2007 04-19
Meridian Plannina & Zonina Commission Meetina
April 19, 2007
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order
at 7:00 P.M., Thursday, April 19, 2007, by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, Steve Siddoway, Tom O'Brien.
Members Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters, Justin Lucas,
Mike Cole, Scott Steckline, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Tom O'Brien
X David Moe
o Wendy Newton-Huckabay
X Steve Siddoway
Michael Rohm - Chairman
X
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to open the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with the
roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2:
Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: And I see the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there
are a couple of changes and I'll just note those changes up front, so that if there is
anyone here to speak to those specific items, you will know in advance that they will not
be heard tonight. Items 12 and 13, both related to CPA 07-002, related to the South
Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan, that item is going to be continued to November and
the reason that that's being continued is there was quite a bit of public comment two
weeks ago and really a lot of good testimony and, quite honestly, as a city we believe
that it's best to take all of those comments and try and incorporate them into a better
decision down the road and it can't be done in the length of time that we had available
and so it's really in everybody's best interest to put that one off until the next go around
and that will be heard again on November 1 st of this year. The second item that will be
continued is the Moose Creek Subdivision and it will be continued to the regularly
scheduled meeting of June 7th, 2007. And the last item on the agenda tonight, PFP 07-
001, related to Benewah, will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of May
3rd, 2007. Those are the changes to the agenda and with that being said could I get a
motion to accept the agenda as amended.
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 2 of 47
Rohm: Moved and seconded to accept the amended agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. The agenda has been adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of March 15, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Rohm: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and that is the approval of
the minutes from the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. Is there any
additions or corrections to these minutes?
Moe: I have none.
Siddoway: I have none.
Rohm: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Before we open our first hearing, we are going to get the pleasure of our
planning director.
Canning: I don't know if this one's a pleasure. Chairman Rohm, Members of the
Commission, I just wanted to let you know that this will Justin Lucas's last hearing and
to harass him as appropriate for that fact. And that's all. He has resigned from the
office and I just wanted to let you all know if you hadn't heard yet. And that was all.
Rohm: Thank you. And from the Commission I would say that he will be sorely missed.
You have done an outstanding job for the city and you will be hard to be replaced. And
any other comments before we move on?
Siddoway: I agree.
Moe: I would agree wholeheartedly.
Item 4:
Continued Public Hearing from March 15,2007: CUP 07-001 Request
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 3 of 47
for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail
building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser
- North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1, of
Mallane Subdivision:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing of CUP 07-001, related
to Jamaca Me Tan 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 construct an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail
building. Jamaca Me Tan is proposed to be one of the businesses housed within the
subject building. The subject property is located on the north side of Fairview Avenue
approximately a half a mile West of Eagle Road and is currently zoned C-G, as you can
see on the slide show. The site totals about three-quarters of an acre and is located on
Lot 3, Block 1, of the Mallane Subdivision. A Conditional Use Permit would typically not
be required for this project, however, per the conditions of final plat for the Mallane
Subdivision all development must obtain CUP approval prior to submittal for a certificate
of zoning compliance. Let's see. This application was originally scheduled before the
Commission on February 15th, 2007. As a condition of approval for the project staff
required of the applicant to obtain a cross-access agreement with the property to the
west. And as you can see that's this property right here. To allow the subject property
access to the off-site driveway. And here is the site plan. This is, actually, north over
here and they have proposed an off-site driveway to the west here. So, the applicant
requested continuance of the hearing to negotiate this access point with the neighbor
and staff has finally received confirmation from the applicant that an agreement has
been reached. Additionally, the Commission should note that the applicant submitted --
originally submitted west and south facing elevations for the proposed structure. Until
this week staff did not have elevations for the east facade, which now the Commission
can see on the PowerPoint presentation. And staff is supportive of the west and south
facing elevations. And the Commission should decide this evening if the submitted
elevation for the east facade is acceptable or whether changes in the design and
materials are warranted for that facade. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission
has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any -- oh. Any questions of staff? Any questions?
Moe: I have none.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Siddoway: I have a question. Would you put up the site plan, please? I just want to
see it while we are talking. Thank you.
Blaser: My name is Delane Blaser. Do I give my address? 4712 North Pierce Park
Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. And I'm Darren's brother and I'm just here to represent
him and get this -- maybe some of you remember me. I don't know.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 4 of 47
Rohm: I guess, really, the question that we have is the staff report as presented by
staff, is that with your concurrence? Do you --
Blaser: Yes.
Rohm: You have no problems with the staff report?
Blaser: No. No.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: I have no questions. I -- quite frankly, I'm very happy to see that the cross-access
was resolved, as well as the east elevation is much better than it was the first time I saw
it. So, I'm -- I have no problem with that at all.
Rohm: Okay. And I guess I just have one question of staff. Do we need to put the
elevation stipulations into a development agreement or is it just suffice that the
presentation says that this was what we will construct and accept that as --
Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it would just be added as a
condition in the staff report. Only rezones and annexation applications have
development agreements.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Siddoway: Out of curiosity, since I was not here on the 15th, I'm looking over the
minutes, testimony was taken, but I'm just curious if there were any -- any issues other
than the east elevation that stood out from that night?
Rohm: I think the main deal was getting that cross-access agreement taken care of and
we have a notarized copy of that access agreement now and so those were, really, the
two outstanding issues and it appears as if they are -- they have been taken care of.
Siddoway: That's all. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. There is -- there isn't anybody else that has signed up to testify to this
application, but if there is anyone that would like to come forward, now is that time.
Okay. Seeing none --
Moe: Mr. Chair, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-001.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 5 of 47
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-001. All
favor in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number CUP 0-7001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February
15th, 2007, continued to the March 1 st, 2007, and continued to the April 19th, 2007,
meetings, with one modification that the staff enclose -- include the new east elevation
within their staff report. I further move to direct the staff to prepare an appropriate
findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing on -- that would be May 3rd. End of motion.
Siddoway: I will second for discussion. I'm just wondering if we need to include
anything about the cross-access agreement or is that already completely covered in the
staff report? Okay. Thank you. Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-001, to include the
staff report and all changes to that report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Continued Public Hearing from March 15,2007: CUP 07-003 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a public/quasi-public use in an I-L zone for
Joint School District No 2. Jabil Subdivision by Joint School District
NO.2 - 1303 E. Central Drive:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing on CUP 07-003, request for
Conditional Use Permit for Joint School District No. 2 of the Jabil Subdivision and begin
with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a public, quasi-public use in an
I-L zone by the Joint School District No.2. The property is located at 1303 East Central
Drive on the south side of East Central and on the west side of South Locust Grove
Road. Directly across Central Drive to the north is the Idaho State Police Enforcement
Building, zoned C-G. To the west of the site is the United Heritage building and vacant
property zoned C-G. To the east are rural residential properties in Ada County. 1-84
borders the property on the south. Across 1-84 is commercial property, zoned C-G and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 6 of 47
L-O, and vacant land zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant is proposing to use
325,500 square feet of the existing building for a high school, high school administration
offices, general classrooms, and vocational technology programs for the Joint School
District. The proposed use is considered a public, quasi-public use and requires
conditional use approval in an I-L zone. Access to the site is currently provided from
East Central Drive and no new access points to the site are proposed or approved with
this application. There is existing landscaping on the site. Additional landscaping is not
required with this application. This shows the different uses within the building. District
service center up front. High school academies here. And, then, they have talked
about in the future possibly leasing the rest of it out to state university for classrooms.
These are existing elevations at the site showing the existing landscaping around
building and in the parking lot. Staff is recommending approval of their requested
Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in
Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff at this time? Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I have one. Sonya, two items from now we are going to approve a -- we
have on our -- a consideration for a rezone of this property. Same property, right, from
I-L to C-G?
Watters: Yes.
Siddoway: If we approve that rezone, do they need this Conditional Use Permit?
Watters: Commissioner Siddoway, the rest of the Commissioners, yes, they need the
Conditional Use Permit because they want to start as quickly as they can with the new
use. That's the reason for that.
Siddoway: Okay.
Watters: The proposed use will better fit once the property is rezoned and the Comp
Plan --
Siddoway: Okay.
Watters: -- amended.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Daniels: Ed Daniels. 2785 Bogus Basin Road, Boise, Idaho. I think the staff has
covered the project pretty well. I don't know if there is anything I could add, but I can
certainly stand for any questions that the Commission may have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 7 of 47
Rohm: Yeah. I think we really heard this for the most part two weeks ago and there is
not a substantial change, but any questions of the applicant?
Moe: I have none.
Siddoway: I have none.
Rohm: Thank you.
Daniels: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. We don't have anybody else that has signed up for this application, but if
there is someone that would like to come forward, now is that time. Seeing none--
Siddoway: I move to close the Public Hearing.
Rohm: On?
Siddoway: CUP 07-003. That's the only one that's open.
Moe: I'll take a second, then.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-
003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all testimony, I move to approve file number
CUP 07-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of -- not today's
hearing date, is it?
Moe: April the 5th.
Siddoway: Is it April the 5th? No, because it's not that one. We, actually, don't have it
in our laser fiche.
Watters: April 19th.
Siddoway: For 4/19? Thank you. Staff report for April 19th, 2007, with no
modifications. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document
to be considered the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on May the 3rd.
End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 1 9, 2007
Page 8 of 47
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-003. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-004 Request for
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to
change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial for Jabil
East Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Joint School District No.
2 - 1303 E. Central Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Jabil Subdivision):
Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from April 5th, 2007,
of CPA 07-004 and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is a Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend the future land use map of the
Comprehensive Plan to change the existing industrial designation to commercial for one
34 acre parcel.
