2008 06-05Meridian PlanninA and Zoninq Commission June 5, 2008
Meeting of fhe Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 5, 2008, was called
to order at 7:D0 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Michael Rohm, and Cornmissioner Wendy Newton-Huckaby.
Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Bill Parson, Scott
Steckline, Joe Silva and Dean Willis.
Itern 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien
X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall
X David Moe - Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for June 5th, 2008. I'd like to call the
meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of agenda and there is one
change to our agenda this evening. That is Items No. 9 and 10, which are the AZ 08-
004 and PP 08-003 for Oakcreek will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of
July 17th. So, those hearings will not be heard this evening. They will be heard on the
July 17th meeting. Other than that, the agenda will stand. So, if I can get a mofion to
approve the adoption of the agenda as revised.
Rohm: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve the revised adoption of the agenda.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTIDN CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 2 of 43
A. Approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission
Special Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of May 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
08-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a church
from an existing building in an I-L zoning district for Vineyard
Christian Fellowship by Randy Rodes - 936 W. Taylor Street:
Moe: Next item on fhe agenda is the Consent Agenda. Items on the agenda are the
approve minutes of April 3rd, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting.
Item B is the meeting minutes for our May 15th regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and C, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
approval of CUP 08-010 for Vineyard Christian Fellowship. Any discussion?
Comments? Having none, can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the start of our public hearings, but before we get that
started, if there is anyone out here that hasn't been to a Planning and Zoning meeting,
I'm going to kind of give you the format of how we go through this. We will -- I will open
a hearing and, then, ask the staff to do an overview of the project and, basically, give
the recommendations to the Commission for this project. After which time the applicant
will have -- will come up and they will have 15 minutes to, basically, review the project
as well and explain to the Commission why it should be approved as they were hoping it
would be, as opposed to what, possibly, the Planning Department was to change. After
that time -- there are sign-up sheets in the back for everyone in the audience that are
willing to come speak, you would have three minutes to speak your mind in regards to
the project. At that time, once all fhe signature items are out, I would ask if there is
anyone else in the audience that would like to speak and, if so, they will also have three
minutes to speak. After that the applicant will be given the opportunity to go back and
come up and, basically, discuss anything that was discussed during the hearing itself.
Ofher than that we would, then, vote and go from there.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: AZ 08-001 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from fhe RUT & R1 zoning districts
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 3 of 43
in Ada County to the C-G zoning district for Overland Villaqe by Relo
Development - 3330 E. Overland Road:
Moe: So, having said that, I would like to reopen fhe continued Public Hearing for AZ
08-001 for Overland Village and ask staff for the staff report. ~
,{ Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
~ request for annexation and zoning of 9.06 acres of land from RUT and R-1 in Ada
County, to C-G, general retail and service commercial. The property is located on fihe
northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road. Right here on the
overhead. This site is currently vacant, except for an ACHD park and ride lot at the
north end of the site. Right here. A rural residential property zoned C-G exists to the
north. Commercial property zoned GC in Silverstone Business Campus exists to the
south. To the east is vacant land zoned C-G. And to the west across Eagle Road are
commercial properties in Dorado Subdivision Zoned C-G. The requested C-G zoning
district complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of mixed
use regional for this property. The applican# has submitted a conceptual site plan
' showing how fihis property may develop with 28,820 square feet of commercial uses,
' consisting of one 10,000 square foot multi-tenant building, one 14,820 square foot
~ building and one 4,000 square foot building. A drive-thru window is depicted for each of
~ the buildings. And fhe police department is requesting that conditional use approval be
'~ required for each of fhe drive-thrus. Staff has included a development agreement
provision to that effect. The ACHD park and ride lot currently at the north end of the site
is proposed to remain. A portion of the city's multi-use pathway system is also planned
aaross this property. The applicant has included a pathway on the site plan in
accordance with the pathways plan. Access to the site is proposed from one right-in
only driveway from Overland Road right here where Rackham Way is currently located,
approximately 262 feet east of the Eagle-0verland intersection. Rackham Way is
proposed to be vacated and relocated further to the east. Right here. City Council
approval of a vacation of the right of way is requested with this application. A full
access is proposed to -- from Overland where Rackham Way is proposed to be
relocated, approximately 518 feet east of the intersection. No access is proposed or
approved to Eagle Road. A stub street to the east is proposed from Rackham Way to
' the west easement boundary of the Eight Mile Creek for future connectivity to the
vacant commercial property to the east. Staff is requesting that the applicant submit a
, road trust to ACHD for half the cost of a bridge crossing the Eight Mile Creek to allow for
future connecfivity to the east and access to the signalized Overland-Silverstone
intersection as a provision of the development agreement for annexation of this
property. The ACHD report states that the Rackham Way access will be restricted to
right-in, right-out in the future, either on determination by ACHD staff of a substanfial
safety issue or on the provision of a connection from Rackham Way to the signalized
,~ intersection to the east, whichever occurs first. Based on this, the fire department has
concerns about emergency access to the site from the west. After meeting with the
, applicant and speaking with ACHD, ACHD sent a memo agree,ing to coordinate with the
fire department to insure that any access restriction device to be installed at the
I intersection of Overland and Rackham would allow for emergency vehicles to turn left
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 4 of 43
'~ onto Rackham from Overland, such as a three-quarter access or a rnound-able median.
~ This left turn access would be maintained at least until a public connection across Eight
Mile Creek norfh of Overland is achieved. The fire department is in agreement with this
i proposal, exaept they don't want a raised or mound-able median because of the low
~ hanging plumbing underneath the fire trucks. In response, ACHD has agreed to a
~ fhree-quarter access and will be issuing a revised memo to the city prior to the Council
i meeting. The fire department views the left-in access to the site from Overland as a
short-term solution to the emergency access issue. Long-term the fire department
, strongly supports access to the site from fhe signalized Silverstone-Overland
j intersection via a bridge connection across the Eight Mile Creek from the property to the
'~ east, as required in the development agreement. The fire department is not supportive
of this property being annexed unless this connection is provided. The conceptual
1 building elevafions were submitted showing how future buildings on this site may be
constructed. Building materials appear to consist of stucco and either block or brick
accents. Staff is supportive of these elevations and believes that they represent quality
~~ construction and building materials. Because this property is located adjacent to two
entryway corridors, Eagle and Overland Roads, the site, buildings, and landscaping will
' all need to comply with design standards in effect at the time of certificate of zoning
i compliance application. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and
, zoning request to C-G with the development agreement as stated in the staff report.
, Staff will stand for any questions fhat Commission may have at this time.
Moe: Okay. Any questions of staff at fhis time? Okay. Would fhe applicant like to
come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address, please.
Thompson: Sure. Good evening. My name is Tamara Thompson. I'm with Landmark
Development Group and I represent the property owner.
Moe: Thank you.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have read and agree with
the staff report, with the exception of two items. The first is -- and I think yours is the
same as mine. But on page ten, item number C for provisions for the development
agreement, we would like -- we respectfully request that the last sentence of that be
modified to four stories, in lieu of three stories. But we will comply with the 65 foot
height requirement in the C-G zone. The second is the item number K, as in kangaroo,
for the development agreement provision requiring this property to pay for half of a
bridge crossing across the Eight Mile. A road trust for half a bridge does not accomplish
anything at this -- in this -- on this property. ACHD has not required the bridge, that's
not part of their requirements, and they have agreed to not eliminate emergency access
to this property. So, fhat in itself should be enough. In addition to this, this property has
been conditioned to relocate Rackham Way from its current location. So, we are
providing the right of way for that and constructing that road. And I just want to point out
that the actual acreage of this property is 4.77 acres. The additional acreage that gets
you up to the nine acres is for half of Eagle Road, half of Overland Road, and, then, all
of Rackham Way and fihe park and ride is included in that -- that nine acres. So, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Jane 5, 2008
Page 5 of 43
actual -- what this property owner owns is actually 4.77 acres. So, it's quite a small
piece of property. Okay. So, fhey are being required to dedicate the right of way for
Rackham Way and do all the improvements, the construction of that road. The vacated
portion of Rackham Way, which is this right here that currently has utilities in it, such as
fiber optics, that are extremely expensive to relocate. So, we -- it's just not feasible to
relocate those, so that roadway or that -- where those easements run has to remain in a
drive aisle. We don't gain that as buildable area. The property owners at this location
do not own any portion of the Eight Mile Creek. That is solely on the neighboring
property's -- property owner's property. We are not responsible or do we control the
timing of their development, the right of way needed to get access over to Silverstone
where the signal is currenfly on Overland, or, frankly, the cost of that, since if's an off
site. Due to the floodway -- and if you see -- Sonya, can you go just to the site plan,
please: This -- actually, I'll just stop real quick. If you want to go back to that one, I'll
just point out -- so, this is where the existing road comes out, that's a full access right
now. Part of this development, the conditions from ACHD, is relocating that
approximately 236 feet to fhe east. Okay. Thank you. Next one. What we have shown
on this site plan is fhe floodway. This is controlled by FEMA. Ifs different than a flood
plain. Flood plain we can actually build in, you just have to build your buildings out of it.
floodway we cannot touch. It has to remain a conduit to get flood waters through the
site. So, any type of a crossing has to span fhis area. So, the -- you know, one of the
smallest areas is in that location and that's roughly 80 feet. So, to gives you scale,
that's about half of what a bridge crossing of the Boise River would be. So, it's -- it's not
just a small little bridge. This is -- this is a big, big bridge and for a small 4.77 acre
property to absorb that cost or half of that cost, it's -- it's just not feasible. Sonya, could
you go to the -- the zoning map, please. So, here you see this is kind of a little
doughnut ho1e, if you will, for what hasn't been annexed. The -- the entire C-G zone on
this corner, once this is annexed, is a little over 85.5 acres. So, this little corner is
roughly -- it's less fhan six percent of that. I#'s 5.6 percent of the total. And we have
looked at some concepts for how these crossings could occur. Currently -- where
Rackham Way currently is, there is a crossing across the Five Mile currently and I don't
know if it's sfiill there, but fhere is a-- there was a residence up here that utilized this
Rackham way. So, there is a crossing at this location. And if you could go to that -- the
last slide fhat I had, please. Right here. One of the northern property owners gave me
fhis plan and we put our site plan on the corner. They -- from the property owners that I
talked to to the north, their main objective is to get to the signal to -- they already have
access to Rackham Way. My understanding is of fire code that for those northern
properties to develop, which is just over 70 acres, they have to have two points of
ingress and egress for fire code, fhat you could not build out that amount of acreage
and I believe they couldn't build out more than probably seven to ten acres with~a single
access point, that finro access points are going to be required for those properties to
develop to the north. They already have access to Rackham. We have a crossing
there. They want to get across to the light and that is where the money to build a bridge
should go into -- into the crossing here and, ultimately, by default, these two are going
to have to join, just because they are going to have to -- you know, you have to be able
to get to both accesses. So, ultimately, this is how we see the master plan, not an
addifional crossing to get across here, but the crossings to get to the signal. Safety is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 6 of 43
definitely a concern of ours also. We had our traffic engineer, which is Stanley
Consultants, look at access or response time for the fire department -- back to the
aerial, please. There is a fire station right here. Access time to the site is roughly two
minutes and 18 seconds, which is well within fihe five minute goal. They can achieve
that several different ways if, by chance -- I mean right now ACHD said that they won't
eliminate the left turn, but if by chance that does go away, there is also this option of
going through onto Silverstone and, then, you could take a left turn to get into the site
via that way. I think as far as the initial response, I don't think fhat's the issue. It's
secondary and tertiary of -- of emergency vehicles coming from the north across the
freeway and, again, they could go through this way as a little bit, but with what I was
showing you before on a master plan, you know, they could take a left in here, a left in
here, and come around. IYs really that -- not that much further than -- fhan what the
other is. We have provided several viable options, we feel, to the fiire department.
