2008 07-17Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission July 17, 2008
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 17, 2008, was called
to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner
Michael Rohm, Commissioner Tom O'Brien and Commissioner Wendy Newton-
Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Sony Watters, Bill Parsons, Scott
Steckline, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X 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 Planning and Zoning for July 17th, 2008. I'd like to -- appreciate you all
showing up tonight. I'd like to go ahead and open this meeting and ask the clerk to call
roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do
have one item that will be (continued. Items No. 9 and 10 for Oakcreek, AZ 08-004 and
PP 08-003. Those will be continued to our regular meeting of August the 21st. Once
we get down into the agenda I will, then, continue those hearings. Other than that, the
rest of the agenda will stay the same. Can I get a motion to accept the revised agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the revised agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES..
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 2 of 71
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
08-013 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a personal service
shop in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the
Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Mira Bella Salon by
Jerry Williams -1645 W. 1Sf Street:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on that and
that is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-013 for Mira
Bella Salon. If I could get a motion to approve.
Marshall: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings on the Consent Agenda.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: ALL .AYES.
Moe: Well, we have a great audience tonight, so I want to -- before we get into the
public hearings why I'll just kind of give you an explanation of the format, which we will
be going through for those who haven't been here before. I will be opening up the
hearing, at which time I will ask the staff to give their report. Basically, they will go
through their findings and, whatnot. After they are done the applicant will come forward
and they will 15 minutes to speak their case to the comments of the staff and whatnot.
After they are done there are sign-up sheets in the back, you're more than willing to sign
up and speak. Each person that signs up will get three minutes to speak to the
Commission. After which time the applicant -- after all the folks on the signature list are
done, I will ask one more time if there is anyone else that would like to speak and you
will also be given the three minutes. We do have a timer and we will try and keep that
to the three minutes. If there is a group of you, since we do have a good crowd tonight,
if there is a spokesman for a certain amount of folks and you would like that
spokesperson to speak in behalf of yourselves, we will ask at that point that that person
-- that spokesperson would have additional time to take care of that. Once the applicant
-- the audience is taken care of, I will, then, ask the applicant to come back up and rebut
any comments that were made in the public hearing, as well as -- and answer any
questions that came up with that as well.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from June 19, 2008: AZ 08-007 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 4.79 acres from RUT to C-C zoning district for
Shops at Victory by LDR-II/DMG, LLC - 3210 S. Eagle Road:
Item 5: Continued .Public Hearing from June 19, 2008: PP 08-006 Request for
Preliminary Plat for 3 building lots on 3.68 acres in a proposed C-C zoning
district for Shops at Victory by LDR-II/DMG, LLC - 3210 S. Eagle Road.:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 3 of 71
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from June 19, 2008: CUP 08-011 Request
for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-thru pharmacy in a
proposed C=C zoning district within 300 feet of an existing residence per
UDC 11-4-3-11 for Shops at Victory by LDR-II/DMG, LLC - 3210 S.
Eagle Road:
Moe: So, having said that, I would now like to open the continued public hearings for
AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP 08-001, for the Shops at Victory. Ask staff to go.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commission. The applications before you tonight
are an annexation and zoning request of 4.79 acres currently zoned RUT in Ada
County, proposed to be zoned to C-C, community business district, in the city. A
preliminary plat for three commercial building lots on 3.68 acres of land and a
Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru pharmacy within 300 feet of an existing
residence. This is the property right here on the southeast corner of Victory Road and
South Eagle Road, 3210 South Eagle Road. Surrounding uses. To the north is rural --
single family rural residential parcels, zone RUT in Ada County. To the east is single
family residences on large rural parcels in Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4
and RUT. Here. And there is also an R-8 portion down here in Golden Eagle Estates.
To the west are single family residences and Medford Place Subdivision, zoned R-8.
This is an aerial view of the property. It currently has an existing house and associated
outbuildings on it. That house will be required to be removed prior to signature on the
final plat. A little history on this property. In 2005 a comp plan map amendment was
approved to change the future land use map designation from low density residential to
mixed use community for this property. As previously mentioned, the appiiaant is
requesting annexation with a C-C zoning district, which complies with the mixed use
community future land use designation for this property. This is the proposed plat. It
consists of three commercial building lots, ranging in size from .84 of an acre to 1.78
acres. No vehicular connections are proposed to adjacent properties from the site and
none are stubbed to this site. Staff is not requiring the applicant to provide stub
driveways to adjacent properties. No pedestrian connections are proposed to adjacent
properties. Staff is requesting that a pedestrian connection be constructed to the future
pathway in Harcourt Subdivision to the east and there is one that's been platted that
.stubs to the property about in this location. Staffs also requesting that a pathway stub
be provided to the south boundary to this rural residential property for connectivity upon
redevelopment. Access points to the subdivision are proposed from one full access to
Eagle Road -- let me get a site plan up here that shows it a little bit better. There is a
full access right here proposed to Eagle Road.. And aright-in, right-out. Also aright-in,
right-out proposed to Victory. And a full access proposed to Victory. ACRD submitted
comments today that are not included in the staff report that give the applicant two
options for access to the site as follows: Either construct one full access driveway on
.Eagle and one full access driveway on Victory, located 315 feet from the near edge
from the new curb line, measured near edge to near edge. That's the preferred option
they believe that will work best for this site. Or construct one right-in, right-out access
driveway on Eagle and one right-in, right-out access driveway on Victory as proposed,
with six inch raised median from the intersection back 50 feet beyond the driveway to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 4 of 71
restrict turn movements and one full access driveway on Eagle and one full access to
Victory as proposed. I just want to note that when ACHD purchased the additional land
for the -- from the property', owner, at a residential rate for the intersection improvements
in August of 2006, an agreement was made between ACRD and the property owner
which allowed for four specific points of access to the site from Victory and Eagle
Roads, as depicted on the site plan. That agreement was based on the residential use
of the property at that time and was not intended to give approval for access points to a
future commercial development. Today with the proposed commercial use of the
property, ACHD would not likely approve the proposed access points. However,
because of the terms of the previous agreement, ACRD is allowing the proposed
access points as one option for access to and from the site. ACRD does believe,
however, that the other option for access would actually better serve this by -- with one
full access to Victory and one full access to Eagle. Planning, fire, and police
department staff are supportive of two full access points furthest from the intersection,
but are not supportive of the two right-in, right-out access points proposed closer to the
intersection. And the Commission should note that just because the applicant has an
agreement with ACHD and they have agreed to allow the proposed access point, the
city is not obligated to approve those access points. The city is the decision-making
body in this development. application and as such has the authority to place provisions
on the project through a development agreement associated with the annexation and
zoning application. The Comprehensive Plan supports limiting access points to arterial
and collector streets. For this reason staff has included a development agreement
provisioning -- provision limiting access to the site to one full access to Victory and one
full access to Eagle Road in locations approved by ACHD. This is a copy of the
landscape plan proposed for the site. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is
proposed along Victory Road. And a 25 foot buffer is also proposed along Eagle Road.
A 25 wide buffer to residential uses is required on the east and south sides of the
development adjacent to existing residential uses. Alternative compliance in requested
for a reduced buffer width in certain areas along the. south and southeast boundaries
here. Staff is supportive of the request if a minimum six foot Verti-Crete wall is
constructed adjacent to all areas within a decreased buffer width and minimum six foot
tall solid vinyl fencing is constructed in all areas -- other areas along the perimeter
boundary of the subdivision adjacent to residential uses. Fencing shall be constructed
as shown along the south and east boundaries. If you note here on the plans, a
minimum six foot solid vinyl fence is required right here. A six foot tall Verti-Crete wall is
required along these boundaries and minimum six foot tall vinyl fencing was required
along here. The Verti-Crete is -- is required in the areas where the buffer is, you know,
decreased to provide a little bit more of a buffer to adjacent residences. All existing
trees on site that are removed during construction shall be mitigated for in accord with
UDC standards. Seven ~ foot wide detached sidewalk is proposed along Eagle and
Victory and'shall be located beyond the ultimate right of way. This is the site plan for
this site, showing the proposed drive-thru for the pharmacy, which is located right here.
It's within 300 feet of existing residential properties to the east and south. UDC requires
a Conditional Use Permit for that reason. There are three buildings shown on the site
and it consists of a total 29,910 square feet of commercial uses, consisting of
neighborhood commercial type retail uses, such as drugstore, retail, shops, services,
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 5 of 71
offices and restaurant uses. And, then, there again, the Verti-Crete wall is proposed
right here kind of to buffer that drive-thru use there. Staff has included a development
agreement provision that ;hours of operation for all businesses in the site be limited to
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. because of the adjacent residential uses
in the area. The applicant has submitted building elevations of what some of the future
buildings on the site may .look like and they are all single story. There is three different
types: This is for pad A for the proposed drugstore. This is for pad B. And this is for
pad C. All of the building materials for all of the different structures consists of stucco,
wood.., stone, and split face CMU block accents and green metal roofing. The buildings
will be painted with five different shades of brown. A letter of testimony was received on
this application from Charles Axelrod, the owner of the property, along with the sale and
purchase agreement with ACHD. The applicant has submitted a letter in response to
the staff report. Staff recommends approval per the conditions of the staff report based
on the findings in Exhibit, B. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may
have at this time.
Moe: Do we have any questions of staff at the present time?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Moe: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Real quick, if we can go back to the first site map and, then, the second -- this
one. You're showing Verti-Crete from this corner all the way across where the next one
shows it ending right here,. Which is correct?
Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, this is the -- the
fencing shown on this plan here is what staff has required as a development agreement
provision. It differs just a Kittle bit from what the applicant originally proposed.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
Wafters; Staff modified it just a little bit, so it would be more consistent along the, you
know, boundaries that have a little section of Verti-Crete wall and, then, a section of
vinyl fencing.
Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
And., please, state your name and address, please.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson, Landmark
Development Group, 2462 Sunshine Drive in Boise.
Moe: Thank you.
Thompson: With me tonight I have the developer Greg Owens from BMG Real Estate --
I'm sorry, Real Estate Partners. Our attorney Deborah Nelson with Givens Pursley and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 6 of 71
the .civil engineer and landscape architect Phil Hull from the Land Group. So, they are
available if you have any other questions after we are done. This proposed
development fills a need for neighborhood services in this area of the city. The
proposed project will reduce vehicle trips out of the area for daily consumer needs and
services. We have read the staff report and agree with staff in almost all areas. Of
course., we have a couple that we'd like to discuss. The first being access. I don't know
if ACRD staff report was a little confusing for .you, but it's, basically, given us two
options. They are saying you can have the four that you're proposing, they've approved
those based on their current construction drawings. They have construction drawings
for this intersection and they also extend to the north to the Ridenbaugh. Eagle Road's
widened to Ridenbaugh and ACRD has construction drawings that will extend from the
Ridenbaugh Canal south through the Victory intersection, including all of our property to
the south. All of our frontage to the south. They are currently -- well., they actual went
out to bid, but right now this is in their fiscal year work plan. It is scheduled to be bid
and constructed in the fall of '09. So, those improvements are underway. The
construction drawings have those four access points, so when we started our site
planning, ACRD gave us the construction drawings for this intersection and that's where
we started our -- our site planning. The access points were approved by ACHD based
on the construction drawings, based on their policy, those meet their policy and they
were also approved based on the right of way acquisition with the property owner. That
was less than two years ago. And I just want to clarify something that Sonya said is that
that was for residential use -- for accesses for residential use. That's -- I want to just
correct that. In the purchase and sale agreement, which I believe you have a copy of, if
you look it specifically says commercial access points on that and this is -- so, these
were the intent of that agreement and ACHD has these in their construction drawings.
Like I said, our application is two access points. We will restrict the first, the closest to
the intersection -- two access points on each road.. We will restrict the first two on each
-- anyway, the first two closest to the intersection of both Eagle Road and Victory Road,
fihose will be restricted with a median and the -- yeah. Thank you, And, then, full
access points are at the: -- the furthest away from the intersection. To attract high
quality national tenants to Meridian and specifically to this area of town, this area is
definitely under served by neighborhood serving daily needs, that access is one of the
most important site criteria -- site selection criteria for these national tenants. Therefore,
this access is extremely important. We are asking you -- we understand you have the
ability -- so, let's go back to the ACRD staff report. I# currently says that they would
prefer one access point on each roadway, but they have approved all four. And so they
have given us the option of whatever works best with our site plan and we are asking
the city to modify its recommendation and to defer to the ACHD staff report and just for
-- the conditions state we comply with ACHD staff report and not make that choice for
us right now. As you know, this -- these -- at this point these are conceptual site plans.
They may be changed from -- a little bit and., you know, we will definitely pick which --
which ever one is best at that point for interior circulation and for our tenants' needs. A
couple other things that we just want to bring up. They are definitely not anything that
we are against in the staff, report, we just want to clarify a few things. And the first one
is the utility main line extension. We have to extend I believe both sewer and water
from down Victory Road and if -- we should only be required to pay for what our --
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 7 of 71
what's necessary for our development and if we qualify, we just want to state that we
would respectfully request a reimbursement agreement for those main line extensions, if
they are oversized to service someone else. If they are just for us, then -- then, that's
what they are. The other item is the pedestrian connectivity. We are open to the
connectivity. The location to the east to the Harcourt Subdivision is established and we
can tie into that without any problem at all. The property to the south is a five acre
single family residential parcel that's still in the county. They are -- we are not sure what
they say about it, but it may not be appropriate at this time to create an access point
there, but we can definitely work with that property owner and perhaps put a gate in that
could be opened at a later date or something like that. But Idon't -- we just want to put
that out for discussion that that pedestrian access may not be appropriate at this time.
And as far as the_ fencing, we would like to stay with the fencing options that we gave
before. We gave the six foot high Verti-Crete wall in the area where we have a reduced
landscape buffer, but we have anice -- a nice fencing material for the rest of the
property. So, instead of changing the whole back where we abut to the county Zoned
property, .we are just requesting that we can stay with what we currently have. And with
that we thank you and if you have any questions we are all available to answer those.
Moe: Is there any questions? Thank you. I do have questions of staff. In regards to
the utilities, can you speak to that?
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I researched this application under
the city code for reimbursement agreements under the eligibility section. There is
neither oversight or overdepth being required for this application. Therefore, they are
not eligible at this time.
Moe: Not eligible. Okay. And something else I was kind of curious about -- is there not
about a hundred yards or a hundred feet down -- is there not another access out to
Eagle Road right through there?
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, yes, there is. It's East Falcon Drive to the
south of the property there. You can see it on the aerial here,.
Moe: Okay. That was, basically, that access where the assisted living that we had
seen a couple weeks ago?
Wafters: Yes.
Moe: Okay. Thank you. Bob Aldridge..
Aldridge: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Bob Aldridge and
going back to that one you just had. Yeah. Thanks. On the property here, the
landowner that's still in the county and still residential, and we can --
Moe: Give me an address, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 8 of 71
Aldridge: Oh. 3300 Falcon.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Aldridge: We intend to live there -- we hope another ten years or so. We don't intend to
move if we can avoid it. 'So, that property is intended to stay as residential. I want to
say that we worked extensively with the developers of this project, they have been
extremely cooperative, there has been a lot of mitigation in terms of the interface that
we are going to have with that landscaping and where they place things. We came to
some agreements on where buildings would be relative to the back line. They have
been extremely easy to work with on that and so we don't have any objections to those
portions of things. The two things that I think I need to comment about the one is the
road here. This is our sole access out to Eagle Road.. This is, as you noted, being
developed and we will have cottages on it with residence and staff and so forth when --
whenever Trevor does this subdivision one of his main roads come out right here and
accesses out and, then, .there is a stub cul-de-sac down here that will access all of
those -- will probably be coming out Falcon Drive. So, as development goes on there is
going to be a lot of traffic there. You can't see it from here, but right here is a dip and at
the time that this subdivision was negotiated, I worked with ACHD and those developers
and we moved their access point from here down to there, partially because of that dip,
partially because having the competing direct opposites, even though that tends to be
how you do things, would have created tremendous problems. And the reason that I
think there needs to be a .little bit of movement in that southern access is because when
you come to here and stop is you're looking left, you have four seconds or less of
visibility, the cars go out of sight when they are in that dip and, then, come up. You also
have cars coming out of here and coming on and if your point is right here, literally
you're looking south and; then, going. If you're too close here, you're going to have
some real intersection problems and I think that by moving this 40 or 50 feet, maybe at
most, to the north, it would give some additional space to have that flow merge together,
because that is going to be a full in and out, you're going to have traffic coming across,
as well as coming, and to avoid having any, you know, real problem here that I don't
know how you solve -- I think it would be solved by moving this maybe 40, 50 feet to the
north. The ACRD report talked about anything from 312 feet on. I think that far north
would be too far. It would interfere with the internal flow and it's more than what you
need.. Secondarily, in terms of the proposed access point here, right now we would
greatly prefer not to see that frozen in, because we don't know years from now, when
we finally do sell or develop or whatever we do, how our property is going to layout and
that would lock us into a number of things. And there is certainly going to be no actual
point there. That would be emptying into my backyard.. So, it's not going to be opened
up at this point in time. So, we would ask that that not be done and I think that just on
esthetics we would prefer the Verti-Crete, but it's not a major major point. And I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Next on the list is Bob
Carpenter.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 9 of 71
Carpenter: Good evening. Bob Carpenter. 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian. And my
wife and I own the property just to the north, just across Victory Road. Nine acres there.
And we have lived there and really appreciate how this developer has kept us informed
on what's happening with the property across the way. We support the project and look
forward to seeing it develop. So, any questions?
Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Now, Nedra, your name was on here,
too. Would you like to come up or just -- from the audience she's in agreement. Nate
Wheeler. From the audience he will pass. That's all that's signed up on the list here. If
there is anyone else, you're more than welcome to come on up. No takers. Okay.
Would the applicant like to come back up?
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission; Tamara Thompson again.
Just to follow up with Falcon Drive with what Mr. Aldridge said, ACRD is the traffic
expert in this case and has --didn't share any concerns with the proximity to Falcon in
their report. So, that's all.
Moe: You do have a pointer there, right?
Thompson: Oh, I do now:
Moe: Could you show me where the -- where the fence changes?
Thompson: I can.
Moe: And what you guys ;are proposing.
Thompson.: Okay. The fence changes roughly here and it stops here, where the
landscaping gets to the 25 foot, it's much wider than 25 feet at this point, but at these
locations where it's narrower is where we have allowed for the -- they are calling it Verti-
Crete wall, yeah, which is kind of like a -- it looks like a block wall.