Nary: Amanda, can you pull the mike closer. We can't hear you on this side.
Hess: Sorry. Is that better?
Nary: Yes.
Hess: Okay. The property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road at 1303
East Central Drive and is currently referenced as Lot 1, Block 1, of the Jabil Subdivision.
The property currently lies within Meridian city limits and is zoned I-L. This is, actually,
the same property that was just discussed in the previous Public Hearing. As previously
stated, the property has two approved access points to East Central Drive and -- which
is a commercial collector street. Concurrent with the CPA request the applicant has
applied for rezoning of 9.21 acres to C-G and that is the northern portion where the
district offices will be housed. The property is proposed for a new high school with
associated classroom and office spaces and may possibly house a university extension.
Additionally, the Joint School District service center will be sited here. Currently,
educational institutions are prohibited uses within the I-L district, however, they are
principally permitted within the C-G district. In the past the subject parcel was identified
as appropriate for industrial uses to take advantage as it was seen -- of what was seen
as a booming manufacturing and development. However, staff believes the increased
commercial development within the immediate area has deemed this site more
appropriate for retail, service, and office uses now. And this will also contribute to the
growing needs of the City of Meridian for additional school facilities and accessible
higher education. The staff supports the Comprehensive -- the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone request. Staff believes commercial land
use designation and zoning for the subject property would be in the best interest of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 9 of 47
city and, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the subject CPA and rezone
application. And that's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Moe: I have none.
Siddoway: I have none.
Rohm: Mr. Nary, she spoke to the rezone as well. Do you think that it might be
appropriate to go ahead and open that hearing, too, seeings how the two kind of run
concurrent?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yeah, that's probably most
appropriate to do that.
Rohm: Okay. I think because we have heard the staff report I'm going to go ahead and
do that. I'm going to open up the continued Public Hearing for RZ 07.005 to be heard
concurrently, of which we have received staff report on both. And thank you, Amanda,
you did a good job. Okay. I guess is there an applicant other than the city to speak to
this? Would the school district like to come back up? Do you have anything to add to
the staff report?
Daniels: No, I don't.
Rohm: Okay. You'll probably have to reintroduce yourself.
Daniels: Sorry. Ed Daniels. 2785 Bogus Basin Road.
Rohm: Okay. Any questions of the applicant for these two public hearings?
Moe: No.
Siddoway: I have none.
Moe: I have none.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And, again, we don't have anybody signed up, but if anyone
would like to come forward and speak to this application, now is the time. Seeing
none --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-004 and RZ 07-005.
Siddoway: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 1 g. 2007
Page 10 of 47
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on CPA 07-004 and
RZ 07-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I, initially, you know, was in approval of this two weeks ago and we
had no other public testimony, so if no one else here has any complaint, I will move for
a motion.
Siddoway: Let me just ask -- would it be appropriate to move on all the Comp Plan
Amendments at the end or should we take them one at a time? I'm just -- seeing new
information on Ten Mile, I'm not sure if there is a reason or not to continue again. We
may just want to act on them all tonight and move them forward. But if we move on
several and, then, there is one that we want to continue a week, we won't be able to.
Moe: Well, we are already going to continue the south Meridian plan, so are we going
to need to take them one at a time or --
Rohm:1 think what he's saying, though, is if we have some unanswered questions with
the Ten Mile and/or the pathway amendments that need to have continued discussion
to the following meeting, if they all three go together and, then, are forwarded onto City
Council as a unit -- is that what your --
Siddoway: Yeah. I mean I'm comfortable with this one, in favor of it, but I just think we
may want to approve them all after we have -- after we are ready to do so.
Rohm: Okay. Well, then, maybe at this time it would be appropriate to just act on the
rezone and, then, we will do the --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, you can't act on the rezone until you do the Comp Plan
amendments. You can't do it that way.
Rohm: Okay. All right.
Nary: So, if you are going to -- I mean, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean
Commissioner Siddoway is right, if you want to at least be assured that all of the ones
that are going to be moved forward from tonight and there isn't any other issues that
might cause it to be set over to your next meeting, that's probably the -- that's probably
wise to wait until you get to the end of the Comp Plan ones to, then, do them all
together, which you have to table the rezone until that point as well.
Siddoway: It would be after Item 15.
Nary: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 11 of47
Rohm: Okay. We will do it that way. Any other comments before we -- Mr. Nary, then,
we would just table these and not necessarily close --
Siddoway: We can close it.
Nary: You can close the Public Hearing -- you can close the Public Hearing and move
to table them until after Item 15.
Rohm: Okay. And--
Moe: We have already closed them.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table CPA 07-004 and RZ 07-005 until after
Item 15 on the agenda.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to table Item CPA 07-004 and RZ 07-005 until
after Item No. 15 on tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: RZ 07-005 Request for a
Rezone of 9.21 acres from I-L to a C-G zone for Jabil East Property by
the Joint School District No. 2 - 1303 E. Central Drive (Lot 1, Block 1,
Jabil Subdivision):
Item 8:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-005 Request for
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to
change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial for Jabil
West Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian
Planning Department - 915 E. Central Drive (Lot 2, Block 1, Jabil
Subdivision):
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from April 5th,
2007, of CPA 07-005 and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is a Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend the future land use map to change
the existing industrial designation to the commercial designation for one 19 acre parcel.
This parcel is known as Lot 2, Block 1, of the Jabil Subdivision, which is located directly
west of the Jabil circuit building, which is now owned by the school district. This is a
highly visible location of the property along Interstate 84 and East Central Drive -- the
existing commercial zoning to the north and west, as you can see right here and here.
And a potential commercial district to the east now makes the property a good
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 12 of47
candidate for commercial uses, rather than industrial uses. The site is bordered on two
sides by properties zoned C-G, which I already stated. And to be further clarified, Jabil
Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1, the school district site, has submitted an application for a
future land use map amendment from industrial to commercial, as well as rezoning from
I-L to C-G. Therefore, the subject site would be -- the subject site being Jabil West, Lot
2, Block 1, would be an island of property designated for industrial use that is located
within an area developed for commercial, retail, and office uses. Approval of the subject
CPA would allow the applicant to potentially obtain four commercial zoning
designations. The four commercial zoning designations include general retail and
service commercial, C-G, which allows the broadest mix of retail, office, service and
light industrial uses, as well as the C-N, C-C, and L-O zoning districts. Staff supports
the subject Comprehensive Plan amendment. Staff believes a commercial land use
map designation for the property would be in the best interest of the city. Therefore,
staff is recommending approval of the application. And that is all staff has, unless the
Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Amanda. Any questions of staff?
Siddoway: I have none.
O'Brien: None.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and speak to this? I don't know
that it's necessary, but -- okay. Seeing no applicant, is there anyone else that would like
to speak to this project before we close it? Okay. Seeing none __
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing for CPA 07-005.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-005. All
those in favor way aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to table action on CPA 07-005 until after Item 15 on
the agenda.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to table CPA 07-005 until after Item 15 on the
agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 13of47
Rohm: Possibly we could have had a little bit of discussion to just validate that there is _
- you know, if there is any concerns from any of the Commissioners about moving
forward with that, because by the time we get back to it after Item 15 -- and so -- I don't
know. Mr. Nary, is this appropriate for us to have some discussion at this point in time?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, certainly.
Rohm: Okay. So, I guess with that being said, is there any concern over this
application that any of you feel are unresolved?
Moe: I have none.
Siddoway: I have no concerns with any of the previous Jabil applications.
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-001 Request for
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map
designation from Industrial to Commercial for the property located at 600
E. Franklin Road for Thomas Comprehensive Plan Amendment by
Lynn Thomas - north of E. Franklin Road and east of Meridian Road:
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: RZ 07-002 Request for a
Rezone of 0.628 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for the Lynn Thomas
Property by Lynn Thomas - north of E. Franklin Road and east of
Meridian Road:
Rohm: Okay. That's kind of where I was going with that. Okay. Thank you. All right.
At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from April 5th, 2007, Item No.
CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-002. Both of these items related to the Thomas property on
Franklin Road and begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. I'll just give a
quick recap on this, since this is a continued item. The subject property is located here
on the north side of Franklin Road. It's right next to the fire station. Here in purple. The
applicant is requesting that the Comp Plan be amended to a commercial designation,
rather than industrial on this property, and is also requesting a rezone from I-L to C-G.
The applicant did not submit a development plan, but did submit -- it's just a vacant
piece of property. Did submit a conceptual elevation for the propose building on the
site. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Moe: I have none.
Siddoway: Sonya, is the conceptual elevation tied to a development agreement in the
staff report?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 14 of 47
Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, it is not tied to a
development agreement -- well, excuse me. Just a second. Let me double-check on
that.
Siddoway: I think that was the one thing that I had from last time.
Watters: Yeah. It was not tied to a development agreement in the staff report.
However, I think the Commission wanted to include one at the last meeting for that to be
able to tie the elevations to it.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Okay. Sonya, the applicant--
is she aware that there will be a development agreement attached to the staff report
specifying the elevations or -- did you have a discussion with --
Watters: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, I did not discuss it with her.
did leave a voice mail on her phone, so she would be aware of that.
Rohm: Okay. I think that a motion might say -- would be conditional to a development
agreement seems appropriate to me.
Siddoway: That would be my intent, Mr. Chairman. If the applicant has any issue with it
she can always take it up with Council.
Rohm: There you go. Okay. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to
speak to this application at this time? Seeing none --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the public hearings on CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-
002.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on CPA 07-001 and
RZ 07-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-002 to the end of the
meeting after Item 15.