Actually, the planning director Anna Canning came up with one with -- after a median,
having grasscrete where we have a curb cut already, that it could -- it would just be
landscaping and they could get in across a landscaping area with grasscrete with a--
that would pass a median if a median were ever put in. And, then, again, there has
been different designs shown by our traffic engineer for a mountable median, which the
fire department has a concern with the -- with the low areas on the fire trucks and stuff
like that. But fhere could be a median cut where it's striped and you really couldn't tell.
So, there is -- there are lots of options, but I do want to go back to ACHD has agreed
not to eliminate emergency access and this bridge -- half of the bridge is not their
requirement. They have -- that's not a requirement to ACHD property. So, t will wrap it
up. Two -- two items. One is the four stories in lieu of three. And second is to remove
the provision to put up a road trust for half of the bridge crossing. Thank you very
much.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do
Moe: Okay.
Marshall: Can we go back to that conceptual master plan for me for just a second?
There. Thank you. Now, when you were saying that you're about, what, 4.7 percent or
five percent, essentially, of the total buildable area --
Thompson: We are 5.6 percent of the total buildable area in this location.
Marshall: Now, you're including only the 4.7 acres that you're saying is buildable?
Thompson: Correct.
Marshall: Does that include just the entire C-G area up above?
' Thompson: It does. It includes --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Jume 5, 2008
Page 7 of 43
Marshall: So, we are including that area that's not buildable up there in the on-ramp
area and all that stuff that's also zoned C-G --
Thompson: No. What I took this from is the assessor's parcel map and it's just the
property boundaries. So, like this property here was annexed to the center line of
Overland. I have not included that -- right -- or that right of way in that calculation. It's
just actual property lines, not -- not the right of way.
Marshall: Right. But you said they own Eight Mile Creek and things like that. You
didn't take fhose out of the calculations?
Thompson: I did not, no.
Marshall: Okay. Did you just -- to me it appears to be -- it's a small percentage, but it
doesn't -- it appears to be more than five percent to me. Just -- thank you.
Thompson: Yeah. The top area is over 51 acres and, then, kind of in the middle above
the Five Mile and just to clarify everyfhing, this is the Eight Mile right here and, then, this
is the Five Mile. So, that north of the Five Mile is a little over 70 acres. So, that -- that
wouldn't include any of that. The ditch -- the creeks in that calculation, but where it
would is probably this piece of property.
Marshall: But knowing that you have to have -- that the city typically needs -- for
emergency purposes, needs two entrances and exits; right? They kind of need that
pass through, you don't feel you have any responsibility to that bridge over Eight Mile at
all?
Thompson: Well, we are providing this access here. We are providing a hundred
percent of the right of way and a hundred percent of the construction of that. You know,
we are not getting any help for that. There is no pay back for any of fhat. So, that's one
of the access points that's needed for that area.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm, anything?
Rohm: Nothing.
Moe: Thank you very much. Gary Allen.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Gary Allen.
My address is 601 West Bannock in Boise. I'm project counsel for the applicant and
Tamara covered our issues on this well. I just wanted to emphasize one or finro things
about the bridge. And the first one is we have no control over if, when, and -- if that will
ever be built. We don't know when development's going to occur over there. So, iYs not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 8 of 43
-- you know, we may be putting up money -- if we have to put up money for the bridge --
that is not never used and so, you know, fhat's one of our concerns is that it's just not a
useful expendifiure. As Tamara pointed out, it's also not proportionate to our impact on
fihe area, so we are concerned about that. And I wanted to make sure that you
understood what the ACHD condition requires. They are also concerned about trying to
gain some connectivity in here and we would like that as well, of course, but, again, it's
not our property, we don't controi it. So, their condition says that if the -- if that other
road is put in, you know, that -- and there was a connection made, then, they are going
to cut off the access or the -- they are going to close off Rackham to be right-in, right-
out. They want the main access to go around and out at the light. But they have said,
as Tamara said, that they are not -- you know, because of the emergency access
concerns, that's going at least have to remain as a three-quarter access until then and
there is no proposal to close it off at all now and the only reason they would close it off
is if there were a substantial safety issue, in which case they would leave at least a
three-quarter or if the light goes in and they get a connection the other way. So, we
think this is covered about as well as it can be. And that, you know, you have really got
a lot of different ways for the emergency vehicles to get in here. You have got -- as
Tamara said, you have got direct access from the soufh. You have got the secondary
access from Boise, which is to the east. And, then, it's only this tertiary access that we
are 'concerned about and that is provided for wifh at least a left-in access. So, we fhink
that that's suff.icient. We have already got belt and suspenders on this. There is no
need to have masking tape and staples. You know, we think that the fire department is
just being a little too cautious here and we would ask for that condition to be removed.
Do you have any -- I would be happy to answer any questions if you have any.
Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. That was the only one that was signed. If
there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, you're more than
welcome. Okay. No one wants to come up. Okay. Thank you. Sonya, I do have a
quesfion for you. I was kind of curious in regards to the condition on the three stories in
lieu of four stories. What is the purpose of the three story in lieu of going any higher?
Watters: I believe that's -- excuse me, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. I believe that's
what was shown on fheir plan. Staff does not necessarily have a problem with that
being, you know -- fhe GG zone allows up to 65 feet. So, that's fine wifh staff.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes, ma'am.
Newton-Huckabay: I may have missed it in the staff report, but I'm unclear on why the
existing bridge isn't sufficient or -- or couldn't be improved if it was say widen or
something like that. I just need some clarification on why -- why the existing bridge on
the property -- ~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 9 of 43
Moe: You might want to wait until -- Sonya? She has a question for you.
Newton-Huckabay: The existing bridge, why is that not -- why do we need an additional
bridge?
Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Huakabay -- Newton-Huckabay,
Commissioners, we need an additional bridge for interconnectivity befinreen this parcel
and the parcel to the east. It will also provide a more direct path for connectivity to the
signaiized intersection at Silverstone and Overland. It also provides a more direct route
for the fire department. I think Joe is wanting to address fihe -- that a little bit more also,
if he may.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Can I-- Mr. Chair, can I ask one question before?
Moe: Yes. Please.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't recall any other projects where we have required a bridge
trust. Have we done that and it just is escaping my memory?
Watters: Waltman. Browning Plaza. North of the site.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Oh, did we? Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Silva.
Silva: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, I know there is a little bit -- excuse
me -- been a lot of controversy associated with the bridge. And there has been several
instances where we have had mulfiple bridges within a given development. We have
had it done multiple times. I just -- the names escape me, because we have had it
several times, probably about a half a dozen times. Our concern here is that -- and we
have kind of addressed this -- or explained our concerns to the -- to the development
team and the owners. You know, there is the Eagle fire station down here and there is
no problem, if they are in quarters or in the area south of Overland, there is no -- there
is really no difference whether or not they are going to come down Eagle, turn right here
on Overland and, then, go into the development. Or if they have to take this route down
and into the development, our concern is that ACHD senses that there may be an
overall traffic concern here where they may have to put some sort of inedian or control
to prevent left turns in here at some point where the -- where there is a traffic safety
concern on behalf of -- that ACHD has. And they proposed, as the design team had
indicated, that we could maybe perhaps put a raised median or some -- or some confirol
device like that. Again, it kind of revolves around the issue of damaging apparatus as it
goes up a raised median at an angle, a 50,000 pound vehicle, and it twists fhe frame
and we can damage our apparatus going in there. The other instances that the develop
-- that Tamara alluded to was perhaps we could put sort of grasscrete down here with a
-- basically, a gate that would allow us a back entry into this project. We have not under
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 10 of 43
any condition every had that situation arise in a commercial project. We have never
had to go through a gate -- a locked gate, whether it's an electric gate or a locked
manual gate to enter any commercial project, though we have done that in residential
settings. So, if this engine company is in quarters, fhere is no -- there is little -- little
delay getting in there, whether or not they come down here and in or if they have to go
through Goldstone to Silverstone and in. But if we have any fire in this area right here,
the seeond due company coming from our fire station one located right across fhe street
from the cemetery, if they come the most direct route -- let's assume they go east on
Franklin, south on Eagle, left turn, and in on the realigned Rackham, fhat's 2.6 miles. If
fhey have to put on the additional mileage required to come down to Goldstone and into
Silverstone in here and into Rackham -- realigned Rackham, thafs three and a half
miles -- 3.5 miles. And so that can be a considerable delay. In today's economic --
economic situation in the business community, we -- this area -- this C-G area here has
already been annexed in. Tamara's absolutely correct, we have little or no control over
condifions we may be able to impose to improve fhe connectivity to this parcel. That's
our concern is that ACHD may at some point say, hey, we need, for safety concerns on
behalf of the public, fhe motoring public, we have got to ~control fhe access right here
before this parcel would be subdivided or come before Council for further consideration,
but as it is currently zoned, could just get a certificate of zoning compliance and
processed and they could build the buildings and we have no opportunity to improve the
connectivity here at this point or across the Eight Mile, either one, and it could add
significantly to our time -- our time response -- time for response into that whole area.
