2007 08-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 16, 2007
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 16, 2007, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe and Steve Siddoway.
Members Absent: Tom O'Brien and Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Nancy Radford, Caleb Hood, Scott Steckline, Bill Parsons,
Sonya Wafters, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay 0 Tom O'Brien
X David Moe -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, everybody. At this time we'd like to call the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the
roll call of the Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: The first item is the adoption of agenda and I don't believe there is any changes
to be announced tonight, so could I get a motion to accept the agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 2 of 30
Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there is just one item
on that and it's the approval of the minutes from the regularly scheduled meeting of July
19th, 2007. Any additions or corrections?
Moe: I have none.
Siddoway: I have none.
Rohm: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 19, 2007: AZ 07-006 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for
Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants -south of E. Fairview Avenue, east
of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from July 19, 2007: RZ 07-010 Request for
a Rezone of 75.67 acres from I-L and L-O zones to a C-G zone for
Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants -south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of
N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road:
Item 6; Continued Public Hearing from July 19, 2007: PP 07-008 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on 170
+/- acres in a proposed C-G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants
- south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of
N. Eagle Road:
Rohm: All right. I have to say that I can't remember a single time that we have had a
single item on our agenda, so I -- nobody's going to have to wait. So, with that being
said, we will begin with the staff report for AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, and PP 07-008.
Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
request for annexation and rezone of 94.69 acres from R-1 and RUT in Ada County to
C-G, a rezone of 75.67 acres from I-L to C-G and preliminary plat for 61 building lots
and 21 common lots on approximately 170 acres of land. A variance is also requested
for two access points to Eagle Road, although the Commission is not required to make
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 3 of 30
a recommendation on this application. The subject property is located south of Fairview
Avenue, east of Locust Grove, west of Eagle Road, and north of East Commercial
Street. The site is bordered on the north by commercial uses zoned C-G, vacant
undeveloped property zoned RUT in Ada County ,multi-family residential uses, zoned
R-40 and industrial commercial and office uses, zoned I-L. On the east by industrial,
commercial, and office uses and undeveloped property, zoned I-L. Commercial
property, zoned C-G. And on the south by industrial property, zoned I-L and offices and
a school, zoned L-O. On the west by industrial property, zoned I-L. Vacant ground
zoned RUT in Ada County. Commercial property, zoned C-G. Residential property,
zoned R-8 and R-40. Here is an aerial of the subject property. There are a few existing
single family homes and associated outbuildings on this site, but the site primarily
consists of vacant land. The majority of the subject property is designated mixed use
community and mixed use regional, with a one and a half acre portion designated as
industrial on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed C-G zoning
district is compatible with the aforementioned mixed use designations, but is not
compatible with the industrial designation. Because land use designations depicted on
the future land use map are conceptual, staff believes that a map amendment is not
necessary for the industrial designated property and that the requested C-G zone and
commercial use of this property would be more appropriate, because of the property
size and proximity to mixed use designated land. Therefore, staff believes that the
requested zoning of this property to C-G complies with the intent of the Comp Plan.
Here is the conceptual site plan that the applicant submitted as part of the application
and zone request. This shows the proposed layout of the development. The
Pinebridge Development is proposed to consist of approximately three million square
feet of commercial, light office, multi-family residential uses and a medical campus. The
multi-family portion of the development, as you see over here on the west, will require
Conditional Use Permit approval and must comply with specific use standards for multi-
family developments listed in the UDC. The applicant has also submitted a conceptual
building elevation that is representative of what some of the future buildings will look like
within the development. The applicant also submitted an overview of the development.
To insure that the site develops in an attractive manner, staff is requesting that the
developer enter into a development agreement with the city that includes provisions
related to the design of the buildings and the site. The applicant is requesting
preliminary plat approval for 61 building lots and 21 common lots on approximately 170
acres of land. Buildable lots for the proposed subdivision range in size from .43 of an
acre to 13.62 acres. Primary access to the development is proposed to be provided
from Fairview Avenue via Pinebridge Avenue and North Eagle Road and North Locust
Grove Road via Pine Avenue. The applicant is planning to construct Pinebridge Avenue
from Fairview Avenue and extend Pine Avenue to the west from Eagle Road to Nola
Road, which will serve as the primary access points into the development. East Wilson
Lane is proposed to stub to the west at the northern portion of the development for
future connection to the existing Wilson Lane west of the site. East State Street is
proposed to connect to the east to an existing segment of State Street. Webb Avenue
and Machine Avenue are proposed to connect to the south to existing segments of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 4 of 30
these streets. Newbridge Place will be constructed to the south from Pine Avenue to
provide access to Lots 4 and 5, Block 2. Shellbrook will provide access from Locust
Grove to the multi -- proposed multi-family portion of the development and connect to
Pinebridge Avenue. Staff is requesting that cross-access easements and driveway
stubs be provided to the Cortabitarte property at the northeast boundary of the site and
Bellair Leasing and Elliott Group and H2NR properties at the west boundary. A
minimum 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Fairview, Locust Grove and
Pine, all classified as arterial streets, and a 35 foot wide buffer is required along Eagle,
an arterial and entryway corridor. A 20 foot wide buffer is required along all streets
classified as collectors and a ten foot wide buffer is required along all streets classified
as local streets. Additionally, a 25 foot wide buffer is required adjacent to any
residential uses. Internal landscaping will be reviewed with certificate of zoning
compliance and conditional use applications for this site. The Meridian master
pathways plan depicts future multi-use pathways on this site. Staff has requested that
the applicant construct pathways in the locations noted in Exhibit B of the staff report in
accordance with the standards listed in the pathways plan. There are several old
existing structures located at the corner of Nola and Pine that may be classified as
historical structures and may be of preservation value. As you can see, there is an old
barn, a log house, and a wooden silo on the site. The applicant should address what
they intend on doing with these structures. Also, because Pine Avenue will be a
primary access point for this development, the applicant should address the timeline for
its extension at tonight's meeting. ACHD has requested that Pinebridge Avenue be
relocated 265 feet west of the proposed location to align with the Oakbridge Plaza
driveway on the north side of Fairview. The applicant shall submit revised plans prior to
the City Council meeting that reflects this change. Staff is recommending approval of
annexation, rezone, and preliminary plat and denial of the variance request per the
conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the findings in Exhibit B of the staff report. And
that's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Very good. Any questions of staff?
Siddoway: Not at this time.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Torfin: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Dan Torfin and I'm
representing DMV Investments in the Pinebridge application. It's my pleasure to
present our project to this Commission finally. We have been working on it for several
years. We have been continuing our application and we are finally through the roadway
issues that kind of delayed the project. I won't repeat a lot of the detail that staff just did
a fine job of describing the project. For those of you that aren't familiar with us, we have
been developing in the area for about 30 plus years. We have been primarily in Eagle
and Nampa. We have done some developments in Meridian in the '90s, but we have
done Two Rivers, North Channel in Eagle. Lakemore is another development. And it's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 5 of 30
our intention for Pinebridge to now get started and create maybe one of the finest mixed
use projects in the valley on this property and kind raise the bar with things that we like
to do with landscaping, design, and building construction. This -- Pinebridge is a mixed
use development in itself is a -- we think is a solution to some of the traffic situations
that occur. We are planning on -- we have worked out a right of way purchase
agreement for Pine Street. ACHD will purchase Pine Street right of way this year and
part of next year, their fiscal year, and we are right now negotiating acontract -- or an
agreement with them for reimbursement for building Pine Street. So, it's our intention to
negotiate that as soon as possible. We are working on it right now and with plans of
building that road next year and -- which is important and I'm not telling this Commission
anything they don't know already. The connection to Locust Grove and Locust Grove
going over the interstate will provide great relief to Eagle Road. So, that's the status of
Pine Street. We are -- we have acquired this ground. We are also -- this is a little bit of
an outdated photo, but we are building our office building that Sonya had shown as an
example of the type of building and we are currently under construction right here.