Siddoway: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 15 of 47
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to table Item CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-002 until
after we have heard Item No. 15 on tonight's agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign. Okay. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-003 Request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map by adding and
amending pathway locations for the Pathways Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by the City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from April 5th, 2007,
Item No. CPA 07-003 related to the Pathway Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. If you don't mind,
I'd just like to take a moment and say I have truly enjoyed my time with the City of
Meridian and just so you know, one of my favorite parts of the job is the interaction that I
have with you at this meeting and with the public. I appreciate this process and think it's
very important and have really enjoyed my time here with the city and the ability I have
had to try and participate in this process. And so with that said, I will move onto the
Pathways Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As was discussed at the last meeting, this
is the proposed update to the Comprehensive Plan land use map. Specifically it's an
update to the pathway network that is indicated on that plan. There was quite a bit of
discussion at the last meeting regarding this -- regarding this proposed amendment and
I feel that most of the concerns were taken care of at that last meeting. I don't think
there is much more to discuss from staff's perspective at this point.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Siddoway: I have none.
Moe: I have none.
Rohm: Okay. And I believe you're right. And just for those of you that are here tonight,
basically, the discussion centered around concerns that pathways were going to be
developed on properties that were -- with homes that -- backyards that were existing
there, rather than as part of a redevelopment program and that discussion I believe
alleviated a lot of the concerns from last week, because none of those folks are here
tonight. So, I think that concludes the discussion on the pathway Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Moe: You want to make sure the public doesn't --
Rohm: There is nobody signed up, but if anyone would like to come forward and speak
to the pathways, now is that time. Seeing none --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 16of47
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that I did take the comments from the last
meeting seriously and have done some research into the issues of pathways and crime
statistics. I actually have several pieces. I would just like to read one short piece into
the record that summarizes what I found. It says: Available literature and statistics
indicate no discernible rising in crime along newly designated trails. In fact, studies
indicated a reduction of crime and vandalism on official designated trails, because trail
users serve as eyes and ears for urban, as well as rural trails. Designating a trail
officially brings increased use of the trail by lawful trail enthusiasts, often reducing the
amount of vandalism and crime that occurred when the trail was unofficial or
underutilized for recreational purposes. So, I would -- with that and others that I have
found similar to that, I just state my support for the pathways plan and with that I would
move to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-003.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-003. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we table CPA 07-003 until after Item 15 on our
agenda.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to table Item No. CPA 07-003 until after Item 15
on the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-002 Request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the south
Meridian area to expand future land uses designations to include the land
east of McDermott Road south to Lake Hazel Road and ~ mile east of
Linder Road south to ~ mile south of Columbia Road, east to "!4 mile west
of Cloverdale Road for South Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning Department:
Item 13:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-009 Request for
a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to add 4 new designations to the
Future Land Use Map and include residential uses in neighborhood
centers for South Meridian Area by City of Meridian Planning
Department:
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 17 of 47
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open Items No. CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-009 for
the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of
November 1 st, 2007.
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items No. CPA 07-002 and CPA 07-
009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 1 st, 2007. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Wow, we are doing pretty good tonight.
Moe: Don't speak too soon.
Item 14:
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-007 Request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for the future Ten
Mile Interchange area to modify various future land uses designations and
to create several new future land use designations for the Ten Mile Area
Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the City of Meridian Planning
Department - generally bordered by Linder Road to the east, McDermott
Road to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad Line to the north and % mile
south of Overland Road to the south:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-008 Request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan by adding the Ten Mile Interchange
Specific Area Plan as an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan for the
Ten Mile Specific Area Plan Text by the City of Meridian Planning
Department - generally bordered by Linder Road to the east, McDermott
Road to the west, the Union Pacific Railroad Line to the north and % mile
south of Overland Road to the south:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 and begin with
the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. This -- these Items
deal with the Ten Mile Area Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment that was
discussed at length at the last meeting. I think it would be a good idea to go directly into
the -- some of the direction that we received -- staff received both from the public and
from the Commission at the last hearing. I have an exhibit here that kind of summarizes
the -- the recommended changes that came from some of the public testimony and the
Commission specifically asked for an exhibit that described those changes and how the
new map would look if those changes were made. I'd like to go through them one by
._~
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 18 of 47
one just so everyone is clear on what we are talking about. The first of those changes
was a change in designation on this triangular piece of property here from medium
density residential to high density residential as designated there. Also, a similar
change here from -- I think this one is from medium density residential to mixed use
community. There is a small piece of property here. On the corner here, the southeast
corner of the Ten Mile and Franklin, was a requested change from -- or a change from
the designation which is mixed use residential to mixed use commercial for that entire
corner. And also related to that was a discussion of going to a full access point at this
location, rather than a right-in, right-out. Some changes here south of the freeway
included a possible rerouting of this street to get a closer connection to the freeway and
a possible location somewhere for -- for a gas station. This exhibit here, as you can
see, this -- the changes haven't been made here on this map and when I toggle down
you will see that this is what the map would look like with those changes made. You
can see the commercial designation there, the increase in density there, the extended
commercial designation there. These changes were a little bit harder to make, because
they are more conceptual in nature, but certainly there could be text within the plan
amended to allow for some of these changes, along with that access request also. As
was discussed at the -- at the last hearing, staff, as we looked at these changes, found
them to be mostly reasonable. None of the requests were giving staff major -- you
know, major issues. So, really, it was -- this is just the response to the Commission's
request to see those changes on a map and to kind of make your decision about how __
how the Commission feels about -- about those changes. Along with that, we also
received just today, this afternoon, a pretty detailed letter from the Ada County Highway
District regarding the Ten Mile area specific plan. Before I read some of that letter into
the record, I just wanted to kind of respond just in general about this process and the
map itself. Comprehensive Plans by -- in nature are very conceptual. This plan is a
little bit different. It's more detailed than we usually have in this city. Our main map that
we use is very conceptual and, obviously, get into a lot more detail than that, especially
when it comes to the proposed road network, this collector network that's shown on the
plan. But even with that said, this plan still remains conceptual and there is room for
discussion about implementation measures and how all of these things will actually
work through the process. And so ACHD -- ACHD's letter was very detailed -- in staff's
opinion somewhat -- in some cases maybe a little bit too detailed with their analysis of
some of these -- of these areas, because this isn't a development application in the
sense of we don't know -- you know, we don't know the users, we don't know exactly
what's going to happen out here, we are just kind of doing a conceptual plan of what the
vision is and with that said staff feels it's important that we keep that in mind as we
consider ACHD's comments and realize that there is a lot of room still to work a lot of
these implementation measures out. ACHD points out some errors in the plan that __
which, obviously, can be corrected, but when it comes to their main three points, staff
feels that -- that, really, the plan can stand alone and it's not necessarily imperative that
we address all of these points that they have brought up here tonight, because a lot of
that will happen in the natural process of development and when applications come in
and through how we work with them through the implementation of this. And I also feel
it's important to note that ACHD was involved from the very beginning on this plan,
involved in the charrette process, involved in the public information process, and so for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 19 of 47
us to get these comments today -- this afternoon regarding the plan, it's great that we
got them, but they have been and have had a chance to comment on this plan for quite
awhile now and so to do that in -- to do that in a sense to this Commission and pressure
on you to take all this in tonight is maybe a little bit too much to ask, really. And so I
would -- those are kind of the things I wanted to make clear and, hopefully, that will help
as we -- as the Commission considers this plan for approval. I'm going to read a little bit
of what those issues are just into the public record, so it's clear to everyone. I'll just
summarize. It says: ACHD has reviewed the Ten Mile interchange plan as submitted
by the City of Meridian, with the assistance from HGR, which was the consultant.
Overall, the plan was viewed as strong in overall substance, thoughtful and thorough in
its comprehensiveness, and creative in its design and vision for what the location should
be -- for what the location should eventually resemble. The plan has a few major issues
and several minor points that ACHD wishes to comment on. The major points are
below, while the minor points are attached. I will only discuss the major points through
this portion of the staff report. It says the first signalized intersection location. The plan
states that the intersection is to be located 1,000 feet north of the high top of the new
interchange. Since this is the measure -- and just so we are clear, this is talking about
the first intersection to the north of the freeway proposed to be located right at that
location. Since this is a major -- since this is measured from the highest point of the
interchange and assuming the elevation relief would require at least 200 to 300 feet
before being level, this means the first signalized intersection will be located closer to
700 to 800 feet from the off-on ramp and creating similar issues of that to Eagle Road.
ACHD recommends this intersection be moved further north to avoid -- to avoid likely --
to avoid likely stacking that would take place. Point number two. Impact fees and
funding mechanisms. The plan does not accurately reflect the ACHD impact in
extraordinary impact fee structure and does not address realistic possibilities for funding
the collector street system in this area. While noting the importance of finding methods
in which to develop the desired network, it is our recommendation that this section be
either rewritten or removed altogether. We are happy to assist in refining this language
if necessary. And the final and third point is Overland Road. This Overland realignment
study is not complete. The south Meridian plan has yet to be fully developed and has
not been finalized by the consultant, ACHD, or the City of Meridian and is, thereof, not
ready for official action. Until this is the case, which will be well after the Ten Mile plan
is finalized, discussing the possible alignments of Overland may be premature and
should be handled with the delicacy of warrants due to the unknown factors that
surround the future of the roadway. Those were the main points that ACHD wanted to
bring up and I think the general response from staff is that some of those points --
certainly there is -- there is further discussion to be had and when it comes to exact
distances and things like that of roads from the high top of the on-ramp and off-ramp
and things like that, this plan really -- as I stated earlier, is conceptual in nature and
there is, you know, flexibility when it comes to things like that. But overall staff stands
behind the plan. A lot of thought went into the plan and doesn't -- doesn't feel that major
changes need to be made at this point to the plan. And I'll stand for any questions with
that.