And so with that I'll stand for any questions that.the Commission may have. And, really,
fhis is the only insfance where we recommended if access cannot be provided at this
point, that the fire department would be opposed to the project being developed and
that would be the recommendation of the fire department. That's a first ever in my
tenure as the fire marshal in Meridian fiire department. This project has some unique
transportation challenges and we can't overlook that as we evaluate the pluses and
minuses of the project.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. Silva. Any questions?
Rohm: Yes, sir.
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Silva, if -- if, in fact, you don't have any control over the adjacent property,
then, what 's going to make it where that other half of the bridge will be built? If you can't
make them do anyfhing, then, this developer putting up the money for half of it is to -- it
doesn't get you anywhere and I'm just curious, doesn't seem like that's a fit.
Silva: Yeah. The only -- the only thing that can be done is that perhaps that money
could be put in a trust that would at least, basically, have the improvements done to this
bridge here for connectivity. If that can't happen, all we can do is work and plead our
case with ACHD as to the overall safety concerns we have for being able to service this
particular project.
i~
~
I~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 11 of 93
~ Watters: If I could add to that. If the property to the east comes in for a preliminary plat
or Conditional Use Permit at that time we could request that they, you know, pay for and
construct the other haif of that bridge.
Rohm: One more thing. I was -- in listening to the applicant's testimony the
~ disproporfionate cost of the potential bridge to the smaller parcel seems to be a valid
' argument as well. If you have got five acres on one side and you got 75 acres on the
I other side, it seems disproportionate to require it to be a 50-50 split and, you know, I'm
~ all for connectivity, but to have the smaller parcel be an equal participate doesn't seem
to be equitable, just from my perspective.
Moe: Sonya, I guess one other thing I would be curious about. On the road trust is
there any -- any mechanism to make the -- put that into a time frame, I mean if, in fact,
there is no development to the east in five to seven years or whatever, is there a
possibility that fhose funds come back?
Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, there should be -- we should be able to put a
time frame on that, yes, with ACHD.
Moe: Okay. Any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none right now.
Moe: Okay. Well, would somebody like to close the public hearing and, then, we can
discuss it or --
Rohm: Yeah. I will do that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move --
Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Wait a minute. I'm sorry, the applicant -- I need to make sure she
can come back up. Thank you for coming back up. .
Thompson: Wasn't going to let you forget about me. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, I just want to kind of reiterate where we are at, that these properties have
already been annexed, zoned, they can go out and develop today. Even if you had a
whole bridge there, there is nofhing that connects that bridge to -- there is no right of
way, nothing that connects any type of a bridge here to this light. You know, that
property owner is going to have to give up that right of way in order for fhat connection
to happen. I mean there is -- there is just so much out of our control here that -- and I
just want to go back to ACHD -- this is not an ACHD requirement. They have agreed
not to limit emergency access. So, with that said, I-- you know, I don't -- I don't see
what the issue is where the bridge doesn't even -- it doesn't get us anywhere. So, we
respectfully request that that condition be removed. Thank you very much.
, Rohm: Just in response to that, typicaily, every single development that comes before
this Commission we try very diligently to have that aonnectivity befinreen the finro parcels
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 12 of 43
and due to the uniqueness of this one the only ingress to your parcel is from the north
and iYs -- and that, typically, isn't what we are at, we are trying to get both from along
Overland and from the -- firom the north. So, even though there is no advantage to your
parcel, at the end of the day we'd like to see that connectivity befinreen adjoining parcels
in -- in all developments, so --
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, the -- we are giving that cross-access.
So, you know, if somebody wants go from their property onto ours, we are giving it in all
directions and we are giving it to the east, but, again, fhere is no portion of that creek
that is on this property. It's solely off-site.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Thompson: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm; Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 08- 001. I
guess that's it.
Marshall: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
j Moe: Did I get a second?
~
Newton-Huckabay: You had two seconds.
~ Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. on AZ 08-001. All
, those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. .
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Commissioner Marshall, do you have any comment?
Marshall: Well, first off, I'm kind of worried, though, if just this -- this is a separate
individual parcel and if it were to develop and were going to get this connectivity here,
that's where we have got to get across this to get the connectivity over to the other
parcel. I know we are going to require any connectivity coming back here, but -- maybe
I'm wrong. I-- I'm not -- I'm struggling a bit with the connectivity issue. The rest of it
seems pretty good. I don't have a problem with the four stories, as long as it's within 65
feet. I have got no problem wifh anything else. I'm just still struggling right now with the
connectivity. I do think proportionally it's kind of a problem, but I do wonder if some of
this other area closer to Overland will develop before the rest of this back here and I
understand that if the rest of this back here develops we have got to have connectivity
in two areas here. But I guess that's where I'm at.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
~ June 5, 2008
Page 13 of 43
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huakabay, any comments?
Newton-Huckabay: I'm just trying to remember how we -- when we annexed the stuff to
fhe north. I can't imagine that we wouldn't have put more requirements for connectivity
to fhe whole corner of some sort.
Moe: That pretty much came before us. That's why I don't have --
Newton-Huckabay: Honestly, I don't remember annexing -- doing that. I'm going to
have to go with the staff report. I don't really -- it's a rock and a hard place. I have a
hard -- I mean as I say before, I don't recall -- although I do remember Waltman, which
is a larger project, putting that burden on a development agreement of off-site
improvements, but I don't think -- I think somewhere along the line we have already
been a bit remiss on this corner and I think I-- although I empathize with the applicant, I
think if we can -- I have to -- I believe staff has fhe best solution to -- to a tough
situation.
Moe: Okay. Thank you. Quite frankly, I think the -- other than the bridge crossing and
this is a-- this project is -- is a good fit for the area there. Again, interconnectivity is a
major issue and it does need to be done and so I am -- I am definitely in favor of the
staff report, other than the fact I do -- would like to see an opinion from the other
Commissioners in regards to a time frame on the road trust, because if, in fact, they
don't get with doing something to the east, I don't fihink this applicant should -- have
their money held probably more than about a five year plan.
Newton-Huckabay:~ Isn't that even too long?
Moe: I# probably is. So, I would be more fhan happy to listen to what you folks think.
Mr. Rohm, do you have any comments?
Rohm: I do.
Moe: Thank you. I figured you would after I said that.
Rohm: My opinion is you proportion the crossing based upon the differential befinreen
the acreage sizes and you don't put a time frame on it, because that -- fhat property to
the east of this development will redevelop at some point in time and to put a sunset on
the funds collected doesn't build the bridge and at sometime that bridge will need to be
built and -- and unfil that develops it's not needed, but if we were to just say, you know
what, that bridge is going in and you're going to participate in your proportional share of
it, then, we don't have to put a time frame, because my opinion is fhat if we put a five
year time frame or any time frame, the monies would go back to them, because it won't
develop in the time frame that we listed and, fihen, we have no participation in -- in the
bridge crossing. So, I think it should just be proportional with no refund. ThaYs the way
I look at it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 14 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
IV1oe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm, are you basing -- I mean where do you --
what -- just the -- the already zoned area there? I mean do you create the calculation
off of that whole northeast corner? Hey, thanks.
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: This section here?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: This acreage?
Rohm: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: So, it includes -- so, you take this -- this total acreage and whatever
percentage of this total acreage this development is, they pay that -- they put fhat
amount of money into a trust for a bridge?
Rohm: Right. And the reason, additionally, why I feel this way is because the additional
property that will develop in time will actually be able to utilize the road that this
development is putting in as their second access and so they are already getting a-- a
contribution from this development for that future development based upon the ingress-
egress off of Overland Road.
Marshail: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Marshall: A couple comments. One, this area back here, to get access back here to up
here is going have to build a whole bridge over Five Mile. They are going .to have to
pay for that on their own. Period. This connectivity is befinreen this, area here and this
area here. Right? Now, what if -- I'm not sure. What if this area develops, without
developing this area, this. area may sit for another 15 years while this development --
this area develops in two years. Do we still need the connectivity right here, because
isn't this connectivity over Eight Mile supposed to be between this area and this area,
not this area back here? This area requires here over Eight Mile and here over File
Mile. This one over Eight Mile is existing; this one over Five Mile, they will have to
absorb that cost.
Newton-Huckabay: So, Commissioner -- Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 15 of 93
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, your argument is that the only property
should be -- in consideration is this -- is this RUT piece here?
Marshall: I'm assuming -- it's my assumption that that's where we are looking for the
connectivity, is between this intersection here through this RUT piece over to here. This
is the interconnectivity that we are looking for. This is going to get two connectivities;
one here at Eight Mile and one here at Five Mile and that's going to have to come
through this RUT piece to get back here. So, this has to develop before this or that
can't develop.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Marshall: But my argument is that this whole area here could develop long before this
without this developing at all and isn't that where we need the connectivity?
Moe: Yes, it is. What do you think, Mr. Rohm? You look like you had another thought.
Rohm: Well, I do. It's -- and I don't know the rules of the game as well as staff, so
maybe it's best to ask staff. If, in fact, that parcel which Commissioner Marshall alluded
to were to develop on its own without reference to fhe property to the north, would that
parcel be required to have access across Eight Mile Creek to the west if it was just that~
parcel, because it seems to me that, ultimately, the multiple egresses to Overland is
only dependent upon fully developing the entire GG zoned properties. It's not just that
small parcel. It's one -- the full development occurs that the multiple accesses have to
occur; is that correct? Do you follow that?
Silva: Perhaps I could provide some clarity, Commissioner Rohm, Members of the
Commission. There is -- there is three ways in which secondary access -- or three ways
into a given project is required. Based on building height, building size, or that unique
thing where -- where in the opinion of the code official you have a unique access
problem and that kind of -- that's the situation here, because if we don't get it to that
parcel, that RUT parcel, we are forever going to have very limited access forever for a
large piece of commercial property and it's going to offer some very large challenges for
the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council going forward if we don't, you
know, go on the record and have -- have a plan in place to deal with connectivity and
access to parcels.
Rohm: And i fully agree that we need to have that connectivity, but what my question is
is if that front parcel were to request deveiopment independent from everything north of
them, would fiiey be required to shoulder a hundred percent of the balance of whatever
this applicant doesn't pay for that Eight Mile Creek crossing and it just seems -- it seems
to me that the entire acreage that's -- the entire acreage benefits from the Eight Mile
crossing and I guess that's my whole point is the entire acreage does, not just those two
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 16 of 43
parcels, and it seems that it should be proportional to all those that receive benefit from
it, not just the initial applicant. And I will just leave it at that and we can go from there.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair'?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Sonya, I fhought that this is where the Zamzow's is. Is it right here?