Petra is building that. It's about a 24,000 square foot office building. Pinebridge will be
-- will have corporate offices, mixed use retail, specialty retail, and an element in here of
multi-family residential development and the multi-family that we envisioned here
conceptually isn't like anything, really, that Meridian has seen. We are not talking about,
you know, four -- four-plexes and stacked, things like that, we are talking about nicely
designed multi-family that will have gathering places, that will include some retail places
within this, around this roundabout, and so we have got -- you know, our idea is that it's
going to be something very nice and that will be appropriate for the area and it could be
-- very well be in the 40 units per acre, high density, that as this project develops over,
you know, a long period of time, this could be anywhere from a 10, 15 to 20 year
project. So, when -- I guess when the number three million square feet is thrown out
there, that's a big number, but that's over quite a bit of time. I have also described this
project as maybe the largest in-fill project in the valley, because we are surrounded by
development. The plan that we have envisioned does include the pathways that the city
wants to have installed. We want to create something that's pedestrian friendly and
walkable and a place where people live and work and can enjoy the Pinebridge
development. I need to talk about our roadways a little bit more. We did -- this plan that
you do have before you now -- Sonya, I think this is the one with the revision, that lines
up with Oakbrook now, the one I sent you today. So, we -- Fairview Avenue is a very
important access point to us. We have lined it up with Oakbrook. On a previous plan it
was over here lined up with Sonic's Drive-in. We -- ACRD approved our project last
week. In our discussions they left the door open -- we were requesting approval for a
signalized intersection at Fairview. They didn't approve it with a signal. It doesn't talk
about the signal, but they left the door open that through the corridor study we can -- we
can look at that. We do meet their policy. We do need good controlled access on
Fairview. It actually helps Fairview Avenue, eliminates problems that occur without a
signal at one of our primarily locations. Another -- so, that's our -- that's an item that we
are hoping that Meridian will support us on our request for a traffic signal at that location
for full access. And, then, as far as Eagle Road goes, we have -- we have Pine Street
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 6 of 30
onto Eagle Road, which is an existing access, and will be improved with some turning
lanes and other improvements that will be part of our agreement with ACHD. It's
signalized. Commercial is an existing private roadway that was developed years ago. It
provides access to some of this industrial ground. I believe Elixir Industries built that -- I
don't know, late '80s, early '90s. Mid '80s, maybe. But we have an access point here.
We did submit a variance request, but we believe we already have an access point and
that that -- that doesn't need a variance for us to continue to use that. It's a legal access
point. We also have an access point shown on our plan right here and we were granted
-- the previous property owner was granted an access right for this property back in the
'80s as well. So, this one is also a variance request. And I'm standing here today
asking for the support of those access points. Aright-in, right-out in the center of this
property actually benefits Eagle Road without forcing people to all come out to the
signal and so we are -- we are asking for your support on that, even though it sounds
like the Commission doesn't have to make a recommendation on that access point. We
have read the staff report, the conditions of approval, and I got some changes that I'd
like to talk to the Commission about, if I may do that. In Exhibit B, which -- it's labeled
comments and conditions in it -- and so I think they are -- I guess for me they are all
conditions and one of the things on -- in Exhibit B -- 1.1.3 requires that a final plat be
recorded prior to issuance of occupancy permits and we potentially have legal parcels --
original parcels that could be -- once the zoning's in place we could do lot -- boundary
line adjustments prior to platting. Our intention is to plat the development, but we have
a hotel that potentially wants to get started before a plat can get all the way through the
process, a final plat approved. So, we are -- I'm asking that that condition be modified
to allow, you know, building permits and occupancy permits on legal parcels prior to the
final plat. And another item in the conditions of approval requires -- in the staff report
the discussion talks about placing a majority of the parking in the rear and on the sides
of the buildings and in the conditions of approval it's pretty specific that says all parking
will be in the rear and on the sides and we'd like to have some variations there where it
doesn't -- where we are not lining all the streets with buildings and so we want to have
that condition modified to allow some variation that it's not mandatory that every -- all
the parking has to occur on the sides and in the rear. We think it's a good idea and we
think we will incorporate some of that, but there are some -- also some landscaping
provisions that can hide the parking, buffer the parking, without lining your streets with
buildings.
Siddoway: Which number is that?
Torfin: I could get to that. I apologize. That's the only one that Ididn't -- it's, actually, in
-- it's in that same number, 1.1.3, and it's -- it's the sixth paragraph down. Structure
shall be built adjacent to the roadways with parking to the rear and the sides of the
structures.
Siddoway: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 7 of 30
Torfin: And I don't have a lot of changes, so I will -- I will try to get through these. they
are fairly important to us, though. The cross-access easements that are required -- I did
talk to Mr. Cortabitarte earlier this evening and for his piece that he has up here, I think
it's compatible. We don't have any objection to that. These other -- the Elliott property
and the -- I think it's the Bellair property, which is a raft company, are manufacturing and
kind of industrial in nature and we are concerned -- I guess one concern is, you know,
cross-access usually is an agreement between two parties and, you know, maybe -- it
might be a good idea that there is an access for them onto our property, but I -- you
know, looking at the site -- this is a stockyard of materials, I think fencing materials, and
we are concerned about the compatibility of providing cross-access where this could be,
you know, a Fortune 500 corporate headquarters and we have got a -- you know, a
fence company that their trucks are coming through and so we are concerned about
that and we think they have access on Wilson Lane. We will -- we will stub Wilson Lane
to our property. There is a small gap in there, but they have adequate access and
because of the use we would like to have the requirement for cross-access with those
two parcels that -- removed from the conditions of approval. Another condition -- and
this is -- the previous was 1.2.6, for the record. 2.1.4, I believe, requires the tiling of all
ditches. One thing that I have noted out here -- the Jackson Drain runs through our
property right here adjacent to our property. I think our property is centered in this
location and it runs through the middle. And what we'd like to do -- and there is a
pathway planned for that -- is we'd like to grade the banks and keep those -- the drains
open, creeks, and kind of create something that is an amenity and so we would like to
have the ability to grade that bank, subject to, you know, working with the Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District, which we have done in the past on other projects, and not
the the Jackson Drain. And from what I can see, this apartment project right here, they
left it open and they have built a section of this pathway on the north side of the Jackson
Drain. So, we'd like to do that. In the staff report there are two other items, one is 3.28
and I believe this is a -- maybe a comment, but it's -- I believe it's from the fire
department and, then, there is 4.8, which is similar, and I think it's from the police
department and in that it says no access points should be allowed to and from Eagle
Road. And they both -- both departments have that condition and we'd like to have that
removed as a condition, because we will have access -- we believe we have access
and legal access on Eagle Road. And, then, 4.6 is -- I believe it's from the police
department, that they have got that -- a comment or a condition that says only right-in,
right-out access will be provided on Fairview and right now ACHD has approved a full
access, as well as two right-in, right-out access points at our east and west boundary.