Rohm: Thank you. That was a fine presentation. Any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 20 of 47
Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Justin, in regards to the Overland Road -- you know, ACHD
has had -- we have discussions with them and they had no problem with the
realignment that is shown six weeks ago or whenever. I mean are they just basically
just trying to get some definites figured out now? I mean is the concept still approved
by them?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, and Commissioner Moe, yes,
this realignment of Overland Road has been a topic of discussion for quite awhile now,
as you stated, and the direction that the city received from ACHD was that we needed
to act first and give a recommendation to them regarding this realignment and kind of
show them the direction that we wanted to go, largely through this plan and other
transportation plans that are happening in the south part of Meridian. So, staff was a
little bit -- didn't understand their -- this comment in their letter either, because the
realignment of Overland Road will take a lot more than just this plan to make it work.
But this plan does give a concept, an idea, and a vision of what we see could work
down there. And so this certainly doesn't cement the fact that Overland will be
realigned and we do believe we are delicately treating that -- that alignment as
something that needs further discussion and, obviously, you know, we will have a large
process to make it actually happen.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to testify to this
application at this time? Dave.
Turnbull: Thank you. Commissioner Rohm. David Turnbull. 12601 West Explorer
Drive, in Boise. Appreciate the planning staff report. Very to the point. As you're
aware, a couple of weeks ago I came and testified about two items and I think that one
of the concerns that probably hadn't been communicated between us and staff at that
point was on our request for that change in designation on the Franklin and Ten Mile
interchange on the mixed use commercial. I think Anna was probably concerned that
maybe we would shift that -- excuse me. There is a pointer here; right? There is a
collector road right in this area that she wanted to maintain in that -- you know, main
street type of a feel and my comment back to her after the meeting was that we were
still committed to that as well. And so, hopefully, that will alleviate any concerns with
regard to that change in the Comprehensive Plan. So, if you have any questions for me
in that regard I would be happy to answer them.
Rohm: I guess my only question is are you happy with the way the map is currently
presented with the changes that staff's made to it from two week ago?
Turnbull: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 21 of 47
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there --
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a point. I do believe there are a couple other
folks in the audience that did come up two weeks ago. I'd appreciate it if -- I'd like to
hear their response to the plan the way it's been revised to see whether or not if they
have any concerns on that as well.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Bainbridge, would you like to come forward.
Bainbridge: Steve Bainbridge. 5717 West Brigadoon, Meridian. That piece of property
over here where it was medium density, to commercial, is -- is a good thing for us and I
think it's a good thing for that piece of property adjacent to the -- the trash -- SSC.
Moe: Transfer station.
Bainbridge: We appreciate the change.
Moe: Sir, you do know that one point is is that -- that they are not anticipating an
access onto Franklin Road.
Bainbridge: Yes.
Moe: And do cross-access across --
Bainbridge: Yes.
Moe: Okay. Good enough.
Rohm: Thank you.
Bainbridge: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Okay. Would anyone else to come forward?
Mashburn: Jim Mashburn. L&M Associates. 4571 North Patton Avenue, Boise, Idaho.
83704. I'm the one that requested the change to high density residential there and I'd
like to stand for any questions. Basically, my comment is that our main reason was not
to try to pack a lot of people in there, it was to open up the possibility of some
nonresidential, more flexibility, and stay within your vision was the reason we made the
request. And I'd stand for any questions.
Rohm: Any questions? Okay. Good.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19. 2007
Page 22 of 47
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for Justin. On this revised map were any
changes made south of 1-84?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, no.
We will go back up to those requested changes. As you can see, the requested
changes south was a possible realignment of what would be this extension -- I don't
know what this road would be called, but it would be kind of whatever was left of
Overland Road if the realignment were to occur, to get it closer up to the freeway
interchange. There was some -- Mr. Jewett came and testified about that and talked
about -- I believe it was some topographical issues and maybe the idea of putting some
user there that would benefit from being that close to the interchange, like a gas station
or something like that. And, then, the idea down here was possibly opening this area up
-- whatever -- what is that mixed use community designation to -- I may have said that
wrong.
Siddoway: I think it's medium high density residential.
Lucas: Yeah. Medium high density residential. Possibly allowing some language in the
plan specific to that location to allow some small convenience store or gas station type
use on that corner. But no change was made, because it was somewhat ambiguous on
what was requested. So, we definitely noted it, but there was really no change to be
made to the map, because there was nothing definite beyond that. I think Anna has a
comment.
Canning: Chairman and Commissioners, we did change the corner property to mixed
use commercial and I spoke with Mr. Jewett about that earlier this week and he was in
favor of that. Part of the reason I -- no matter how that property takes access, it will
take access to an arterial street. So, it made sense -- some sense to have a use there
that would particularly benefit from having access to an arterial street, which would be
some commercial properties, rather than the residential. So, we did shift that one piece
of property.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions of staff or is there anyone else from the
audience that would like to come forward and testify at this time?
O'Brien: None from me.
Siddoway: None for me.
Rohm: All right. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing on
CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008.
Siddoway: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 23 of 47
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 07-007 and
CPA 07-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to table CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008 to the end of the
meeting after--
Siddoway: Actually, we can act on it.
Moe: Ah. We can act on it now. Excuse me.
Rohm: Well, we will just have this one tabled and, then, we will open -- reopen them all
at the same time and -- for a single action.
Moe: No, you can't do --
Siddoway: We may want to do individual actions. Just take them --
Rohm: Okay. All right.
Moe: Then, I guess, what I would probably want to do is I want to table this, so we can
have some discussion.
Siddoway: We can have the discussion now.
Moe: Good point. On this one I have no problem. I think that staff did a very good job
making the changes and whatnot and so it's my recommendation to go forward with
approval of the Ten Mile area plan as has been revised.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any final comments on this Ten Mile --
O'Brien: I have been struggling with this thing for a couple of weeks and the only
question I have is, you know, if you build it they will come and those are the concerns I
have is that as we change things now -- and I guess we were addressing that tonight in
that some of the things that we have table we are going to hear it after we take care of
Item 15, is that getting the cart before the horse, I think, is what my concerns were. We
are going to be changing designations here, but aren't those designations changed and
done after we have agreed upon what we are really going to be doing with the plan
itself? And maybe you're not following me very well, but it just seems like we are
changing what we -- where the grocery store wants to be -- we are changing the area --
so, we are changing this area here to a commercial zone, basically. Right? I think the -
Rohm: Mixed use.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 24 of 47
Siddoway: Mixed use commercial.
O'Brien: Mixed use commercial. This is high density residential and this is supposed to
be a main corridor here and it just seems to me like this is going to end up being a main
corridor as well. Am I wrong in assuming that? Because of the use that it's going to
provide.
Rohm: I think that the intent, Commissioner O'Brien, is there is going to be limited
access off of Ten Mile to that entire stretch through there and so even though it does
have the commercial flavor to it, the -- this Ten Mile area plan has addressed that and
even though there will be these changes made to the map and allow for mixed use on
the corner there and change the use on the east end of the project on the north -- or
south side of Franklin and recommend it for high density in that other section, the
roadway system and the limited access within this environment is going to pretty much
remain intact and that's -- I think that that was part of the goal of this Ten Mile project is
to capture that now, so that we can keep the flow of traffic going and changing some of
the end use doesn't disrupt that.
O'Brien: So, it's cast in concrete, subject to change?
Rohm: Yes.
O'Brien: Thank you. I'd just like -- that's, really, like a -- it seems like that's what we are
doing, is we are adopting this thing and, then, we are allowing changes to happen later
on.
Rohm: Well, I --
O'Brien: Well, I know. I mean it seems like that's the danger.
Rohm: I think that the intent is to make this part of the Comprehensive Plan and each
project that comes forward will, then, have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan as
amended via this project and so even though we are making some tweaks to it tonight,
via testimony from the last meeting, this is what will be the plan into the future. And so
that's the intent is to make sure we get it right this time. So, it may seem like we are
making significant changes to you, but overall this is still pretty well intact.
O'Brien: Okay. You have answered my concerns. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Okay.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, if I could add just one
comment to that. I think perhaps, Commissioner O'Brien, what may have confused you,
we use the term main street with regard to this facility right here and what was meant by
that is we wanted something that was very walkable from the lifestyle center to the
transit station, something where the store fronts were close to the street, where folks
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 25 of 47
walk up and down there. Not that it would be the main commercial street, but that it
would have a kind of main street feel --
O'Brien: Oh. Okay.
Canning: -- in the -- in the Andy Griffith sense of the word is what it was meant. So, by
adding the commercial over here, I was just originally concerned that we would be
pulling the emphasis away from there. But I think that we understand and the owner of
that property understands that we are still looking for that and have committed to doing
that.
O'Brien: Okay. That makes a lot more sense. Appreciate it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. At this time could we get a motion to move forward with this
item?
Siddoway: I have a couple of comments.
Rohm: Okay.
Siddoway: The -- I do agree with the land use changes as proposed on the -- the next
map here and the one that I had the most concern with was the change to mixed use
commercial. But as I think about it, the difference between mixed use commercial and
mixed use residential is very -- quite slight. I mean one's just what is the emphasis on
commercial or is it on residential, but both of them accommodate mixed use, both
residential and commercial, and with the understanding of the -- Mr. Turnbull's
testimony tonight that he does intent to stay true to the main street concept along that
collector road, that addresses my -- my main concerns with the change in land use. I
would, myself, like to reaffirm the access management portion of it as remaining as
proposed in the current plan with a -- this collector road being an underpass, a second
collector road as with a full access and a third collector road as a right in, right out. That
would be my only point of clarification from my own perspective.
