are -- I think they are ten
feet and we are probably looking at around 25 by 60, so, you know, 12 -- 1 ,500 square
foot of sidewalk.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to comment. I think that the water features in
Fairview Lakes now are very nice and I enjoy, when I drive by there, and the one in
Smoky Mountain Pizza I did take notice of it and I thought it was very well done and I
think one twice the size of that would be perfect. And I just think it looks very nice in
there. I think it's a very well put together development, so --
Borup: I think that would be a better amenity than a covered area.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, maybe as part of
your motion when you get to the end of this discussion, you could -- since this is a CUP
and you're the final decision maker, if you would like to have Mr. Tamura and the staff
work out this and bring that detail as part of your findings, a rendition of some sort that
could be attached to that, if you think something like that would be appropriate, that's
certainly something you could include in your motion.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: That is a large area. From parking -- from parking to parking is 77 feet. So,
that's a good size area between there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 39 of 40
Tamura: Yeah. We wouldn't have a problem of attaching the detail to your final
Findings of Fact.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing again.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-032. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, testimony -- I guess
that's staff and application testimony, I move to approve file number 06-032 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing of November 16th, 2006, with the following
modifications: To item 1.5 regarding the plaza, strike the requirement for a 10 by 17
covered seating area. Replace that with a requirement for the applicant to build rock
waterfall and pond roughly twice the size of the waterfall near Smoky Mountain Pizza.
That the pond area needs to include seating and function as a gathering place for
people. Second is just a clarification to item 1.12 of the ten foot landscape buffer.
There is a 25 foot landscape buffer required where the development abuts existing
residential and I believe that's as staff interpreted, but just to make sure we are clear on
the record, that that was the intent of the condition of approval. And that's the end of my
motion.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: The Findings?
Siddoway: Oh, yes. Thank you. And direct the applicant to bring back a detail of the
waterfall feature to be presented to the Commission with the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-032, to include all staff
comments with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Thank you, Mr. Tamura.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Can we get one more motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
January 18, 2007
Page 40 of 40
Siddoway: Move to adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: We are done.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:10 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
f;
MICHAEL E. ROHM - CHAIRMAN
~I /~I 07\\\1111111/1
DATE APWRO\(~\'of Mf:~D;."////
i' ,,~ ~~. ,//
;' ,'...-'- . t".:lnQp A 'ii". ~'"
, ~ U- cP" ,r · l.:1'i /' ~ "/
~ '" 0:0, ~
2 ~ ~
'~'.''', -,~