Am I just -- so, I'm just off one. Okay.
Moe: Well, Commissioners, we have all kind of spoken our mind. What's next?
Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to make a motion.
Moe: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: And I just got to find the page to remove fhe building height.
Rohm: 'Page ten.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to fhe City Council of file number AZ 08-001 -- and
although we are not -- we are only making an opinion on VAC 08-001 -- as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of June 5th, 2008, with the following modifications to
the proposed development agreement, that Item C on page ten, stating that the storage
be limited to three stories, will be changed to four stories, with a maximum height of 65
feet. End of motion.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: If's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approval of AZ 08-001
for Overland Village, wifh the changes as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Rohm: Aye.
Moe: That motion carries three to one. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: PP 08-004 Request for ~
a Preliminary Plat with 6 residenfial building lots and 1 common lot in an
R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 acres for Maxfield by Cottage Investors,
LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Fage 17 of 43
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: CUP 08-008 Request for
~ Conditional Use Permit approval consisting of Assisted Living Facilities
containing 5 buildings with 15 beds in an R-8 zone for the proposed
Maxfield Subdivision by Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon
Drive:
Moe: I'd like to open fhe -- reopen the continued Public Hearing on PP 08-004 and GUP
08-D08 for the Maxwell by Cottage Investors.
Newton-Huckabay: Maxfield.
Moe: Pardon me?
Newton-Huckabay: Maxfield.
Moe: Oh. Maxfield. Excuse me. And have staff give us a report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Applications before
you tonight are a preliminary plat consisfiing of seven lots on approximately 4.7 acres in
an existing R-8 zone. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit
approval to construct and operate an assisted living development, comprised of five
individual facilities, each with a potential to house up to 16 persons. In addition, fhe
applicant is also requesting approval to construct a private street loop to provide access
and circulation throughout the proposed development. The site is located at 3295 East
Falcon Drive, just soufh of Eagle Road -- excuse me -- just east of South Eagle Road
and south of East Victory Road, The property bord'ered on the north by Golden Eagle
Estates, zoned RUT. To fhe south is Dartmoor Subdivision, zoned RUT. To the west is
Medford Place, zoned R-8, and Golden Estates is on -- to the east, also zoned R-4.
Here is an aerial of the site. Currently there is an existing home on the site that's
proposed to remain and be a part of the subdivision. In 2005 the City Council approved
annexation and preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit for the same use at the
subject site. However, the applicant failed to submit a time extension application,
record the plat, and establish a use on the site within the time limits of the UDC. The
DA governing the site limits the site to five retirement homes and requires the existing
home to hook up to city sewer and water with the construction of phase one. The
difference between this submittal and the previous submittal is the applicant was
proposing a finro lot preliminary plat and is now proposing each building be on its own
separate lot. The submitted plat consists of six residenfial lots and one common lot.
Access is proposed to and from East Falcon Drive via a private street that will provide
access and circulation within the proposed development. So, here is South Eagle
Road. Here is East Falcon Drive. Here is where the applicant is proposing to stub to
that for the assisted living facility. In addition, here is where fhe existing home site will
be located on that lot, as I mentioned earlier. Access to this site is located here and
here. ACHD doesn't really have access requirements for local roads, which this East
Falcon Drive is designated that, but staff feels that the applicant should still vacate this
access here and just provide one access point to the home. The home faces west, so
Meridian Plannimg & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 18 of 43
the driveway for the garage is right here, so the applicant would have to come in and
drive -- like I said, the garage is located here and the driveway here, so this -- even
though this is kind of close for what we like to see, it still makes sense to have that one
in place, so that the applicant will -- can have access to that home site. Here is the
landscaping plan. UDC requires a 25 foot landscape buffer here along Eagle Road and
a ten foot landscape buffer along local streets. The applicant has provided that, as you
can see, and is in compliance with fhe UDC. Also, the City of Meridian requires fhat
pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by year round source of water. The applicant
has stated in a narrative that there are insufficient surface water rights to justify the
construction of a pressurized irrigation system. As previously approved, the applicant is
requesting the use of city water to irrigate the landscaping for the development. The
applicant should coordinate with Public Works regarding city water being used for
irrigation purposes and staff had conditioned with the final plat submittal that the
applicant provide proof that fhe property does not have sufficient surFace water rights
from the appropriate irrigation district. Here is the site plan. It's expected to develop
with five 8,525 foot buildings and they are proposed to be constructed in two phases.
Phase one will be building A and B and, then, also provide services to this home site.
Phase two would be C, D and E, but the plat itself will all be recorded as one phase -- in
one phase according to the applicant. Amenities for the site include two gazebos, a
walking path, and approximately 18 percent of usable open space. That applicant is
also in compliance with the parking requirements of the UDC. It's 1.5 per bed and the
applicant is providing roughly 15 beds within each development, so fihey are required to
provide 38 parking stalls and the applicant is proposing 49. Here is the amenities on
the site. Here is a gazebo here. A gazebo site here. The pathway goes around the
development here. Provides that connectivity and some recreation for future patrons.
Nursing and residential care specific use standard in fhe UDC states for uses providing
care to patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease or dementia, a barrier with a
minimum height of six feet along the perimeter of any portion of the site is accessible to
those patients shall be provided. At this time the applicant is proposing self-sufficient
facilities and does not anticipate dementia patients to be located at the proposed facility.
Staff has conditioned that 24 hour nursing care be limited to building C and D on Lots 5
and 6 of the project. If applicable, strict adherence to this requirement is required at
CZC submittal for the proposed building. Furthermore, staff recommends the shift
changes for the nursing staff should not occur between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. to not disturb the residents of fhe surrounding neighbors -- neighborhoods.
So, basically, what we have done is -- basically, this is just a retirement community.
Staff didn't want to have the applicant come back and possibly modify the CUP at a later
date, so we worked together and staff has conditioned this is where Lot 5 and 6 is
located and fhis building C and D. The applicant is proposing a six foot fence along this
boundary and, then, a split rail fence along this -- these two boundaries. So, when we
had,this discussion with the applicant, they felt it was best to house -- if in the future
fhey choose to have dementia patients on the site, they could easily gate this off and
contain those patients within the site. Tfie applicant has submitted building elevations
for the proposed buildings. However, the siding and roofing materials are not called out
on fhe submitted elevations. A masonry veneer is proposed along the front facade.
The same veneer is also carried to the side elevation, with one side having full
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 19 of 43
treatment and the opposite side having partial treatment. The UDC requires buildings to
be constructed of a high quality building material, such as stone, brick, wood, or other
native materials. In no case shall the buildings use vinyl siding as their primary siding
material. Staff has requested the applicant testify to what construction materials are
proposed for the assisted living buildings. Staff has also conditioned that any street
facing -- public street facing elevation have the same masonry veneer along the entire
facade of the building. So, I will step back to the site plan. So, basically, if you look at --
well, let me go to these elevations. If you look at the rear elevations here you will see
no stone at all on that and this is where they kind of have stone on the front facade and,
then, just kind of wrap around the building here. So, basically, what the staff has
conditioned them to do is anywhere they face a public street they carry that treatment
throughout the entire facade. So, this -- the back of this building would have a full stone
tceatment and the side of this building would also have a full stone treatment. Staff has
-- one other, too. In condition 1.3.3 in the CUP conditions of approval, we didn't really
tie the developer to any building materials for the purposes the construction of those
buildings, so if the applicant states what the building is to be constructed, what materials
they are proposing to use, I'm asking fhe Commission to modify that condition to include
those building materials with that condition. Staff has received an e-mail from the
applicant's representafive that the owner of the property is in agreement with the
conditions of approval for the proposed development and didn't have any concerns,
thaYs why we continued the project, so we could meet and find these out before we
came to the hearing. Staff is recommending approval of the ~subject PP and CUP with
conditions listed in Exhibit D. This concludes my presentation and I will stand for any
questions the Commission may have.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please.
Elg: Commissioners, thank you. My name is Van Elg with fhe Land Group. 462 East
Shore, No. 100, Eagle, Idaho, representing Mr. Maxfield this evening. We appreciate
the opportunity to defer fhis for a time, so that we could discuss a couple of points that
needed to be clarified prior to coming to the Public Hearing. Staff did clarify that there
would be 16 persons -- potentially 16 persons in these apartments -- or in these care
facilities. One of fhe beds in each of them could be a double bed for a married couple,
so we just need to make sure that we were clear on that. Thank you for popping that
up, Bill. Why don't you go to -- this is -- I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. What
-- at fhe previous application that was approved --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman. Mr. EIg, so you're saying a total of 16 people,
potentially 32 people?
Elg: No. Sixteen in each -- in each unit.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, not 16 double beds, just --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 20 of 43
Elg: No. Sixteen -- yeah. It would be 15 beds -- if I understand it right, 15 beds, one of
them could be a double bed, or I guess if they don't -- a married couple wants to have
two beds, I guess they can have two beds. I don't know how that works.
Rohm: I don't either.
EIg: Yeah.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Elg: All right. ~ This is the original project that was approved back in 2005 and you will
see that the -- the access point -- the house was still a part of that, I believe, in the
original application in fhe subdivision. The access drive is still in the same -- essentially,
the same location. The access drive is still here in fhe same locafion for the house.
There was mention of a second access up here at the home. ACHD's also asked that
we close that. The owner has no problem with closing that secondary access up there.
It's really just used for getting access to the backyard, I guess. But it's not a-- it's not a
significant stumbling point for us. The -- you can see that the -- fhe original application
has a number of twists and turns and the buildings face Eagle in this location. Buildings
face sides in this locafion. And, Bill, if you will put the next slide =- we have come up
with a new design fhat provides a much more fluid movement throughout the project.