Rohm: Was that -- you're referring to the one -- first one south of Franklin Road as
being the right-in, right-out?
Siddoway: Yeah. It is in the plan of a right-in, right-out.
Rohm: And you're just affirming that.
Siddoway: Correct. If we go back one slide. It's shown as a proposed change from
right-in, right-out, to a full access and I'd like to see it remain as proposed in the plan.
Rohm: Oh. Wow. Interesting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 26 of 47
Siddoway: I wouldn't be so concerned if the access to the same area off of Franklin had
a full access, but just thinking of Eagle Road and Meridian Road and the issues of
multiple full accesses within close proximity of the interchange, my own thought about
doing it right the first time for this Ten Mile corridor would be that we should limit the
number of full turning movement accesses between the interchange and Franklin.
Rohm: You know, I agree with your thoughts that you want to make sure that the traffic
flow isn't inhibited in the fashion that Eagle Road was, but, quite honestly, Ten Mile and
Eagle Road aren't the same. Eagle Road is a state highway and it feeds on over to
Eagle and Star and Emmett and other points to the north. Ten Mile dead ends at
Chinden and it's fed from east and west and, true, it will probably have more traffic once
this is fully developed than it currently does, but I don't think Ten Mile is ever going to be
an Eagle Road. That's my opinion.
Siddoway: It's probably more comparable to Meridian Road, which I think has some of
the same issues.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have some final comments?
Moe: Well, as I said earlier, I'm pretty much in favor of the plan as it has been revised,
but Commissioner Siddoway is now making us at least think about the right-in, right-out
a little bit more, but I'm of the opinion, as you are, I'm just not too concerned that traffic
is going to be -- that full access would inhibit the traffic through there. So, I guess at the
present time I would probably keep it revised as shown.
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: I'm fine.
Siddoway: Was there a staff recommendation on this issue?
Canning: I almost said Madam Mayor. Sorry. I don't get here often enough, do I.
Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the right-in, right-out only at that
intersection is supported by all the -- the traffic analysis done for the plan. So, staff had
not proposed a change of that intersection. And I think Mr. Turnbull of course will
correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what he was talking about was leaving the option
open to discuss that further in the future through traffic analyses and things like that.
And that I certainly think that that's appropriate, but I -- it would be difficult -- we'd have
to -- to talk to our consultant and try and redo all the traffic analyses if we are not
moving forward with the right-in, right-out only at this time. But I know Mr. Turnbull will
be working with ITD and with ACHD to increase the access to that point. But if the
Commission wanted to make a recommendation on that, looking at fully evaluating that,
that would be appropriate. We tend not to make those kind of detailed decisions for a
property. We generally leave those kind of details up to ACHD based on traffic
analyses, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 27 of 47
Rohm: SO, in other words, that right-in, right-out is not specifically part of the -- of the
application itself?
Canning: No. The right-in, right-out is part of the plan as currently written. We did not
change it.
Siddoway: Right. It's in the plan as right-in, right-out.
Rohm: Okay. And once this is -- has been adopted and development actually occurs,
does it take another CPA to change it to a full access if, in fact, traffic studies warrant or
would it just be part of the application itself?
Canning: No, sir. I think -- you know, and this kind of gets to I think what Commissioner
O'Brien's question was on the last one, too, is that this -- this is a different kind of
Comprehensive Plan amendment for it. It is more specific. Yet Idaho state code -- and
Mr. Nary can correct me -- he can be the one to correct me if I'm wrong now, but --
Nary: Mr. Turnbull can do that, too.
Canning: Idaho state code still says there is -- the courts have still said these are just --
these are just guides to development. I don't -- I don't know that they have said a
specific plan is any more or less a guide than any other Comprehensive Plan that's
adopted. So, it's still just a guide to -- to evaluate against development. Now, we did
want to get more specifics, so that we could start to work out a lot of these
implementation issues and that's what Mr. Friedman and Mr. Ellsworth will be working
on mostly next year is these implementation issues and this it is -- that's the big one.
What are the appropriate access points. We have designated some of them, but we
need to evaluate those further with the appropriate transportation authorities and get
those kind details worked out. So, no, it's not going to be a Comp Plan amendment to
go from a right-in, right-out only to a full access point, it still substantially complies, it's
just we have done further research and come up with an appropriate solution.
Rohm: Thank you. That's the answer I wanted to hear. Thank you. Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to try a motion.
Rohm: Let's hear it.
Siddoway: I would move to recommend approval of CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008, as
presented in the staff report in the proposed Ten Mile specific area plan, to incorporate
the changes to the land use as proposed tonight during the hearing and acknowledging
the potential for further analysis of the specifics of the road system in response to both
the ACHD letter and Mr. Turnbull's comments regarding right-in, right-out. Just for
clarification, I support the current proposal of right-in, right-out, but acknowledge that the
details are subject to specific traffic analyses. End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19,2007
Page 28 of 47
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council
recommending approval of CPA 07-007 and CPA 07-008. And I presume that you
support text changes to match the map changes?
Siddoway: Yes. It was for both, the map change and 008 is the text change.
Rohm: And, then, the text change as well. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carries. Thank you, folks.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. I think we are just going to work backwards and we are going to -- now
we will go back to Item No. 11, CPA 07-003 and re-open--
Siddoway: No, don't open it. We can just act on it.
Rohm: We are going to act on it. Mr. Nary, if an item has just been tabled, do we just
ask someone if they'd like to make a motion at this time or is there any formal changes
to -- that I need to --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, all you need to do is, basically, you
have moved all those particular items. Whichever order you want to do them in it's fine
and I think it's -- as Commissioner Siddoway stated, I think you want to take the Comp
Plan amendments, either singularly or together, it doesn't -- that's the Commission's
preference, but you can just say we are on -- now we are back to Item 7, now we are
back to Item 8, and, then, you can act on it. or six. I was using it more as an example,
not the specific number. But all you need to do is say we are on Item 6.
Rohm: Okay. Let's do it this way: We are going to return to Item NO.6.
Item 6:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07~004 Request for
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to
change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial for Jabil
East Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Joint School District No.
2 - 1303 E. Central Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Jabil Subdivision):
Item 7:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: RZ 07-005 Request for a
Rezone of 9.21 acres from I-L to a C-G zone for Jabil East Property by
the Joint School District NO.2 - 1303 E. Central Drive (Lot 1, Block 1,
Jabil Subdivision):
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: And could I get a motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 29 of 47
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers
CPA 07-004 and RZ 07-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April
5th, 2007, and continuing to April 19th, 2007.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council
recommending approval of CPA 07-004 and RZ 07-005. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to City Council of File No.
CPA 07-005.
Siddoway: Second.
Moe: I wasn't done.
Siddoway: Oh.
Moe: As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 5th, 2007, and
continued to April 19th, 2007.
Siddoway: I will second that one.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council
recommending approval of CPA 07-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07-001 Request for
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map
designation from Industrial to Commercial for the property located at 600
E. Franklin Road for Thomas Comprehensive Plan Amendment by
Lynn Thomas - north of E. Franklin Road and east of Meridian Road:
Item 10:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: RZ 07-002 Request for a
Rezone of 0.628 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for the Lynn Thomas
Property by Lynn Thomas - north of E. Franklin Road and east of
Meridian Road:
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 30 of 47
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I move that we recommend approval of CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-002, with
the following addition: That RZ 07-002 be subject to a development agreement that
incorporates the applicant's proposed elevations as presented tonight.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CPA 07-001 and RZ 07-002 to include all staff report and the addition of a
development agreement to tie down the elevations as presented tonight. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11:
Continued Public Hearing from April 5, 2007: CPA 07~003 Request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map by adding and
amending pathway locations for the Pathways Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by the City of Meridian Parks and Recreation Department:
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number CPA
07 -003, the Pathways Comprehensive Plan amendment as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date April 5th, 2007, and continued to the 19th, 2007.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of CPA 07-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16:
Continued Public Hearing from March 15,2007: PP 07-006 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building lots and
2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek
Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction - 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of PP 07-006 for the sole
purpose continuing to June 7th, 2007.
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 31 of 47
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items No. PP 07-006 related to the
Moose Creek Subdivision to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 7th, 2007. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, did you do -- did the Commission do the same action on the South
Meridian Plan? I know you discussed it in the beginning.
Moe: We did. We went through it.
Nary: Okay.
Siddoway: We continued it to November.
Nary: Okay. I knew you had, I just -- I knew you discussed it at the opening, I wasn't
sure if you had done it formally. Thank you.
Rohm: Well, I don't know that we did do it formally, did we?
Siddoway: We did.
Moe: Yes, we did.
Item 17:
Public Hearing: CUP 07-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
the operation of a bar, the Busted Shovel, in the O-T zone for the Busted
Shovel by William Kosterman - 704 Main Street:
Rohm: Oh. Okay. All right. Fair enough. At this time I'd like to open the Public
Hearing on CUP 07-004 related to the Busted Shovel and begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drinking establishment in an
OT, Old Town, zone, by the Busted Shovel Bar and Grill. The property is located here
on the northeast corner of Main Street and Broadway. The property is zoned Old Town.
To the north are commercial businesses. To the east is the Frontier Club Bar. To the
west are city offices. And to the south is the vacant Lumberman's site. The Unified
Development Code requires conditional use approval for drinking establishments in an
OT zone. The current and previous use approved for the property is a restaurant use.