Moe: Thank you very much. Any other questions?
Owens: Hi. My name is Greg Owens. I'm with DMG Real Estate Partners. 350 North
9th, Suite 201, Boise, Idaho. I wanted to speak to one of the -- Mr. Aldridge's comments
about the access point at 'Falcon Drive, just as Tamara just spoke to it. In looking at the
ACHD staff report, certainly they didn't identify any safety related issues with the access
points that we have proposed,. But one thing I would say, as long as we still maintain
the four access points, we would certainly be willing to try and compromise to deal with
the Falcon Drive issue by taking the southerly access point and we think that we could
slide it to the north some distance, which wouldn't impede the access and the parking in
front of the shop building that you see on the south end of the project. So, I just wanted
to point out kind of to -- o'ne of the items that Tamara mentioned, which is the site plan
has a little bit of play in It, we could move that access point maybe 25, 30 feet, maybe
40 feet, if that would help (in the consideration of this decision.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 10 of 71
Moe: Okay.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a question real quick.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: If we can go back to the plat or the site real quick. This triangle here, that's
not included, that's just part of the fence there, isn't it? Okay. I got it. That's all right. I
answered my own question.
Moe: That was easy.
Marshall: Yeah.. The site -- earlier there was a site that showed -- there was a small
black line that showed this part as -- of the site plan, as part of the site and I see that's
the boundary there, so --
Moe: Okay. All right. 'Well, Commissioners, there were no other questions. Any
comments as of yet or do we want to close the public hearing? Would one of you folks
want to do that?
Rohm: Well, you're making it sure difficult.
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I . have a question for staff, maybe. I'm -- Sonya, I'm a little bit
confused., I guess, on -- on the access points that the Ada County Highway District
either has approved or not approved and is it just a recommendation that you -- that you
would like to see as full access on only two points on Victory and Eagle Road or is that
-- it seems like we have a choice here; is that correct?
Wafters: Chairman Moe; Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, yes, you do have a
choice on what access points to approve with this development. City staff and ACRD
staff -- well, let me back up. City staff is recommending that only the two full access
points, one to Victory, one to Eagle, be approved for this development. ACHD favors
that also. However, they have allowed the applicant an option to either have the two full
access points or as they have shown on their plan with two right-in, right-outs close to
the intersection, along with the two full access points.
O'Brien: Thank you for clarifying that.
Watters: I should -- let me add one thing here in regard to Commissioner Marshall's last
comment. There is a property boundary adjustment in process with the county. That's
why the boundary looks different. That will be completed prior to this site.
Moe: Mr. Rohm., do you have a comment?
Rohrn: Yeah. Just more of questions for Sonya.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 11 of 71
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: I understand that the city would prefer to only have the single access both off
Eagle and off of Victory, but from my perspective, that right-in and right-out doesn't, in
my mind, cause any additional burden to the flow of traffic in any way. It doesn't seem
to, in my mind -- and I'm wondering why staff is objecting to the right-in and right-out,
just to minimize the ingress and egress off of Eagle and Victory? For that sole
purpose?
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, yes, the
Comprehensive Plan, you know, supports restricting access to arterial streets and,
therefore, staff is recommending the access points be reduced.
Hood.: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, if I -- may I add onto that a little bit. There are access
studies that will show that additional access points, you're going to have more
accidents, it's going to lessen the traffic flow, so it's not just our comp plan policies, it
also has to do with things you have touched on directly and indirectly tonight, like the
location of the Falcon Drive. I don't know why ACRD -- maybe they did bring it up in
their report. I didn't read the report. I don't know exactly what the separation is
between the two access points. It is close and that's why we thought if you move that
southerly most access to Eagle Road up a little bit and made it a full 350 or 315 or
somewhere in there, your get the separation. I think if you float that up closer to that
right-in, right-out, you have your right turn blinker on, I don't know if you're turning into
the first one or the second one. You may get rear ended. And people coming in and
out, same deal. If I'm at the right-in, right-out and I'm trying to turn and I'm trying to turn
right and I see someone coming up there with their right turn blinker on, are you turning
in the first one or are you coming in the one that I'm coming out. So, I -- we do see
some issues with that. We don't have a lot of policies that way, but certainly if they want
to develop in the City of Meridian and we have a development agreement that we are
proposing and like Sonya mentioned, you do have the option to limit those and we think,
again, based on a lot of presentations that have been given, limiting those access points
certainly helps the general flow of firaffic on major intersections and in general.
Wafters: And if I may add to that, just a tad more, if the Commission does decide that
they want to do the access points as proposed., staff suggests that a median be
constructed in the middle of Eagle and Victory to prohibit traffic from entering the site
from, you know, left-in that way. ACRD has requested that also.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Marshall, any questions or --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 12 of 71
Newton-Huckabay: How difficult would it be to get a copy of the ACRD reply for us to
see?
Wafters: It would not be difficult. I have a copy right here. It came in right at 5:00 pretty
much today, so that's why you don't have a copy. I can certainly give a copy to
Machelle if you'd each like one.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to browse through it real quick.
Wafters: Sure.
Moe: Any other comments while we are waiting on that?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I also need to ask somebody to tell me what page of the
45 page letter from Mr. Axelrod the comment about not being residential is on. That
would be helpful as well.
Moe: Can the applicant do fihat? And would the applicant tell staff and --
Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like somebody to tell me what page that's on. I don't recall
reading through it. City staff is saying it says it's for residential development and the
applicant is saying it's for commercial development.
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if I could just address that
real quick. I did not have time to -- I got this late this afternoon, I did not have time to
read the whole document and I called ACHD for a, you know, summary of the history on
this and that's what I was told from them. So, if it's in here I'm not sure where it's at.
would also like to see which page it's on.
Moe: We have someone who can answer that.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the -- the reference that
I'm talking about is to the purchase and sale agreement with ACRD and the current
owner of the Axelrod trust.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Which you said Ihave a -- we have a copy of and I have just
a 35 page document, I was wondering which of the --
Thompson: I don't have a copy in front me. It's fairly far in the back.
Wafters: If I could, excuse me, just add one more thing. The copy the city received
from the property owner :appears to be a draft copy. It was not signed by ACHD and
there are comments that are noted on the side margins. So, I'm not sure if this was the
final agreement or not.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 13 of 71
Rohm: Sonya, to kind of shift gears for just a moment, the property to the north across
Victory Road, where is the access into that -- that property? East of Eagle on Victory.
Wafters: Chairman Moe,, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, I am not sure. The
property owner is in the audience if you would like him to address that.
Rohm: Isn't that DJ's? Is it DJ's? Or, no, Double D?
Wafters: Bob Carpenter's~~property, I believe.
Rohm: Okay. I was curious where the access to that property on the other side of
Victory took their access and see if it was kind of aligned with the one that's being
proposed.
Wafters: I can't tell from the aerial.
Carpenter: Bob Carpenter. 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian. The -- yeah. Right
there. We have got -- with the road project that's coming, we have two access points,
one right there at the driveway of the house and one there where that little white spot is,
which is a barn. And, then, there are no other access points at this point, but when the
property is developed., whatever the developer does will determine the access needs
and points and we don't have a negotiated access agreement with ACHD for future
access points once we sell the property.
Moe.: Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, have you been able to read
through. that and --
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah.. I'm good.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP
08-011.
O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt real quick before we close the public hearing?
forgot to mention this to staff earlier. It has to do with bicycle access or through put in
and around that development and I didn't see anything in here that mentioned any bike
paths or otherwise. Is that -- am I seeing something wrong here with that or -- maybe
Sonya can answer that. I"m not sure. Sonya? On the --
Newton-Huckabay: The pathway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008 .
Page 14 of 71
O'Brien: Pardon?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien. There is the pathway.
O'Brien: There is pathway -- that's what I'm asking. Is there one along Eagle Road
there? Because there is an awful lot of usage from bicycles and pedestrians and
runners that use that now'that is -- is the sidewalk will be sufficient? I don't know if -- is
that five and a half to seven feet? I assume that the bicycles are going to use that
access or is it going to be a bike lane on the highway?
Moe: Sonya, can you answer that?
Wafters: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that whole question. Could you, please, repeat it?
O'Brien: Let me start over again. So, I didn't see anything in there where it had access
for runners and bicyclists on Victory or Eagle Road. Is that going to be included or is
that going to be -- is there going to be a pathway on the road for bicycles or what? Is
part of that plan --
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, are you asking if
that's amulti-use pathway requirement?
O'Brien: Yes. I don't remember what they called it.
Wafters: No, it's not amulti-use pathway requirement there.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Wafters: The applicant is proposing a seven foot wide detached sidewalk. They are
only required to do a minimum five foot wide in that area.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, abullet -- finding and facts in ACHD --
ACHD report number ten, Eagle Road from Victory Road to Ridenbaugh is scheduled to
be widened to five lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk and bike lane.
O'Brien: Okay. Great. Thank you very much for pointing that out. Thank you. That's
all I have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 15 of 71
Moe: Commissioner Rohm.
L
Rohm: I got most of the way through that. Do I need to do it over?
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: All right. Here we go. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on
AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP 08-011.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 08-007, PP 08-
006, and CUP 08-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL; AYES.
Moe: Comments?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: As far as the development as a whole, I think that that's a very nice
development for that corner. I think that the applicant's got a good layout and it appears
as if it's something that's needed in the -- in the neighborhood and in support of staff on
Eagle Road in particular, I think that we should probably limit access to one in and out
full access, but possibly because Victory is not as a through put in the same nature as
Eagle, that maybe we could compromise and allow for the right-in, right-out and the full
access on Victory. But that's -- that's just my thoughts and other than that I think it's a
great project.
Moe: Okay. Great. A couple comments I'd like to make. Quite frankly, Mr. Rohm, I'm
somewhat in agreement. My biggest concern is -- is that we end up with a full access
also on Eagle. I just don't think you can get it far enough to the north from where the
other access point is. I just think that there should only be one access point on Eagle
and I'm more than willing to give full access to that and I think the right-in, right-out
should go away. I do agree that Victory Road -- I think both access points would be
fine. I don't have a real problem there. A couple other items, you know, that were
brought up. The utilities-- I think staff has taken care of that. There is -- there is no
area there for them to get a reimbursement on that. As far as the access points,
definitely happy to hear they will have a problem with the one on the east and I know
staff would like to see the one on the south, but the south property owner said he's not
going anywhere for quite some time. I, quite frankly, am not sure what we gain by
putting an access point to the south right there if he's not planning to go anywhere, but I
realize what we do like to do is have connectivity and so, therefore, I mean he may not
want to do anything for quite a few years, but you never know.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 16 of 71
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Wasn't that an access point for the pathway? It wasn't
a driveway. Are you talking about a driveway?
Moe: Right. No. I'm just talking about the south -- exactly. As far as the fencing., I
think what it says that fencing is fine. That would be my comments.
Marshall: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: I -- based on the comments that were made, it appears the developer has
worked very hard with the people around. I am very impressed with how they have
worked with everybody. I, too, am concerned about the dual access. I don't like
numerous accesses to major arterials. One issue, though, is Falcon, being able to
move that north, I don't know that it can move too far north. We have 480 feet of
property line along Eagle Road and ACHD is saying for a full access that they need 440
foot clearance to the intersection. I don't know that it can move too much, but it may be
able to move a little and any bit there could help. I would like to see that full access
moved as far north as possible and still limit the 440 foot to the intersection. I'd not like
to see the right-in, right-out. Not fond of it on Victory either, but I would accept that and
I do like the idea of continuing on the Verb-Crete wall for continuity sake and I do
believe there ought to be a pedestrian access and I like the idea of putting in a gate
there to be able to fence pit off for some time until such time as maybe that develops. in
the future.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any comments?
O'Brien: Yeah. I largely agree with the full access only on both Eagle and Victory and
not aright-in, right-out. I think as time goes on we will find that that intersection is going
to be extremely busy, even with the improvements that they are going to make in the
future. So, again, adjustment of the Eagle Road access, I'm in agreement with that, if
they need to move that within reason I think would help. That -- that knoll that that
intersection is on as it drops down is a concern, so I think that's all going to be taken
into consideration in how,much they need to move that, because that is -- it can be kind
of tricky there with the amount of traffic that's going to be on that roadway. I like the
fencing as it currently is drawn out and I think this is a very good project. Been waiting
for something to happen down there for quite some time, so thank you. That's all
have.
Moe: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any comment?
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing else of substance to add.
Moe: Thank you very much. Mr. Rohm, are you wanting to do something here?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 17 of 71
Rohm: Well, I think I'm ready to make a motion, if there is no other input.
Moe: I don't hear anymore comments.
Rohm.: We will see where it goes. Okay. Let's see. After considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of
file number AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP 08-001, to include the staff report, with the
following modification: That the access point on Eagle be limited to one full access and
to be relocated to take into consideration the dip in the road and if it's only --
Newton-Huckabay: Furthest point north.
Rohm: The furthest point north. Thank you. As possible and still adhere to the
distance requirements from the intersection and allow both accesses onto Victory Road
as currently proposed by the applicant. No other changes.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 08-007, PP 08-006., and CUP 08-
011, with modifications as noted. All those in favor way aye. Opposed? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2008: CUP 08-016 Request for
Conditional ,Use Permit approval for a convenience store and fuel sales
facility in a. C-N zoning district per requirement of the Development
Agreement for Maverik (Locust Grove/McMillan) by Maverik, Inc. -NEC
of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing for CUP 08-016 for the
Maverick and have the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. The application before you is a
Conditional Use Permit for a convenience store and fuel sales facility for Maverick in a
C-N zoning district per requirement of the development agreement for Woodland
Springs Subdivision. The property is located on the northeast corner of the Locust
Grove and McMillan Road. Surrounding uses are -- to the north single family rural
residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is rural residential property,
approved fora 26 lot residential subdivision, Portico Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the
south is an Idaho Power substation, zoned R-8. To the west are rural and urban
residential properties, zoned RUT and R-4. The history on this property -- a comp plan
amendment was approved in 2008, this year, to change the future land use map
designation of this site and the surrounding Woodland Springs Subdivision from
medium density residential to mixed use neighborhood. It was annexed also earlier this
year with a C-N zoning district. A development agreement was approved that required
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 18 of 71
conditional use approval for a convenience store and fuel station use on the subject
property and design review approval of the proposed structures and site. A preliminary
plat for Woodland Springs Subdivision was approved with the annexation and comp
piano amendment applications. The plat consisted of four commercial building lots on
7.55 acres and that is in the red area here. The final plat was approved early this year
for the first phase of Woodland Springs Subdivision in which this property lies,
consisting of three commercial building lots and one common lot on 4.52 acres. The
finale plat modification was approved last week at Council to modify the landscape plan
approved with the final plat for Woodland Springs Subdivision phase one. This is an
aerial view of the property. There was an existing residence on it that has since been
torn down. Here is a copy of the site plan. The site is located on an entryway corridor,
McMillan Road, and is subject to design standards for the site and the buildings. I'm
going to back up just a minute here. The Lemp Canal is currently located on the south
side of the McMillan Road. ACHD is proposing to relocate it to the north side of
McMillan with the road widening project at the intersection and that will probably take
place in about 2011. The Lemp Canal will be located within a 50 foot wide Settler's
irrigation easement. A 4,377 square foot convenience store is proposed on the site with
a fuel station facility. A picnic area is proposed to the north of the building that has
trellis structures and amenities there. Access is proposed off site to this lot from Locust
Grove. Shows here on this site plan up here at the top into the site across the lot to the
north via across-access agreement. Access point is also proposed to the east off of
McMillan across this lot here to the site via cross-access easement also. No additional
access points are proposed with this application and none are approved. Staff is
requesting that an internal pedestrian pathway be added per the concept plan approved
with the development agreement at the northeast corner of the convenience store
across the drive aisle here to connect to the future development. An eight foot wide
pathway is also proposed from the sidewalk along Locust Grove to the main building
entrance per requirement of design review standards. Typically, an eight foot wide
pedestrian pathway is required from the sidewalk adjacent to the entryway corridor.
However, in this case, because the Lemp Canal will remain open and will not be tiled.,
the applicant has proposed that connection from Locust Grove instead. Staff is in
agreement with that. This is a copy of the proposed landscape plan that you see here.
The final -- like I had mentioned earlier, a final plat modification was approved last week
at Council that relocated some of the previously approved landscaping that was
proposed for mitigation on the site to internally within the site. So, that has been
approved. These are elevations of the proposed Maverick store. The building materials
are proposed to consist of EIFS, synthetic stucco, with stone veneer accents as
approved through the development agreement for this site. The fuel canopy elevations
are there on the bottom. They are pre-finished metal trim with vinyl to match the
convenience store. Columns are proposed to be clad with aluminum and match the
color of the EIFS and the bottoms will be accented with cultured stone veneer. The
canopy shall be revised to comply with the design standards as follows: Facades
visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the facade, roof line
recesses, and projections along a minimum of 20 percent of the line for the facade.
These do not comply with that. Also, roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the
following: Overhang eaves. Sloped roofs. Two or more roof planes. Varying parapet
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 19 of 71
heights. And cornices. The roof design of the fuel canopy shall be revised to more
closely coincide with the convenience store roof line. Hours of operation for the
proposed convenience store are 24 hours a day. Staff has not placed any restrictions
on the hours of operation. Staff is recommending that the Commission listen to any
public testimony that may be provided tonight to determine if hours of operation should
be restricted for this use. Some outstanding issues from the City Council hearing last
week regarding the final plat modification -- the Council wanted the following items
addressed with this conditional use application. The applicant was directed to address
the type of vapor recovery system proposed for the fuel facility at tonight's hearing.
Also, the Commission -- excuse me -- the Council wanted the Commission to add a
condition of approval for the applicant to work with ACHD to obtain a license agreement
to install landscaping and irrigation sprinklers on the property south of the detached
sidewalk along McMillan Road, to the edge of the future back of curb. The applicant
shall also be responsible for maintaining this area. Additionally, Council also wanted
the Commission add a condition of approval for the applicant to submit a road trust to
ACRD for a minimum five. foot wide detached sidewalk along McMillan Road. They are
not requiring that the applicant construct it at this time because of the road widening
intersection improvements there, but would like the application to submit a road trust for
that. Written testimony has been received from Val Greenspan, Jason Overy, Liz Pew,
Susan Greenman, Bart Naylor, and Dr. John Knolls, the third. Staff is recommending
approval for the conditions in the staff report, based on the findings in Exhibit B and
previously mentioned modifications. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission
may have at this time.
Moe: Thank you very much, Sonya. Any questions? Okay. Mr. Rohm?
Rohm: Sonya, are there building requirements for the other lots within that commercial
development outside of the gas station itself?
Waters: Oh, Chairman Moe, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, I believe that the
whole subdivision was subject to design standards. Caleb's nodding yes. He worked
on that originally, so yes.
Rohm: Okay. What I'm curious about is if the design standards that will be employed
for the balance of the buildings in this -- in the commercial portion of this total
development and the Maverick station itself, if -- if they are going to look similar or if
they are going to have the stucco as -- as it's being proposed for this Maverick itself. If
the balance of the buildings are going to have more of an upgrade, I would like to
consider doing that with the Maverick station as well. That's kind of where I'm going
with this.
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, I recall looking at
elevations that were included in the development agreement. They all coincided with
each other. I can't remember if they were stucco -- I think that they were -- to match the
Maverick. I don't believe, however, that they had metal roofs on them as the Maverick
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 20 of 71
is proposed to have. The applicant may be able to answer that question better than I.
don't have a copy of the development agreement with me tonight.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.,
Moe: Any other questions?
Wafters: Let me add one more thing to that. The elevations of the proposed Maverick
building were submitted with that development agreement when this annexation went
through. The proposed elevations do match those that were approved. There were --
fhere was an additional change that was made at that hearing that they provide stone
accents and the applicant has done that on these elevations, so that's --
Rohm: That helps. Thank you.
Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Murray: Good evening. Dan Murray, Maverick, Inc. 880 West Center Street in North
Salt Lake, Utah. 84054. It's a pleasure to be with you. We are appreciative of the staff
support with our application. We thank them. And we are -- and really have no issues
with the items that they have requested of us. There are a couple, of points of
clarification. First, dealing with the column cladding. So, the canopy columns are about
12 inches square and, then, they are wrapped with an ALPOLIC material that's a
combination of epoxy and aluminum, et cetera, to give them some substance. And in
our newest generation bf stores -- I don't know if you have been in any of the newer
Maverick stores, but Maverick's tag line is Adventure's First Stop. And if you go into the
stores, if you see our tankers rolling down the road, you will see murals within the store
that tie into adventure activities. We are on our newest generation of stores using some
of that mural material in wrapping the canopy columns. So, the staff -- Sonya indicated
that those columns would be a tan color, but I'm hoping that that doesn't preclude that
from being wrapped with this adventure theme continuing from the outside of the store
out to the canopy. If you're supportive of that, fantastic. It's not a big deal to us, but it's
just for your clarification. The other items that I guess came from Council was the issue
of vapor recovery. Currently in this area there are a couple of stages of vapor recovery.
One is a stage one and the other is a stage two. I believe the Council had asked about
stage two. Typically, stage one is implemented first and along the Watsach front we --
we comply with stage ones Everybody does. And that is a process whereby fumes that
are -- as a tank is empty, obviously, there are fumes in it and as you deliver gas those
fumes are forced out. With stage one vapor recovery, those fumes are, then, forced
back into the tanker and returned to the refinery. Stage two vapor recovery is not quite
as clear cut. The intent of stage two vapor recovery is to address vapors during the
refueling process for cars and right now there is a lot of mixed feelings. In Utah there --
we anticipated the stage two vapor recovery would be required and we've actually
plumbed our stations for that. Now, it happens like -- from some of the states that have
applied this earlier in the process, such as California, that they are getting away from
the stage two, because the newer vehicles actually have a vapor recovery mechanism
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 21 of 71
on them and when you -- if you plumb the station for it, there is conflict there and it
doesn't work properly. So, I can -- I guess the short answer to the question is that
certainly as stage one or stage two vapor recovery is required, we would have every
intention of complying with it. The compliance with stage one is very easily done. It
only affects a couple of components of the tank and most of our tankers are already
fitted to accommodate that. Stage two is probably further down the road, if it were to
come, and, again, we would comply with that and there is a variety of options. But,
again, compliance on that topic in general is -- it's getting mixed reviews. So, if you
have a question specific to the other portions of the development and the color
schemes, et cetera, et cetera, Todd Meyer with Morgan Development is here tonight
and he would be better suited to reply to that versus me speaking on his behalf, so --
and I'm also happy to answer any questions..
Moe: Okay. Are there any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Okay. Okay. First one on the list is Jeff Green.
Green: Good evening, Chairman Moe and Commissioners. I have no axe to grind with
Maverick. In fact, I --
Moe: Your address, please.
Green: I live at 2199 East Handel and that is in Vienna Woods Subdivision.
Moe: Thank you.
Green: And, once again, I have no axe to grind with Maverick. I did fill up there this
morning. But I do want to proceed, because I believe that construction of this planned
gas station and retail store does not benefit any homeowners. There is no need or
value to us. How many of you know how long it takes to drive to the nearest gas station
from Locust Grove and McMillan? Only 90 seconds. That's right. Only 90 seconds,
where Albertson's already has a gas station and a retail store at Eagle and McMillan.
Again, there is no benefit to homeowners to build this station. This station will generate
significant increased traffic at the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan on two lane
roads that are already overcrowded.. This will cause increased driver irritation, longer
waits., more congestion, as well as additional noise and exhaust pollution. Let's look at
the current traffic issues. Currently -- CBH homes is building on the west side Locust
Grove, which will add even more cars to the area. There are no plans to widen
McMillan west of Locust Grove. There is a plan to widen McMillan east of Locust
Grove, but it is currently unfunded and not scheduled.. And there is no current plan to
add lights to that intersection. If we look at the environment, certainly the beauty of the
area will be denegrated by another 24 hour neon commercial experience. The
environmental impact is totally negative, with increased pollution, increased traffic, and
increased noise. In a time of going green and preserving our precious Idaho
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Jwly 17, 2008
Page 22 of 71
environment, another gas station only adds to the environmental pollution near our
homes. And just as with other commercial expansions and rejection by many
neighborhoods across the country, we have to ask are we growing the right way,
because it's not how big you grow, it's how you grow big. Meridian is a community that
blends beauty and opportunity from our tree lined streets to our wonderful parks. Last
week I heard Steve Siddoway, who is director of Meridian Parks and Rec, speak with
passion about the park system. I like his ideas. Wouldn't this space be better served as
a park or a green area or even a soft commercial, than another needless gas station
with a retail store? Again:; there is no homeowner benefit. We are fortunate to live in a
unique area where people feel at home and experience a sense of community. Does a
corner gas station, that is.,only one intersection from another gas station, make sense in
such a community? Do reasonable people truly believe this project will add anything to
our neighborhood? Yourk denial of this project would be a strong confirmation and a
wonderful opportunity to engage in some thoughtful planning for our corner and., indeed,
other corners in Meridian. Please do not let blatant commercialism squeeze another
neighborhood again. There is no benefit to us to build this gas station. Please allow us
to enjoy the quality of life that we have now. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with
you. Thanks so much.
Moe: Thank you..
Green: And your questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Thank you very much. Andy Mitchell.
Mitchell: Good evening, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. Andy Mitchell, 2170 Mozart
Court. I'm against the proposed 24 hour Maverick station. Like the previous speaker,
I'm not against Maverick or a 24 hour station, simple this location. If you can click back
to the aerial view, please.. You can see from the location -- well, A, as Jeff pointed out,
it's not convenient. There are four stations within a two mile radius there that are all
convenient. Currently with the Locust Grove bridge being built, this intersection at
commute hours becomes very congested. I think to use the phrase I heard earlier,
when you see our tankers rolling down the road with the graphics -- well, tankers rolling
down those roads to fill up the station probably won't fit into the current traffic situation,
which would mean they'd either be there during business hours, school hours, or pre or
after hours, which wouldn't be desirable to the residential community, which is the upper
right, upper left and lower right. The last point I want to make is across the street is the
power station, which is all vacant property. My cursory search on the Internet shows
that 24 hour stations tend to see an increase in crime or after-hour activity associated
with them and the industry itself has put in several measures to help protect their staff in
those locations as a result of that increased crime. That open space to the right, plus
the fact that Corey Barton Homes is yet to sell a property and that is all open space.
Down the street is Austin Creek, which is -- as I understand it -- my facts may be
incorrect -- is 80 percent :rental properties and in doing a quick drive through the area,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 23 of 71
approximately five to seven percent of those properties are currently open for rent. I
think the open space, the unbuilt homes, and the vacant, homes all preclude to a
proclivity or -- a proclivity towards crime and Ithink -- I think that's all my points, if there
is any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Kimberly Mitchell.
K.Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Kimberly Mitchell, 2170 East
Mozart Court and that's in Meridian. It's also in the Vienna Woods Subdivision. I am
opposed to the development of the Maverick and the 24 hour convenience store on
McMillan and Locust Grove. As Jeff Green and also my husband Andy pointed out,
just have a few points to make. It would create an unnecessary increase in traffic in an
already congested intersection, an unnecessary increase in noise pollution and increase
of potential health risks from exposures to toxics and fumes. A safety risk to residents
on increased traffic and also the crime associated with 24 hour convenience locations.
As everybody pointed out, there are four gas stations within a two mile radius of this
intersection and that's pretty much all I had to say. Thank you for your time for allowing
me to speak.
Moe: Thank you very much. Is it Condra? From the audience she's passing.. Julie
Horlacher. How did I do?
Horlacher: Good enough. I have been called all kinds of things. Horlacher. Julie
Horlacher. 5349 North Beethoven. And that's in Vienna Woods Subdivision. And I'm
not as eloquent as some of the other speakers. I'm into the emotional side of a mother
that's trying to raise a family just around the corner from where that Maverick will be.
also do not have an axe fo grind against Maverick. I love to go to a convenience store
and get my diet Coke every day, but not right next door to my house. We purchased
our home in Vienna Woods with our children in the hopes of raising them in a nice, quiet
family centered, family oriented area away from the commercial aspect of life. We are
concerned with the safety and security of our home and of our family. Excuse me.
When the gentleman from Maverick was talking about his Maverick store and talked
about the columns and how nice they were going to look, I was thinking -- and how nice
is my home going to look and how safe is my home going to be when those columns get
built to support that roof of their gas station. I don't understand why commercialism can
come into our subdivisions. We need to keep it out on Eagle Road where there is more
traffic. We have enough traffic going down Locust Grove and McMillan as it is. Ever
since Locust Grove went all the way across the highway, traffic has increased. Noise
has increased from all the traffic going by, obviously. The roads are narrow. Traffic is
horrendous at -- anytime of the day, particularly mornings and the afternoons or the
evenings. Again, if we want a Coke or if we want an ice cream, if we want something
like that, we go two blocks to the east. We don't need that in our subdivision. My
brother-in-law worked for Maverick for some time.. He worked in C stores. He was over
the C store food aspect in Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah. He loves Maverick, too.
However, he did tell us I would never want one of those in my neighborhood, because
of the crowd they attract. It is a convenience store. They attract after dark people that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 24 of 71
like to hang out there. I worked at 7-Eleven for years. I know what hangs out at a
convenience store and it's nothing I want my children around., it's nothing I want in my
neighborhood. But I think that's all. But I hope you will listen to us and what we want
for our families. When we moved into these nice homes we didn't think we would have
a gas station next door. So, thank you. I don't know if you have any questions or --
Moe: Thank you very much. Any question? Thank you very much. Joann.
J.Horlacher: Joann Horlacher. 1891 East Grand Canyon Drive in Settler's Bridge. And
I just say amen to all of these others that have made their comments. But I would like to
add one more thing and that is for the outlook of our children. These neighborhoods --
these subdivisions all around this area is full of children -- good children that we are
trying to have grow up in a good community and that's why these people have bought
these beautiful homes there to raise their families, to have it nice for them, and this kind
of environment that is brought in with a convenience store and a gas station, such as
Maverick, is not good for the growth of our children. I thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much. Donnell? Okay. From the audience I was told that she
passed.
Newton-Huckabay: For or against?
Moe: Pardon me?
Newton-Huckabay: Was she for or against?
Moe: She was against.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Moe: Diane Racine. From the -- did I say that right? From the audience she's passing.
Doug --
Racine: Doug Racine. 5600 North Mendleson Avenue in Vienna Woods. I just wanted
to endorse the comments made against the development of the Maverick and add a
couple of comments. In a call to the police department, we talked with a Sergeant Mike
Rowe, who indicated this last Friday the Maverick on Five Mile and Victory was robbed
and he indicated in just an off-the-cuff comment that they had been spending a lot of
time at convenience stores, because of robberies -- an increase in robberies. And on a
personal note, we moved here -- we have lived here in Boise twice or Meridian twice
and the first time we moved here from Chicago and you can just -- we enjoyed .the
serenity and the peace of Boise and the simpleness of the subdivisions where we lived.
We lived both times in the same area and I'd like to preserve that feeling of community
and the addition of a Maverick in such a residential area I think would go completely
against the grain and -- but I, too, have to buy gas, that's -- I'm very happy to drive 90
seconds up the street and get my gas there. Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 25 of 71
Moe: Thank you. Todd Meyers.
Meyers: Thank you. Todd Meyers. 645 Hickory Lane in Idaho Falls. I am with Morgan
Development. Just wanted to quickly go over -- some of you may remember the -- the
site plan that came through when this property was annexed and zoned into the city.
The property that -- the entire site is about seven acres, with the Maverick being
buffered off by the intersection. McMillan, as you realize, is an aerial street and so is
Locust Grove. Those are streets that as time goes by is going to generate a lot of traffic
and a lot of noise. With that in mind, what we did is we designed our property so that it
would help buffer the residential that would be to the north and to the east. The west --
or, excuse me, the east property line is the one that goes right underneath where it's
labeled site. To the east of that is a subdivision called Portico Place. That's where the
street will be coming in. VVe are working with that developer on building that street. We
will be sharing that cost. To the north you can see right below the home that is just
beyond our site. That is where the north property line is. With the development
agreement we are required to meet the requirements -- basically what we submitted..
We have to build what we submitted and with that what we did is we put in an L-shaped
building that we hope the building itself will do a lot to buffer the sounds and noise that
comes from an arterial street. North of the building and also to the east of the building
there will be the drive aisle that goes around., but, then, there is also the storm retention
pond and the required landscaping by the zone. As you may remember, one of the
conditions for approval was a vinyl fence that would go along the north and the east
property lines. As you look at the site you can see there is a lot of trees in there.
Several of those had a 21 inch caliper. So, in addition to our required trees, we also
had to replace all of those trees, too. Originally we had those trees evenly spread out
along the arterial street. City Council asked that we would move those, as many as
possible that would fit, along the north and east property lines. And so we think there,
again., the way that we have designed this -- and also the requirements by the city are
going to help buffer the residential. The hours of operation for those -- for the L-shaped
building and, then, also for the professional office building closer to McMillan, are
restricted by -- I believe it's from 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. We think there again -- so,
we are moving that Maverick farther and farther away from the residential, at least to the
north and to the east. To the south you have a substation that really doesn't need to be
buffered from anything else -- from the -- the uses. You do not have anything currently
really built towards the west. Can I continue a little bit more? I think it actually is a
benefit. You know, some of the -- one of the persons that spoke said, well, it's not
surrounded by residential. And on a commercial standpoint, it would be great if it was
surrounded by residential. However, the advantage to the city is we are going to get out
there, we are going to get built before there is the residential there, so everybody will
know about it. And that is also one of the requirements by -- in the development
agreement was one of the requirements by City Council was to get our signs out there
just as soon as possible and so we had diagrams of this site that went up just as soon
as the development agreement was approved and the findings and facts were all
approved. Through this final stage we did put those up. In the traffic study that was
required to be submitted back in the fall --
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 26 of 71
Moe: Mr. Meyers, you need to wrap up.
Meyers: Thirty-seven percent of the traffic will be bypass traffic. Your peak hour traffic
trips for this use will have about 67. So, about one per minute. The street section to the
south, there is a question on that sidewalk to the south. We have paid the Ada County
Highway District, so that now becomes their responsibility. They are not sure what that
street section is going to look like because of the canal. The building designs -- they all
do have to go through the approval process because of our development agreement
and have to comply with what we submitted earlier.
i
Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Rich Bacalu. Probably not saying it
correctly. Trina Bacalu. All right. Well, that was the last that were signed up. So, is
there anyone else that would like to come forward? I'm sorry, you have had your time.
Sorry. Anyone else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up, please.
Murray: Thank you. To just address a couple of the concerns that were expressed.
recognize that you understand that Meridian city has actually adopted a plan that
encourages little neighborhood commercial nodes. Part of the intent of that, as
understand it, is to provide services in the neighborhood, so that trips aren't necessary
to go out to Fairview or Cherry or Eagle and augment the congestion that we are seeing
out there. So, there really is very -- there really is no other type of retail which is more
neighborhood oriented than the convenience store. Concern was expressed over the
nature of the clientele and if you think about this, there are a lot of convenience stores
and there a lot of them because they serve a relatively small geographical trade area,
which is primarily the residents that live in the area. And you would -- I assume that if
you evaluate your driving habits and where you buy gas and where you run for that late
night gallon of milk., et cetera, I suspect there are very few people that would go from
Boise out to our store in Meridian, passing 30 other convenience stores. So, I'm trying
to emphasize here really that the store is neighborhood in nature and that's where our
customer base will come; from. And so will we bring an unsavory element to the
neighborhood? Well, if they live there already, certainly they are there. Is there the
potential. that they come off of the street network? Sure. Although this street network is
not the same type that you would catch on an Eagle or some of the larger highways in
town. I would -- I would encourage you to think of your own buying habits and your own
experience at the C store. It is normal that whenever anything is proposed for our
neighborhood that we have concerns and fears about it, but if you evaluate your own
shopping habits, I suspect you wouldn't shop at a convenience store if you thought that
you were at risk or that there was something wrong wifh the environment. The same
thing here. We have been in business for a long time in the community. Do our stores
ever get robbed? Well, of course they do. Virtually all establishments get robbed on
occasion. Does it happen weekly for us? Heavens, no. Not at all. We are excited to
be a part of the neighborhood. We pledge to be a good neighbor. We recognize that
the neighbors have concerns over us, but we think we will provide a service that will
allow them to stay within the neighborhood and not have to go out and increase traffic
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 27 of 71
on Eagle and some of the other streets within the area. So, that's really all I have to
say. Happy to answer any other questions.
Moe: Are there any questions? Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: A question of staff. When -- I didn't catch -- this intersection is not
planned to be signalized and it's not scheduled; right?
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, it is not in
ACHD's plan right now. The -- east of the intersection on McMillan Road is planned to
be widened, but it is unfunded currently. So, I'm not sure when that will occur. They
were talking about possibly 2011.
Newton-Huckabay: And we have had all four corners to come in for a preliminary plat,
haven't they?
Wafters: Well, the --
Newton-Huckabay: The north --
Wafters: -- southeast corner is the substation.
Newton-Huckabay: But the northwestern has not.
Wafters: Yeah. except for the southeast corner.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any other questions.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall, you look like you have a question.
Marshall: I guess I'm going back to that refill roof and need to add modulation or be
hidden and where we are at with that. I guess my question is to you, then -- staff has
requested that you add modulation to that refill roof and are you acceptable to that?
Murray: We are fine with it, yes. And we would submit some alternative to --
Moe: From the audience the --
Murray: We are fine with this and would submit some drawings to the staff for approval.
Moe: Any other comments at this time? Mr. Rohm, you look like you're ready to do
something here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 28 of 71
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I -- were you going to close the public hearing?
Rohm: I was.
Newton-Huckabay: Go a ~~ ead.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 08-016.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-016. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. O`Brien, do you; have any comments?
O'Brien: It's a perplexing concern to me, but I have to -- I have a feeling for the
neighborhood and their concerns, because I have this before where issues have come
up about the crime rate, whatever, but I -- I have to agree with the applicant more so. I
think it's going to be a convenience for the local neighborhood, especially as it grows up
-- grows out, if you will. I just don't think that it's going to be such a problem in the
location where its at. The crime rates in -- where stores get robbed, they have to have
easy access to arterials that would get them out of the -- out of there in a hurry and I
don't see this as one of those. So, I think that lessens that impact. I think that it will be
more of a service to the local community than a hindrance. That's all I can say about it,
so -- thank you. ~~
Moe: Okay. Thank you. !Mr. Rohm, any comments?
Rohm: Yes, I have comments. First of all, I'd like to thank each of you for coming in
and providing testimony tonight and even though I take every word that's been spoken
for valued input, the fact of the matter is Locust Grove passing over the freeway was
built with the intent of reducing traffic on Eagle Road and to disperse that traffic to the
community as a whole. ~ This convenience store, by design of the subdivision itself,
takes into consideration the community as a whole. The commercial buildings, both to
the north and to the east, will provide some --
Marshall: Buffer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 29 of 71
Rohm: -- buffer, thank you -- that's what I was looking for -- to the residential
development and =- and I really do know how the balance of you feel out there about not
wanting an additional gas station in your neighborhood, but, quite honestly, my opinion
is that it is from a community as a whole's benefit to reduce the additional traffic that is
currently on Eagle Road and anything that we can do to keep local traffic local, I think
that we should consider that. And that's my position.
Moe: Just to follow that up just a little bit. By design, quite frankly, the Comprehensive
Plan lists this as mixed use neighborhood and the main reason for that was is that the
intent was the folks in the neighborhood would try and, basically, shop and develop
around that neighborhood and., therefore, our duty here as the Planning and Zoning
Commission is to review .each application we get with the basis of whether or not they
do comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the plan. So, therefore, although I do as
well understand that most of you don't want to have a C store, basically, within your
neighborhood., it does meet the Comprehensive Plan goals.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Could you tell me how many letters went out
that were in the 300 foot radius?
Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes, just one moment.
Rohm: That's a good question.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to guess there were none. One? Maybe six? How many
notation letters would have gone out -- maybe ten? Maybe.
Wafters: There were 11 notices that went out. There were more than that, but some of
them were duplicate property owners. So, there were 11 different property owners that
they were mailed to, those that were within 300 feet of the property boundary.
Newton-Huckabay: Of the property boundary. Okay.
Wafters: And also the site was posted with a public hearing notice prior to the hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm assuming fhaf's where most people were notified that this
property was going to have the Maverick was through the sign on the property driving
by. Or maybe a homeowners association a-mail or some sort would be another. One
concern that -- that I have is that -- I'm just counting out here. We have got Saguaro
Canyon., Copper Basin, Heritage Commons, Havasu Creek, Settler's Bridge, Sheridan
Place, Edinburgh, Austin: creek, all within a mile of this intersection and the only
representatives we have; from any subdivisions are from Vienna Woods and I'm
concerned that we have a lot of people who probably drive by this intersection every
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 30 of 71
day, have seen the notice -- notification and we did get several letters. We only got 18
letter -- 18 testimony and letters against this proposal. We got one letter in favor from a
neighbor in Vienna Woods in favor of this proposal. And I am concerned that we have a
lot of people who -- we almost always see those in favor never come out and testify.
So, I have -- I have some concerns there, that that's a lot of -- a lot of homes that would
be served by this mixed use community area. I believe personally -- it''s my own
personal belief that a C store and a well known C store will help potentially to possibly
bring in some other neighborhood community businesses in the commercial area in this
other seven acres that could be of a benefit to -- to a community as well. I've always --
of course, I have always, lived near -- within walking distance of convenience stores
and/or commercial areas.. I grew up in downtown Meridian and we walked everywhere
we needed to go. That's what I would like to see in neighborhoods is the ability to walk
down to the convenience ,store to get a gallon of milk or go down there with your family
and that type of thing to get -- to get a soda. And I think we have had a huge deficit of
convenience stores in northern Meridian. That said., I do -- I do respect everything each
of you have said and that's what makes my decision difficult, because I am not you and
don't live in your home and so -- oh, I did have one comment. I do have aconcern --
and this is the second Maverick to come before us requesting 24 hours and I do not and
did not think before -- and I do not think 24 hours is appropriate for mixed neighborhood
-- for neighborhood commerciah If we are limiting hours on any commercial around -- in
the surrounding seven acres, I think it appropriate that we would want to limit hours in
there as well. And, again, it goes back to what I feel is the nature of the neighborhood
commercial -- neighborhood commercial serves the neighborhood. This is a
neighborhood of predominately residential family neighborhoods and I don't think that
most of them will be 'need'ing a convenience store at 2:00 a.m. So, I would want to limit
hours to -- to the similar -- or propose limiting the hours to similar to what the rest of the
businesses have been limited to. I just think that's appropriate for any neighborhood
commercial. But having said that -- we are voting for the CUP; right? We don't have to
worry about Council overturning it.
Moe: Mr. Marshall, any comments?
Marshall: Chairman Moe. Yes. To be honest, I do think it fits in with the
Comprehensive Plan. The idea behind the Comprehensive Plan is that we have local
neighborhood commercial areas within half a mile. In fact, we have updated it so that it
should be at the half mile points, rather than the one mile point, but this was prior to that
and we have this commercial right at the one mile point. The idea is that this will -- the
whole idea behind the Comprehensive Plan and putting these commercial
neighborhood, these smaller commercial areas in within a half mile of residences, cuts
down on traffic significantly and daily trips, that a lot of years and years of planning have
gone into that and a lot of residents from Meridian have spent years working on that
plan and that's the plan we are trying to follow here that recommends something like
that and I think it's appropriate. I, too -- and I appreciate Commissioner Huckabay
mentioning the hours. I ~ believe 24 hours is inappropriate. We have limited that
everywhere else along this -- in these areas and I think they should be limited. Again,
understand that people don't want a convenience store right next door, but somebody's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 31' of 71
got to have it next door if we are going have them and this is an area that has been
marked on the land use map for quite some time as being an appropriate location for
one. So, that is my thoughts.
Moe: Thank you very much. If there is no other comments, is there some --
Rohm: Just one last comment. My feelings on the time -- I think it should be from 6:00
in the morning to 11:00 at night. That's my idea of what is workable within the
community environment and if there is a differing thought on hours of limitations, I'd be
curious to --
Moe: I think that's pretty much what we have held most of them that come before us in
that time frame and that seems appropriate in my opinion.
Rohm: Okay. Well, with that -- Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: At this time I'd like to move for approval of file number CUP 08-016 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17th, 2008, with the following
modifications to the conditions of approval: That we add limitations of hours to 6.:00
a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on a daily basis. And., furthermore, I direct staff to prepare an
appropriate findings document considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting on -- what is it, August -- August 7th. End of motion.
Wafters: Chairman -- excuse me. Chairman Moe, Commissioner Rohm.
Moe: Yes.
Wafters: The Council did specifically want the Commission to include some additional
provisions if you look at your notes there, please.
Rohm: Okay. I will -- a'ddifiionally, as requested by Council, the applicant shall be
directed to address the type of vapor recovery system provided for the fuel facility at the
subject hearing and I believe they went with the type one and that seems appropriate to
me. Just -- well, there is two different kinds, but the type two seems to be convoluted, in
my opinion, as type one addresses those major issues..
Moe: Type one basically takes care of the tanker issue --
Rohm: Right.
Moe: -- and two was the vehicle.
Rohm: Right. Exactly.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 32 of 71
Moe: And right now we are having a problem within the -- the number two.
Rohm: Okay. Additionally, add a condition of approval for the applicant to work with
ACHD to obtain a .license agreement to install landscaping and irrigation sprinklers on
the property south of the detached sidewalk along McMillan Road to the edge of the
future back of the curb. Applicant shall also be responsible for maintaining this area.
Additionally, the Commission should request the -- or require the applicant to add a
condition of approval added for the applicant to submit a road trust to Ada County
Highway District for a minimum of five foot wide detached sidewalk on McMillan Road
once that road has redeveloped. End of motion.
O'Brien: Second..
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-016 for Maverick as modified.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: We normally take a break at 9:00 p.m, so we will be taking a break now and we
will come back at ten after the hour.
(Recess.)
Item 8: Public Hearing.: PFP 08-001 Request for Preliminary /Final Plat
approval of 2single-family residential building lots on 0.33 of an acre in an
R-8 zoning district for Fullmer by Jeffrey Fullmer -end of E. Carlton
between E. Fifth Street and Cathy Lane:
Moe: I'd like to call us back to order. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on
PFP 080-001, for Fullmer and ask the staff to report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a preliminary/final plat application for Fullmer Subdivision and it consists of
two single family residential building lots on .33 of an acre, zoned R-8. The property is
located right here. It's on~the southeast of and at the terminus of East Carlton Street,
east of Northeast 5th Street. This is an aerial view of the property. The aerial shows an
existing home here. It has been removed.. The site is currently vacant. The
surrounding uses are all single family residential. To the north is Sterling Creek
Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east is North Cathy Lane, which borders the property.
And, then, Catheryn's Park Subdivision, zoned R-8 to the east. To the south is Cottage
Home Addition Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the west is more Cottage Home
Addition Subdivision and East Carlton Avenue, zoned R-8. A little history on this site.
The southern portion of the subject property here was platted as part of Cottage Home
Addition to Meridian Subdivision in 1897. A property boundary adjustment was
approved by the planning department on June 11th that includes three lots platted in
Cottage Home Addition to Meridian and the unplatted parcel at'the end of East Carlton
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Juljr 17, 2008
Page 33 of 71
Avenue.. This is a copy of the record of survey submitted with the property boundary
adjustment. The property boundary adjustment creates three new parcels from the
previous lot parcel configuration, with frontage for each of the parcels on East Carlton
Avenue. These all have -- share a common driveway now. These were flagged out.
All of these lots were previously platted without public street frontage. This is a
preliminary plat that includes two building lots, lot one here and lot two. One consists of
6,,942 square feet and the other is 7,540 square feet. -The gross density of the
subdivision is 6..25 dwelling units per acre. Access to the subdivision is provided from
East Carlton Avenue via a 201 foot wide common driveway, benefiting the two proposed
lots and also the two previously platted lots that are not a part of this subdivision.
Emergency access is provided from North Cathy Lane. There will be bollards installed
here and they will need to be approved, the design, as an emergency access needs to
be approved by the fire department. This is a copy of the final plat. And there as no
landscaping required, so no landscape plan was submitted. However, there are two --
there are two existing large trees on the site. If either of them are removed, the
applicant will be required to mitigate for those as additional trees on the site in
accordance with UDC standards. And these are conceptual building elevations that are
proposed for the site. They have three types of building materials on the front, stone,
brick accents, and two types of siding, as you can see here.. No letters of testimony
have been received on this application. The applicant submitted a letter in response to
the staff report. Based on this letter, staff is requesting the following conditions of
approval noted in Exhibit B of the staff report be stricken. Condition number 1.3.1
pertaining to the sidewalk along Carlton, no sidewalk is -- staff wants no sidewalk to be
required there, because of the proposed width of the common driveway. As you see
here on this diagram, there is -- it's the same width as Carlton. There is no room for a
sidewalk. ACHD is not requiring a sidewalk either, because of that reason, and also
because there is no existing sidewalk to tie to in this area. Also one point -- condition
1.2.4 is requested to be stricken pertaining to submitting evidence of agency approval of
right of way and public utility improvements prior to issuance of building permits or
signature on the final plat, as it's not necessary to include as a condition. Staff is
recommending approval per the conditions in the staff report based on the findings in
Exhibit D and previously mentioned modifications. Staff will stand for any questions the
Commission may have.
Moe: Any there questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Does staff have any recommendations on the -- the pressurized irrigation
required for two lots?
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, yeah, it's -- it's pretty similar in cases like
this where either Nampa-Meridian or Settlers don't have irrigation available in some of
these subdivisions. What, we ask is the applicant get a waiver or, basically, that they
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 34 of 71
1
don't have irrigation water provided in that area, so they will hook up to city water. We
just require that they get that letter for us.
Marshall: Thanks.
Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Stiles: Sheri Stiles. Engineer Solutions. 1029 North Rosario Street in Meridian. Sonya
did an excellent job. We are proposing not to have pressurized irrigation due to the fact
that for two lots a pumping station is 30,000 dollars and it's really cost prohibitive to try
to retro this in-fill piece to current urban standards, so -- unless you have questions of
me, that's really all I had to offer.
Moe: So, will you be able to get the letter?
Stiles: Yes. We will get a letter from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District.
Moe: Any other questions?
Rohm: No questions.
Stiles: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you. There is no one signed up to speak. If there is anyone that would
like to come forward., you're more than welcome.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Okay. Hello. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on PFP 08-001.
Rohm: Second
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PFP 08-001. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL~AYES.
1
Newton-Huckabay: I have clarification I need to make before I make a motion. Sonya, I
didn't get the number of the first condition of approval you wanted to be removed.
Moe: It's right here.
Newton-Huckabay: 1.3.1.'-Okay. So, 1.3.1 and 1.2.4.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 35 of 71
Moe: That's correct.
Newton-Huckabay: Are the only modifications. After considering all staff, applicant,
and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number
PFP 08-001 as presented, in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17th, 2008, with
the following modifications to the conditions of approval: That condition of approval
1.2.4, in reference to evidence of any right of way construction be removed and 1.3.1,
which discusses the sidewalk being installed, be removed.. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of PFP
08-001 with the modifications as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2008: 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. Black Cat Road:
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2008: PP 08-003 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 139 lots including: 118 residential lots and 21
common lofs 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
the southeast and northeast corners of W. McMillan Road and N.
McDermott; and near the southwest corner of W. McMillan Road and N.
Black Cat Road.:
Moe: At this time I'd like to reopen the continued public hearings AZ 08-004 and PP 08-
003, for Oakcreek for the sole purpose of continuing those to the regularly scheduled
Planning and Zoning meeting of August the 21st, 2008.
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: Second..
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-004 and PP 08-003 for
Oakcreek to August 21st, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion
carries.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 36 of 71
MOTION CARRIED: ALL' AYES.
Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 08-014 Request for Transfer of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP 04-029) to continue operating a daycare center from an
existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Harmony Preschool by
Michelle Hutchings -1258 E. Cougar Drive:
Moe: At this time I'd like. to open the public ,hearing on CUP 08-014 for the Harmony
Preschool and ask the staff to report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Harmony
Preschool project. This site is located at 1258 East Cougar Creek Drive. It's primarily
surrounded by single family residential dwellings, zoned R-8. Here is the aerial shot of
the project. One thing I'd! like to point out is even though this is a single family home; it
is primarily used for business, so no one lives on the premises after business hours.
Here is the site plan for the project. Essentially, what you're seeing before you tonight is
what was approved with the previous approval. History of this -- back in 2004 the
Commission granted -- the site obtained CUP approval for a day care facility for up to
25 children. The applicant, again, is coming in with the same thing; they are not
proposing to change anything. The only reason why they are coming in for, essentially,
a modification to the CUP is because of change of ownership. The applicant is
proposing to purchase the property and take over the business. The only issue for
tonight is, basically, in the UDC -- today's requirements we require non-scalable fencing
for outdoor areas for a preschool school or day care facilities and if I can go back to the
aerial here, you can see that there is the canal that runs adjacent to the northern
property boundary and currently there is a chain link fence, which in our mind is a
hazard -- is a potential back there for children to scale that fence and get access to that
canal. I know the applicant has informed me that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District
would prefer to leave that fencing in place. Staff would -- and the applicant's also
proposing to put some slats in there to try to make it less of anon-scalable fence, but
we still feel that there is a chance that a child could still climb that fence. So, we would
prefer to see wrought iron -- keep it open view, maybe do some wrought iron, which
kind. of limits that hazard from happening.. Also, the applicant -- or staff has received at
least six letters from surrounding neighbors and clients of the property in favor of the
project. Also received one letter for denial of the project. The neighbors -- one of the
neighbors were concerned about the increased traffic. It's kind of been an ongoing
complaint from that person. Also, we received a letter from the applicant. They want to
discuss the fencing issue tonight, as well as the parking.. I believe in the staff report I
had made comment that you guys see fit, if this is adequately parked, based on that
approval, what was approved, then, it's still -- again, nothing's changing. It has five car
parks and that's where they are proposing to stay at. So, with that staff is
recommending approval and I will stand for any questions.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Jwly 17, 2008
Page 37 of 71
Newton-Huckabay: Bill, can you explain to me how a wrought iron fence would be less
scalable than a chain link fence?
Parsons: I'll do my best. iMr. Chairman --
Newton-Huckabay: Because I'm not buying the story you're telling. I'm sorry.
Parsons: Well,, if you look -- if you look at your open screen fencing and you look at
wrought iron, there is typically bars roughly every eight to ten inches spaced, so I guess
from that standpoint, how is a child going to -- I mean I guess they could pull
themselves up, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Or squeeze through.
Parsons: They could squeeze through, depending on the spacing. I'm not sure what
the exact dimension is. One other suggestion that we could possibly do is -- I know
there is some kind of screening materials, some cloth material that you could use to put
on the back side of that, so you wouldn't necessarily have the slating, but you could
have this material that you could attach to the fencing to kind of alleviate them from
being able to climb that fence as well. Or plant some landscaping, some shrubs or
some bushes there to get them away from that fence.
Newton-Huckabay: Just plant a bunch of roses.
Moe: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Newton-Huckabay: For the record, I don't really want you to plant a bunch of roses.
Hutchings: l wouldn't do that.
Newton-Huckabay: It always reads worse than it sounds.
Hutchings: I know. Michelle Hutchings. I live at 5706 North Plumb Creek Avenue in
Boise. Mr. Chairman and °the Members of the Commission, I am requesting a change of
ownership as mentioned on the Conditional Use Permit for Condra Steves Day Care,
changing it to Harmony ;Preschool. The facilities used as a preschool would stay
exactly the same. The property would not be altered in any way and I'm asking for no
modifications to the original conditions of approval that were set for Condra Steves Day
Care. So, I would be an excellent owner. I have the education and the experience to
be completely capable of owning a preschool. I have a bachelor's degree in speech
and language development. I taught preschool for four years and directed at two
different preschools. Last year at Condra Steves as director I had managed the
teachers, overseen the curriculum, taught some of the classes, kept track of the
finances and worked on making sure all of the neighbors knew who I was and that they
could come to me with any concerns or suggestions. And I have a great love for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 38 of 71
preschool age and understand where these children are developmentally and I find a
joy in teaching them. Just to briefly explain the building and the school and the building,
like was said., is in a residential area. There is nothing on it that shows it is a preschool.
There is not a sign. You cannot see playground equipment from the front. And without
knowing that it was a preschool you would not know if you were just driving by on the
road.. The driveway -- to address the parking -- is three wide and since the school
started there has never been an issue with the parking and the children stagger in
throughout the day, they are not all arriving at the same time and the parents are
literally there for one to two minutes while they drop of their child, take them to the door,
and., then, leave. So, we have never had an issue with that. This is not employee
parking. Employee parking is in the garage. We -- the fencing on the north side, we are
requesting the slats be -- Nampa Irrigation burns the weeds along the canal, therefore,
they did not want a wood fence and I worry ,that the fabric might also be burnable. I
don't know. I haven't checked into that. But we are asking for the slats. We feel like
that would meet the non-scalability. I worry about the little children -- I would be very
nervous if I had an iron fence back there. Just so you know, also we follow the Meridian
School District's traditional calendar year. So, we are only open Monday through Friday
school hours. We are not in school if the public schools are not in. So, you wouldn't
have the children coming if the school children that are older are out. In fact, from
September 1st to -- of 2007 to September 1st of this year, we only have been open 159
days out of the 365 days lin the school year. I also wanted to make a note quickly that
we ,have worked very hard with the neighbors to make -- to meet any of their concerns,
but I have not had one concern verbally come from anyone in the neighborhood since I
have been director. We~have sent multiple newsletters to our parents asking them to
drive only 20 on the street, although the speed limit is ~25 miles per hour. We have set
up many car pools. Some car pools brought four children; many brought two or three
children. We took all of the activities that would have parents parking down the street to
banquet rooms, so that would be like ahotel -- our end of year programs, Christmas
programs, all of those -- ~ we spent thousands of dollars to take that away from that
street, the parking.. And we only had one man attend our neighborhood meeting when
we started this process. His name was Paul Davis. He just said he was fine with the
preschool, but he worried about u-turns and I sent an a-mail very promptly to all the
parents asking them not ~to do u-turns. So, I have tried to be there to address any
concerns. In closing I just want to state that I believe a preschool education is very
important. There is a great demand for this in Meridian and our preschool provides an
invaluable service to families who want their children to have the preschool experience
within the safety and security of a home environment and although many day cares and
preschools charge up to 400 and 500 dollars, we charge much less than that and we
offer scholarships to those who come to us and say they cannot afford our tuition. And
this preschool prepares children and many -- most go into the public schools in
Meridian. I will invest a lot of time in keeping the preschool curriculum top notch,
keeping the building looking good, maintaining communication with the neighbors and
giving Meridian children an excellent start to their education. Thank you. Do you have
any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 39 of 71
Moe: Well, I would have one and that would be in regards to the fencing. Would you
have a problem putting plant material in front of the fence?
Hutchings: No.
Moe: Any other questions?
Hutchings: In front of like -- in front of the chain link fence?
Moe: We are, basically, trying to figure out something other than wrought iron fence
and -- and the screening that I have a problem with, I figure with Nampa-Meridian and
what they do with that as well when they are burning that. So, I think if we could do
something to put in front of --
Hutchings: Some kind of hedging, planting?
Moe: Basically. Any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Hutchings, there was something Iread -- it could maybe have
been in the letter that we received -- that there were summer operating hours. Are your
operating hours tied to your CUP?
Hutchings: No. I don't believe they are. They were not in Condra Steves CUP, no.
There were no operating hours. One comment about -- we did not do a summer camp
this year, we did do one when I very first started directing. There were eight children
who came. Two were set for siblings, so six cars came. It was two mornings of the
weeks and they came from like -- I think it was 11:.30 to -- it was two hours and 45
minutes, starting at 11:30..
.Newton-Huckabay: Okay:, Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. There are a few people
signed up. The first one would be Condra.
Steves: Commissioner -- I mean Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Condra
Steves, I live at 7035 North Linder Road. That's what I teach my preschoolers and I
can't remember my own address. And I am the one that opened the preschool center
and. I had anticipated on being there forever, pretty much, but I didn't anticipate having a
premature baby who went into NICU and cannot be around other children and my whole
plan of having my -- you know, well, Iwas -- doing the preschool kind of got destroyed
and so Michelle stepped in and she's a great teacher, she's an even better director and
she took care of the preschool while I was taking care of my infant and my baby and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 40 of 71
when she came -- I mean she's not an infant anymore, she's -- but when -- when
couldn't be there, she just directed the preschool and when she came to me -- there we
go. When she came to me and wanted to purchase the preschool and continue it, I
thought that was a great plan. She is organized. She's awesome. She really cares
how things go. And she has addressed every concern that's come to her in person and
in writing, short of the one family who just wants us to leave. So, I believe she will just
do an excellent job and I wouldn't sell it to just anyone, because my family is my first
love., preschool is my second and right now my time's with my family and maybe some
day again it will be with preschool, but she will do awesome. Thank you. Questions?
Moe: Cameron Hutchings. From the audience he has no other comments. David
Kline. Well, that's all that was signed up. David was noted as being neutral. If there is
anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward, please, do. Having seen
none -- Thank you. Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 08-014.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-014. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to verify, if I may, that everyone is in favor of a planting
in front of the fence, rather than a new fence.
O'Brien: A planting you say?
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
O'Brien: My only concern with anything flammable is the fact that Ada County -- or
whoever the irrigation district is, if they burn weeds on the other side of the fence, will
that be a problem to the --anything that we put there catching fire?
Newton-Huckabay: If they' don't water it.
O'Brien: Well, yeah, but they burn weeds on the other side of the fence is what I'm
trying to say. And the fire will go through the chain link and catch --
Moe: I'm going to assume that they are going to put basically a planter area there
and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 41 of 71
O'Brien: That's what Iwas -- okay.
Moe: I think that would be fine. So, yes, I'm in agreement with that.
Newton-Huckabay: Okays After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to approve file number CUP 08-014 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of July 17th, 2008, with the following modification to the conditions of
approval -- I don't have what condition number that was. Bill, do you have that condition
number? Or can I just make the modifications to --
Parsons: Just a moment,~please.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Condition of approval 1.1, bullet point two, strike that the
applicant shall replace the six foot chain link fence along the northern property boundary
with a six foot nonscalable fence with the statement that the applicant will place
plantings and/or shrubs to deter students from scaling the fence.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-014 as modified. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed?,`-That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL~AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Did I need to make comment that it was going to be separated
planter beds?
Rohm: I think that --
Moe: I think you're fine.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: Everyone knows what the purpose of the change in the motion was.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay,
Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 08-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
approximately 5 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Redmont Health
Services by The Land Group, Inc. - 5075 W. Cherry Lane:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 42 of 71
Item 1.3: Public Hearing: CUP 08-0.15 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
Assisted Living Facility consisting of 2 residential treatment buildings and
1 administrative building in a proposed R-8 zone for Redmont Health
Services by The Land Group, Inc. - 5075 W. Cherry Lane:
Moe: You're fine.. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the. public hearing on AZ 08-008
and CUP 08-015 for the Redmont Health Service. Start with the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you tonight are the annexation and zoning of five acres from R-1, Ada County, to
R-8, medium density residential. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting Conditional
Use Permit approval to construct and operate a residential care facility, consisting of
two 9,000 square foot buildings and one 6,000 square foot administrative building. If
you look here up at the zoning map here you can kind of see there is a point of -- where
the point of contiguity is from the Incline Village Subdivision located in the northwest
corner from the site. Surrounding the property is, again, rural residences, all zoned R-1
or RUT in Ada County. There is an existing building on the site. The applicant is
proposing to remove that building and the outbuildings to make way for this
development. One other note. If you look on -- if you can focus in that aerial photo, you
will see there are quite a few trees on the site that the applicant has been conditioned to
mitigate for. On their submitted landscape plan they showed caliper inches totaling 354
to be removed or mitigated for. It's my understanding that the applicant has been in
contact with Elroy. Staff has not received a staff report based on the mitigation plan, but
has conditioned it in the; DA that they supply that with CZC submittal. We kind of
combine the landscape and site plan in one. I know there is a lot going on on this plan,
so I figure for this purpose it would be easier just to have one slide and go through each
one of them separately. Get the pointer out. Again, looking -- if you look on the site
here., you will see that -- they are showing five pad sites. The applicant at this time is
really only proposing to do the southern half. Again, here is the administrative building.
Six thousand square feet 'and the two residential buildings. They are proposing to take
access from West Cherry Lane and come into the site. Basically, a common driveway,
but fire, staff, and police department has requested -- or required the applicant to submit
a private street application for addressing purposes for these rear buildings. In addition,
staff is also asking that they provide cross-access to the western property and cross=
access to the eastern property for future connectivity. Amenities for the site include
some roped course here. 41t's more of a challenge course to kind of add to the treatment
of this. Here is some open space, some gardening area, and., then, a walking path as
well. The applicant does state that there will be roughly 65 percent of landscaping on
the site, so they want to keep some kind of a private campus feel, you know, to make
the people feel comfortable that are getting treatment there. All of the landscaping and
parking lot landscaping and the parking stalls are all to dimensional standards. One
thing that staff had concern with is in their narrative the applicant has mentioned
outpatient care and based' on the UDC, outpatient care is now an allowed use within the
R-8 zoning district. It is in our code the term, basically, health or social services and
that's not a permitted use in the R-8 zoning district. That's more of your -- your office
use, your L-O zoning districts, that would have That type of use. So, staff has asked the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008 ~
Page 43 of 71
applicant to kind of clarify and speak to what their intent was for the outpatient care on
the property. And, again,~you can see all the -- here the landscape plan. UDC requires
them to have that 25 foottbuffer there. The applicant has shown on the landscape plan
they are going to have that, but they don't show all the plantings that are necessary to
go in there. One other clarification I'd like to clear up tonight for the applicant, too, is
when I reviewed the multi-use or the master pathways plan, 'it was very vague on where
the location of that pathway would be. There was a mention of it going along the
northern boundary and ;also preferred location that would go along the southern
boundary and after I spoke with the parks director and got some clarification, they don't
feel there is a need for it on this side. Their intent was, really, to have it on the opposite
side of West Cherry Lane. So, staff is -- is okay with that requirement of just going
down to a five foot detached sidewalk, rather than a ten foot multi-use pathway. Also,
because this site is off of>.Cherry Lane, reading through ACHD's staff report and based
on our code and the landscaping requirement, since they are not within the five year
work program to put in those requirements or those road improvements, the additional
right of way that -- that they have to dedicate, will have to be landscaped as well with a
ten foot gravel curve and neither sod and additional plantings. So, staff has conditioned
them and to clean that up and to submit a new landscape plan to CZC submittal. Here
are the elevations the applicant is proposing at this time. This is the admin building.
There are very -- varying~~materials for the building. There is a mixture of stone, three
different wood siding materials. You have your lap siding, your board and batten and,
then, you also have your cedar shake siding and all accented with stone. Modulating
roof design here. If the 'buildings aren't to exceed 30 feet, I would believe they are
roughly about 29 feet in height to this point here. They are all proposed to be one story.
Both -- here is our resident building. Again, same building materials. Staff believes
these are high quality building materials and have conditioned the project as such to
construct those buildings, as proposed.. Excuse me. The applicant has submitted a
letter regarding the staff report and, again, they want to discuss that issue of the private
streets. The possibility --one other thing I'd bring up. If I can go back here really quick.
One of the requirements for fire is -- I'm going to do my best to explain this. I'm not a
fire marshal, but they are not supposed to -- from this point of the planter to the end of
this street they are not to exceed 150 feet without putting in an approved turnaround.
So, the applicant -- staff wanted to work with the applicant and not necessarily make --
and fire did, too. They were in agreement with this, but they just placed some bollards
in this location, so that they wouldn't be -- have that requirement placed on them to have
that temporary turnaround. I know in the applicant's letter he states that their trash
enclosure is located here; if you look at the site plan. If we have those bollards there,
their point of contention is~they will have -- SEC will have a hard time getting to that and
getting services. So, I mean they can technically relocate that trash enclosure on the
site. I will let the applicant elaborate more on that. Again, staff is recommending
approval of the project and I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission
has.
Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? At this time would the applicant like to
come forward, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 44 of 71
Russell: Mr. Chair, if I may approach and hand you -- my name is Doug Russell with
The Land Group., Incorporated.. I'm at 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. And
we are representing the applicant this evening. And, then, at the end of my quick
presentation, we have one other person on our team, Robin Hinkle, who will come up
and just talk to you very briefly about Redmont Health Services and how this facility is
intended to operate and she will also cover this out-patient issue that staff brought up in
his presentation, so --
Moe: Now, that's great. Keep in mind you guys got 15 minutes.
Russell: Absolutely. No problem. Bill, if you wouldn't mind just kind of moving forward
to the enlarged site plan, about two to three slides in. Great. I'd like to touch real
quickly on just some of the issues that Bill mentioned in his report and maybe bring a
little bit of light to a couple of things. First of all, I'd just like to talk about the private
street issue and, basically, we don't -- we are not opposed to the private streets, we just
have a couple of concern`s. First of all, it's our understanding that one of the reasons
why -- why staff and emergency services is requesting a private street is they -- they
feel that that might make it a little bit easier to identify where an emergency might be in
case of one, based on the addressing. I think our original intent was that there would be
an address off of Cherry Lane and the buildings within this development would be suites
or units or things of that nature. In the scenario that we are talking about here with
private streets, obviously, we are going to have two private streets. We are going to
have the street that would enter in from Cherry Lane and, then, we are going to have
the street that runs east and west. Because there are parking stalls and all this type of
thing that are adjacent to these possible private streets, we have a little bit of a concern
of how those might be designed within the development, you know, and there is going
to be, you know, a north private street and an east-west private street on either side of
the north-south -- you know, as far as street names go. Not sure if that makes sense to
you, but we are a little bit concerned about it. It's not a deal breaker for us by any
means and if the city determines it's going private streets is the best -- the best thing,
then, we are fine with that, but just wanted to bring that concern up to you. To us it
seems a little bit more straight forward if there is one address off of Cherry Lane and,
then, suite numbers once you're within the development. But, again, like Bill mentioned,
I'm not a fire marshal either and they may have some -- some special idea in their mind
that we are not thinking of, but we thought we'd bring that up. The other issue that he
brought up was the issue of the trash enclosure and the 150 foot turnaround
requirement. When we originally laid out this master plan we had the trash enclosure
over here at the west end ~of the site just off the edge of this pavement here. When we
went to our neighborhood meeting there were a couple of neighbors that had concerns
about that, because they were on the property that was just to the west. So, what we
did is we sat down and tried to find an alternative location for that trash enclosure and
because this road is going to have across-access agreement or easement on it for
future development to the east, we had to kind of sit it down here at an angle, because
we wanted to make sure that the waste truck could get in there, pull in, grab that
dumpster, dump it, and get out of there with relative ease. And so that's why we located
it where we did. Now, this brings up the problem that Bill mentioned where we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 45 of 71
exceeding our 100 foot length along this drive aisle here. We feel like there is not a
whole lot of options as fare as where that trash enclosure can go and we are hoping that
maybe you would consider waiving the bollard issues, so that we can maintain this little
area here, so the truck can get in there. Now, obviously, that does exceed the 150 foot
distance the fire department requires for their turn around... However, we were thinking
possibly in lieu of bollards that may be we would stripe this area -- this paved area right
in here in a yellow or red type striping that visibly said no parking, those sorts of things.
And, then, the fire truck, Iguess -- the driver of that truck would know to stop at that line
or something along those lines. It's just -- we are talking about ten feet here at the most
and, I don't know, kind of ;personal opinion, I understand why the guideline is there, you
don't want these trucks to get in and get stuck somewhere and have to back too far to
get out of it. However, we are only talking about ten additional feet, maybe we can
make a -- you know, allow us to just kind of go this route, stripe this, eliminate the
bollards, and leave it the way it is, knowing that eventually one of these days this road is
to punch through and, then, the truck will be able to drive through without any issue at
all. So, we are hoping that you will consider that and consider it in your motion. Let's
see here. The other issue that I'd like to talk about is the issue of the multi-use
pathway. I'm glad that Bill brought it up, because that was definitely something we
wanted to bring up and, hopefully, that you could take a look at your conditions tonight
when we get to the point you will be making a motion. But, originally, when we met with
staff -- like you mentioned, there was a ten foot regional pathway requirement on the
north end of our property: After meeting with the parks they said, no, that's going in a
different location. So, we would like to revert back to the original recommendation from
ACHD and put in that five foot detached sidewalk. Let's see here. And, then, the last
issue that -- I'll let Mrs. Hinkle elaborate on it a little bit more on this outpatient issue. I'd
just like to say just real quickly that the intent here is not that this is an out-patient facility
that =- where they have out-patient programs, it's more of people who are in the facility
and get through the residential treatment program, they will return every so often for
after-care treatment and that's how that's going to operate. So, with that I'll just turn the
floor over to Mrs. Hinkle to elaborate a little bit on how Redmont facilities tend to
operate and, then, stand for any questions prior to that, if you have any.
Marshall: I do have a quick one. The 150 feet, did that cut off any of the stalls here at
fhe end?
Russell: It does not
Marshall: It does not. So, that actually -- after the last stall, that's where the 150 feet is.
Russell: That's correct.
Marshalh Thank you.
Russell: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 46 of 71
Hinkle: Good evening. I'm Robin Hinkle. I'm the president of Redmont Health
Services. I'm from Birmingham, Alabama. My address is 1500 1st Avenue North,
Birmingham. 35203. IRedmont's commission is to provide affordable long-term
substance abuse treatment to individuals and their families. Could you put up slide one,
please? I'd like to start with the alcoholism and addiction, as many of you all probably
already know, is a disease that affects approximately 22 million Americans. This is a
disease that does not discriminate. It goes across socio-economic borders. It affects
the very, very rich and the very, very poor across the board. The key these days is
trying to find long-term effective treatment programs to help families through this --
through this disease and through the issues that surround it. And that is what we are
proposing to bring to Boise. We are -- have been working with the state. Part of the --
the folks that we will be treating at this residential facility -- we are going to have two
facilities in the city. This is the residential facility. We have a separate outpatient clinic
that is at a medical office site. Now, this on this facility, it is a 24 hour facility that will
treat both adults and adolescents. It is not a lock down facility. There is also no
medical detox that goes on here. If anybody comes to the -- to the facility, they will
either have detoxed before they got -- they have gotten to us or if they come to us and
they need to be detoxed.,, we will take them to one of the local hospitals or other acute
care facilities so they can be properly detoxed before they come back to us. What goes
on at this facility is -- 'basically it's counseling. It's group counseling, individual
counseling, and family counseling. The -- if you'd go to slide number three. This is the
standard treatment plan. ~It will vary a bit for individuals, depending on what their needs
are. But, generally, the standard plan is that they would have 30 days of residential
care at this facility, which would -- they would, then, follow with continuing care for
individual counseling, group counseling., and family counseling. Basically, it will be 30
days every day residential., and, then, they would come back for 60 days, continuing
care of 14 hours a week and, then, step it down, so -- but the only people at this facility-
- the only people that would be coming to this facility are folks that went through the
residential program. There is a separate out-patient program that those clients will be
handled at that medical office facility. It is in the best interest of the clients here and in
their treatment program to continue care with their counselors with whom they set up a
relationship at this facility and to also continue on with the group therapy and the family
therapy that they need. The people that will be -- that we are -- that we will be serving
are, generally, the middle income group. There is treatment available. We will also be
handling state referrals with -- through the Business Vitality Associates, who act as the
state's substance abuse referral service. So, we will be working with the state -- with
state referrals with employer's assistants referrals and with drug court referral. But this
-- let me emphasize this is not a lock down facility. This is for -- the only folks that would
be able to go through a drug court referral are the folks like -- they are non -- they are
nonviolent offenders. Basically, like a DUI stop or something like that. Those type of
folks where -- if he's not the nonviolent crime or anything like that. It is with the state
and found -- is that it's better to treat these people than incarcerate them and once they
go through the whole program, a long term program -- you have -- the recidivism rates
go down. They gain employment and there are all the -- when you're treating the family
all those good sides for treating both the individual and family are recognized in the
community. So, as we said, there is a Rhodes course on site. Basically, what that is --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 47 of 71
it's like a wooden little area where they go and they do specifically challenge course
types of therapy at each little station. It will look like an adult playground, basically, with
just little stations there. There also will be a -- the primary focus -- the primary staff are
licensed counselors and, .then, also supported by masters of social work counselors.
There will be full. time staff, -- night counselors for the 24 hour staffing and this will be a
licensed facility. There also will be a nurse on site who will monitor physical health and
if somebody needs a referral or to be taken to a hospital for whatever reason, medical
reason, detox reason, she will be there to assist that -- to assist that client. So, we are
here on this residential facility and I appreciate you all taking the time to hear our case.
If there is any questions I'm happy to take them.
Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. First one on the list here is a Don
Clower.
Clower: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Don Clower. I live at 5103 West
Cherry Lane. We are adjacent to this proposed facility. We are right next door to it. My
wife and I are sort of neufral on the facility. We could do worse for neighbors. It could
be better, but we could certainly do worse. So, we are not opposed to the proposed
project. There are some things in the staff report that deeply upset me, though, and one
is the sewer stub. I see that the private road is being proposed to allow access to the
east and west properties, but they are going to bring the sewer out into the middle of the
-- about 40 feet from the property line and stub. When I went to see the city engineer --
he's got a map with a red line on it that shows the sewer going from the north. Well,
there is no sewer to the north. Incline Village, which is the subdivision across the street,
doesn't exist. Their permit has expired. You got 20 acres of weeds. No ditch. It's a
mess. Ten Mile Creek and Eight Mile Creek border all our properties. There is no way
to get sewer across these deep creeks. So, the only way you can bring sewer into the
property up to Ten Mile Creek is you have to come off Black Cat. The Mormon church
-- the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which are brand new facilities, they got their
sewer all there. Incline Village was going to get their sewer off Black Cat, because we
came to those hearings here about two years ago. So, I will bet you a dime to a donut
if they had exceeded in buying my property, which they tried to get the whole 20 acres
there on the end, that sewer connection would run all the way to our property, but
because we decided we didn't want to sell, we wanted to stay there -- we like living
there, we have been there for 30 years, the sewer stub came up a little bit short. I don't
know whose fault that is,; but if you don't allow that sewer stub to come up to our
property line, you have just isolated our acreage out there. There is no way that we
could ever develop or sell the place, because there is no way to get sewer. The second
thing is pressurized irrigation. I was the head of the ditch association out there.. We all
flood irrigate. We have got headgates. We flood for 12 hours to 24 hours, depending
on the amount of property you have. I don't see any way that a piece of property that's
served by Settlers, not Meridian Irrigation District, can pressurize when they only get 12
hours a week to irrigate. The rest of the time belongs to somebody else on the ditch,
because we all pull ditches -- pull gates to flood irrigate. And these trees you talk about
like on the property line, they are old poplars. They are .rotten, full of worms, the wind
blows them down. Two of them are a safety hazard. I wouldn't build a building within
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 48 of 71
80 feet of any of these trees, because the next big windstorm I can promise you they
are down on the ground. Huge limbs like this have already broken off due to wind
storms and have fallen across the fence. Haven't done anything with it, because we are
waiting to see what they were going to do. I thank you for your time. I see my red
light's on, so thank you for,your time.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. ~ Clower, I have a question. So, on the trees you're
recommending that they take them down and not replace them?
Clower: Oh, yes. Well, I don't care if they replace them, but these are 80, 90 foot
poplar trees, four foot base. They are so wormy because we had one down there and it
collapsed and I tried to cut it for firewood and every time you run the chain saw through
you -- it was just like -- the trees are rotted. They are old -- 25, 30 years old. They are
shot. 'If anybody went to look at them and he claims he wants to save them, he doesn't
know anything about trees:
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.,F Fair enough.
Moe: Doug Russell. Thai's what I thought. Well, that was all on that was on the list.
Anyone else want to come`~up and speak? Do you want to come up and respond?
Russell: Just a few key points there. Nothing major. First of all, I'd like to say that on
the sewer issue that this gentleman brings up is that we did meet with Public Works on
the sewer and, basically, kind of followed their lead on what it was that we needed to do
to connect into the sewer system in Black Cat. Fortunately, the developer of this
property does have control of the two parcels that are to the east of -- of this parcel that
we are talking about tonight. Otherwise, we would be in a real pickle ourselves in tying
into Black Cat. But I understand the concerns the gentleman has and we have just
been told by Public Works..that to go any further to the west with our sewer stub is going
to be quite difficult for them in maintaining it and making it work in the future and it
doesn't really work with the overall sewer plan. So, again, it's something that, you
know, we are kind of at the mercy of Public Works and if they kind of decide that maybe
there is a way to possiblymake it work, then, honestly, we are all ears, but today what
we have before you is what they have basically asked us to do and there is definitely no
malicious reason or cost reasons why we haven't taken the sewer stub to the property
line. It's my understanding also there may be some issues on the elevations that the
manhole has in Black Cat 'is not very deep and, therefore, it's pretty difficult to keep that
line specified or the necessary depth the further you get away from it to the west. As far
as the PI goes, we know the issues that we are facing on the property with PI and the
12 hour watering windows~,and those sorts of things. I would just like to add that we do
have some -- some wells on the property that are there for -- for irrigating purposes and
we plan to utilize those and work through the process with the irrigation districts when
we get to that point, hopefully very soon after we get through this process. On the
trees, as Bill mentioned in his staff report, there are 354 inches of trees that we have
denoted on the plan to be removed. We had a little bit of a problem in coordinating with
Elroy Huff in the parks department, he's been extremely busy and he was having quite
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 49 of 71
the time to get out there and take a look at the trees on the site, but he did just recently I
believe about a week or so ago get out to the site and took a look at it and of the 354
inches of trees that we are proposing to remove., only 96 inches of that amount has he
suggested that we need to mitigate for. So, we will make sure that we get that mitigated
as we move through the CZC process. Just want to let you know that just as the
gentleman mentioned, the majority of those trees out there just aren't in very good
condition and are more of a health hazard than anything else. The last thing that I'd like
to go over just real quick -- maybe just plant a couple of ideas in your mind as far as
these conditions go. Just a couple that I'd like to point out in particular are 1.1.26. We
would just ask that you consider rewording that condition to read something along the
lines of -- that you will allow continuing care for the patients who go through residential
treatment in this facility. Again, we feel pretty strongly that this is not out-patient care in
the true sense. Out-patient care being if somebody wants care, but not in a residential
facility, then, they would just drive there on a daily basis and utilize that. This is more of
a situation where in order to come to this facility you have to be admitted and go
through the residential care plan. Only those folks who go through that process are we
asking for them to be able to come back for what we are calling continuing care. So, we
would respectfully request that you -- that you change that condition. The other one that
I'd ask you to take a particular look at is 1.1.2G and that's just -- again, the issue of the
private streets. Not a deal killer in our mind, we would just like to hear your opinion on
that and if you agree with us, great. And if you agree with staff, great. We will move
forward one way or another. But we'd just like to maybe hear the Commission's take on
that. And, then, finally, is in reference to the multi-use pathway, conditions of approval
1.1.2S and 1.2.13. We just ask that we go back to ACHD's original request of a five foot
detached sidewalk., since parks is in support of that. With that I would stand for any final
questions and be seated.
Moe: What was that last condition you said?
Russell: The number?
Moe: Yeah.
Russell: 1.2.13. I believe that was associated with the conditional use.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The pathway.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much.
Russell: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 50 of 71
Newton-Huckabay: Would it be appropriate to ask for some other terminology that isn't
outpatient to describe what it is. Is it just counseling? Continuing care?
Marshall: And I would like to note that what is the distinct difference between continuing
care and outpatient care and how does the city define outpatient care.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I concur with Commissioner Marshall. Bill, do you make a
distinction in the UDC on those?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-
Huckabay, as I stated in the staff report, when you go to our code section -- you go to
our definitions in our code, it specifically -- when you look up the definition of health and
social services, it specifically says outpatient care. It doesn't say anything about
continuing care.. But in our mind, at least from staffs perspective, it's the same thing.
So, that's why we made that distinction in the staff report. Now, with the residential care
facility, obviously, nursing and residential care facilities allows for drug and treatment
facilities as a part of that definition in code. So, that's why with the CUP they are
allowed to do that use, bu,t we are stretching it with that outpatient care portion of it and
that's why we wanted to highlight that in the staff report.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: If we -- we can't allow one and not the other based on their
business model that was explained just tonight. Am I making a stretch there?
Hood.: And Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I don't think you are. I mean if
they came in individually, you're right, with the zoning -- and that's what I want to talk
about. Their zoning is a 'residential zone and a residential zone, if you live there you
can receive those types of care. That's what -- Alzheimer's patients, these types of
facilities are for -- to people that live there. They are associated with them living there.
Is there counseling or therapy or whatever and with all of those types of uses. But if it's
-- you graduated from not' living there anymore, you're onto the next step, that second
step, a 60 day ongoing counseling with your family and coworkers or whatever. It's up
to you. We just wanted to call it out, because in their application it wasn't clear how
much of that was going on. If there is a visit or two after the fact, it's probably not going
to upset the neighborhood. If it's 60 percent of the business plan, which they didn't
have percentages up there, but only 30 days most people are going to be living there,
but they had 60 and 90 days in phase two and three where they could be coming to the
facility, you know, for various hours of the day. But that's where you get to some --
some sticky situations in an R zone, do you really want to have professional offices,
Meridian Planning & zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 51 of 71
because that's really what's going to be operating out of that admin office and some of
those counseling rooms. So, I think you probably could allow it, it's just the strict
interpretation of the code;' staff -- we can't. It's a residential zone and that use is not
associated with housing. I don't know if that helps or not.
Newton-Huckabay: It helps a ton.. That was great.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: This potentially is the wrong zoning for this type of business.
Hood: And I guess, Mr. Chair, if I can, I'm.going to step way back, because we talked to
them three, four, five months ago and this was a way to not have to do a comp plan
amendment in a residential zone. We do allow these assisted care or these treatment
facilities in an R zone. We didn't fully know all the details of what that entailed for them,
what their business plan was, those types of things. So, again, if it's a -- if it's a smaller
portion, if it's until another~facility is up and running where they can have phase two and
three be off site in an L-Ozone or a C-N zone, I would certainly encourage that. Again,
we just couldn't outright permit those things. I don't -- I don't think what we want to see,
though, is zoning this to a commercial district, because, then, there is a trickle down
effect to the adjacent properties and now you're looking they are going to want
commercial and -- and that's not what fhe Comp Plan is looking for in this area. It is
residential.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Morrell: Chairman, Commissioners, I'm with Redmont as a -- Jeff Morrell. I'm sorry.
5748 Becliffe Court, Boise, Idaho. And I'm with Redmont as a local consultant and I'm
also the clinician and I think we are getting a little bit caught up in semantics and I think I
might be able to help this. A residential care treatment facility as part of its initial
treatment plan incorporates an initial assessment of those people, active treatment, be
that 15 days, 30 days, 60, days, whatever. At closure of that initial treatment planning
session -- so, those 30 days -- part of the continuation of care -- what we have been
talking about is having those same individuals coming back to that original program at
that original facility as part of a group process that may not be intensive outpatient
patients. So, in other words, if there is intensive outpatient at facility A and a residential
treatment center at facility B, some of those patients may not go through intensive
outpatient facility A, they may only do the residential treatment facility at B. So, in order
to continue that care, to close that loop for these folks, they need to have an alumni
group.. An alumni group may last three month, six months, a year and what that does it
shows all the other individuals in that residential treatment center that the treatment
program works and they can stay clean and sober and work their program. It's not
intensive outpatient. That's a totally different program. And that's going to be an off-site
program somewhere else besides where this Conditional Use Permit is being approved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 52 of 71
Hinkle: Could I just add to that? The alumni -- the reason they are coming back -- one
of the reasons is to help the folks that are currently in residential treatment. So, it's part
of -- that's the group that -- the reason they are coming back is to help the residential
people.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Ms. Hinkle, I don't disagree or dispute any -- you guys are the
professionals at what you do. But what -- the concern I have about this is -- it's an R-4
zone -- it's R-4 -- R-8. And it's -- in a residential area and- having people live there for 30
days makes it residential, ;similar to a group home for developmentally disabled people.
But having people come back, even though the treatment's valid and good and all that,
still is like coming back to ~a counseling center or getting treatment and maybe that's not
appropriate in a residential zone is what I'm trying to understand. I agree that what you
do is -- all that is appropriate, but is it in a residential zone is the question on the table
forme.
Hinkle: I think if I may answer that particular question. When -- because the zoning we
are looking at is appropriate for residential substance abuse treatment, what we are
describing here is standard residential substance abuse treatment.
Newton-Huckabay: Best practice in your industry.
Hinkle: Yes. What we are talking about is residential treatment. There is a whole other
-- only maybe roughly ten percent of the folks that get treatment go through a residential
program. Everybody else goes through what's called outpatient and there is all different
levels for outpatient treatment and that's covered at a different facility, at a medical
office building. So, what it is zoned for is residential substance abuse treatment and
standard residential substance abuse treatment includes group therapy, which includes
alumni.
Newton-Huckabay. Okay:
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Marshall: I guess -- and I -don't question any of the therapy. It sounds very wise. I don't
know, but I guess one of my biggest concerns is how much trip generation is this
creating? How much traffic? How many people are coming and going daily. Part of the
zoning and trying to watch this is we are trying to watch and control traffic patterns and
make sure that streets are up to par to be able to handle traffic and things like that and
that's why this area has been planned for an R-8 and logically we project an R-8
develops so much traffic, but outpatient -- when people are coming and going daily,
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 53 of 71
could generate significantly more and how much more is that I guess is some of the
concerns.
Morrell: Mr. Commissioner, if I could answer that. It's not a -- it's not a daily trip.
Alumni groups usually meet biweekly, every two weeks, or every 30 days only. And,
typically, it lasts about two to three hours maximum. Again, they are trying to pull the
folks that are working their program back into the facility and it's usually a one time or
two time a month type of deal. It's not a daily thing. If it was daily it would be
considered intensive outpatient.
Marshall: But your -- your first 60 days out was suggesting 14 to 16 hours a week on
two hour sessions.
Hickle: That's if they have. the intensive outpatient --
Morrell: That's the intensive outpatient off facility.
Marshall: Off facility. That's not at this facility. Okay.
Morrell: That's correct.
Marshall: Got you. That helps.
Russell: Mr. Chairman, Doug Russell again. Just if I might, just in case you didn't have
a chance to pour through the many, many pieces of paper I'm sure that you have to
read in a -- on a monthly basis. You know, we went over this with ACRD as well and
their estimate is an additional 114 trips from the facility and they were aware of --
Newton-Huckabay: A day.,?
Russell: Yes. I might ad'd also that the roadway here is better than C in performance,
which is a pretty good grade from ACHD, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I just -- if what Redmont Health Services is proposing and if this is
for residential substance ;abuse treatment, this type of follow-up treatment is standard
and you're going to see that -- see that type of revisit, if you will, back to the facility,
then, I would have to believe., then -- in my mind that -- I'm okay with that being
residential care and appropriate in an R-8 under that determination, if that's -- that's
generally accepted business practice in that profession, so when it says -- to me when it
says you can have a residential substance abuse in an R-8, it would encompass what is
generally accepted as practice in that industry. Does that make sense?
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 54 of 91
Moe: Commissioner Marshall, do you have comments?
Marshall: I have got a quick question, though. Maybe if we could get back to the site
plan right here. I don't know what staff would think of this, but if 150 is up right here at
this edge, we are not losing any parking right here, I guess, either way. Is there any
way to take the dumpster and place it out here in the center, so that you block this off
with bollards and., then, the dumpster sat here on the end? I know that kind of
temporarily blocks the extension of that, but the dumpster still seems to be available. It
sits on the east side, rather than up against the residences on the west side, and still it
could be paved area -- I don't know -- I'm looking for some kind of --
Moe: What are you going to do if you -- well, if they were to develop the other property
to the east? That would have to be relocated as well and it's going to have the access,
too.
Marshall: But wouldn't the accesses, then, be extended through well beyond the 150 --
because it would have a second access back to Cherry and you wouldn't need the stub
with.. the bollards and the dumpster could be moved back into its original position.
Moe: In a motion something of that would be noted.
Marshall: I'm just wondering if staff would find that acceptable or --
Moe: Do you find it acceptable? We don't have to agree with -- remember, that's why
we are up here.
Marshall: Okay. Just trying to find a workable solution.
Rohm: And I guess the thing that I would add to that is is it acceptable to the applicant
to relocate the dumpster to -- to the middle of the end of the drive aisle.
Russell: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to make sure I understand exactly what
you're stating here, but it sounds like rather than having the dumpster here kind of being
accessed from an angle, we would just move it around to the -- so that you would,
basically -- if you were driving down there you would run right into it. The main reason
we didn't do that is because we knew that we had to provide this cross-access
agreement to the east and we knew there was going to be a connection there maybe
one day and we really hated to put the money into screening it with a screen wall and all
those sorts of things. If the Commission maybe could make as part of the condition that
we have to create a pad and maybe just screen it with some landscaping temporarily,
then, that would make it I guess more cost effective for us, but if we are required to build
a CMU wall, put big heavy metal gates on it and those sorts of things and we had to tear
it down and rebuild it, you know, those things can cost you anywhere from 15 to 20
thousand dollars to build. 'So, it's -- you really hate to flush those kinds of dollars, but if
we could do some type of -- I guess that perceived temporary trash enclosure at the end
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 55 of 71
of the street, then.., we are. more than open to do that. It's kind of your call, I guess, on
that one. We are willing to do it if it's more of a temporary facility.
Rohm: I guess, then, the. question is back to staff is -- as opposed to bollards, do you
have any objection to the istriping where it's, obviously, no longer part of the drive aisle
and that they are no longer, exceeding the 150 and -- because the 150 isn't exceeded
until you get passed the last parking stall.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, staff is okay with the striping.. I would
encourage the applicant to speak with Joe Silva in the fire department to see if he would
be okay with that.
Rohm: That just seems reasonable.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: Okay. I have nothing.
Moe: I happen to think it's a very nice project.
Rohm: I'll make the first motion. Are you done?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman -- no, I'm not done.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I have one other note here on the private street, signing and
addressing it. I thought that the applicant made a pretty compelling argument against
the private street potentially, so I -- but I would hesitate to supercede the fire marshal.
He knows more about fhat kind of stuff than I do.
Moe: I would rather keep the private streets in.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: And the applicant did say that they could live with that.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. ,Okay.
Rohm: Okay. All right.
Newton-Huckabay: That is all I have.
Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on AZ 08-008 and GUP 08-015.
O'Brien: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 56 of 71
Marshall: Second.
Moe: Moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 08-008 and CUP 08-015.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed.. That motion carries. '
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I actually have one other thing here. We didn't
have any discussion on Mr. Glower's comment on the sewer stub.
Rohm: I think we can still talk to staff about that.
Newton-Huckabay: It think we just need a statement for --
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if I could give you probably
more about Public Works than you really want to know at this time. Okay. We have an
independent study with JU:B for our serviceability areas for sewer and water. If you look
at the map here, basically, our Black Cat lift station, everything from about where my
shaky hand goes over to the right, all sewers to the Black Cat lift station. Now, those
flows and that capacity is determined off of your serviceability area. In this case the
applicant worked with myself and the city engineer to discuss this piece of property right
here and they provided us with fixture counts for the proposed buildings that they are
going to put in there. What we used that to do was to average out the development of
this property and this property, which they own, flowing back into the Black Cat lift
station. Currently we have a sewer manhole right about there. With the depths that we
have provided, the applicant has actually done some engineering for us and provided
that they are going to bring a sewer line across the two pieces of property they own and
bring it to their property, ending it right there. One of the problems is that the depth of
this manhole right here, running it out a minimum grade to be able to service this piece
of property, we, unfortunately, run out of grade being able to service this piece of
property right here, which is Mr. Glower's. This piece of property and Mr. Glower's are
intended to go to the Can-Ada lift station, which would be -- all the way over here.
Sorry. Unfortunately, that's a developer driven lift station. We currently don't have any
funds or availability to construct that at this time. That's pretty much where we are at.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Just a follow up on that. It sounds like that property of Mr. Glower's is going to
go the other way anyway.
Steckline: It will. As the developments go through, unfortunately, it is the very last
piece on the line.. As the development spurs that will be picked up, sewer and water.
Also, another piece for Mr. Glower. Their water line, basically, ends right here. If we
could by some means doengineering to get your property to sewer we still would be
requiring yourself to construct a water line at Cherry Lane all the way to about right
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 1'7, 2008
Page 57 of 71
here. I don't know if that's very cost effective for you at this time. As that development
comes through, the way that we intend from the Can-Ada lift station, that's probably
going to be a requirement that's going to be picked up by another developer down the
way from you.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. You will have to take that up, Mr. Clower. We did want to
address it here, so --
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: You and Commissioner O'Brien have to make motions yet tonight.
Marshall: Oh. Why? You were doing so well. Let me see. I don't know what 1.12S
and 1.2.13 -- those had to ,do with the sidewalk; is that correct? 1.12 and 1.1.26. So --
Rohm: We can have a little discussion before --
Marshall: Are we going to be able to go with continuing care, as opposed to outpatient
care?
Rohm: Right.
Marshall: Is that correct?
Newton-Huckabay: I think --
Marshall: You think?
Newton-Huckabay: I think' that if we make the distinction that we believe that residential
substance abuse treatment includes the follow-up visits for treatment -- do you agree
with that, Tom? You didn't say --
O'Brien: Well, yeah, Ijust -- the wording is a little strange.. Follow up treatment, I don't
know -- it seems like the ~ - it seems like follow up treatment is the treatment for the
people that come back, it's more that they are the people that provide re-enforcement of
the program than patients ithemselves, even though they have been, but they -- maybe
they were residents prior to that, but they are just re-enforcement and I think that's what
they are talking about, is that they come back once or twice a month and visit with the
people that are there to re-enforce the program.
Marshall: I kind of assumed it was two-fold, as opposed to --
O'Brien: You did. I think that -- everybody benefits, but the reason they come back is to
help reenforce the people that are there, not specifically for themselves.
Rohm: The point is still they are still part of the residential program.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 58 of 71
O'Brien: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I, actually, have all of these conditions of approval up on my
screen. Okay.
Parsons: Commissioner -- excuse me. Chairman, Commissioners, if you, in fact, are
going to change that requirement for the bollards, there are some additional conditions
that should be modified, if we go with the striping, rather than the bollards at the 150
foot length.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.,
Parsons: In particular, that is with Conditional Use Permit 1.2.1, the fourth bullet point.
It makes mention of signs and bollards on the east leg. We are still going to want the
signs stating the road to be extended in the future, but if you want to strike that condition
for the bollards and put in there striping at the 150 foot mark.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay..
Parsons: And, then, part of the development agreement provisions, number O, same
thing, it mentions the bollards, too. So, take a look at that and change that appropriate,
too, please.
Newton-Huckabay: What page of the staff report is the DA on?
Parsons: I just have it -- I just have it as Exhibit B, page one and two, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have it? O? All right. Here. Okay. Leave that open.
Okay. Please. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 08-008 and CUP 08-015, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17th, 2008, with the following
modifications to the conditions of approval: In the development agreement, 1.1.2, bullet
point 6 will be changed to read..: Treatment on this site -- counseling, therapy, et cetera,
shall be limited to the residents on the site. Outpatient services shall be prohibited.
That portion of it needs to be removed. Outpatient services shall be prohibited. The
continuing care of residential patients is allowed. Bullet point G, submit an application
for private streets within the development, we are keeping that one. O. The sentence
that says: Due to the length and lack of turnaround for the east leg, place bollards in
the asphalt at 150 feet. That needs to be removed and replaced with striping at the 150
foot mark. S needs to be removed. The applicant shall construct a ten foot pathway
~- along the northern boundary of the property as proposed. They will, actually, be
constructing a five foot detached sidewalk. That was determined sufficient by the Parks
Department. 1.2.1, the fourth bullet, reads: Signs and bollards. Remove bollards and
replace with striping. 1.2.13, the applicant shall work with the Parks Department to
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 59 of 71
determine the appropriate location of the proposed multi-use pathway. That can be
stricken --deleted completely. End of motion.
Rohm: Second..
Moe: It has been moved and seconded to move on to City Council approving AZ 08-
008 and CUP 08-015, with the modifications as noted.. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?' That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL,AYES.
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 08-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design
Guidelines on 0.83 of an acre in the O-T zoning district for The HUB
Parking Facility by Meridian Development Corporation -north side of E.
Broadway Avenue between E. 2nd Street and E. 3rd Street (200, 226, 234
& 242 E. Broadway Avenue):
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CUP 08-020 for The HUB
parking facility and have the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr.' Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, this is The
HUB project, Item No. 14 on the agenda tonight. If you look at the zoning map up here
you can see all applicable lots with this application. Really, the surface parking is to be
located on these three lots here. A building is proposed for this site and staff has issued
a CZC for that -- phase one of that HUB project. All the parcels are zoned Old Town.
Surrounding the site is the Boys and Girls Club and Centennial Park to the north, zoned
Old Town. Single family residential along the east boundary, zoned R-15. The old
Idaho Trust site, a vacant lot right now, with some dilapidated buildings,, zoned Old
Town. And to the west are some other run down buildings, zoned Old Town. Staff has
also approved a CZC on that site for some redevelopment on this corner. Here is the
aerial. It kind of tells the story. You can see the existing buildings on the site. Again,
these will be removed to make way for redevelopment of that half block section.
Because this is in the Old Town area, CUP approval is required to do a parking facility
in the Old Town district. Also, as you're aware, there are some design guidelines in
place for that zoning district as well and that's the other reason why the applicant is
applying for the CUP tonight. Basically, in the Old Town design guidelines it states that
parking has to be located at the rear of the facility and you can clearly see that with the
phase one of this project,, the parking will be located along -- in front along the street.
So, that's why we are here tonight. Also, there is a streetscape design manual currently
that MDC coordinates, which is the applicant on this project. That requires this
streetscape per their plan and also with the downtown design guidelines that
requirement has the applicant placing some shrubs or fencing here to buffer the parking
area and block -- kind of screen that area. Staff has reviewed that and kind of feels that
the applicant complies with that requirement. Based on the size of this building., the
future building, it is roughly 26,000 square feet and based on the parking calculations,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 60 of 71
they are roughly supposed to place -- required to have 52 ,parking stalls and the
applicant is proposing 57~ on this site. Fifty-five are standard stalls and, then, two
compact stalls are located here. When we met with fire -- and this is just more of a
courtesy to that applicant to -- something to be aware of, but when we met with fire and
we told them the access to this parking lot would be off of this one way alley -- it's
actually a 16 foot road section or alley section, paved section here, they were
concerned about the 25 -- or the 28 -- the radius -- turning radius in and out of this
parking lot. So, I just want to caution the applicant and the architect working on the
project to verify that they do meet the Meridian Fire Department standards for turning
radius into that parking lot. At this time staff doesn't really have any changes to the site
plan or the landscaping plan. One thing I did want to mention to the Commission
tonight is we received ACRD comments after the print date of the staff report, so we will
have to include those. When I do the findings I'll have to attach those into the
document. ACHD had some requirements of the applicant -- I'll kind of briefly discuss
those. One is -- if you notice here, there is some on-street parking located in front of the
building in the parking lot. Well, they want Meridian Development Corporation -- or the
applicant to enter into a hold harmless requirement, basically, waiving the -- they don't
want to be responsible if something happens within this parking area, essentially, is
what it's going to come down to. And, then, also, they want a license agreement here to
have that zoned so that yo,u can't have the outdoor seating within the right of way. With
that staff is recommending approval of the CUP, the Conditional Use Permit, and I will
stand for any questions Commission would have.
Moe: Any questions of staff? No? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Shaun Wardle, 2239 East Griner Street in Meridian.
I am the administrator for the Meridian Development Corporation and thank you for
having me here tonight. In Bill's staff report he makes this area of town sound really
great, in terms of potential and, really, that's my job. We are looking to redevelop this
site, currently housing the former H&H Contractor building, as well as two single family
residences. Meridian Development Corporation purchased those in the fall, went
through a selection process, a request for qualifications for a development team, which
we have selected., entered into an exclusive right to negotiate agreement and are
currently entering into a development and disposition agreement. So, we are here
tonight to process a Conditional Use Permit. Since I have your attention this evening,
I'm going to take just a couple minutes and talk specifically about the project. Bill, if you
wouldn't mind going to rendering number one for me on the CD, please.
Moe: As he's doing that, I do have one question. .Your comments in regard to what
ACHD wants.
Wardle: Yes. I have -- I have currently in front of me an ACHD staff report. Spoke with
the staff over at ACHD last week. They are requiring a number of things. We are
constructing what will be a public parking in the right of way and they would like a hold
harmless agreement from us for their public parking. I understand that that's one of
their standard conditions. So, I have legal staff working on that. In addition, they are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 61 of 71
looking for a license agreement for the commerce zone, as well as a license agreement
for all the trees which we will be building and the development team will be building and
development agency will actually be reimbursing for some of those improvements.
That's part of the negotiation. We are currently in discussion with the highway district
on all of those issues. One other issue that I will bring up just briefly is we are currently
in discussion about 2nd Sfireet. 2nd Street has been identified both by the City Council
and the Development Corporation board of commissioners as an area where would like
to encourage pedestrian walkability. We would like to encourage outdoor cafes, seating
areas, and we are currently working with -- with a visioning process to find out how best
to do that. One of our challenges is fire safety and so we are currently working with the
fire department to make sure that all of these buildings and this new -- and this new
development is safe for everyone working and visiting this site, but attempting to try to
get those pedestrian areas really down to scale that encourage you to get out of your
automobile.. So, that is an ongoing process that we are working on. Here we have
rendering number one. This is, essentially, looking to the north and the east from the
corner of 2nd and Broadway, a three story 26,000 square foot mixed use building. We
are anticipating -- the development team is anticipating retail on the ground floor, as you
see outdoor seating cafes and, then, two stories of office above that. We are also
anticipating a public art project, which you see sort of floating on the corner. It's yet to
be determined, but has been identified by the development team. Bill, if you could go to
rendering number eight, please. By the way, I'm not an architect, but just playing one
up here at the podium this evening, so Walt will get a kick out of that when he gets
these minutes.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, while he's looking for that --
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: Shaun, any possibility downstream that any of these upper office buildings
might be turned into a residential floor?
Wardle: This current facility design will not necessarily allow this building, particularly,
to become a residential building. However, the development is proposed to three
phases. This phase of the development is, essentially, again retail and office. Phase
two of the development proposes to take the parking lot, which is, really, a question.,
turning it into a mixed use development, which does anticipate residential housing within
that development. The challenge there now is, then, replacing the parking, which will
become that residential piece and that's something the Development Corporation is
working towards.
O'Brien: Thank you.
Wardle: Facades on the -- on the south and the west elevations, I can tell you that
tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m. the Development Corporation is processing design
review on this application, essentially, approving the designs as you see them. Staff
has already issued CZC =- certificate of zoning compliance, has been through design
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 62 of 71
review, and we really think this is -- it's a -- I can tell you from my personal opinion it's a
modern interpretation of what our downtown design guidelines are. It gives some color
modulation, as well as some additional glazing and we think it's going to be a great
project. Just back real briefly and, then, I will close, to the reason we are here today.
Ironically, the Meridian Development Corporation set out to -- to craft some downtown
design guidelines, which were, then, adopted by the city. We are asking for you to,
essentially, wave those, because they do not allow a -- a surface parking facility to front
major thoroughfares. The reason that those design guidelines are in place is we want
to encourage density, we want to encourage walk-up buildings, we want to screen the
parking and at some point in time when it becomes economically feasible, we want to
place this in elevated facilities. Today this parking facility will help alleviate some much
needed access to parking ifacilities. We are currently negotiating with the developer that
when they are not utilized by the tenants of the building, i.e., after 5:00 o'clock p.m., on
the weekends, that they revert to public parking and they are available for everyone.
So, that's a goal of theDevelopment Corporation and we believe it's going to be
realized with this project. With that I'd stand for any additional questions.
Moe: Any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. There is no one signed up. There is
almost no one here.
Newton-Huckabay: Now, now.
Moe: In the audience. Any comments, Commissioners?
Rohm: Well, you didn't ask them if anyone else wanted to come up, you just said that
there is nobody in --
Moe: I'm sorry. Is there anyone else that would like to come up and speak? No one's
moving. Now.
Rohm: Well, I feel much better.
Moe: May I get someone to close the public hearing, if you so desire to close it.
Marshall.: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and. seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-020 for The
HUB parking facility. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Comments, Mr. Rohm?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 63 of 71
Rohm: My only comment is I think we need this additional parking and in the short run if
-- it's probably an appropriate solution, given -- we are not at a point that development
has occurred to make what the guidelines are of the UDC set forth in~ this area. So,
once development gets there, then., this parking lot will go away and replace it with
something that meets the specific standards. Do you buy that?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I have nothing to add.
Marshall: I really like the renderings of phase two that was -- had the additional
buildings parking garage across the street, but that's eventually -- and I think those are
necessary. I think we have to go with something like this to get the whole thing started.
You got to get started some way.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: I have a question about the -- in connection about the waiving the design
guidelines, what part of that -- if we were to make a motion on that, what -- how would
that be stated? The staff is asking to waive some part of the design guidelines. Maybe
Bill could answer that.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission.
Moe: Yes. Go ahead.
Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, that's why we are having the CUP, because they can't
meet all the criteria of the design guidelines. So, you're not having -- you're not -- in
your motion you're not saying there is -- you're not requesting them to waiver from a
specific standard, you're just --
O'Brien: Okay. That's what I was wondering. What number we needed to use.
Moe: Okay. Are there any comments from anyone? If not, may I --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve file number GUP 08-020 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
of July 17th, 2008. With no modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-020 for The HUB parking
facility. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: We are going to take a fairly quick break.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 1'7, 2008
Page 64 of 71
(Recess.)
Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 08-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design
Guidelines on 1.07 acres in the O-T zoning district for City Hall Parking
Facility on E. Idaho by City of Meridian Planning Department -SEC of
Meridian Road and Idaho Avenue (33 E. Idaho Avenue):
Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 08-017 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design
Guidelines on 0.71 acres in the O-T zoning district for New City Hall
Parking Facility by City of Meridian Planning Department - SWC of Main
Street and Broadway Avenue (641 N. Main Street):
Moe: I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 08-018, as well as CUP 08-017, and
start with the staff report, please.
Hood.: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you noted there, we are going to be talking about two
applications, but, in fact, there is a third application, an alternative compliance request
also accompanies the two conditional use permits. Typically those do not require
Commission action, they are a staff level action item. However, because the request is
not consistent with resolution 07-583, staff is requesting that the Commission decide if
the alternative compliance request is appropriate in this case. Staff thought it would be
appropriate for the decision to be made as part of a public hearing, rather than at the
staff level. Just a real quick of Resolution 07-583. It was in the staff report. Basically,
what it says -- it gave the planning director direction to -- in cases of alternative
compliance for parking in downtown, to try to use the in lieu fee that MDC has recently
reestablished to get some of that -- some funds for future parking structures downtown.
So, there is seven or eight different provisions in there, but that's, basically, why Anna
has punted to you to make the decision on if this is appropriate or not. And maybe just
another point. I'll speak in. the third person quite a bit, because the applicant, in fact, is
the Meridian Planning Department and we wrote the staff report, so, you know, it's a
little bit of a -- I'll use the same terminology we would if it would have been someone
else applying. But, again, we applied for it, we wrote the staff for it, and you get to make
the decision if it's appropriate or not. So, location and size. The subject property that
we are on tonight is 1.07 acres and the other site shown on the screen is .71 acres.
They are both currently zoned to OT. Of course, this site, 33 East Idaho where we are
at this evening, and this 641 North Main Street where there was previously a Shell
convenience gas station, the adjacent land use and zoning -- I won't spend too terribly
much time with that, as you will walk to your car you can refresh your memories with
that. The application -- the city is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for two
surface parking facilities that do not meet the criteria of the downtown Meridian design
guidelines. The guidelines require that surface parking lots be located behind buildings
and have landscape screening at the street. And just so -- for Commissioner O'Brien
and the rest of the Commissioners, if you -- the question came up at the end of the last
hearing, .you don't, again, specifically have to make any approvals of any of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 65 of 71
elements in the downtown design guidelines that aren't being complied with -- our
ordinance says if you can't comply with every single one of the guidelines, apply for a
CUP, and if there is some: other mitigation that the Commission believes appropriate to
make the intent still happen, that's -- that's the process. So, I just wanted to explain that
for future reference. That's -- we call those out in the staff report, just whatever the
guidelines that aren't being complied with, but you don't have to make a specific motion
on that if you like the project. So, regarding CUP 08-018, again, that's the one
regarding this site that we are at this evening, current City Hall. This is an 8,000 square
foot building that parking as you know is not behind the building as required by those
downtown design guidelines. There are 44 parking spaces currently on the site.. You
enjoy, if you park here .on; the east side, you enjoy some extra wide parking stalls. In
fact, with this application we are trying to pick up as much parking as we can and we
are going to restripe those and pick up two additional parking stalls, for a total of 46.
These parking stalls -- or at least a portion of them, are proposed to contribute to the
total number of required spaces for the new City Hall, which is located approximately
200 feet to the south and for this existing City Hall building that is to remain. Because
our code requires on-site .parking and this site, obviously, isn't on the same side as the
new City Hall building, that's why we submitted the alternative compliance request. In
fact, there are three reasons why we submitted it. I'll touch on those here in just one
more minute. The use of the subject property at City Hall, obviously, will cease to
operate as City Hall when the new one opens. If the subject CUP and alternative
compliance applications are approved, 30 of the 46 stalls will count towards the required
spaces for the new City Hall. The remaining 16 stalls, again, will stay with the building
and any future leasing or whatever happens with this building can be associated with
that. The other substandard portion of our current parking is wheel stops. We don't
have wheel stops and require everyone else to put wheel stops in. So, that is a
condition of approval that wheel stops be added to the parking stalls on the subject
parking on this site. Switching gears now to CUP 08-017, as I mentioned before, there
is a new City Hall building. That building is under construction just to the west of the
parking facility site. This application proposes to use 52 car parking spaces as parking
for new City Hall. So, there is 52 car parks. There is 45 in here and an additional six in
here and if the subject CUP application is approved, the stalls will count towards, again,
CZC -- towards City Ha11: This proposed design, much like the last application --
actually, the last two applications; it doesn't fully comply with the design guidelines;
because it's on -- right on the corner of Broadway and Main. So, you have got a surface
parking lot that's not behind a building. Further, the facility is not proposed to have
hedges or a fence to screen the parking as required by the guidelines. There are some
trees and some tree grates. You can see the grates and the trees in there and some
additional landscaping and kind of some of these pockets in here. But there is good
pedestrian connectivity. W;e wanted to keep that open, it gives a nice vista into the new
City Hall and awesome plaza that's under construction right now. So, we didn't think
that the screening was appropriate in this case:. It also allows for a future area in front
of the sidewalk if by chance the Farmers Market or some similar type of use ever comes
back to this part of town, to have a commerce zone along the sidewalks, so you could
have some vendors set up some tables there and things and have enough elbow room
to still let pedestrians get by in there. So, that street section is what we are trying to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 66 of 71
accommodate in that instance. So, the alternative compliance request. The two City
Hall structures together total 87,.870 square feet. Therefore, by city code a minimum of
176 parking stalls are required. As an alternative, a total of 166 parking stalls are
proposed to serve both buildings. That's leaves a shortage of ten stalls. As allowed by
UDC 11-3-C-7, the applicant is proposing three alternatives to the standard on-site
parking requirements of UDC 11-3-C. As an alternative to the on-site parking or the in-
lieu fee parking -- in-lieu parking fee, the applicant is proposing to use 30 parking stalls
at the current City Hall site, 33 E. Idaho, as I mentioned. Further, the applicant is
proposing to reduce the required number of stalls related to areas used primarily in the
evening. So, what we are saying is this is a large building and there are some big
rooms in there, specifically Council's chambers, the historic commission meeting room,
and amulti-purpose room,, that those three buildings together total 5,000 square feet.
And those typically aren't used during business hours from 8:00 to 5:00. So, we are
asking that parking not be required for those, because they are not being used during
the day. It's really a shared agreement is what we are calling it, in fact, is that after
hours there will be enough parking for those uses, because everyone that uses it the
rest of the day will have gone home or a vast majority of them will have gone home. So,
that's one -- one reason how we can justify the ten less stalls is that's 5,000 square feet,
therefore, there is your ten stalls. We will also touch on that a little bit -- or I will touch
on that a little bit more here in a second. Finally, we are proposing to count some
motorcycle parking towards the required standard car park requirement. To mitigate --
to further mitigate the ten parking stall shortage and as an alternative to providing
standard ear parking, motor bike parking is proposed., So, we are looking at adding
some improved, signed, striped, motor bike parking in this general vicinity. It would be
for bicycle parking. It would for motorized licensed vehicles in the state of Idaho or
other states, I guess, if you get them licensed there, but some alternative -- encouraging
some alternative or additional modes of transportation to and from the site. So, those
are the three requests. One is the off-site parking here at City Hall. To share some of
these -- this parking for -- for the three parts of City Hall that aren't currently -- typically
used during business hour's and to provide the remainder of them in an alternative form
for motor bikes. So, the hours of operation for the proposed parking -- surface parking
facility is 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and just like The HUB project, after that
time the proposed parking facility can accommodate downtown patrons for business or
-- or other uses downtown after hours, evenings and weekends, again, if there is a
Farmer's Market or something like that. Access -- no access is changed -- proposed to
change to the existing City Hall layout. Again, the only change, really, is we are going
to try to pick up a couple more over here with some restriping and all of them will have
wheel stops where there aren't wheel stops. And, then, the new parking facility access
is proposed. Ingress and egress are proposed from this access point to Broadway and,
then, this will be an exit only. This is a public alley, exit only back onto Main Street.
You can turn around in here and., then, re-exit back out that -- again, ingress-egress
point. I would note we are still currently working with ACRD on the exact design of the
curve from this driveway into the public alley. We have gone -- I have see at least two
or three plans. The curve is a preferred option. It's not the only thing -- ACHD would
maybe like to see this squared off at a 90. They have some concerns about this -- this
Zamzows maybe in the future wanting to have access as well, so bring that in at a 90.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 67 of 71
So, would ask for a little flexibility in this approval, because this may or may not change
somewhere, but it will, essentially, be the same thing, an exit only out onto Main Street.
I just want to make you were aware of that. Landscaping. I touched on the landscaping
and grates, instead of the hedges or fencing at three feet along your street site facade
for this project arid, then, as you know, I don't think these are quite at three feet tall, but
there are some nice tree -- or shrub plantings at the end of those parking rows, so we
will just maintain those at approximately that three foot height and it screens the -- the
parking stalls very nicely. So, staff is recommending approval of the conditional use
permits as presented in the staff report and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Moe: Are there any questions of staff?
O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. On the parking -- the parking signage
indicating where this alternate parking for the city visitors -- whatever that's going to be
around the other side, because it's not really site available if you`re looking for a parking
place for foreigners, if you'will.
Hood: Yes. And if I can -- this isn't necessarily maybe your question, but let me
elaborate a little bit -- and I'm not on the parking committee., but I have sat in on one of
their meetings partially. They are looking at leaving the subject site for this CUP open
for general public and if they do reserve some spots, there may be a few that are
reserved in here for heads of departments, the Mayor and Council, something like that.
But, generally, this .row will all be no staff parking. This is general public parking.
Again, there is 45, 46 stalls, plus six additional stalls up along here. So, that will be all
public parking. They are looking at dedicating some of this for staff parking, as well as
the off-site -- this for staff parking, not general public. We don't expect the public to walk
from this site to the new City Hall. It will be staff is expected to make that across the
street walk to get to work, rather than requiring the public to do that. I don't have
numbers, I don't know exactly how many are going to be -- and how you -- if you draw
out of the hat to see if you get a stall or it's assigned here or first come, first serve or if
it's a sticker in your window or -- I don't quite know how that's going to work. They are
still working through those details, I believe, at least the last meeting I sat in they were
still working through some of that stuff. I do think there are going to be a couple of stalls
probably reserved in this area for a fire marshal, police, something like that, so they can
come and go -- a reserved spot. They will have a sign there saying -- much like we do
here, do not park here, this is reserved 24/7 for the fire marshal or whatever. But other
than, there really aren't a lot of parking stalls, signs, that are going to be listed. They are
talking about some -- a sign or two right at -- right near this entrance saying this is a
public parking lot associated with City Hall.. Please come in. You know, something like
-- something to that effect. We do believe that will probably be the main movement into
the site, too, is probably from that, not -- especially if you're southbound on Meridian
Road, you probably aren't going to want to wait here to try to turn into this parking lot.
So, again, in the future there should be a light here, too, that would help this left turn
movement into here and if there is not something along the street, even, where you can
just run in real quick and pay your utility bill, this whole parking lot will be -- I don't know
if that helps or not. I guess another -- another point that goes with the alternative
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 68 of 71
compliance. is we will have some signage on this site saying if, in fact, this is totally full
and you can't find anything., there will be additional parking at 33 East Idaho.
O'Brien: That was my question.
Hood: You can go there, too. And we will stripe this parking lot to say this parking lot
is associated with that building, don't park there unless you're using City Hall between
8:00 and 5:00 or something like --
O'Brien: That was my question. Thank you much.
Moe: Any other questions? Well, there was no one signed up. There is a couple
people out in the audience. Anyone want to come forward? I'm getting no takers.
Commissioners, any comments? I have got a couple of comments. Number one, I
received a -- basically, a small memo from the proprietors of the Busted Shovel saying
that they were pretty much in favor of the parking. And, then, a couple comments in
regards to -- to the project here. As I went through it, you know, we are looking for
alternative compliance. I guess if this wasn't the City of Meridian, I don't know that we
would be so keen to possibly approve this, but at the same time, I look at the new City
Hall and the square footage and how much of the square footage is not going to be
occupied, per se, you know, I think the car parks will -- I believe there will be plenty out
there. So, I'm not concerned that we are not making, you know, the full amount
possible. So, I guess, quite frankly, I would have liked to have seen a little bit of
forethought in -- before the City Hall was done when we were asking questions about
where would everyone park, but that's not the case, it's coming after the fact, so if this is
the best we can do, we need to go forward..
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman -- oh, go ahead.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the other thing I could add onto
what Caleb said., part of .the discussion on the parking, too, has been to have limited
time parking as well, so that there is turnover. He's correct, there will be some
designated parking in that lower parking lot there on the drawing, but I think the other
public parking lot will have some limited time and enforcement to, then, have some
turnover, so that other businesses, some currently now, other people park in the city
parking lot for businesses that aren't in business in the City Hall building. I think we are
going to have more of an enforcement in here. So, there will be more turnover, so that
way it won't be quite as congested as it might seem and like Caleb said, a lot of the
building either isn't going to get occupied immediately or there is areas that are really
very low traffic type of uses.
Moe: I guess one other thing I would note., there are street parks up there on Broadway
and that those don't get put into the equation as far as counts, so there is additional
parking up there as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 69 of 71
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes, ma'am, '
Newton-Huckabay: The only comment that I want to make on this is it makes sense
and the application makes sense, but we are going to have an application come in from
a private citizen that's going to make sense also and I'm going to be a little less inclined
for -- to be hypocritical of saying, well, it's a downtown guideline that worked for you, but
doesn't work for us and so that's one thing that I want to be very clear on. I think that
was not a very well thought out downtown guideline when it was put together, but I -- it
makes sense. I think that : - that a business just like the folks at the Busted Shovel, they
just got a whole bunch more parking spaces when this gets built for them to, you know,
help with their business and I think that's -- that's wonderful for any downtown business,
but I'm going to have a really hard time giving that the two first big applications we have
in downtown Meridian are the Meridian Development Corporation asking for alternative
compliance and the City of Meridian asking for alternative compliance. So, I just want to
go on record saying that, that if they come before us, that we look at them all
individually, but if it -- if it makes sense, it makes sense. Other than that, I'm -- I'm
excited to be able to come together and I'm excited to see opportunities to park
downtown, so --
Moe: Mr. Marshall, any comments?
Marshall: Mine have already been made forme. Thank you.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: I think she did a wonderful job. That was exactly my concern is are we being
hypocritical. Are we causing a future problem. But I -- I don't know. I think it's a
concern and I think it will be in the future somewhere. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and I think you're going to see just like you have in
downtown Boise. Some :developments work with the parking on front and not in back
and I think we are going to that -- guideline I just don't think is -- I guess the spirit with
which it's intended, but it's not off to a very healthy start.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and Commissioners., if I can, just
real quick. I think the idea with some of those guidelines, particularly the ones where
we are looking for parking behind the structures is if you can make that happen, we can
make the process a lot easier for you. If you can't, go through a CUP. It's not -- it's not
thou shalt and if you cant we are going to recommend denial of you. It's we are really
trying to give them a carrot and say, hey, try to design with your parking in the rear. If
you don't have the lot size, if you just can't do it, come to us with a CUP and we had
other ones. We had a -- on Cherry Lane we have had a couple in the past two months
that didn't meet all the downtown design guidelines and staff came across favorable to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 70 of 71
those applications, too. So, it's not like we say you're not complying with our guidelines,
go away. We do try to encourage them to comply with as many as possible and full
compliance some day will be great in the downtown core.. So, I hear what you're saying
and I agree with you, but as far as surface parking lots, you know, again, we were
shooting for the sky and hoping that people can design it this way and we can just at
staff level get them through the process, but there are just instances where it's not going
to work. If I may -- and I know it's getting late, but one more just quick question -- or
point that isn't official, but I think we will continue to work and think -- you know, being a
planner I don't think this is the highest and best land use on this property. You know, if
we can -- you know, it's going to take some time and some funds. I could see a
structure going in here and providing additional parking, too, as well as on the current
City Hall site. I don't thank this is the highest and best use of this property. So,
eventually, I certainly see -- you know, 20 years when we are occupying more of City
Hall and downtown is booming more and we do really, really have a parking problem, I
could see some of these properties -- in fact, two of the ones we are talking about
tonight transition to those more intense ones that are in the spirit of our downtown
design guidelines, do have vertically integrated stuff, you know, with parking behind and
garages and those types of things. That's just a side note, but, you know, I do think this
works for the here and now even probably for ten or 15 years and, then, maybe within
ten years we can get one, of these as a garage or a mixed use product, so -- at least
that's my hope and we are not just going to let it die with -- we got through the CUP and
the alternative compliance,, we can -- you know, I can go back to, you know, doing other
things. This will definitely be on the front burner that we will continue to discuss with
MDC, the Mayor and Council and the powers that be, so --
Marshall: Have to agree. Years ago watching Boise's surface parking suddenly
cascade into parking garage after parking garage very quickly. It happens. Suddenly
cascaded.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 08-018 and CUP
08-017.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: IYs been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-018 and
CUP 08-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Any comments from anyone? More comments I guess I should say.
Rohm: I think we should move forward.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
July 17, 2008
Page 71 of 71
Moe: Well, that would be my request as well.
Rohm: Okay. With that being said, Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we approve CUP 08-018 and CUP 08-017 to include all staff reports
with no changes.
Moe: Would that also include the alternative 08-016?
Rohm: Yes, it would.
Moe: Okay.
Marshall: I'll second that.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-018 and CUP 08-017 and the
alternative compliance 08-016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: All those in favor? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRfED: ALL. AYES.
Moe: We adjourned at 111:22.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:22 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APP
D I'D MOE - CHAfRMAN
ATTEST:
DATE APPROVEi~ ~'
~1.~ ~ L
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY
SEA
,~~
4~ ,~' .