Again, the homestead's here, with an access here. Our new drive -- or our drive in the
same location comes in and loops around as a-- this will be a private lane and loops
through fhe project providing landscaped areas here, a gazebo area structures up front
here in the middle. Pafhways that wander through the project and through -- so that the
residents have a-- they are more visible where we can monitor better and a much more
open feel for the enfire project and traffic circulation, of course, is greatly improved with
it. The other thing you will notice is that the units face in, with the excepfion of the
Alzheimer's units right here that have a double courtyard that face each other and we
are not saying that they will ever go Alzheimer's, but if they did it's designed to
accommodate that. So -- and, then, heavier treatment -- this provides a larger open
area up here for fhe residents to recreate and plant a garden, have a little rose garden
or whatever they decide to put up through this area here. There is also another gazebo
and a little courtyard area right there where they can come and sit. So, overall a much
better plan, much easier to -- to manage and to move through for the residents and for
the -- the employees that will be there.
Rohm: Before we go further, would you kind of give me an indication where the
driveway to that existing home is going #o --
Elg: It's right there. You can see the finro little lines right there.
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Elg: It exits right there right now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 21 of 43
Rohm: That's where it is right now and thaYs where it will be --
Elg: That's where it will remain. And we talked to ACHD and they have agreed with
fhat -- with those driveway cuts right fihere, so --
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Elg: Now, one point was made that this will be phase -- that it will be in two phases and
I think we have firied to clarify this with staff, too, and maybe we didn't do a good job on
it, but this will -- the intent is that this will be phase one, A and B, and the entire plat will
be done at once. He's correct. But this one could -- phase two are these three units
right here, may not occur that direction. They are individual lots and with that, this one
may develop and, then, this one may develop and this one may develop. We may not
build all three units at the same time. But we will provide, as we talked to Bill, all of the
landscaping necessary along the perimeters here, as required in the staff report. So --
and I think the fence along the outside perimeter -- wasn't that correct, Bill? Okay.
Parsons: Correct.
Elg: So, that's the only correction, clarification, but I don't think the conditions tell us
that we have to build it in phase one and phase two anyway, so just a clarification there.
Moe: The fencing will be up as well?
Elg: The fencing up as well. Correct. The type of construction, we were asked to
testify on fhat. The application is -- or the -- our client's told us that it will be a stucco
construction and he agrees with that rock treatment that comes along Falcon and along
Eagle, where ever there is a facing road. Also, just for -- for grins, we are going to work
with Public Works -- I'm trying to do a new treatment for this and yet to be seen if it
really pans out economically, but instead of an asphalt treatment, we are looking at a--
what's called a pervious concrete, which is a-- kind of a new treatment for asphalt. It
kind of looks like a rice crispy treat concrete paving surface, but allows all the water to
flow freely through the -- the area and can handle about 450 inches of water, I believe:
It's a pretty unique system and it's held up very weil in Minnesota and Colorado where --
through some very heavy freeze-thaw cycles. So, we are considering doing something
like that in this area. Just as a point of reference, finro or three monfhs ago there was
one approved contractor who could do the surface. There is now 15, I think, that are
certified to do fhat -- that concrete surFace. It's kind of taken off. But, anyway, with that
I'll open myself up for any questions you mighf have.
Moe: Any questions of the applicant?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do you have one.
Rohm: Mr. Marshail.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 22 of 43
Marshall: So, while these finro buildings are built and these are waiting to see what the
demand is and when we want to build the rest of these, what will this whole area look
like?
Elg: It will be undeveloped.
Marshall: So, just an open field.
EIg: Yeah. It will be open.
Marshall: Uh-huh. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Thank you very much.
EIg: Okay. Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Garrell Maxfield.
Newton-Huckabay: Caleb was trying to get your attention..
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Oh, I'm sorry.
Hood: As Garrell comes up, I just wanted a point of clarificafion for the applicant, too,
because due to the history of this I certainly don't want to see it die again and have to
come back for a third time. The phasing plan to staff would probably be okay. Be clear,
though, that each phase or each building has to be done within 18 months of the
previous one. So, you can't wait five years until you do building number three or some
phase -- your phasing plan has to be a maximum of 18 months in between. So, just be
aware of that, so you don't get three-quarters of the way down and, then, the last
building you wait 24 months and that actually dies. So, each building or each phase
has to be done in 18 month successive phases or your CUP dies. So, I just wanted to --
to make you aware of that and if you need a time extension, we can certainly process a
time extension. It's a lot easier than going through this whole thing again. So, just to let
you know and we can talk about it more, but I did not want to go on record and let you
know that, too.
Maxfield: I'm Garrell Maxfield, owner of The Cottages.
Moe: Address, please.
Maxfield: Pardon me?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 23 of 43
Moe: Address, please.
Maxfield: My address is 1920 South Mayflower Way in Boise. And I have always
wanted a subdivision named after me and here is my chance, so -- I don't know how
many of you are familiar with The Cottages over on Ten Mile that's part of the
Bridgetower Subdivision, but if you have seen those buildings there that's exactly what
we are doing here. Our developments always look really nice and they are attractive
and there is a big need, of course, for this kind of services for the elderly. All the
neighbors have been very supportive. A couple of issues, of course, that we were able
to address successfully. So, I'm just basically here if you had any questions about
assisted living or what we do or anything like that.
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Any questions?
Rohm: No questions.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Maxfield: Thank you.
Moe: Well, fhere was no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to
speak, you're more than weicome to come up. Okay. No one there. All right. Can I get
a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 08-004
and CUP 08-008 for Maxfield Subdivision.
Marshall: I second.
Rohm: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 08-004 and
CUP 08-008. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: I'd just like to go on record, I think this is a great development. I think it's -- as a
matter of fact, iYs a lot better plan this time than it was the first time. I think it's -- it's a
great service to the city and look forward to seeing it happen. Anyone else have any
comments?
Marshall: In reference. to the 1.3 building materials as proposed by the developer,
believe he did mention the rock.
Newton-Huckabay: And stucco.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 24 of 43
Marshall: Yes. Said rock and stucco.
Moe: If that can be just put in a motion that would be great.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just want to second your comments. I fihink this
development's really an improvement on the first one and you have done your
homework well, so thanks.
Rohm: No additional comments. I agree with the two that have already spoken.
Marshall: I really like it. There we go.
Moe: Well, all I need is someone to make another motion.
Marshall: Mr. Chair -- if I can find where I'm at here. After considering all staff,
appiicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to fihe City Council of
file numbers PP 08-004 and CUP 08-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of June 5th, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval:
That 1.3, the building materials proposed by the developer are to be stucco and rock.
Moe: Okay.
Marshall: I so move.
Rohm: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve to go onto the City Council with
approval of PP 08-004 and CUP 08-008 and with modifications as noted. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: It has been requested that -- and we are going to take a ten minute break. We
will be back at 8:25 -- or 8:26.
(Recess.)
Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 08-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.92
of an acre from R1 to an R-2 zone for Alter Property by Denise Alter -
2741 E. Leslie Drive:
Moe: Well, at this time we will reconvene. I'd like to open fhe Public Hearing AZ 08-006
for Alter Property and hear the staff report, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 25 of 43
Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
request for annexation and zoning of .92 of an acre of land from R-1 in Ada County to
R-2, low density residential. This is an aerial view of the property. The property is
located at 2741 East Leslie Drive in Carol Subdivision No. 2, west of North Eagle Road
and soufh of East Ustick Road. Rural residential properties zoned R-1 in Ada County
and R-2 in the city surround this property. There was previously a single family
residence and shop building on this property that has been torn down. Owner proposes
to replace it with a new home and shop building as shown on the concept plan and
wishes to hook up to city water and sewer services. Services can be extended to the
property from main lines currently in Leslie Drive. The requested R-2 zoning district
complies with the Comp Plan future land use map designation of low density residential
for this property. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and zoning
request to R-2, as stated in the staff report, without requirement of a development
agreement. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time?
Newton-Huckabay: None.
Rohm: No questions.
Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Alter: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, I'm Denise Alter, I'm the owner of the
property, and I'm just simply applying for annexation, so I can hook into the city
services.
Rohm: Welcome to the city.
Moe: Any questions?
Rohm: No quesfions.
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Thank you very much. Lester Alter, would you like to speak?
L.Alter: Fellow Commissioners, I have nothing further to say. We just wanted to hook
into city services and we are building a new house there and wanted to get off the septic
system and thought that would be the right thing to do. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Mr. Cfiair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 26 of 43
Moe: Is there anyone else out in the audience fhat would like to speak in regards to this
-- okay. No one eise. So, I'm sure you don't want to come back up and say the same
thing you just said; right? So, we are okay there. Having said that, now, Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-006.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-006. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 08-006 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of June 5th, 2008, wifh no modifications. End of motion.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 08-006 for Alter Properties. All
those in favor'? Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTIDN CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 08-002 Request for Rezone of 0.55 of an acre from
the R-4 to L-O zoning district for Meridian Library Parking Lot
Expansion by the Meridian Library District - 1727 N. Leisure Lane:
Moe: I would now like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 08-002 for Meridian Library
Parking Lot Expansion and hear the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a request for a rezone of .58 of an acre of land from R-4, medium low
density residenfial, to L-O, limited office. The property is located at 1727 North Leisure
Lane, north of Cherry Lane, on the west side of Leisure Lane, approximately a quarter
mile east of North Linder Road. This is an aerial view of the property. Residential
property zoned R-4 exists to the north of the site. To the east is an office, zoned L-O
and R-4. To the south is a library parking lot and vacant building, zoned L-O. And to
fihe west is an existing library parking lot, zoned L-O. The applicant proposes to
construct a new parking lot for the library on this site. The conceptual site plan
submitted with the application shows how the subject property and the existing parking
lot to the west of the site will redevelop as one new parking lot, with associated
landscaping. One finro-way access driveway to the proposed parking lot is shown from
Cherry Lane via Leisure Lane. Two one-way drive -- driveways enter from and exit into
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 27 of 43
the library property where the library is located west of this site from the proposed
parking lot. That's the two drives right here. A possible driveway connection to the
existing library parking lot to the south is also depicted on the plan. No new access
points to Cherry Lane are proposed with this application. The requested L-O zoning
district complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of office
for this property. The proposed use as a parking lot for the library is considered a
public/quasi-public use and as such is a permitted use in the L-O district. The adjacent
properties owned by the Meridian Library District are all zoned L-O. This property is
unique in that it encompasses all of Leisure Lane, a private street at the east boundary
south of Cherry Land. You can see here on the aerial. Leisure Lane is an existing
private street that is used for access to the subject property, the property to the east,
and residences north of the site. The residential property owners to the north own the
land to the center of Leisure Lane. Leisure Lane is located within an easement north of
the site. Leisure Lane is currenfly improved on fhis site with approximately 22 feet of
asphait, no curb, no gutter, and no sidewaik. A raised curb exists aiong the east
boundary adjacent to the office property that separates a five foot wide area that serves
as a sidewalk, but is the same level as the street. Leisure Lane is considered a
substandard street and all of the residential properties to the north are, therefore,
considered nonconforming properties, because they are single family homes without
public street frontage. Staff believes fhat Leisure Lane should be improved as a public
street as a provision of rezoning this property. If Leisure Lane is improved as a public
street, then, all of fhe properties that have access to Leisure Lane can some day
redevelop in conformance with city code. If the improvement and dedicafion of Leisure
Lane on fihis property does not occur, staff believes that there will be a negative impact
on the adjacent neighbors. Staff is recommending as a development agreement
provision fhat the applicant improve and dedicate right of way for Leisure Lane as the
public street consistent with ACHD standards from Cherry Lane to the north boundary of
the site. This improvement and dedication shall occur prior to approval of fhe certificate
of zoning compliance for the parking lot expansion. Additionally, staff is including a
development agreement provision for the parking lot lighting to be shielded, so that no
direct light shines into adjacent residential properties. Staff is recommending approval
of the subject rezone request to L-O with the development agreement as stated in the
staff report. And staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this
time.
Moe: Any questions of staff? Would fhe applicant like to come forward.
Daniels: Mr. Chairman, Members of #he Commission -- Sonya, I was wondering if you
could go to the aerial.
Moe: Name and address, please.
Daniels: Sorry. Ed Daniels, 2785 Bogus Basin Road in Boise.
Moe: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008 ~
Page 28 of 43
Daniels: Currently fhe library is located here. The library district has purchased this
property. They are utilizing the existing parking lot and they are utilizing the existing
office building for staff and some administration. The property that we are requesting
for rezone is back over in here. Right now fhe libcary district has got a significant
demand for patrons and children and everybody coming to the library, such that they
have -- they have expanded into this for the parking lot and -- even with fhat parking lot
expansion, there is still a high demand for parking. So, currently what happens when
the library parking lot gets full is that we have parents parking in subdivisions and
needing their children to walk along Cherry Lane. I'm sure everybody's familiar with
Cherry Lane. As you can see from fhe aerial, there is no landscape buffer befinreen
Cherry Lane and the sidewalk and it becomes a major hazard for these -- for these
children coming into the library. So, with the -- with the parking lot addition our hope is
that we -- we mitigate any of fhe safety concerns that we currently have of where the
parents have to park for their children. We are, however -- this is a very unique piece of
property in that it does encompass a portion of Leisure Lane and I'm not seeing this
right now on the aerial, but ACHD owns eight feet between their property and this
property here and we haven't really got a definitive answer why that property exists or
what ACHD really anticipates doing wifh it. Currently by making this a public road -- or,
for one thing, it really straps the library financially in making this project feasible. You
know, in order to try to do the right thing for the students and the patrons and the
children as well. Also by making this a private lane -- I'm not sure what the intention is
or if there is any -- going to be any contiguous private road that would maybe stop here
and, then, the public would end there. So, I guess fhe question to maybe the staff is
what was the intent to have half of a public -- half of a public road and, then, half of a
private road when someday fihese may or may not be developed at any date and time.
So, that's kind of the project and I guess our request would be to eliminate any
requirements we have for a public road and any of the improvements that come with
that, as well as the conditions of approval for water and sewer in here, I'm not sure what
the intent is on there as well. I'd stand for questions.
Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Okay. On the sign-up sheet there is a
Bob Wallett. It says by proxy. Okay. For the record. Okay. Next on the list is Margaret
Wallett.
Wallett: Thank you. My name is Margaret Wallet. I live at 1838 Leisure Lane, which is
the second property on the right.
Moe: There should be a pointer there on --
Wallett: I don't know how to use it. Oh, there we go. Right there is my property.
Moe: Okay.
Wallett: It goes up all the way here and there -- that right there. I am all for the parking
lot itself. I realize that there is a problem. The problem that I have -- and the reason I
said no to this and my husband also, who is at home sick, is fihe entrance onto Leisure
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 29 of 43
Lane. I have pictures of Leisure Lane. The potholes that have been created from -- just
from the dentist office on the corner and, then, when it was -- the counseling office and,
then, they tore the fence down and made an exit onto Leisure Lane. I do have --
somewhere here I have pictures of the potholes that were created from too much traffic.
Here we go. Right here. ~
Moe: You'll need to give fhat to the clerk to put into the record.
Wallett: Thank you. As you can see, there -- it's not a good road and it's because of
the extra traffic. One reason that we chose to buy the house was because it was on a
private lane, which means not so much traffic. We do get traffic from the dentist office,
people looking for a place to turn around and that's usually my driveway or the Layton's
driveway or Mr. Weeks' driveway, which Laytons are right here and Mr. Weeks is right
here. And I'm right there. I have healfh issues. I have asthma and I also have COPD.
One of the triggers for the COPD, as well as the asthma, is the fumes from traffic, which
is one reason why we chose that property, because the fumes don't get there. But if
there is going to be fhat much traffic two doors down it's going to be a health problem
for me and I'm going to end up selling, moving somewhere else, just because the traffic
coming in and out. And I can guarantee you people will not turn to go to Cherry Lane,
they will turn to come back down thinking they can get out, even though it says dead
end. And that's a given. I mean that's just the way it is. So, I arn opposed to the exit --
entrance-exit on Leisure Lane, but I'm all for the parking lot, as long as they have their
entrance and things off of Cherry Lane. Thank you for your time.
Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much.
Wallett: Thank you.
Moe: Shirley Ratcliff. From the audience she has nothing more to say. Allen. Can you
pronounce the last name for me.
Garratt: Allen Garratt.
Moe: Garratt.
Garratt: 1917 Leisure Lane. My property is where the R-4 is, these two pieces of
property right here. I, again, choose to live in this neighborhood, only having moved
there about three years ago for a very specific reason, I wanted live in an area where I
had that country lane feel, but I'm also in the middle of Meridian. I don't really want
Leisure Lane to become a city street. If I did I would have lived in any one of a number
of fine subdivisions that Meridian has to offer. I want to live in the country area. I'm not
opposed to the parking lot for library per se, but I do not want to have the exit onto --
onto Cherry Lane for the very same -- fhe very same reasons. It's just -- it's too ~much
traffic. There is already enough traffic racing up and, down that street as it is. I have got
a small two and a half year old child and there is cars going up and down that street, I
can't let my child out in my front yard in the daytime, because of folks thinking they can
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 30 of 43
get -- take a shortcut -- shortcut to nowhere. Again, I'm not opposed to the project, just
don't want it to exit onto Cherry Lane -- onto Leisure Lane. On Cherry Lane would be
fine through the existing building right -- fhrough that existing building right there, that
would be fine with me.
Moe: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Charles Fellows. Charles Fellows? Okay. Thank
you very much. Terry -- is it Layton?
Layton; Commissioners, my name is Terry Layton. I live at 1811 Leisure Lane, which,
as was stated earlier, is the property just to the north of that library's current parking lot
and the proposed one. I, myself, am in -- and my wife are in favor of fhe parking lot.
We had a meeting wifh the library awhile ago and fhey showed us a preliminary -- we,
for the most part, were in favor of the design. Some of our requests that they
addressed and they agreed to comply with I have a concern, because in the staff report
it addressed that there was no irrigafion problems and our yard is fed by an irrigation
ditch that would be going through the new parking area and they said fhey would take
care of it, but staff said that they didn't address it, so I'd like to be on record that that
would be taken care of. Like I said, I am in favor of the parking lot. Their design I think
is nice. They have agreed to have a six foot buffer against my property line, so the
headlights are not shining in my bedroom window, which they all angle right there, but
they have -- with that six foot buffer. Another question I addressed to the landscape
architect at that is all those firees look great, but when they did that last time on the
property right fhere -- well, actually just to the north that the library owns, Idaho Power --
well, it's just the current property right here -- fhey put all fhese nice beautiful trees that
they agreed to last time and about five years later ldaho Power came and cut them all
down with neither of us having anything to say. So, somehow we have to address that
problem, that fhey be low growing trees or something. And as far as the traffic, of
course, I would like it if it didn't go onto Leisure Lane, but if thaf's going to be their only
access, I would much rather have that be a controlled environment and controlled by
them, than if -- can you, please, put that picture up that was the overhead. Currently --
on, no. The overhead one, please. Yeah. That one. Currently this is their property
and you can see, as addressed in staff's notes, we have a five foot curb right here.
Well, these guys all parked on this private property and we have very limited access
here. So, if it is fheir property, hopefully, we can -- even though they have taken down
the signs that fhe library put up fihere, no parking, we can somehow control that as well
with this. So, if we can exit here and that's where the Commission agrees, that would
be great, but if not, we -- I would like to see that somehow controlled as prior property.
And is there any questions for me?
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Layton: Okay. Thank you for your time.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you say you had one?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 31 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: I said I have none.
Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Tino and Janet Sanchez.
Sanchez: My name is Janet Sanchez. I reside at 1929 Leisure Lane, which is -- the
other picture. At the very end of fhe Leisure Lane. And for -- speaking for both my
husband and I are right here at fihe very end of the lane. We have no objections to the
library's plan as it stands and as Mr. Layton mentioned, the library did work with us
previously, showed us their plan and answered all of our questions and concerns. The
only concern we have with the current plan is the recommendation by staff that Leisure
Lane become a public road for that section and we also supported keeping Leisure
Lane as a private lane and private property. We currently have an easement clear to
Leisure Lane, which was a bit confusing. I thought in the staff report it indicated that it
was a private lane to a certain point and, then, there was an easement north of their
property. The easement does, indeed, go all the way to Cherry Lane, and we support
keeping it that way and not making it a public road. Concerns with that are as everyone
else has mentioned that the traffia fhat's on it and controlling that traffic and just
changing the signs to say it's a public road, instead of a private road is going to
encourage more people to come down and use our road and give us less control over
what happens with that road.
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
~
Moe: Thank you very much. That's all that signed up and pretty much everybody that's
, in here, so -- so, no one else. Quesfions? Comments?
:~ Rohm: I think it's appropriate to close the Public Hearing. We have heard all the
~ testimony we need.
Newton-Huckabay: Rebuttal.
Rohm: Oh. Yeah. I guess rebuttal.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, before the applicant has a chance for rebuttal, everybody
seems to be in agreement that they don't want Leisure Lane to develop from a private
street to a public street. Why is it not feasible just to take the access off of Leisure
Lane, if the library agrees to -- to eliminate that access, take the access to the south to
the piece of property that they bought that already has access to Cherry Lane and -- I
mean it could almost sound like the library is asking -- they want their cake and they
want to eat it, too. We don't want to develop Leisure Lane, but we still want to drive
onto it and we still want our through access to our parking lot. So, is it feasible to not
have access onto Leisure Lane, put that south access onto the parking lot and access
that parking lot through the west and the south, rafher than the east?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 32 of 43
Moe: That would be a question that the applicant --
Newton-Huckabay: That would be my question is what all the -- if the library doesn't
want to pay for a public street, neighbors don't want a public street, where is the middle
ground? That was --
Moe: Very good comment. Would the applicant like to come back up.
Daniels: Sonya, if you. could go to that aerial again. Thank you. The library district is
not opposed to doing minor improvements to Leisure Lane. Of course, fixing the
potholes and everything else that may come along with that. And so that was the intent
of this project, because it is part of the library district's property, is that they would come
back and they would, you know, repair it to a little bit better condition than what it is
now. In regards to the -- in regards to the site circulation, currenfily the library has got --
they have two access points here, here and here. The sign for the library is back over
in here, so the primary entrance for the library is here. As people come in, they look for
a parking spot, they are kind of doing this circle, they will circle the building and, then,
we have an exit that comes out here. The intent on fihe design for the circulation is that
we would maintain the same circulation as they have now and maybe we can flip
befinreen the existing parking lot and maybe that new parcel as well. So, the intent is to
have this as the main entrance to the library. People would come up and they would
realize any parking that may be available here, if there is not a parking spot available,
they can merely loop around, come back, either loop the building, or loop the building
back over in here. So, that was the intent of fhe design. So, as far as having mass
congestion of cars off Leisure Lane, that was not the intent and I think that with proper
signage I think that we could limit the amount of access on Leisure Lane from the new
parking lot. However, the library district feels pretty strong, because it is their property,
they would be maintaining fhe road that they are allowed some sort of access onto
Leisure Lane. Obviously, the neighborhood supports this as being a private road. The
library district, as well as the neighbor, they support this as being a private road as well
and that's the way that we would like to see it done here as well. The irrigafion -- I
believe there is a lateral that runs north-soufh in here and we would, obviously, make
that a continuous -- I don't know if it's a lateral, but it's a ditch and so we would definitely
address any irrigation that flows through the property and we would pipe it accordingly.
I'm not sure what the -- what the deal was with fhe Idaho Power cutting down these
trees, fhey are, actually, really nice trees. They were nice trees. We would provide
trees in there that would be slow, low growing, and so they would not have to be
chopped down by Idaho Power for whatever reason, I assume because they were too
tall. And so we would try to maintain that across that -- across that irrigation. So, with
fhat I could certainly stand for any questions that the Commission may have.
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Daniels? Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoniag
June 5, 2008
Page 33 of 43
Moe: Yes.
'I Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Daniels, on your plat drawing or -- you showed a potential
access to the south. There it looks like it's somewhere around 37 and -- parking lot
stalls 37 and 38, is that --
Daniels: Uh-huh.
~ _
,a Newton-Huckabay: And if that access to the property were you have your offices on the
south, you also have access to Cherry Lane through that property; right?
Daniels: Through the south property.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Daniels: I don't know -- I believe there is a driveway -- there is no driveway to Cherry
Lane. There is? Yes, there is.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Why do you have that just depicted as potential versus an
actual?
Daniels: For here?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Daniels: Well, currently the library district occupies this house in here and they have
offices. They have some parking around here. We want to have the opportunity and
the flexibility to connect any parking that we may have in here to certain days. So, it's a
matter of just trying to get your parking lot a little more continuous in here and so maybe
they are not using this Cherry Lane as much, because, as you know, wifh Leisure Lane,
this driveway -- this neighbor's driveway, the entrance into the library and the other
entrance back over in here, this becomes pretty busy and so --
Newton-Huckabay: Thaf's a lot of curb cuts.
Daniels: I'm sorry?
Newton-Huckabay: Thaf's a lot of curb cuts.
Daniels: That's a lot of curb cuts. So, the Idea is that this could potentially come in and
we could utilize this parking, just to make it a little more contiguous. For that same
reason we would want to take the access off of Cherry Lane, but I think it would be a
little more convenient for this parking lot to some day to be continuous, because the
library district does own both pieces of the property.
Newton-Huckabay: ~ Uh-huh.
,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 34 of 43
Daniels: Did that answer your question?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Daniels: In a long winded way?
Newton-Huckabay: It wasn't fhe answer I was looking for, but I'm not totally certain
what answer I was looking for, Mr. Daniels.
Daniels: Just tell me what you were looking for and I'll tell you.
Moe: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Mr. Rohm, you look like
you're searching for something.
Rohm: Oh, I just was trying to find -- I don't know. The public street, I think fhat it would
be better 6eing a public street, but I can certainly see where everyone from the
audience wants it to remain private and so I don't know where to go with it myself.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: 1'm kind of Commissioner Rohm, I mean I-- I have a hard time with
;
~ putting those kinds of funds to the library district to pay for a public street --
Rohm: That nobody wants.
Moe: Exactly.
Newton-Huckabay: But I don't know that -- I mean we have 45 parking stalls in there
and we are going to figure half of those will exit or enter onto Leisure Lane once it's
known, maybe? So, you're routing -- I think I'm in favor of leaving it a private street wifh
improvements.
! Moe: Because we are still in open hearing, I guess I would like the applicant -- I have
! got one question for the applicant. Basically, what you're Jooking for to have access to
~'~ Leisure Lane is just because you want access, as opposed to closing that in and
'~ making sure that all your traffic is going back towards the parking lot -- or the library
~ itself. Basically, having to go back to the west. You're parking there and, then, you're
,', going back out west, as opposed to having any access off of Leisure Lane.
Daniels: Yeah. Mr. Chair, fhe -- hopefully to answer your question, is that we do have
one exit out of here, but in the event we have, you know, a large venue happening,
which -- which may happen, we want to have the opportunity to have that overflow
parking come out at finro points onto Cherry Lane, rather than just the one. Because, as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 35 of 43
you can see, wifih all the parking, it can become very congested and I think very unsafe
for everybody if we don't have more than one exit point onto Cherry Lane, so --
Moe: Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Is it appropriate fhat that would be an exit only? A right-
out only or do you have to do right-in, right-out -- or right-in, right-out? Somebody stop
me if I'm out of control here. ,
Rohm: Well, about fhe only thing I would say to that is the existing residence as it
currently exists don't have any limitations to ingress-egress. I don't think there is a
right-in, right-out currently and I'm pretty sure none of them would be in support of not
being able to access from the west, I guess, so --
Newton-Huckabay: No. Just onto Leisure Lane.
Rohm: Yeah. That's what I'm saying is --
Newton-Huckabay: Right-in, right-out.
Rohm: Yeah. Right now it's not right-in, right-out, it's full access, I would bet, and to
limit the existing residence to a right-in, right-out might be as much of an annoyance as
making it a public street.
, Newton-Huckabay: Well, I wasn't talking about the existing residence, I was talking
~ about the library property.
~
Rohm: Well -- but they are all affected by the same thought process.
Newton-Huckabay: If you could only go right-in or right-out into the library parking lot --
Rohm: Oh, I thought you meant out onto Cherry Lane off of Leisure.
i Newton-Huckabay: No. No. No.
Marshall: It would have to be a left in, right out.
Newton-Huckabay: If you did a right-in, anybody who lived on Leisure Lane heading
soufh could go into the library. If you did a right out --
Marshall: Excuse me. May I?
Moe: Yes.
Marshall: Mr. Chair..
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 36 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: By all means.
Marshall: A right-in would have to come from the north.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
, Rohm: That's what she's saying. And so the only access into the parking lot off of
', Leisure into it would be from fhe north and it wouldn't congest the traffic --
Newton-Huckabay: Beyond the library parking lot.
Rohm: -- beyond the library parking lot, but you --
Newton-Huckabay: In theory.
Rohm: -- but you could exit out of that parking lot and take a right out to Cherry Lane.
That's -- that's not a bad idea. You see what she's saying?
,~ Marshall: Yeah. I --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh-oh, I have created a-- just a moment, please.
'~ Marshall: May I ask for some clarification here?
Newton-Huckabay: Certainly. I have a pointer now.
Marshall: Okay. Please --
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, you want me to clarify. I'm saying that if you were coming from
the north it would be a right-in. If you were coming from the south, you couldn't. But,
then, you might -- this is what I'm guessing, it's going to create a bunch of people up
here wanting to turn around. Got you. Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Scrap that.
Moe: But, at fhe same time, that brings up another point that I'm struggling with on
whether or not we keep it private or you go public and that is you have made the
statement that you are looking for another egress point out of the parking lots out of fihe
library, so, therefore, that private lane is going to get warn out a lot faster, basically,
than it would otherwise. You go ahead and you develop it back into a public -- you're
going to have a better road system. You're only taking it to the north side of your
property -- of the library property, so I find it strange that the neighbors don't want a
public street to the north side of the library, simply because it will be a heck of a lot
better road.
' Marshall: Mr. Chair, just asking because of the cross-access easement and a lot of
' homeowners associations having private roads, everybody having access to that road is
required for the maintenance of that road or, in fihis case, is it different, is the library only
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 37 of 43
maintaining that section of road? I mean who is responsible for the maintenance of that
private road --
Newton-Huckabay: Everybody who lives on here.
Marshall: Right. And, therefore, it's seems that fhe public section of the road up to this
point would make sense, where the public would maintain that road and, then, privately
it would be maintained after this point.
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- and that's where my comment was, Commissioner
Marshall, that if they don't want to make this a public road and the library doesn't want
to pay for a public road, which I'm not sure I would necessarily support, then, I think that
the library should get up this access to it for public use, because, in essence, that's what
it would be. You would be allowing public use on a private street without the benefit of
-- you're putting a burden -- you're putting the public's burden on everybody who lives
north of this property, including the library who owns it. So, I don't think they should get
to do that. I don't think the Library should get to put that burden on, but I would be in
support of -- you can keep this a private street as far as I'm concerned, but you can't
use it for public use. So, I would not be in support of this access.
Moe: You'd close -- you'd close off the access.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Moe: That's what I was --
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, you exit here and you exit here and thaf's what I was
saying, you exit to the west and you exit to the south, and -- unless if you want this
access for public use, then, yes, I think you should have to pay for the benefit of public
use and not burden the neighbors to the north. But it sounds like the library wants their
cake and they want to eat it, too. And they want public use and they want access and
that's where I think we have our conundrum fhat we have to solve, either this is a public
street up to here, so you can have public use, or you don't get this access and you can
put your access right here. Is that where we are all going with this?
Marshall: Absolutely. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: You're welcome.
Moe: Sir, the testimony has been taken. Thank you very much. Do you have another
comment?
Daniels: I do, actually. The -- I was wondering if you could go to that aerial that shows
where the property boundaries are, Sonya. Thank you. As you can see, this -- like I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 38 of 43
said before, iYs a very unique piece of property: I'm not sure why it is the way it is,
because none of the property lines where the residents are up here or anything like fhis,
to where the library district currently owns that part of Leisure Lane and so we kind of
felt that there is a little bit of maybe entitlement to utilize their own property for access
onto Cherry Lane. And with that I guess my question would be being this is a new
parking lot, if it did not loop out onto Leisure Lane, what would be the difference of not
accessing it right here. To me this is a little more safety, whereas if we are forced to
have another access onto Cherry Lane, we have got this existing curb cut in here that
the library district, I would assume, would -- would be entitled to use as well. So, what
we are really trying to do is make a little bit safer environment to where you're not
having traffic at this point, this point, and that point.
Newton-Huckabay: But you haven't given up that access.
Daniels: Here?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.
Daniels: Not in this plan.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Close the Public Hearing?
Marshall: What I-- I would ask you is fihat I understand the thought of entitlement to the
piece of property, but seeing how it's a cross-access easement for everybody that lives
beyond there, who, then, is responsible for the maintenance of that?
Daniels: You know, honestly, I don't know if I could answer that, because of the way the
agreement's written for Leisure Lane and a certain percentage of the neighborhood
associafiion participates in that. I don't think I can answer fhat tonight in a good way. I
could make something up, but I wouldn't be right. But I don't know.
Marshall: My concern, then, if you can understand it, is that we are, then, putting an
undue burden on all of those people that live behind there for public access to that
parking lot to maintain this strip of road. If, in fact, they are helping to pay to maintain
that strip of road.
Daniels: Yeah. I see can the point.
~Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much, sir.
Rohm: Before -- I have one question that just came to mind. I'm sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: Welcome back to the hearing.
~ Moe: Commissioner Rohm.
~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 39 of 43
Rohm: Well, I have been thinking. What my question is is -- is if -- if you had an
either/or -- either develop the road to -- and dedicate it to Ada County and have your
' access from the parking lot onto Leisure Lane, as is in the staff report, as one
~ alternative, or no access to Leisure Lane off of -- out of the parking lot, which would be
~~ your preference?
~i ' Daniels: To be honest with you, I think I would probably have to take it to the library
l directors to answer that. I don't know if I can make that decision for them.
l
Rohm: Okay. Well, I think that this Commission is kind of leaning -- if you have one,
you got the other. If the road's to be utilized, it's going to be a public thoroughfare, as
our recommendafion on to City Council and thaYs why I asked you if you had your
chance which way would you prefer and you're saying you'd have to go back to your
board?
Daniels: That's correct. Uh-huh.
Rohm: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I may.
Moe: Yes. Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Did you not earlier -- if -- I'm trying to follow up here -- make the comment that
you felt that making the improvements and turning that into a public right of way was
somewhat cost prohibitive based on the resources of the library district?
Daniels: That's correct.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chaic, if I may just real quick.
Moe: Yes.
Hood: If, in fact, you want to go with what Commissioner Rohm just offered up, you
certainly could put an either/or in the condition or if you want to move this forward
tonight, not knowing what the library district may want to do, you could have a condition
that says either you construct this as a public street or you -- I mean you can craft a
condition that way, if you so choose. I just wanted to throw that out there as an option if
fhat's where you guys want to go.
r: Good. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 40 of 43
Moe: Well, having said that, I guess a little bit more discussion. That's what I'd like to
see happen. Because, quite frankly, I understand that the cost involved to make that a
public street, there is a cost to bear, and, therefore, I mean if they can do without the
access, then, I think fhat they should have the opportunity to do that. They would have
to get that resolved prior to City Council, so that when they -- before, then, they can tell
them which way they'd go.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think it would be a good opportunity for them to talk with the
neighbors, too. And -- I mean there is -- with a private street you have the situation
where you have a lot more stake holders per se than you would normally have on this
type of thing and I want to make sure that fhe owners of Leisure Lane and the library, as
one of those owners, all understand how they want to move forward, so I don't recall
ever drafting an eithec/or recommendation to City Council before. I'm not opposed to it,
though. Provided the attorney doesn't step in and say, no, don't do that. And he's ever
silent.
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't think there is anything prohibiting
you from doing that. I think -- I guess part of ine says that part of your charge as this
Commission is to give your recommendation to the Council and an either/or really isn't
that. But you certainly have the ability to do it. There are some unanswered questions
from your discussion. You certainly can -- as you have done on other occasions, allow
fhe applicant and the parties to take your information you have had tonight and come
back in two weeks to see if some of those issues can, to, then, help you be able to
make a decision that you all feel comfortable with and, then, if you still feel at that point
that there really is an either/or -- and I would say there are occasions where you have
said a specific recommendafion and maybe just not quite as pronounced as this where
you would have really one or a second alternative that are wholly different. But you
certainly have sometimes given some options to the Council, but not one quite maybe
as dramatic as one from column A and one from column B, so --
Rohm: Have we closed?
Moe: No.
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I might say we could continue this as well.
Moe: Well, that's what I'd like to fiind out from the applicant if he's -- would the applicant
come forward again. Mr. Daniels, based upon what -- the discussion we are having
here, would you like to have the opportunity to get with your folks and present the
request that Mr. Rohm has brought forward and, basically, confiinue this hearing until
the 19th of June?
Rohm; It would have to be July 3rd, because --
Meridian Planning & Zoming
June 5, 2008
Page 41 of 43
Moe: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. July the 3rd. Excuse me.
Daniels: Is that the only option?
Moe: It's that option or whoever makes a motion here is going to tell us what -- what we
might be able to do. It's either going to be one or the other.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Daniel, if no one else
does, if I beat them to the microphone, and my recommendation is going to be to
eliminate access to Leisure Lane. If my motion will carry I don't know.
Daniels: Yeah. I think any opportunity that I could have to meet with the client and
maybe give them -- give them fhe options and discuss that as well. One more thing that
I'd like to maybe bring up real quick, if it's appropriate, is currently there is -- there is a
dentist office in here and he has got two access points onto a private street. I believe
he brings in a lot of the -- a lot of public as well. So, it's one issue fhat I have really
brought to the table as far as -- as far as the public accessing Leisure Lane. There is no
access onto Cherry Lane, also, to Leisure Lane for him. So, I'm not sure if anybody's
got an answer for that.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: That's a fair statement and I wasn't sitting on the Commission when
that office was approved and I would ask that same question, how they got -- got that --
those two easements. But we can't undo whaYs already done there, but we can,
hopefully, eliminate making the same mistake twice or correcting them.
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean I don't know fihe specifics of
that. I did have a discussion with the counsel that represents that dentist office about --
about some of the issues around this particular parcel, but they certainly have an
easement there, but that's really relative to the library. They are asking this an
annexation. Those are conditions -- those are considerafions that the city could make
at this time as to where the accesses can be; what type of access that can be done.
So, whether or not he has an existing easement and the right to use Leisure Lane to
access his business really doesn't matter for fhis Commission's decision or the Council's
on whether or not to allow access for this addition that the library wants to do. So, you
can bring it up, but it does not really matter.
Rohm: Thank you. So, are you going to make that motion to continue?
Mecidian Planning & Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 42 of 43
Newton-Huckabay: Sure.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Daniels: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move
to continue file number RZ 08-002 to the hearing date of July 3rd, 2008, for the following
reasons: It gives an opportunity for the applicant to discuss the potential options of not
having access to Leisure Lane or converting Leisure Lane into a public street and also
continuing some discussions with the other owners of what is Leisure Lane as it's
designed to be.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: There is a mofion to continue AZ -- excuse me -- RZ 08-002 for the Meridian
Library Parking Lot Expansion to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting
of July the 3rd, 2008, to discuss the access to the parking lot off of Leisure Lane for the
public street at Leisure Lane to the north side of the property of the library. All those in
favor'? Opposed same sign? That motion carries. That will be continued until July 3rd.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Hood: Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification. We had one of -- a similar motion recently
and I just want to make sure that everyone in the audience and the record's clear, that
fhe maker of the motion was intending that not only the applicant gets to speak, but any
of the property owners down Leisure Lane can come and testify again at that hearing on
any new information that they may have regarding the subject application. Correct?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Hood: Okay. Thank you.
Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 08-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
318.74 acres from RUT to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15
(56.82 acres) for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC - east of N. McDermott Road,
west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick
Road including the southeast and northeast corners of W. McMillan Road
and N. McDermott; and near the southwest corner of W. McMillan Road
and N. Biack Cat Road:
Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 08-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 139
lots including: 118 residential lots and 21 common lots on 30.72 acres in
the proposed R-8 zoning district for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC - east of N.
McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard
& north of Ustick Road including fhe soufheast and northeast corners of
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
June 5, 2008
Page 43 of 43
W. McMillan Road and N. McDermott; and near the southwest corner of
W. MaMillan Road and N. 61ack Cat Road:
Moe: Thank you very much. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 08-004
and PP 08-003 for Oakcreek for the sole pu'rpose of continuing those hearings to the
regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of July the 17th. ~
Rohm: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-004 and PP 08-003 for
Oakcreek. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
IVlarshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APP
~ `B~D MOE - C
~' I ~ ~ I ~~
DATE APPROVED
~~~~,,,,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~,,,,,,~
.~`~~~``d~~ ~ ~~~~~''-.
0
~ ~~ ~
AL =
~TY ERK ,=
~ ~~,p
'~ ~ '~ T 13'~ ' ~" ,~\~
•,,~ ~ , ~~ .\.
'','/'~~'~~ii~r,~~ ~~~~~i.~~~``~`,~
ATTEST: ,..
JAYC L. HOLMAN,