The applicant wishes to convert this use to a drinking establishment use for the purpose
of allowing smoking within the establishment. Smoking is not allowed in a restaurant
per state law. Further, the business does not allow anyone to enter under the age of
21. A site plan was not submitted with this application, because the existing building
encompasses the entire property. Off street parking is not provided on the site because
of this. Staff is requiring that the applicant apply for alternative compliance to the
requirement for off-street parking with Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the change
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19. 2007
Page 32 of 47
in use of this site. Five off-street parking stalls would typically be required for the size of
the existing building on the site. The applicant has stated that five spaces in front of the
building on Main Street and Broadway Avenue are used for parking. Additionally, the
applicant states that he has a verbal agreement for parking with the property owner to
the east for off street parking. Access to the site is provided from East Broadway
Avenue and Main Street. Three written letters of testimony have been submitted on this
application. Two from David Wynkoop and one from Carol Gabriel. Staff is
recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff
report, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C. That's all staff has, unless the
Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: In the application you mentioned that it has five designated parking areas for--
around the corner or in front. Are those specifically designated for that establishment or
does it matter, as long as they have five. Does it have to be designated?
Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, the parking on the
street in Old Town is not designated for any particular business. The UDC requires five
off-street parking spaces. That's what I was saying the alternative compliance would be
required for. The applicant just stated that they have those amount of spaces in front of
their building on the street.
O'Brien: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Kosterman: Bill Kosterman. 3048 Cobble Way, Meridian, Idaho. Answer any questions
you have.
Moe: Are you in agreement with the staff report?
Kosterman: Yeah. The only thing is the parking is -- I can't imagine what business
could go in there without -- it's Old Town. There is no parking. There is three parking --
I do have an agreement here written by -- the business next door who controls the lot
behind me and he's given me a written statement here that says he does allow me to
park in his lot, which is an additional four to six spaces behind my building.
Rohm: Could we have that, please? Thank you. I don't have any questions.
Moe: I have no questions.
Rohm: You know, that establishment's been there for a long time and in my mind,
whether it's called the Busted Shovel or -- what was it before? Harry's?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 33 of 47
Kosterman: Harry's. The War Eagle. It Happens. It's a very very long distinguished
history back to 1937 when it was built.
Rohm: Yeah. I had -- thank you. Enough said. Thank you. Appreciate your
testimony.
Siddoway: I have one question for you. Sorry. Have you reviewed the letters of
objection from Sherer and Wynkoop?
Kosterman: I have not heard anything about a Sherer. And I know Dave is apparently
a -- oh, his wife and him. Okay.
Siddoway: Sherer and Wynkoop is the name of his office.
Kosterman: Okay. He walks by every day and he doesn't like that there is a patio out
there. So, his objection to me being a bar is that I have a patio, which I have, whether
I'm a restaurant or a bar, and that's -- I haven't seen the letters. They were not provided
to me. I was told that there were letters -- three letters from the same guy sounds a little
suspicious to me, but I -- if you would like to read them, I'd love to hear them.
Rohm: We are fine.
Kosterman: I hear he's an attorney.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could help clarify for Mr. Kosterman. What the issues
that Sherer and Wynkoop have raised -- it is required to have a license agreement, to
have your business encroach on the sidewalk, and according to their letter you don't
have a license agreement that allows that encroachment onto the sidewalk. The other
issue is the City of Meridian does not have an outdoor vending license or vending
ordinance that allows you to have alcohol out on the public sidewalk. It can be on your
property, but it can't be on the sidewalk. That's two things that are -- that that
requirement that he's talking about to allow that area on the sidewalk to be used either
for just sitting without alcohol being present -- being used or with alcohol you're going to
have to have both of those and that's what he raised the objection about. There was
some other objections, but that was the one that was being referred to regarding the
fact that -- he used to be a highway district commissioner, so he knows that is required
to be able to have that on the sidewalk.
Kosterman: I'm sure he knows.
Rohm: I guess my question -- the follow-up to that, then, would be do you typically
serve alcohol out on the front -- out on the sidewalk?
Kosterman: Honestly, I -- this is the first bar I have ever owned. I have owned it for a
year now. And all the things that the previous owner has been doing for ten years are
now, apparently, a problem for me to do. So, these are things I'm learning as I go is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 34 of 47
that, oh, you can't really do that, even though somebody else did. So, I'm in the process
-- I have got several calls in to ACHD, they are not returning my calls. I have a specific
name of the person for the agreement with ACHD for the sidewalk and as far as I know
-- this is the first I have heard about not being able to have an alcoholic beverage on
that patio.
Rohm: Okay. I think probably the appropriate action for us tonight is we will take care
of the application that's before us and it sounds like there will be a couple of continuing
things that you will have to work through that won't necessarily come before this
Commission, but I think we are in a position to act on this Conditional Use Permit
tonight. And that's what we are here for. So, unless there is additional questions of the
applicant --
Siddoway: Just to clarify. Is your primary motivation for this change to allow for the
smoking at the facility?
Kosterman: Yes.
Siddoway: The rest of it will --
Kosterman: There is absolutely no intention of changing the way we do business. We
are not putting in stripper poles. We are not changing the parking. We are not
changing the traffic patterns. The place has been there for 70 years as a smoking bar.
It was there for the last ten years as Harry's as a smoking bar. When the no smoking
law went in, he went down and changed the liquor license, which he did not own, from a
bar liquor license to a restaurant liquor license. After two years or maybe three years
he changed it back to a bar liquor license and no problem. Now, I own it and a year
after I have owned it now I have a problem and that's -- this is just me being upset about
the 1,100 dollar tax, but I'm here to get my Conditional Use Permit and play by the rules
and I will continue forward to go to ACHD, get the permission for the sidewalk cafe and
anything else I need to do. As these things come up I just keep learning new rules.
Rohm: Thank you.
Kosterman: It's not a condition of trying to break the law, it's, oh, boy, there is one
more.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Kosterman: Thanks.
Rohm: Okay. There is nobody else that has signed up to testify to this application, but
if there is anyone that would like to speak, now is that time. Okay. Could I get a motion
to close the Public Hearing?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close -- close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-004.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19. 2007
Page 35 of 47
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-004. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: My only discussion on this is that establishment's been there for a long time and
that fact that he's come forward and requested a CUP to operate it as has always been
operated seems to be almost a moot point, but, nevertheless, it's best that he be in
compliance and I think that CUP should be granted without question. Any other
comment? Okay. Could we get a motion to forward -- no, to act on this application.
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to approve file number CUP 07-004 as presented it the staff report for the hearing
date April 19th, 2007. And I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate
findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing on May 3rd, 2007.
Rohm: We have a motion.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-004. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you for coming in. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 18:
Public Hearing: RZ 07-006 Request for a Rezone of 4.38 acres from an
R-8 to an R-15 zone for Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 S.
Locust Grove Road:
Item 19:
Public Hearing: CUP 07-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for multi-family residential use in a proposed R-15 zone for
Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 S. Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 07-006 and CUP
07 -005 and begin with the staff report.
Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
request for a rezone of 4.38 acres from R-8 to R-15. Conditional Use Permit for a multi-
family development in a proposed R-15 zone and approval of private streets within the
development. The property is located at 300 South Locust Grove Road, approximately
a quarter mile south of East Franklin Road, on the east side of south Locust Grove
Road. To the north of the site is an LDS church and associated properties, zoned C-N
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 36 of 47
and RUT in Ada County. To the east is rural residential properties zoned R-1 in Ada
County. And commercial property zoned C-G. To the south is rural residential property,
zoned R-1 in Ada County. And further to the south is Woodbridge Subdivision, zone R-
4. And to the west is commercial property that is zoned L-O and rural residential
property, zoned R-1 in Ada County. There is an aerial view of the site. There is an
existing house and associated out buildings on the site. The applicant is proposing to
construct 34 multi-family residential units, consisting of attached two unit and four unit
structures at a gross density of 7.76 dwelling units per acre in an R-15 zone. Each of
the units is proposed to have a two car garage with a 20-by-20 parking pad in the
driveway. A proposed multi-family development is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designation of mixed use community for this property. Access
to the site is provided from South Locust Grove Road. The applicant is proposing to
construct private streets within the development, with 27 foot wide street sections, within
a 37 foot wide cross-access easement, with rolled curb and gutter, and a five foot wide
attached sidewalk. Because the proposed street width does not allow for on-street
parking for visitors, staff is recommending that the sidewalk be removed from the
internal side of the street around these two four unit structures and the road widened to
allow for parking on one side of the street on the external side. A 25 foot wide
landscape buffer is required along South Locust, as shown on the landscape plan. 27.7
percent of usable open space is provided on the site, with walking trails, a large grassy
open area, and a gathering courtyard in the center here that will help to create a
centralized community and include seating, shade trees, and community artwork. A
pathway is proposed leading from the residential portion of the development through the
common area here and a ten foot wide multi-use pathway will be constructed along the
Five Mile Creek at the northeast corner of the site. Elevations have been submitted for
the buildings on this site. These are the two unit structures proposed along the south
boundary. These are the front and rear, left side and right side elevations. In the center
here you will see the colors for the materials that will be used on them. This is a two
unit structure proposed at the northeast corner of the development. Right there that
leads into the common area. This is the right side elevation. This is the side facing the
common area. The left side. And the elevation facing the street. And these are the
four unit structures. This is the front elevation. Rear. Right side and left side. As you
can see these are attractive buildings that incorporate at least three different material
types, varying roof lines, windows, and recessed entrances, among other things. This
slide shows elevations of the site from Locust Grove Road from east and from
northeast. This slide shows elevations from the southeast, north, Locust Grove
entrance, and an overview of the gathering area. And the last slide here shows an
isometric view of the site from the southeast in relation to the surrounding properties.