So, that wasn't clear if that was a condition or if it was just a comment. Okay. 3.28 --
two six. Okay. Thank you, Pat. One other item -- it's limiting us to shrubs that don't
grow to more than two feet maximum and I believe that's the police department and we
just felt that was kind of strange, because we do like the landscape, so we'd like to have
that eliminated as well.
Siddoway: Do you know which number that is?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 8 of 30
Torfin: Yes. It is 4.3, I believe. Other than that, we are -- the conditions of approval, we
are happy to enter into a development agreement. What I'm -- I guess I have a question
-- I would like to start that process immediately and I don't know if that's -- if that's
something we could start that discussion, because it does, in the staff report, require
that we have that development agreement in place prior to the annexation and zoning
and if there is the ability to at least get that ball rolling now, I'd like to do it because of
the potential hotel that wants to get started on the project.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? Just on that point, I guess, Mr. TorFin, until the Council approves
what findings they want in a development agreement, there isn't anything to start. So,
until that's done we can't really prepare a development agreement.
TorFin: Okay. Understand.
Nary: Just so you know.
Torfin: Okay. Well, in -- I guess in closing, we are really excited to finally be able to get
started on Pinebridge and we do intend to kind of raise the bar for what kind of
development has been happening in the area. It really -- it's an in-fill area, we think. It's
a transition area, because you have got a lot of trucking companies and other industrial
uses that will transition out and we want to set the tone and so some of the items that
are in the staff report talking about the quality of how this should be developed, are our
same ideas, and so we are happy with that. I guess other than that, I will stand for
questions and request approval for Pinebridge. Thank you.
Rohm: I guess my first question is you don't happen to have a list of the requested
changes from the staff report that you could make available?
Torfin: I have them written down. I can -- I can leave them with staff tonight. Is that --
Rohm: Yeah.
Torfin: -- or would you like me to --
Rohm: I'd like to have them and we will just -- we will go make copies, so that each of
us can have a complete list and we can be reviewing them as we --
Torfin: Okay. Let me --
Rohm: -- make adjustments. I think that's probably the best way to go about that.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, just a couple questions. I'm kind of curious in regards to the
development as far as retail slash office, hotel. Have you got any percentages you guys
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 9 of 30
are anticipating in this at all or location-wise how you're looking at -- looking to develop
it?
Torfin: I think, you know, it's a mixed use project, I can kind of describe the master plan.
Moe: Great.
Torfin: This area along Eagle Road is retail and Ithink -- let me grab -- this area right
here, it's approximately ten acres -- so, the frontage is approximately ten acres on Eagle
Road, conceptually Eagle and Pine. This area right here is about 42 acres. This is a
corporate campus. These are -- this is approximately about 300,000 square feet of
office. At one time we were entertaining a potential state university that was looking at
this area. So, that's office. There is still room for educational facilities and hospitals and
medical and technical areas as well. This one right -- these acres were a little bit off, so
I'm going to read some things that are a little bit different than what's up there. This
area right here is approximately 25 acres. We are adjacent to an industrial area and so
there could be -- we have talked to some medical manufacturing companies that this
may be a great transition where -- that flex space is allowed, but they have a nice
corporate front out onto Pine Street. We actually, in the mid '90s, I think, this was part
of our property and that went to the Meridian School District. I'm going to jump around.
Up here is -- is another retail node. B is office. E could be office as well. The hotel is
going right in here and it's -- it's more of an extended stay hotel and from what I
understand they cater to doctors that may be doing internships at St. Luke's, that -- so
it's more of a residential looking, rather than the hotels that you see going up rapidly
around the city. So, we have got a hotel there. We have got -- we have got potential for
a little bit of retail in this area around this roundabout. This area D is the multi-family
area. And C, again, is potentially some office with maybe some limited retail. Phasing
is -- you know, it's -- I guess once we build the road and people get back in here, it
seems like, you know, the first development's going to start in the center of the project.
We are kind of -- we are not part of Pinebridge, but our office is starting right here, so I
think you will see a lot of activity kind of right in this area right now and, you know, I --
the multi-family will have to come back before -- for a conditional use and so there will
be a lot of detail that will be shared with this Commission prior to anything as far as
multi-family residential.
Moe: Thank you.
Torfin: Did I answer that question?
Moe: Yes, you did. I appreciate that.
Rohm: Kind of a follow-up to that same question. When do you anticipate being able to
take that Pine Avenue all the way to Locust Grove? That would be part of this project?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 10 of 30
Torfin: Yes. The agreement, Mr. Chairman, that we are working with -- to put together
with ACHD and ACHD is agreeable, their Commission has authorized staff -- authorized
their staff to move forward. It's a reimbursement agreement and -- for the design and
construction of the road, which we would do -- it's out intention to put that agreement
together this year and design it. We may even start designing it before the agreement
is put together, so we could build it and pave it in the early part of next year.
Rohm: I think what -- where I'm going with this is, you know, as you phase in the
project, would the extension of Pine West -- would it be constructed as the phasing
occurs or would you try and get that all the way through to Locust Grove right up front
and, then, your phasing for the development will occur as -- as requests come in to your
-- to your office?
Torfin: Sure. It's our intention -- and this is what we are working towards -- is to build
this all atone time.
Rohm: That's the answer I was looking for.
TorFin: And the reason is right now Pine Street is a dead end to our property and along
our property and until you really can get into the property and get -- and come through
it, it -- you know, it doesn't really benefit us to start the development until that road is
through. So, that is our intention not to phase Pine in, subject to working out the
agreement with ACHD.
Rohm: Thank you. That's a good answer. I like that.
Torfin: Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, to follow up to that, then, the one -- one question before us
tonight is whether to place a condition of approval to construct Pine Street prior to
issuance of a CZC. Do you see any problems with that?
Torfin: Well, if we have -- if we have got a hotel user that is right in this area -- you
know, I don't see any problems with that, because, really, to support the hotel the road
needs to go through.
Siddoway: Uh-huh. That road.
TorFin: And, you know, timing should work out. That's the best intention. I know that
we are -- I would like to not have that be a condition, but -- and I know what I have just
told you is that our intention is to build -- get that road built and we have got a user that
that's part of our agreement with them. But trying to have a crystal ball to see if there --
you know, if there is something -- what -- I guess what if I have a project up here that is,
you know, not on Pine Street at all --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 11 of 30
Siddoway: Uh-huh.
TorFin: -- that condition precludes me from moving ahead if we had somebody the city
thought it was a great use. So, that's -- I guess trying to look into the crystal ball, I --
that blanket condition could cause problems because of the large scale nature of the
development.
Siddoway: What if it was worded that no -- no CZCs would be issued that require
access from Pine Street until Pine Street is completed. Then, if you had something over
on Locust Grove or over on Fairview that needed to go first, you could do those.
Torfin: I think that would be acceptable.
Siddoway: Okay. This question actually I need to address to staff. Are there any stub
streets to the property that are not being extended into the project or are all stub streets
being extended? In your presentation you went over all those that were coming through
the project. I just wanted to know if there were any others that were not extending into
the project.
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, all of the existing
stub streets are being extended into the site.
Siddoway: Then I don't believe you addressed yet the historical structures.
Torfin: The historical -- the dairy that is located right here at the corner of Nola and the
future Pine Street, there is a log cabin -- in the staff report it talks about these may be
historical structures.
Siddoway: Uh-huh.
Torfin: I think we need to determine that for sure. In our previous application it was
also unclear if there was any designation and we are willing -- what I'm going to do -- I'm
not willing, but what we will do is we will have the state historical society look at these
and give us an idea of what's going on. You know, I guess the dairy barn and the silo --
we have taken silos before -- our Island Woods project in Eagle, we turned it into a
clock tower, but I don't know if it's in an appropriate location that we would do anything
like that. This is the log cabin. In my mind I was thinking that if -- you know, if this
wasn't something that had to be preserved, that we may create a bridge with some of
the building materials off of it. It's -- you know, this is right at the Pine Street -- where
Pine Street would run right by this. And so I guess what I'm -- what I'm telling this
Commission is that we will get a -- some feedback from the historical -- state historical
society on the nature of those and, then, deal with those accordingly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 12 of 30
Siddoway: Right now your plan does show this as a -- one of the commercial building
sites; is that right?
Torfin: That's correct.
Siddoway: I'd actually like to see -- when we get to motion time we will include this, but
the -- the city has a historical preservation commission. I'd like to see them actually
make a recommendation on this to Council and that would probably be -- need to be
initiated -- or it could be initiated by either one, but I'd like to make -- have staff make
sure that happens prior to Council.
Wafters: Excuse me, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, the
historic preservation committee has been notified just a couple days ago, so we are
asking for their input prior to City Council on this.
Siddoway: Okay. You reviewed the proposed design guidelines in the development
agreement?
Torfin: Yes.
Siddoway: And you're in agreement to those?
Torfin: Yes. If I may interrupt. This development agreement process, is there some
give and take, if we -- you know, if -- when we get down to it, I guess, or is it just up to
Council based on your recommendation?
Siddoway: Well, Mr. Nary can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we make a
recommendation, Council would finalize it, and that would be the language that would
be included in the development agreement.
Torfin: Okay. As the language is proposed I don't see any problem with it at all. It's --
you know, once again, as you come in and you start your final designs and you start to
mature your plan, there may be -- you know, we -- typically the reason I can tell you I'm
not worried about those is because typically we exceed city's requirements on our
developments. So, let's go for it.
Siddoway: Okay. Can you go back to the site plan, please, Sonya. And, Dan, if you
could describe the -- you mentioned that you are putting in the pathway connection.
Does it extend from one edge of your property to the other along that drain?
Torfin: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, the staff report actually talks
about this pathway being on the north side. So, I guess it's already -- it's already been
started right here, but as we come onto our property, yeah, it's our intention to continue
that. That would stub here. I believe that everything's been piped, so, you know, we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 13 of 30
are -- we like the pathway ideas and they are part of all our developments. So, this one
I -- that's fine. There is another requirement for a pathway that would run up along here,
along Pine Street, and I'm not sure if it -- it sounded like it -- from the pathway map it
looks like it comes over here to this. There is a -- I think this is the Settler's Canal. I
don't know the name of it. It's open. It's fenced. But there isn't a pathway along there.
So, it may be a clarification if -- if staff or if this Commission could -- if this other pathway
just needs to go out to Fairview or if it's intended to come over to the Settler's -- and I
think this is the Settler's right there.
Siddoway: Sonya, could you clarify the intention of the requirement for the pathways?
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, the intention of
the pathway was for it to connect to the existing leg there and go across Pinebridge
Avenue, run along the north side of the flume canal to the east edge of the property and
extend south along Machine and, then, cross over --
Siddoway: Could you use the pointer?
Wafters: I'm sorry. Yes. It would connect right here, go across flume canal, go down --
trying to look at my two maps here -- and it's going to run along the Schneider Lateral
down here at the corner and then -- that's one leg of it. And, then, the other was to
connect here at the Cortabitarte property and run down Pinebridge Avenue and go west
along Pine and, then, head to the south boundary here on Nola.
Siddoway: Okay. So, there -- you envision -- and you're not requiring a pathway
extending out to Locust Grove, because of the pathway being on the north side of the
canal there?
Wafters: That is correct. The north -- if it would -- you know, it's -- it's on a different
property, if they continue it on the north, which makes sense with it already being on the
north.
Siddoway: I remember seeing in the staff report a specific statement that this approval
does not grant approval for the multi-family development, that it would have to come
back through for a CUP; is that correct?
Wafters: That is correct.
Siddoway: And is that your understanding?
Torfin: It's a conditional use requirement in the C-G zone.
Siddoway: Yes. So, you would be coming back for a separate conditional use at the
point in time that you're ready to move forth with that residential project?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 14 of 30
Torfin: That's correct.
Siddoway: That takes care of that one. Sonya, could you comment on the request to
change the condition that a final plat must be signed before any issuance of occupancy
permits and whether you think there should be allowance for provisions based on
existing parcels out there? Or Caleb.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, that is a fairly typical
requirement, although it's not ordinance required. We do have some concerns a lot of
times -- now, I don't have a -- I don't -- speaking for the planning department. I'll let
Public Works put in their comments as well, because I know they, too, have some
concerns with allowing building permits in preliminary plat subdivisions before the plat
records. I don't have a problem with what Mr. Torfin proposed, maybe do a property
boundary adjustment or two and get a couple of these buildings going ahead of the plat
recording, because that process does take a long time. Our concern for the most part is
some of that infrastructure and access being capable of supporting these businesses if
they do open before the roadways that they are adjacent to are platted, accepted by
ACHD, and are underway. Some of the other things, too, that come in -- and I'll let
Scott talk about this a little bit, but I mention them -- are the utilities and making sure
that provisions are being met for the entire development as a whole and we don't
inadvertently sell off a piece of property where maybe a sewer line needs to go through
there and now we are dealing with a third party that isn't part of the subdivision and if
they come in and are platted, I don't see that as much of a problem -- excuse me. The
third problem that I see that's somewhat related is your landscaping improvements.
Excuse me. You get -- if it's -- and you can phase a project, that's true. If it's too
piecemeal say, you get parts of developments that look like they are put in at different
times and that's some of the concern as well. So, again, I don't necessarily have a
problem if we have got a hotel user or some other user or even three or four users that
want to go ahead of the subdivision being recorded, I don't see a problem with that,
provided that access, as you kind of alluded to earlier, is not a concern and that's hard
to write into acondition -- is not a concern. What does that mean? Well, we have got a
driveway -- I mean looking at the hotel user, if it goes there, I think it's a good idea to not
have Pine there while construction traffic is going in and out of there personally, even
though it would benefit the whole city if Pine were extended. If it just dead ended into
the hotel property site it's easy access for them, they can -- you know, they can have big
heavy machinery in there and it's not -- not getting in the hair of anyone. But, anyways,
I think we could -- we could work with them on maybe modifying that condition
somewhat. They do have some legitimate parcels today that they would be eligible to
pull some building permits on if they needed to. Again, it's making sure that the plat
does happen and these infrastructure improvements that we are requiring with the plat
actually occur and that a plat does get recorded on this entire -- entire property. So, yes
and no. No real concerns with allowing a few, but -- but a project of this size we want to
make sure that that infrastructure does get in place before we get too far down the road.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 15 of 30
Siddoway: Let me just throw something out. If we had a condition that said no more
than three occupancy permits could be granted until the final plat's recorded, is that
enough or does that still cause you concern?
Hood: Can I answer that just real quick? Because at first blush I'm thinking the final
plat. I envision this being four or five final plats and that's where it gets a little bit --
Siddoway: I see what you're saying.
Hood: -- you know, if they final plat a one lot final plat, are building permits open for the
entire project and that's where some of it gets a little bit hairy, too, with even trying to
word something to allow it, so --
Siddoway: I see.
Hood: Sorry, Dan.
Siddoway: I understand.
Torfin: Can I address that?
Siddoway: Yes.
Torfin: I guess for the -- we will have multiple plats, but typically we will -- let's just say
up on Fairview we will have a plat, a final plat for a section in here and a roadway
design that will be part of that plat, and so try to put in a condition where -- we have
several parcels and right now the hotel is the current example and they are -- you know,
from what I understand after this meeting I'm going to get with them and find out what
their schedule is, but we do have -- we have, you know, many legal parcels. We have
got access both here from where Pine Street stubs into the property for fire and safety
and State Street also stubs right here. Existing water and sewer mains run in State
Street all the way through here, so there is fire protection and access and so this is the
I guess the current one that I think will, you know, not cause any problems for the city as
I'm contractually also obligated to build this road for these guys and, then, with ACHD
and because there are, you know, legal parcels over here, here, and here, I'm -- limiting
it to a number is hard for me to agree to.
Siddoway: Uh-huh.
Torfin: But our intention is, you know, to plat this. We plat our projects. We are not just
going to come in and slice and dice and run out of town.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 16 of 30
Siddoway: I don't know how to solve this one, because as staff has said, they are okay
with a few, but if we completely remove the condition -- how many existing parcels are
out there that they could get? I mean is it -- is it three or ten?
TorFin: There is several. There is probably a dozen or so, I would guess. I think that
they are actually listed in your -- in the staff report with all the parcel numbers and there
is quite a few.
Siddoway: Okay. I'm going to move on while I think about that one.
Hood: Mr. Chair? I'm sorry. Commissioner Siddoway, I think there may be a couple
other people that want to provide public testimony, too. I don't know if you want to go
through -- if they are all questions for the applicant or not. Staff -- it's up to you. I'm just
-- didn't know if you were -- we wanted to address all of the applicant's concerns before
hearing other people in the audience or not, but --
Siddoway: Just one more for Public Works and it has to do with the tiling of the drain.
Even with the condition that's currently written, there is a provision in the ordinance that
allows for the drains to be -- they don't have to be tiled if they are -- the general
interpretation has been if it requires a pipe 48 inches or greater. I believe that this
would apply to the Jackson Drain, even -- regardless of whether this condition is in or
out. Would you agree?
Steckline: Commissioner Siddoway, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, we
have done that on occasion and, generally, it -- I don't have access to who the irrigation
district is out there, but generally we get approval from them on that. I'd have to look
into it a little bit deeper, to be honest with you, to find out more information on it -- on
that specific case, but I do believe that has been done in the past and that's probably
something that we could do with the proper approval.
Siddoway: It sounds like there is another drain near the south property line, though,
that may require tiling regardless of the Jackson Drain; is that correct?
Watters: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: Is there another drain besides the Jackson Drain near the south end of the
property that would require tiling? I believe you said the pathway would be --
Watters: There is a Schneider Lateral. There is the flume canal and there is Settler's
Canal on this site. I'm not sure.
Siddoway: Okay. That's all I need right now. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have at
this time, Mr. Chair.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 17 of 30
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Torfin: Thank you.
Rohm: Would Jack -- how do you say your last name?
Cortabitarte: Cortabitarte.
Rohm: Please come forward.
Cortabitarte: Thank you, Chairman Rohm and Commissioners. I am Jack Cortabitarte,
3115 Crescent Rim Drive, Boise, Idaho. Our family owns the small piece of property --
it's an acre and a half, to -- that borders this Pinebridge and we are on the east side of
the property. We support the project in its entirety. We think it's an asset to -- it will be
an asset to the City of Meridian and also to the entire valley with the quality of the
developer and his reputation. Our purpose here is to support him and also reiterate to
the Commission and to P&Z that after talking with ACHD they do want us to have that
cross-access agreement from our property, so that we are not landlocked, because
intentionally, in the near future, we intend to develop that or sell that property. Thank
you very much.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. There is not anyone else that has signed up to speak to this
application, but if anyone else would like to come forward now is that time. Okay.
Thank you. This is going to be a nice development. I applaud you for your efforts and
things look like you have put a lot of thought into this and it's going to -- I believe it will fit
well into the City of Meridian. At this time do either of you have any additional questions
of the applicant or do we want to take each of his requests for changes to the staff
report and go through them and what -- discussion with staff? Would you like to take
the lead on that, Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: Sure. Mr. Chairman, the -- regarding the extension of Pine prior to CZC, it
would be my recommendation to required that extension of Pine prior to any CZC that
requires access from Pine and just word it that way, so that other areas could move
forward first if necessary. Regarding historical structures, I would like to just place a
recommendation that this historic preservation commission give a recommendation
themselves to Council. On the one specifically brought up by Mr. Torfin, honestly, I'm
not sure what to do with 1.1.3. I have already talked about that one at some length, the
final plats before occupancy permit, so --
Moe: Well, as far as we are concerned, can we just put something to the effect that,
you know, they will work with staff to work some verbiage into that, because that's
basically what Caleb has talked about already is trying to come up with some type of
wording to make that happen.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 18 of 30
Siddoway: Yeah, I know, they are going to work with staff either way. I don't know if
just saying a condition to work with staff is -- doesn't give them any direction as to how
many or what's acceptable. So, let me skip over that one for a minute, because I don't
have a good answer there. The parking on the rear and sides -- Sonya, I believe that
the -- that that bullet that requires the parking to be on the rear and sides of buildings
was to get -- to have the parking reflect what's shown on the plan and, yet, there are
definitely areas where parking is adjacent to the road. So, could you clarify that bullet
for me and your intention?
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, the intent was
more to meet the design guidelines, you know, since we -- we have a conceptual plan,
but that was -- we didn't want a sea of parking next to the roadways. Staff is, you know,
agreeable to just changing that condition to state the majority of parking shall be located
to the side and rear of the buildings.
Siddoway: As shown on the concept plan submitted. We could word it that way,
maybe.
Wafters: Some of the parcels that's not the case, so I think we should just put the
majority of the parking to the side and rear of the structures.
Siddoway: Okay.
Wafters: There is a couple of them there -- three that I see right off, that the building is
located at the rear of the -- yeah. Not very good with using the pointer tonight, am I.
Siddoway: Would it be your intent to force those buildings to move forward to the road?
Wafters: Yes, it would.
Siddoway: Okay.
Hood: Commissioner Siddoway, Mr. Chair, if I may, since I worked with Sonya on
crafting that condition a little bit -- and it wasn't necessarily the intent to move the
building all the way to the road, but it was to prevent a sea of asphalt. So, if we have a
majority, 51 percent, on each individual lot being to the sides or behind the building, I
think we can do that effectively and not create vast seas of asphalt being visible from
the road and if they are they are behind the building or to the side, so that was kind of
the intent.
Siddoway: Okay. Regarding 2.14 on the tiling of the drain, I would propose leaving the
condition in, but adding to it a notice of the provision that allows for the -- so I believe it's
stated as a waiver in the ordinance, because there may be some that -- on site that do
need to follow that condition, but the Jackson Drain and possibly the Settler's may be
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 19 of 30
large enough to qualify for that waiver. So, I would just recommend acknowledging the
waiver as part of that condition or the potential waiver.
Moe: I would agree with that.
Siddoway: Regarding 2.8 and 4.8 on no access to Eagle Road, I would not delete those
myself until -- because the code, as I read it, would not allow those accesses to Eagle
Road. So, I think that this should be taken up with the Council as part of the variance
request and until that variance request is acknowledged I think that they should remain.
4.6, the Fairview - Pinebridge right-in, right-out, I'd probably strike the right-in, right-out
and just say subject to ACRD and -- because they are going to be the ones determining
what the allowed access is at that point. Any discussion on that one before I move on?
Rohm: So, you're saying that just go with Ada County Highway District's
recommendation?
Siddoway: As I understand it, Ada County Highway District is requiring a study of that --
that intersection and the corridor adjacent to this or --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, they are not requiring it of this applicant,
they are actually doing that I believe on their own or they are contracting out with
someone to do that corridor study. So, as part of that overall corridor study they will
look at this and see if a signal is warranted or further evaluate whether a signal should
be placed in there.
Siddoway: That study is not going to be done for about 18 months, so that's not one to
condition this on. Mr. Torfin, is there -- is the applicant doing an analysis of signal
warrants or a traffic study for this issue?
Torfin: The consultant for ACHD or our consultants?
Siddoway: Yours.
Torfin: We have done two reports for the signal, two different consultants, Mr. Dobie
and Mr. Funkhouser both reached a conclusion that the signal met the policy of ACHD
and so we have done that, we submitted those to ACRD last week. We can submit that
to the city, to this Commission. I am meeting with ACHD's consultant tomorrow to talk
about the -- I guess it's the pre-corridor study and I'm going to tell them that it's very
important and really what we are proposing is what should have occurred along
Fairview Avenue. I understand that over time, you know, everybody has a driveway and
if they can consolidate that -- we are actually consolidating, I don't know, four or five
different driveways, we are providing a controlled signal at the location that's shown on
that map and we do have two analysis reports that were prepared showing that that
does work and it does work out for sequencing the signals at the third of a mile spacing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 20 of 30
Siddoway: So, did ACHD take any action on that when they had their hearing -- was it
last week?
TorFin: Last Wednesday. Yes. What they did is they approved our access point to be
lined up with Oakbrook. There was a discussion that they were -- quote -- I think I'm
quoting them -- they were leaving the door open to see what the corridor study will
show, which is 18 months, maybe 24 months away. We -- you know, we feel like we
are prepared to fight for that, because we think it makes sense. We think we have a
development that warrants a controlled access. So, we are hoping that the city will
support it, because I guess some of the things that ACHD wants are counter to I think
things that would be good for the City of Meridian. You know, at some point in my
discussion I really, you know, felt like ACHD didn't want any development, so they don't
have to deal with anymore traffic, and I don't think, you know, leaving this property in the
center of the Treasure Valley undeveloped was a good idea, so -- I hope I answered
your question.
Siddoway: They approved the access point and left the issue of signalization --
TorFin: Yeah.
Siddoway: -- open for further discussion or something.
Torfin: Open for discussion. They did also approve two right-in, right-out access points
on Fairview Avenue at the corners of the property.
Siddoway: Okay.
TorFin: If I may -- and if I may not, tell me, but on Eagle Road what I would like to do --
because we believe we have a legal access in the center of the Elixir property that was
granted in 1988. A deeded access. We have commercial that if you're going to modify
the condition on Eagle Road that -- I guess if there could be some language that, you
know, it's subject to resolution with ITD -- resolution with ITD means a lot of things, I
guess. Maybe they will just grant it once we show them the document. Maybe we have
to, you know, have discussions with mediators and those types of things. But we would
like -- we would like to have that condition written if you're -- I guess if you're leaning
towards saying no access on Eagle Road for 3.28, I would like to have it written that it
would be subject to resolution with ITD, since it is their roadway. And we -- I guess we
plan on aggressively pursuing that access point, because we think it benefits the
transportation system. So, I jumped away from Fairview.
Siddoway: And just for clarification, it would be -- as I read it, we -- I don't see that we
could grant access to Eagle Road, so I would just leave the condition as is. I don't --
even if you have a legal access today, upon a change of use or an increase in intensity,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 21 of 30
which this certainly would be, the existing approaches go away, even if they are legal,
under our ordinance. So, that's what I'm looking at at following for -- for us and I'm not -
- we don't really make a formal recommendation anyway, but -- but that would be how I
read it and until it's -- you know, Council would have the ability to do something
different, so I would -- I would just leave it alone until they broach the issue of the
variance.
Moe: I agree. There were a couple other issues --
Siddoway: I believe it was 4.3 on the shrub height. You know, I think I would be willing
to just say that that -- I think that standard applies anyway to sight -- you know, vision
triangles and things like that, but -- Caleb?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, if I may, just because we work with the
police department on that condition quite a bit and sometimes they slap it on. A project
especially of this size, there is places that I think three and four foot tall shrubs are
appropriate. The intent -- and that's all I'm going to try to clarify is some of the intent
here would be near entryways to buildings and things like that. They don't want to
create hiding places for people to get mugged or, you know, someone to hang out along
a pathway and could jump out and those types of things. So, if you want to totally strike
it, that's up to you. I'm just telling you that usually that condition is associated with clear
vision into a building and not creating a hiding space for someone to -- again, that's
used -- a public use area or a highly trafficked pedestrian use area, i.e., you know,
again, like amulti-use pathway or along -- near an entryway to a building, so -- we can
also cover that somewhat at CZC as well, but, again, I think that's more probably site
specific, building specific, based on when a building comes in. So, my personal opinion
is you could probably strike it and I think we can cover some of that when certificates of
zoning compliance come in and we see buildings and landscape plans.
Siddoway: I think that would be my recommendation. We just strike it and allow the
issues to be worked out at CZC level.
Moe: That would be good.
Siddoway: And, then, one -- was it 1.2.6?
Moe: Yes.
Siddoway: The cross-access. I don't know where I am on that one. At first I liked the
idea of providing cross-access, they are tucked back in that funny little corner and
getting additional access to them seemed a good idea. Looking at the layout, it doesn't
fit very well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 22 of 30
Moe: Yeah. I know. And they have the access off Wilson to go in -- into their property
already, so I'm not sure, you know, what we are really gaining by giving an additional
access off from the east.
Siddoway: And getting the access from the east from Wilson to the property gives
some additional -- Sonya, I'd like some -- maybe some input from you on this. With the
stubbing of Wilson over, does that provide the additional access you're looking for or do
you think there needs to be direct lot access?
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, you know, it's
always a good idea to provide an additional access point, you know, to a property, but
as the applicant said, these are industrial properties and they do have access currently
to Wilson Lane. So, staff doesn't necessarily have any problems with doing away with
that cross-access for those -- for the Elliott parcel and the H2NR parcel.
Moe: That's the Bellair and Elliott?
Siddoway: Yeah. The only thing I'm wondering about is if there is the potential for
maybe an emergency access. I'm thinking, you know, if Bellair Manufacturing has a
problem and something's blocked up clear up here, it would be nice for emergency
services to have an access from the east, but I don't believe there needs to be public
access.
Hood: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I feel like I have to chime in at everything that comes up
tonight, but I just wanted to -- back to your question about Wilson Lane. The only
problem with that is the Wilson Lane will not even be extended with this property. There
is still one property in between the two properties, so it will dead end -- yes, on both
sides and we are waiting for an outparcel to be extended before that scenario is even
true. So, although I agree that Idon't -- if Wilson were there today I don't think it's as big
of a deal. And, again, just some back story on this. The main -- one of the main
reasons that we thought it was a good idea to have that cross-access is the parcel has
a very narrow flag out to Wilson Lane, so it's -- it's legitimate access to this building is in
question of where is its frontage and how does it gain access today and it's a very
narrow flag that they have there. So, we thought, hey, if we can give them, you know,
another access to get out to here, it helps -- it helps all the way around, you know, like
you said, it gives another point of access for emergency providers and helps them, too,
with their access into their site being on a long flag lot. So, anyways, take that for what
it's worth, but I thought I would share.
Moe: Well, I would agree with the emergency access, but I'm not so sure I want to give
them access, you know, on a daily basis just for better access through those properties.
Like the applicant talked, depending on what goes there. You know, I don't know that
you want to see all the manufacturing trucks going through the -- through there to gain
access to that point. What's your opinion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 23 of 30
Rohm: Yeah. I'd say that the uses of those two parcels are so different that to require
cross-access between them doesn't seem to be in good keeping, especially when there
is access to that adjacent lot off Wilson. Currently I guess there must be, because that's
how they are getting in there now; is that correct?
Hood: Yeah. It appears from the aerial, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that
they do take access from their flag. I'm a little bit perplexed on how they were approved
for industrial uses anyways, because it shows them being zoned R-6 in Ada County and
they are shown as mixed use on our Comp Plan. So, I don't know how -- how or when
they were approved, but they are definitely -- you know, they are still in the county in a
residential zone, so I'm not sure how they --
Siddoway: I actually remember them being annexed.
Hood: Oh, really?
Siddoway: 1 think the zoning map is incorrect.
Hood: Okay. I was just going to say the zoning map doesn't show them being zoned I-
L, so that was a little bit --
Siddoway: And 1 have driven to the back to that property and it does access along the
flag, just along the side of Butte Fence down to their building and, then, they have some
parking here and, then, others down south of the building, but --
Moe: So, could you do an emergency access right on that south -- on the southeast
corner there?
Siddoway: You could. Yeah.
Moe: I mean that would be where I would want to put it if we are going to do that. That
way it's somewhat out of the way.
Siddoway: That was all the notes I had. Did either of you --
Moe: That's all I had, too. I think you picked them all.
Hood: Mr. Chair, just to confirm names here, because I know the staff report uses a lot
of property owner names, so that this property is actually the H2NR property referenced
in the staff report. This is the Elliott Group, LLC. This is the Bellair Leasing property.
Which one -- this one here. And, then, Mr. Cortabitarte's is here. So, I think those are
the ones that are -- that are referenced in your staff report, just for, you know, cross-
reference.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 24 of 30
Siddoway: For clarification, was there required cross-access to -- well, to the
Cortabitarte property, is there -- we heard them say that there was no -- they intend to
give that access. Is there a road access or is it just cross-access?
Hood: Just the cross-access from that right-in, right-out driveway. I believe it's
restricted to right-in and right-out that Mr. Torfin referred to and I think ACRD required
that to be on the property line, so it could be shared with the adjacent property owner.
Same with over here. It's hard to tell from here, but I think they are showing the
driveway there and I believe ACHD's report requires it to be more on the property line,
so it can be shared with the adjacent property owner in each instance, the east and
west.
Moe: So, we are just discussing the two access points down --
Siddoway: Just these two.
Moe: Yeah, those right there.
Siddoway: And, sorry, what was the ownership name on the -- on this one?
Hood: The north one? The Elliott Group.
Siddoway: Elliott Group.
Hood: And the one on the south is H2NR.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward and at least give your input on where
emergency access would be preferred, if a motion is stated such.
Torfin: Sure, Mr. Chairman. Well, from -- I think emergency access -- it's a pathway
that we have been talking about will be on the north side of this and, you know, we are
showing parking lots around here. I guess the building will move out, but there will be,
you know, potential access back here at the parking lot to provide emergency access.
I'm not sure it's -- you know, how these developed are really strange. I drove back there
and there is a gate and the front of this building looks pretty nice, but there is a fence
right there and, then, all this residential and I don't know if there is an emergency
access that was provided along this, because this apartment project came in
afterwards, but I'm not opposed to doing, you know, some sort of access for emergency
there, because the compatibility is just not there to try to, you know, let them -- as we
discussed. These two points I guess we can work with the neighbors. It sounds like it
could just also be that there is just a cut where they can come in to -- you know, onto
our property and onto our property here and have access, you know, out to this future
signalized intersection.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 25 of 30
Siddoway: Okay.
Torfin: So, I don't object to this, which I guess is Bellair Leasing and the Cortabitarte
property over here, but this back portion that I guess used to be part the Cortabitarte
property is part of the Food Service America and so that's industrial as well, just to
clarify that. That probably isn't a compatible thing to connect that into our project as
well.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Torfin: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chair -- well, we still have one outstanding one and I was going to ask
Mr. Nary, if I might, if you can think of any creative solutions that would allow a handful
of occupancies to be issued, you know, by them going through lot line adjustments,
through -- with existing legal parcels, prior to issuance of a final plat, knowing that we
want to avoid the instance where there is, you know, 12 or 15 projects going on without
a final plat out there.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, if you
can't think of one I'm not sure I can do much better. I guess -- I guess from a
recommendation standpoint, before we get to City Council, we may just simply need
from the applicant a little more definition of what they really do plan on intending to do
on the number of buildings they are going to build or things like that. I liked your
suggestion in regards to the roadway access, but, you're right, I mean we certainly don't
want a number of buildings being constructed and building permits pulled and no final
plats done and sometimes those things fall through the cracks. I don't necessarily think
this developer is going to allow that to happen, but we certainly -- the circumstances do
change, but I don't know if a number is appropriate, whether it's a period of time that
allows for an extension that it has to be recorded within -- I think it's currently two years,
isn't it, that you have to -- so, I mean if we put a time limit on it and, then, we require
they came back, then, you know, there is only so much building you're going to be able
to do in whatever time frame that the Council may set. Something like that might be
effective, but I'm not sure if there is any other real magic way to do that. Normally, it's
usually one project, someone wants to build a hotel, as they are suggesting, and we
allow that to go forward and, then, the property gets recorded. Here if it's going to be
more than that, we probably need a little more information.
Siddoway: Thank you. My recommendation, then, would be to leave the condition
alone in our recommendation, but add on that we suggest that the applicant bring
forward to Council either a specific number -- either a number of building permits or a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 26 of 30
timeline that they would agree to to modify that, because I don't know -- I don't know
that it's something worth continuing the whole project for them to bring it back to us. I
think it's something that he could just take to Council.
Moe: I think that's a good idea.
Rohm: Works forme.
Siddoway: Mr. TorFin, do you have a suggestion?
Torfin: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, I guess there are provisions in your
ordinance that allow for this and I think the hotel out off Overland and Eagle utilized this
to get started. Maybe, you know, rather than placing a number on it, if there is already
provisions in your ordinance that allows for boundary line adjustments, you know, really,
t guess a plat means more than just a way of transferring ownership, it's another
process for the city to, you know, have conditions and things like that. I guess if we
could just make it subject to your ordinances and existing -- you know, existing
requirements for access and fire protection, that there could be the requirement for --
that it will be included in a plat, because what I'm thinking is there are just things for us
to get started. You know, plats used to be pretty easy to -- timewise to get approved
and go through the process. Sometimes you can be four or five months just to have the
county engineer sign a -- sign a plat. And so it's -- the things that I'm thinking of are just
initially for us to get started with some development and, then, to, you know, save
potential problems were the plat's going to take longer, but potentially we could just --
you could say that it will be included within a plat within a two year period and not limit it
to a number, because we do have several legal parcels and so it's hard for me to guess.
You know, some of them there is no way we have access, we have to build a road and
plat it and so I don't -- I don't envision it's a huge number that we are going to be asking
for, it's just kind of a time saving mechanism.
Siddoway: If the main issue is this hotel project that may want to move forward more
quickly, I'd almost want to tie it to that and say that the -- you know, this hotel project
could -- may receive a permit prior to recording of a final plat, and leave it to that, but to
have other projects get their final plat first.
Torfin: You know, I guess with a hotel you might have a restaurant, though. You might
have a couple things going on that actually meet all the requirements of legal parcels
and you got to have access, you know, safety, all the things met. So, it's -- to limit it to
one -- and because it's a large project, I'm just, you know, narrowing it down to just one
project is more restrictive than, you know, I would like to have it, if -- if you will.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing
Moe: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 27 of 30
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items No. AZ 07-
006, RZ 07-010, and PP 07-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Rohm: Any final discussion before a motion? Boy, there is a number of minor changes,
but, you know, ostensibly, the -- I think the staff report captured the project very well and
the applicant's responded in kind. There is just a few just minor adjustments and should
be able to put a motion together to move this forward.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, in the interest of full disclosure, Ididn't -- the Fairview Avenue
corridor study is one that is being done by Parametrics, the company I work for, so I
actually hesitate to make a recommendation on what that access should be. I don't
know -- I didn't know that they were trying to tie the determination of that access to that
project. I thought it was to a study being done between the applicant and the -- and
ACHD directly. So, I'm not sure what specifically to do with that -- with that one. I may
just look to you for a recommendation and -- because my thought was to make it subject
to the study that was being done by the applicant and ACHD and I probably shouldn't
make a recommendation on that one --that one issue.
Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Mr. Siddoway, it
ultimately isn't even the recommendation, whether it's done by your firm or a different
traffic analyst, it's still subject to the ACHD's approval.
Siddoway: Correct.
Nary: So, if it's tied to -- if whatever your recommendation is is that that access is tied to
ACHD's final approval, then, it doesn't really relate to your firm. I mean your firm may
be making a recommendation, but they are, obviously, free to reject it and do another
study or have a different direction if they choose.
Siddoway: So, if we simply make -- you know, strike the right-in, right-out requirement
that's there now and make it subject to ACHD's approval, then, that would be --
Nary: I don't -- yeah, I wouldn't think that's a conflict.
Moe: That's kind of what I anticipated you were going to make a motion to do just that.
Siddoway: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion.
Rohm: Good. I'm interested in hearing your motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 28 of 30
Siddoway: All right. Well, I need to go back to -- Mr. Chair, after considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of
file numbers AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, and PP 07-008, as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of August 16th, 2007, with the following modifications. To add --
number one. To add a condition to the development agreement that Pine must be
extended prior to issuance of any CZC for a building that would require access using
Pine --
Rohm: Extended to -- all the way to Locust Grove?
Siddoway: All the way through. Yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Siddoway: It's going to be one project. Complete Pine. Number two. That the historic
preservation commission provide a recommendation to City Council regarding the
historic structures and also welcome the applicant's engaging the state historic
preservation office as well. Number three. Item 1.1.3. I would leave it alone for now,
but request that the applicant and staff work together on some language regarding the
allowance of final plats prior to occupancy permits or the granting of occupancy permits
prior to final plat to see if they can work something out and take it forward to Council.
The bullet -- I believe it's also under 1.1.3 regarding the parking.
Moe: Yeah. Third one.
Siddoway: To change all parking to the majority of parking to -- on the rear and sides of
the buildings. Condition 2.14 or -- which way do you want to --
Moe: Want to do 1.2.6.
Siddoway: Okay. 1.2.6 would be the next one regarding cross-access. Require -- the
cross-access easements and driveway stubs shall be provided to the following parcels
-- I would include the Cortabitarte parcel. The Bellair parcel. Strike the requirement for
cross-access to the Elliott Group and H2NR. Replace it with the requirement for an
emergency access to be provided to the H2NR property.
Moe: In the southeast corner.
Siddoway: In the southeast corner of the H2NR property. Regarding item 2.14, this is
the tiling of the drains. That condition is to remain, but to note the provisions of the
ordinance that allow for the possibility of waiver and that the applicant would have the
opportunity to apply for such a waiver for the Jackson Drain and/or others that may
comply with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 29 of 30
Hood: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, in the middle of the motion. The Jackson Drain -- I'm not
sure if it's even referred -- if this is the Jackson Drain. The Comp Plan actually calls the
Jackson Drain out as a natural waterway, which we try to protect. So, that waiver
process would not need to -- we don't even need to go there if, in fact, this is the
Jackson. The map that I show here shows the Jackson being everything north of
Fairview and it calls it the flume south of Fairview. So, I don't know, Commissioner
Siddoway, if you remember back in 2002 if this was one of the drains or not that when
you all crafted this if it was one of the natural waterways that we were trying to protect.
As the applicant mentioned, the other two projects just north -- north and west of them
didn't the their portions either, so just curious as to -- if you know or leaving that as an
option as well, that it may be a natural waterway. And we can look into that as staff.
Siddoway: It would be my intent to leave this one open, which I believe is the Jackson
Drain, and if there are other smaller ditches, canals on the site -- it sounds like there
may be one on the -- near the south property, that they would still be subject to the tiling
requirement.
Hood: And I'll just, again, sorry in the middle of the motion, but the Settler's Canal does
do this number and it ties in with the Jackson, so the Jackson continues on like this and,
then, there is an off-shoot that comes up here that is called the Settler's Canal that
feeds into that. But I think that's the intent is that that smaller Settler's gets tiled or
covered piped, but the Jackson, the flume, whatever you want to call it, the main lateral
there can remain open without that waiver. I think that's a natural waterway, but we can
double-check on that as well.
Siddoway: Yeah. I thought that even the natural waterways had to get the waiver, but I
don't know that for sure. I believe that on the west side of Locust Grove Road that both
of those are -- remain open today. So, I just wanted the -- that waiver process to be
acknowledged and if, in fact, that is the Jackson Drain and as a natural waterway able
to avoid the waiver process, it would be my intent to just allow it to remain open without
having to go through said waiver. Okay. Regarding -- is it 4.6?
Moe: 4.3, to strike that on the --
Siddoway: Yeah. 4.3. Somehow I got those out of order. But 4.3 I'm going to strike
that regarding the shrub height and note that it was -- it's our intent to have those issues
looked at on a case-by-case basis through the CZC process. And, then, item 4.6, which
is the Fairview - Pinebridge intersection, that the design of that intersection would be
subject to ACHD approval. I believe that is all. Does anyone else have anything else?
Moe: It is.
Siddoway: End of motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 16, 2007
Page 30 of 30
Moe: I will second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council
recommending approval of AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, and PP 0-008, to include the staff --
all the staff report with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we adjourn.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Rohm: Let's get out of here.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:38 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPF~OV
d~~
MIC AEL R HM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVE(~`,~ O~ `'
\ ~
AEG
~\ /
ATTESTED: =
LIAM G. BERG JR., CI = ER `'` '~~~ l -
~- ~ -
' r 1 ~~~ \`
~~~ .
~~,