Besides requiring conditional use approval in an R-15 zone, multi-family developments
also have to comply with specific use standards regarding site design, common open
space, site development amenities, architectural character and landscaping. Staff has
reviewed the subject application and found that the proposed development does comply
with the standards listed in the UDC. A written letter of testimony was received on the
application from Ronald Hodge, President of the Woodbridge Subdivision Homeowners
Association. Staff recommends approval of the subject application based on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19. 2007
Page 37 of 47
findings listed in Exhibit B and the conditions listed in B of the staff report. Excuse me.
That was findings in D. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please.
Nickle: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickle, 148 North 2nd
Street, Suite 101, in Eagle, here tonight representing Bellabrook Subdivision -- or
Bellabrook Condominium Development. I'd like to thank staff for their extra added
attention that they gave to us regarding this project, getting it designed in a way that
would meet the codes, Comprehensive Plan, and also provide for a better overall
development. Those black and white plans are rather difficult to understand, so,
hopefully, you guys got a chance to see those colored elevations that were up on the
screen. I do have large boards here that I can show you if you'd like to look at those. I'll
try to be brief and not ramble on too much. As staff has indicated we are asking for a
rezone from R-8 to R-15 and a Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family condominium
development. The property is on four point -- or includes 4.38 acres. The
Comprehensive Plan for this area is mixed use community, which allows up to 15 units
to the acre. Our proposed density is 7.76. Again, staff has indicated we are asking for
34 individually owned units. We are providing parking to each of the -- to each of the
units. We will provide two covered and two outside off-street parking for a total of four
parking spaces per unit. Staff also indicated that are --
Siddoway: Can you point those out. That's what I was just trying to figure out.
Nickle: Could we get the other colored plan up there? The black and white is kind of
hard to --
Watters: Which one, Shawn? I don't have a colored one. The files are too large. I
have problems getting them in the presentation.
Nickle: Right there. That will work. That one back there. One back. Sorry. Thank
you. Okay. So, to answer your question, Commissioner Siddoway -- I'll kind of go
through this. This is the private road. The units here, as you can see, we have -- there
is driveways that go back to a garage and this unit here. Two garages here. And a
garage beside -- that's the four unit plan.
Siddoway: So, there are two garages that face the front street --
Nickle: Yeah.
Siddoway: -- and a garage on each side in that case? Okay.
Nickle: And the way this was designed by -- by doing the private road -- we initially had
proposed a service drive. And to help with addressing and fire concerns, we did go the
private road route. So, what you actually see here is a multi-family development that is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 38 of 47
designed more with the look of a single family residential development with the private
road. We tried to design it so it wasn't completely garage dominated, so you have got
garages up front here, but, then, you have garages on the side. These two unit
concepts have the garages on the side and, again, there is that four unit development,
two on the side, two in front, and so on. So, it was nice that we were able to get four
parking spaces off side -- or off street, even though it's a private street, for each of the
units.
O'Brien: I have a question on --
Nickle: Yes, sir.
O'Brien: -- on the left side of the -- of the picture, you have a single unit there. And,
then, your other diagram it showed units nine and ten. Is that a single unit or is that two
units there?
Nickle: This is two units right here.
O'Brien: Two units? Okay. It just shows --
Nickle: Right.
O'Brien: -- side by side, instead of head on.
Nickle: Right.
O'Brien: And that is the end of the flood plane?
Nickle: No. If we can go to the next map. Sorry. The other way. Yeah. Either of
those. This indicates the flood plane and the floodway line.
O'Brien: So, the backyard, if you will, of those -- of that section nine and ten, does that
have much slope down?
Nickle: It does -- it's a gradual slope, but right here -- here is those units that you spoke
of, sir, and this area right here is all outside of the flood plane or the floodway.
O'Brien: And that's a park, I guess, or --
Nickle: And that's the grassy area that will be one of our amenities. Then, we have the
pathway that goes down to the future regional pathway and along the creek.
O'Brien: I'm just -- it's kind of strange to put a unit isolated like that in a park and
pathway area. It seems like it would be kind of -- not much privacy. It's just a thought or
concern.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19. 2007
Page 39 of 47
Nickle: The common area within the development encompasses 45 percent of the site.
Within that we do have 27 percent usable open space as defined by your code,
including that grassy area here, which is just going to be an open area. There is not
going to be any play equipment in there. It will just have the pathway that runs through
to the east. And, then, we have a common gathering area in the center of the
development with public art and a pathway through that. Twenty-five foot buffer along
Locust Grove Road. That is all included in that 45 percent overall. The gathering area,
grassy area, pathways, all account for that 27 percent of the usable open space. We
are providing fencing along the west, south, and a portion of the east of the
development. We do believe this is an excellent area for this type of development. As
you know this is a mixed use area that includes, as staff has indicated, a church to the
north. Single family residential to the south. Office commercial to the west. You have
the police station across the street and down. Water Tower. You have city parks within
a mile and a half -- or, excuse me, within three-quarters of a mile. Downtown is a mile
and a half from the site. We are adjacent to that regional pathway. There is industrial
to the north along Franklin. It's a definite mixed use area. We believe -- and this is not
a high density development by any means, at 7.7 dwelling units per acre. We feel that
multi-family development in this area does provide diversity in housing type and also
does provide for a mixed use, which is envisioned by your Comprehensive Plan. Again,
I have elevations here that are colored if you would like to see them, if you would like to
take a look at those up close that I can pass around if you'd like to see. Oh, if you have
got them, great. I'll just show them to the neighbors, if they'd like to look at them as
well. Again, staff did an excellent job at analyzing the requirements for the multi-family
development. I won't go into any detail, but they are in your staff report, unless you'd
like me to answer any questions regarding those. Those have to do with open space
area ratios, parking, maintenance and care taking units and things like that. So, that's
all I have as far as my application. We do -- we are in favor of the recommended
conditions of approval, including the revisions that staff has indicated in there, some of
which we have taken care of already, but we are in agreement with those conditions. I
will stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Any questions of the applicant at this time?
O'Brien: One more.
Nickle: Uh-huh.
O'Brien: On that flood plane area where you have some trees, et cetera, I mean how is
that really going to be used. Are you not going to have any picnic areas or anything like
that in that area? Because the common area seems like it's awfully small for the
number of units you have in that. Will that be able to support --
Nickle: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, this area right here, again, is all -- is
completely outside of the flood plane. It is going to be grass and landscape. So, it's an
open area for frisbees, football -- it's -- this area down within the flood plane is going to
be more of a natural area with the pathway going down to the future regional path. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 40 of 47
are going to construct that path. But we are counting this area right here as -- it
becomes a usable recreation area, in addition the gathering area that's more of a -_
more of a social type of amenity.
O'Brien: So, I guess I don't know -- and maybe someone else could help me out here
as far as what size does a development area have to have before they have a plan area
or park -- mini park in this case, to support that.
Nickle: Yeah. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, your staff report -- I can give
you the page number, but it -- Sonya does go through an analysis of the open space
and I think she does a really good job at indicating -- on a multi-family development like
this each unit has to -- is required to have a certain amount of open space provided.
So, this design that we have does provide for that, in addition to the amenities that are
required by code.
O'Brien: Okay.
Nickle: So, I believe, staff is comfortable with the open space that we have.
O'Brien: Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Shawn, I'm just curious. Your primary motivation for going private streets
instead of public, was it in order to get the difference that ACHD will allow with a public
street or what was your reason for it not being a public street?
Nickle: That is the reason for the -- originally for the service drive. As you know, most
multi-family developments, apartment complexes, things like that have the service drive.
Those are causing some confusion with fire and police getting in there with addressing
and so by doing the public -- the private streets, it does allow that addressing and those
safety concerns. But to answer your initial question, using drives and private roads
does help with those widths and those right of way requirements by ACHD.
Siddoway: Okay.
Nickle: And, in turn, that helps for a better design on these type of developments.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thanks, Shawn. Okay. Jerry
Cunningham. That's quite all right. Ma'am, would you like to come forward. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 41 of 47
Jordan: Christie Jordan. 1702 East Bowstring. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Commission, I own one of the properties in Woodbridge that is directly north of this
proposed development and I just have a few concerns that may be addressed in the
staff report. I glanced through it, but didn't have time to read it in its entirety. I'm just
concerned that the CUP 07-005 is not accepted, but that the rezone is accepted, will
that potentially open the property up to multi-family rental type development, apartment
development. And I'm just concerned -- or want to know if it's going to be guaranteed
that this property will be sold as individual units, as opposed to being a large scale
apartment rental complex and just because of the fact that I feel that that could diminish
our property value. And those are my major concerns. I think -- I had some concerns
about roof heights, that type of thing that I believe that they have addressed with some
of the revisions to plan with the hip roofs and things, so -- thank you.
Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham.
Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Jerry Cunningham. 1974
East Bowstring. I not only live in Woodbridge Subdivision, but I also own three acres
that are adjacent to the property that actually show the R-1 there. So, this is the section
of property right here. And, first of all, I'd like to go on record as saying I hope that Ross
does build here, because I really like the drawings he's put together. They have been
very nice. I think they are pleasing and would actually fit in with the community very
well. I don't understand why there would be a request for a change in density, given
that they are proposing a development that's 7.7 per acre when it's already zoned eight
units per acre. Don't understand why you would grant that. My third point is that I'm
concerned about the private road. The other design that you looked at last time and
approved, that wasn't here, because it left a nice city access -- sorry. You want me to
be right close to it. The last drawing -- do you guys have copies of the last drawing that
was proposed when this was originally changed from an R-1 to an R-8?
Rohm: I do not.
Cunningham: The reason I ask is because it did have city streets and it left access to
the property to the east, which given the current -- the current design, the only access
that would be there for either of the two property parcels that I'm speaking to, either the
one that I have or the one that my neighbor owns, it's a 50 foot stretch. So, not having a
hundred foot of frontage is a limitation to doing any development behind this
development. Did not have any access. So, it has to stay a private road. And I'm
concerned long term about isolation. Like as you drive down Ustick, you still find little
pockets of three acres here and two acres there and one acre here and I'm hoping that
the -- that the Commission is taking that into consideration as you change zoning and
look at different developments before you. And my last point is that I would encourage
the Commission to have a development agreement, since these two zoning -- rezoning
requests within a six month period, I guess I'd like to see that the Commission hold the
developer to a particular plan and that that's agreed to. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Yeah. Come on back up, Shawn.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 42 of 47
Nickle: Again, Mr. Chairman, for the record, Shawn Nickle. And thanks to the
neighbors for -- for showing up. To answer the first lady's question, our intent -- and it's
throughout our proposal and application -- is that these are going to be individually
owned condominiums. Your staff report has conditions -- the requirements to come __
for coming back and the procedure we have to go through to change those and that is
our intent. These are going to be a high quality residential multi-family development.
As you can see from the elevations that have been submitted, they are not your
standard apartment complex type of building. Therefore, they are going to be marketed
towards the individual ownership. To address the gentleman's question, if we could go
back to -- I guess maybe the site -- the vicinity map of the area, Sonya. That's perfect.
And the gentleman indicated -- and I believe he owns this property right here and, then,
there is a separate ownership of this property with the flag. He is correct in that we are
changing our application and we no longer have a public road and that public road did
stub to the eastern boundary. However, he is in no different circumstance than he was
in the last time our application was approved, because he is still a landlocked parcel
back here. This parcel in front of him does have a 50 foot wide flag that he does have
access to -- or that this property does have access to and a public road could be built in
there that would, then, provide access to that back property. That was all taken into
consideration and we met many times with staff to make sure that they were
comfortable with the way this was designed while we were proposing those private
roads and staff has indicated that that is an acceptable way to leave these properties,
that they are convinced that they do have proper access for future redevelopment of
those -- of those outparcels. I think that's all that was addressed. I'll stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant?
Siddoway: Are you able to meet the conditions of the fire department as presented in
the staff report with your private road?
Nickle: Yeah. We -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, we designed this around
Joe's comments, police comments, and your staff comments. And, yes, they do meet
all the -- all those.
Rohm: Question of staff before you sit down, Shawn. The staff report indicates that
you're going to remove the sidewalk on one side of the street and to widen that street
somewhat. Will the additional width now make that roadway acceptable to Ada County
Highway District or is it still not in compliance with --
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, it would make it close, but not
quite. But ACHD is looking at coming up with some different standards trying to reduce
those a little bit, but the fire department generally is not supportive of any reduced
widths. It's a little different on these multi-families, they have a little different feel about
it. It still wouldn't meet public street standards.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 43 of 47
Rohm: Okay. That's the question. Thank you. Okay. That's all.
Siddoway: Follow-up question for staff. Anna, have you verified that there is enough
width in that frontage to accommodate a public road in the future?
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, it is
50 feet. However, that would put -- it would -- there wouldn't be any land use buffer to
the -- to the -- they could do a reduced street section and move part of that right of way
into the landscaping, so that there wasn't directly the road on the back of Woodbridge.
We did look at this issue and Mr. Cunningham -- thank you. I was a little surprised
when I saw on the records that we did have a landlocked parcel back there.
Particularly, that's all in the flood plane and the flood -- you need to not talk from the
audience, sir. I'm sorry. But there is a piece of property there, but most of that is in the
floodway and the flood plane. So, the development potential of that, as in all of this
property here, is severely limited by that flood plane. It's a rather wide flood plane and,
you know, ACHD has a drainage basin here, because this is a very large natural drain
and you can -- you can see it coming through Woodbridge as well with their open space
system through here. So, a large portion of that is not developable or has limited
development potential. So, we felt that it wasn't necessary to accommodate a lot of
traffic. They could do flag lots and get four units back there, might be appropriate, but
we thought that there was really limited to this upper plateau as far as development
potential. You know, we may have been mistaken in that, I'm not sure, but that is how
we looked at it. There is always a question of when a private street goes in, that
connecting another property to a private street, it isn't necessarily appropriate. When--
but in this instance the private street accommodated the multi-family use. So, it's the
circle we kind of go in every time we have a multi-family development. We like to get
interconnected ones, but these multi-family developments tend to be designed around
private streets, rather than public streets.
Rohm: Thank you.
Canning: Did that answer your question, Mr. Siddoway?
Siddoway: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions before we close the Public Hearing?
O'Brien: I have a question for staff. About this development agreement, you know, I
noticed in the -- in this report that you didn't think one was required and I guess I just
hesitate the fact that it was zoned from an R-8 to an R-15 -- I don't understand the logic
from that -- it just seems like it leaves it open for something else outside of the -- outside
of what's in that agreement.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the --
the R-8 does designate up to eight dwelling units per acre, but it is for single family
homes. It's not -- it does not allow multi-family development. So, in order to ask for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 44 of 47
multi-family developments such as this, they had to request a higher designation, so __
and they would not have been able to meet the dimensional standards for single family
homes in the R-8 zone, too. But with regard to the desire for a development agreement,
that may very well be appropriate and is probably something that Council would be in
favor of, in all honesty. With the R-15 developments, they are very site specific. You
need to know what unit you have got, you need to have it placed on that lot in a very
particular way. So, that may be a very appropriate suggestion as put forth.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Shawn, did you want to come back up?
Nickle: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickle. I apologize, I was going to address that. I
think that's a fair question by the neighbor and we would be more than happy to enter
into a development agreement to lock us into that site plan that we have shown you, if
you're not comfortable with not having one. And, then, staff did explain why we have to
ask for an R-15. We are actually under the R-8 density, but the multi-family is only
allowed in the R-15 and above, so --
Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Okay.
Moe: Just one question. A little information for me as far as changing that, though, if
they would have done a PUD, would that not have needed to go to an R-15 at that
point? I'm reading these days.
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, that's a very good point. The PUD as
we have changed it in the Unified Development Code, though, specifically says you
cannot ask for a PUD for the sole purpose of waiving requirements. So, they weren't
able to go the PUD route on that one and they didn't have a mix of types of product, so
they were not able to ask for a PUD.
Moe: Well, when I need some sleep I'll start reading these, so I can find that.
Canning: It will work.
Moe: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for RZ 07-006 and CUP
07-005.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ
07-006 and CUP 07-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 45 of 47
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman -- did you want to take a poll or anything?
Rohm: Just if any individual Commissioner has some final thoughts and certainly this is
the appropriate time to exercise that right. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any final
thoughts?
O'Brien: No, I don't. I think I had my question answered and part of the concern of that
was leaving it open for someone else to be in the zone for the R-15, instead of R-8, that
there might have been some conflict, I don't know, downstream, but I don't see that,
based on the area here. So, I'm good with it.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: I'd actually just like to commend the applicant for bringing a product that has
a residential character and quality similar to a large -- you know, very large residential
home -- it's a four-plex, but the way it's -- it's not just a large box and it's not all -- it's not
all garages on the front, it's got some good articulation and I think it will fit in well. So,
with that I will make a motion to recommend -- after considering all staff, applicant, and
public testimony, I recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-006,
CUP 07-038 and PS 07-002. That's -- with -- there is no PS on here. The PS is a
private street application. Is that needed?
Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, private streets do
not require Public Hearing notice. They typically run -- they are typically approved at
staff level, but because the other applications that were accompanying it require a
Public Hearing, it accompanies those applications.
Rohm: So, we just have the rezone and the CUP.
Siddoway: On the agenda. Okay. There is a separate private street application. So,
on the RZ and CUP, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 19th,
2007, with the following modification. I recommend that RZ 07-006 be required to enter
into a development agreement that would incorporate the site plans and elevations as
submitted and presented tonight. End of motion.
O'Brien: I second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of RZ 07 -006 and CUP 07-005, to include all staff report, with the
aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carried. Thank you, folks, for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 46 of 47
Item 20:
Public Hearing: PFP 07-001 Request for a Preliminary / Final Plat
approval to subdivide Lot 13, Block 3 of Vallin Courts Subdivision to create
two (2) new lots for Benewah by Walker Homes, Inc. - 2673 North
Ridgebury Avenue:
Rohm: The next item on the agenda is to open the Public Hearing on PFP 07-001 for
the sole purpose of continuing it to the May 3rd regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item PFP 07-001 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of May 3rd, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Oh.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn, this is Mr. Cole's last meeting. I don't think we
made note of that at the beginning -- or at any part of this meeting. But Mr. Cole is
leaving the city as well and his last day is also tomorrow and I didn't want to let that
opportunity pass without making note of that.
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Nary. I said I wouldn't cry.
Thank you for that. It's been an honor working with this board. I don't get to talk as
much as I'd like to, being the Planning and Zoning Commission, not the engineering
commission, but it's been a real honor. I would like to introduce Scott Steckline, who
will be filling in in my role, so you will be seeing him in my seat for the rest and I hope he
does a good job and enjoys working with you guys as much as I have. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. And just for the record also, Mike told me he was doing absolutely
nothing tomorrow.
Nary: How will they notice?
Rohm: Well, with that being said Mr. Moe's motion to close the Public Hearing --
Moe: No. To adjourn.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 19, 2007
Page 47 of 47
Rohm: To adjourn.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVE~
\j\lA .
CHA(RMAN AEL E. ROHM
0/ /r/ Or
DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK