2008 08-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 2008
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 7, 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: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, 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. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly
scheduled meeting of August 7th of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and
ask the -- like to go ahead and call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll,
please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
At this time we will take it in order as it is. Can we get a motion to approve the agenda?
Rohm: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 2 of 61
B. Approve Minutes of July 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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:
E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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. 2"d Street and E. 3~
Street (200, 226, 234 & 242 E. Broadway Avenue):
F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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):
G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Can I get a motion to approve
the Consent Agenda?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 3 of 61
Moe: It has been moved and second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Now, if we could just keep going with that speed we would be in good shape
tonight, but I don't think that's going to happen. As a matter of fact, .before I open the
hearings, number one, I would like to let you know as far as on the record this evening
we will not open any hearings beyond 11:00 p.m. tonight. When we get to that point we
will probably hear the one we are at and, then, we will call it a night, basically, and staff
is going to explain a little bit more about tonight when we get over there, but I just want
to make that known right now, so we are not all here until the a.m. hours. Okay. The
next thing on the -- what I'd like to do is just kind of give you a description format how
tonight will go. I will open the public hearing and, then, the staff will give an overview of
the hearing. 'After which they are done, the applicant will have 15 minutes to review the
project as well, giving additional testimony in regard to some of the findings of the staff
report. After that time there are sign-up sheets in the back for any of the public that
would like to speak tonight. Each person will be given three minutes to, basically, give
their testimony. After all the signatures have been taken care of, I will ask, then, one
more time if there is anyone else that would like to speak. If there is anyone else, just
raise your hand and you will be more than welcome to come up and have your three
minutes. After that the applicant will, then, be given an opportunity to come back up
and rebut any testimony and give further explanation from the public comments.
Item 4: Public Hearing: CPA 08-005 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 33.59
acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for Kennedy Commercial
Center /Western Electronics by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC and Herman-
Treasure Valley Business Park ILLC -1250 W. Overland Road:
Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 08-003 Request for Rezone of 27.17 acres from I-L
to C-G zone for Kennedy Commercial Center by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC
-1250 W. Overland Road:
Moe: Having said that, then, I would like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-005 for
the Kennedy Commercial Center / Westem Electronics and for the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Before I get into the details
on the subject applications, I did just want to remind you it's in all the staff reports for
this evening, but just a quick refresher on state code and these Comp Plan map
amendments. You are only able to forward on a recommendation to the -City Council
once every six months. So, if you're ready to forward one on tonight, you need to be
ready to forward on a recommendation for them all on to -- at the end of tonight. We
just received two late letters from folks that are later on in the agenda, Items 13 and 15
just asking to be continued to the 14th. So, if you accept those letters, there is no way
we are going to make it through all of the items on the agenda this evening. So, I guess
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 4 of 61
we will go ahead and have the hearings, you can certainly deliberate, ask questions. I
would just ask you to not make a final recommendation on the projects, you can even
close the public hearings if you don't need anymore information, but, please, don't make
a final recommendation, because if we do, again, we have to be prepared to make
recommendations onthem all, so -
Moe: Caleb, before you start, should I go ahead, then, and open the other RZ 08-003
as well?
Hood: Sure.
Moe: In that case, then, I will open the public hearing for RZ 08-003 as well. Thank
you.
Hood: So, the subject property is -- contains 33.5 acres of land. The property does not
include all of the area proposed for rezoning. I'll get to that in a second. The subject
property is everything in gray here, with the 45 slashes through it. The area that's in this
area is proposed for rezone as well. It's all currently zoned I-L, but there is an existing
Westem Electronics building on this site, which no rezone is proposed for at this time.
It's located, as you can see, on the north side of Overland Road between
I-84, Meridian Road -Meridian Road would be here. Linder Road is here. So,
approximately halfway between those two arterials. To the north of the subject
property, again, is the interstate. To the east, as I mentioned, Westem Electronics and,
then, Mountain View Equipment also has the property further to the east. To the south
Overland Road and there are existing rural residential properties. You can also see the
Freedom Storage facility located south of the subject site. To the west are vacant
properties, zoned industrial at this time. The large property there is zoned industrial.
The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map, to change the land use designation on 33.5 acres of land from industrial to
commercial. So, as you can see on this slide, it's currently all shown as industrial. This
is, if approved, what that same area would look like, the red commercial. A rezone is
also requested to amend the zoning designation on a portion of that area. 27.17 is the
area contained, again, on the undeveloped area around Westem Electronics. And that
request is, again, to C-G. So, general retail and service commercial. The rezone, of
course, is contingent upon the Comp Plan amendment being approved as the zoning is
-- hinges on the change on the future land use map to the new designation. The
applicant states in their application letter that if approved they intend to develop a
portion of the property with a 35,000 square foot adult education and office facility and
rent it to the University of Phoenix. The current I-L zoning of the property and industrial
land use designations do not allow for education institutions in the UDC. Just a real
quick history, too. This site was approved for Westem Electronics and other future uses
in 2001. It did allow some non-industrial uses with that approval, such as day cares and
offices, but did not specify education facilities. A preliminary plat was mostly recently
approved by the City Council and this Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded on a
recommendation for that in 2007 for 11 commercial lots. So, this site plan should look
real familiar. You all looked at this preliminary plat here less than a year ago now. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 5 of 61
site plan that the applicant has submitted shows one access point to Overland Road at
the east -- at the east property boundary. So, there is an access to the existing Western
Electronics business. And there is another access proposed with the subdivision near
the west property boundary. Also, there is a private street -- I think it's Tech Lane --
that, basically, is in the middle of this property that was approved previously by the city.
The conceptual site plan shows how the property proposed to be rezoned may develop
in the future. Two three story office buildings, consisting of 66,000 square feet each,
along with a two story office building, consisting of 45,000 square feet, and a two story
education facility consisting of 35,000 square feet for the University of Phoenix are
depicted along the frontage of Interstate 84. Four office buildings, consisting 39,475
square feet. One bank building, one restaurant building, and one retail building are also
depicted internally adjacent to Overland Road. Total square footage of commercial
uses shown on the site plan is 270,475 square feet. The total number of structures
shown is 11. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for the north
proposed two story education facility. One, two and three story office buildings. Single
story restaurant buildings. Retail buildings. And the single story bank. All the building
materials depicted on structures consist of brick and stucco, with a variety of accent
materials, such as stone, CMU, timber and metal. Staff has reviewed the proposed
elevations and building materials and believes they represent high quality design and
materials. Staff is supportive of the building elevations as proposed and has included
that as a DA provision, which I will touch on here in just a second. Staff believes that a
development agreement is necessary for this project to insure that the site is developed
substantially in accordance with the proposed conceptual site plan and building
elevations. A couple of the DA provisions proposed by staff in the staff report include --
and Iwill just read this. This is provision number two that currently says: The detailed
site plan and building elevations submitted with any CUP and/or CZC application for the
site shall substantially comply with the conceptual site plan and building elevations
submitted to the city and with a requirement of a subject development agreement.
Construct a minimum of eight and a maximum of 14 buildings on the site. No footprint
for a building shall exceed 20 percent of the square footage shown on the conceptual
site plan. Further, no building shall exceed three stories in height. The applicant shall
comply -- and onto number five. It is a pretty standard one. It says the applicant shall
comply with all applicable provisions -- previous conditions of approval for the site for
the CUP from '01, the preliminary plat from 2007, and the final plat from 2007. The
reason I read that DA provision is on Tuesday, August 5th, the applicant submitted a
written response to the staff report. The applicant is proposing to change the language
in DA item number two regarding the site plan and elevations. I want to just pause real
quick and make sure that everyone did receive a copy of that a-mail. Okay. Basically,
the applicant is requesting greater flexibility in the number of buildings. Where the DA
talks about a maximum of 14 buildings, they have proposed up to 35 and a maximum of
total square footage allowed. They put in a number where staff didn't have one before at
324,570 square feet total for the development. And they have also added a restriction
that no -- no single building exceed 80,000 square feet. So, those are changes to that --
that DA provision number two. Staff is generally supportive of the applicant's proposal
to modify that DA provision. I do want to make the Commission aware, though, that the
-- the 35 building request is substantially different than the site plan that was submitted
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 6 of 61
and reviewed. So, if there is up to 35 buildings on the site, it certainly isn't going to look
like the site plan you see in front of you. So, it's hard for me to envision that. Generally,
our main concern is that it's not a bunch of big boxes. So, I'm not overly concerned that
they may all be 5,000 square foot buildings, but I did want that -- to call that out to your
attention that it's a pretty substantial change from what they have shown to what they
are requesting in the develop agreement modification. The highly visible location of this
property on Interstate 84 makes this property a good candidate for commercial use,
rather than industrial uses as currently shown on the Comp Plan future land use map.
Staff believes that the location of the property is optimal for commercial and not
industrial uses and as such will provide a more attractive building facade adjacent to a
major transportation comdor into the city than buildings likely would. Additionally, the
commercial use and zoning that already exists on several of the properties to the east,
would help provide for a contiguous string of commercial uses along this section of
Overland Road along the interstate. So, let me go back to that map real quick and just
show you -- again, we are here with the industrial. It really does group together some
more commercial properties that currently exist farther to the east. So, staff is
recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit -- excuse me -- the
Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone as presented in the staff report with
the changes proposed by the applicant in the a-mail dated August 5th. However, staff is
recommending that these applications be continued to the hearing date of August 14th,
as we discussed earlier, so we can forward on a recommendation on all of these at the
same time. That is the end of staffs presentation. I'll stand for any questions you may
have.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please. And, please, come up and state your name and address for us,
please.
Andrus: Richard Andrus at 251 East Front, Boise, Idaho. I'm also here with a couple of
the representatives from DBSI, the applicant in this matter, Russ Merrill and Allen
Durrant and we will also have some representatives from Metro Commercial Properties
and the University of Phoenix if there is questions that could be directed at them.
That's, really, the element of the project that kind of got the ball rolling on this
application. Oh. And just so you're aware, I'm not going to take the 15 minutes. I
agree whole heartedly with what staff has said up to this point. I think they did a great
job on it. And just a couple points of clarification if I could. The property here was -- as
Caleb had mentioned, was Comp Plan for -- zoned for industrial and there is a unique
set of circumstances with a Conditional Use Permit that didn't allow the University of
Phoenix to come in in the industrial zone and looking at what kind of Comp Plan
changes have occurred within the past six, seven years, in addition to what Caleb had
mentioned to the east -- to the west of this project the Ten Mile plan was just completed
and there is a significant portion of commercial just to the west also that was included
within that area plan. So, it just makes sense for this entire area through here to be
changed to commercial. Just to highly -- quickly highlight those changes that we
discussed in that a-mail, DBSI doesn't have a problem with design review. We support
that. As far as the development agreement, we are fine with that. We understand the
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 7 of 61
city's looking for high quality development here and that would allow the city to make
sure that that interest is protected. We would ask that we -- that the Commission
consider those -- those changes and recommend them to the Council. If I could just
explain a little bit kind of what's envisioned here and why the 35 buildings was used.
Something similar to what's been done with the EI Dorado business park where we
have these small individual units with -- with ownership within the -- within each of those
small units. That's kind of what's envisioned here. We realize that's a departure from
what was done with the earlier subdivision and in dealing with the square footage, in
talking with staff it was indicated that, really, the city's concern is that there would be a
large format building that would come in and there wouldn't be any oversight and so we
actually proposed this square footage language. I believe the prior language had tied it
to each individual building and the reason why we have proposed a total is because
even with the numbers of the buildings that staff had proposed, the eight to 14, if there
is any change in -- between eight to 14, we could quickly run askew of that 20 percent
change that staff was recommending. So, we went with a total number and, then, a limit
on the largest size of each building and that's really an explanation for why we felt that
language could work for both DBSI and the city. With that I think I'll stand for any
questions, but --
Moe: Well, I guess I do have a question for you. In fact, before the 14th or at the 14th, I
guess, I would like to see -- can you give us a site plan showing us 35 buildings of what
that would look like? We are going to want to have some idea of kind of what you guys
were thinking to put 35 buildings on that site. I would at least, anyway.
Andrus: Maybe that's a question I could actually direct it to one of the representatives
for DBSI and maybe we could discuss the number, why 35 was used.
Merrill: Regarding the --
Moe: Name and address also.
Merrill: My name is Russ Merrill. I'm with DBSI. And my address is 8330 Dorado --
Emerald Drive, Boise, Idaho.
Moe: Thank you.
Merrill: And the general thought on that -- we are -- currently want to have the flexibility
on this plan to address market conditions. This was a preliminary site plan we had
drawn up and we have been in discussions with a partner here in Boise about
developing more of an EI Dorado type site where we have the small 2,500, 5,000
square foot individually owned office buildings that you see being used by professional
firms and such and what we envision on that is where you see the four central buildings
lined up in the center is reconfiguring that with those smaller buildings. The 35 is
somewhat of an arbitrary number, because we haven't drawn up the site plan that would
show that. I imagine it's going to be considerably less than that. Probably somewhere
in the range of maybe 12 to 15 of the smaller office buildings in that location -- in that
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 8 of 61
area, while maintaining the larger, more high profile office buildings along the frontage
of I-84. So, that's what we envision with that change.
Moe: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Well, at this
time there is no one signed up to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like
to come forward? No takers. Okay. Any comments, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: In the proposed language that the developer has here it says that
the developer shall apply for a Conditional Use Permit to construct less than eight and
greater than 35 buildings on the site. I would rather see that since they don't have a site
plan and they have even said it's an arbitrary number, you're talking about a
substantially large amount of buildings on there. I'd rather see that, that they would
have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit similar -- I'd feel comfortable maybe up to 15
to 20 buildings going that route and anything other than that I'd like see a Conditional
Use Permit, because I think you're going to start to have traffic flow issues. I mean EI
Dorado has public streets running all through it. So, I'm a little concerned about this as
we don't have any public streets running through this property to what there is and such
to move people between that many buildings. And so I'd like to see that at a complrised
at 20 or under.
Moe: I think that's a fair compromise, as opposed to trying to have a moving site plan
and whatnot. I think as long as we can regulate it a little bit, that would probably be the
way to go.
Newton-Huckabay: Generally supportive of the idea of the total square footage for the
entire development, though. I think that's probably a more appropriate way to address
that. Any other comments, Commissioners?
O'Brien: I agree with what you say. I was going to mention that, too. I think that 35 is --
is abig number I think to go into without really seeing any kind of a site plan. I don't
know if they mentioned what type of businesses would be going in there -- in that. Is
that important to consider?
Newton-Huckabay: Well, you're going to see anything that would be approved -- it's a
C-G.
Moe: Yeah.
O'Brien: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: So, you could see any kind of commercial.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 9 of 61
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything further.
Moe: Okay. If there is no other comments, can we get a motion to continue?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, shall we state our changes as if we were making a
motion and continue? It's -- it's been six months.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, you have some
options here as I see them. I mean I'm not quite sure if you totally want to pull back off
the table the applicant coming with a si#e plan that showed 35 and if you guys bought off
on that saying, okay, this .is how it could happen and we are satisfied that traffic flows
aren't impeded by 35 buildings or if you just want to change it now, you certainly could
close the public hearing, make -- you know, make it clear that's where you're going with
your motion, but you can't make that motion until we are ready to move all these
forward. So, I hope that made sense. So, you could leave it open and have them come
back and address that. The only thing you could come back and anyone could testify
again -- you do have options.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, my preference would be to agree on the number of 20 or
less and close the public hearing and continue it.
Rohm: If we just close the public hearing, you can put that in your motion at such time
that we move all of them forward. That works for me.
Marshall: Agree to that.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 08-005
and RZ 08-003.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-005 and RZ
08-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair'?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we continue CPA 08-005 and RZ 08-003 for the
Kennedy Commercial Center to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 14th,
2000 --
Moe: That will, actually, be a special meeting on August 14th.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 10 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. A specially scheduled meeting for August 14th, 2008.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-00 and RZ 08-003 to the
special meeting of the Planning and Zoning on August 14th. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Public Hearing: CPA 08-006 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land. Use Map to change the future land use designation on
11 acres of land from Mixed Use -Waste Water Treatment Plan to Office
(2+/- acres) and Low Density Residential (9+/- acres) for Kartchner by
Richard Kartchner - 4325 and 4315 N. Ten Mile Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-006 for Kartchner and
ask the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I should have mentioned
last time, these first three agenda items -- I'm, actually, filling in for Sonya tonight, so I
particularly wanted to mention that with this one, because there is a pretty in-depth
noise and odor study that was analyzed by Sonya when she wrote the staff report and I
did not have the time to -- I read through her analysis in the staff report, but I didn't go
through that document and try to make heads or tails of it. So, Scott Steckline, I
believe, is a little more familiar with that, so any questions you may have regarding that
study, I think he's more prepared to tackle those than I am. But I did just want to put
that disclaimer out there that I'm familiar with these, but not as intimately as Sonya is, so
-- Kartchner -- this application varies from the last application in that it is only a Comp
Plan map amendment. There are no annexation, preliminary plats, development
applications submitted concurrently. So, it is only a change to the -- a proposed change
to the Comp Plan map. The subject property consists of two tax parcels located at 4315
and 4325 North Ten Mile Road on the west side of Ten Mile, approximately a third of a
mile south of McMillan. The parcels contain approximately 11 acres and are currently
zoned RUT in Ada County. To the north of the subject site are some single family
residential properties zoned RUT and R-2. The R-2 is city subdivision, Drawbridge
Subdivision. To the east is Ten Mile Road and commercial offices and Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision. They are kind of cut off that area. You really can't see them.
Zoned L-O and some R-4. To the south are rural residential properties, zoned RUT in
Ada County. To the west are -- is agricultural property zoned RUT also in Ada County.
The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map by changing the land use designation on the subject 11 acres of land from mixed
use wastewater treatment plant to office and low density residential. The office request
is for approximately two acres along the frontage of the property and the low density
residential would be, then, the remaining approximately nine acres behind the proposed
office. This property, as I mentioned, is currently designated mixed use wastewater
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 11 of 61
treatment plant. The following standards apply specifically to mixed use wastewater
treatment plant designated areas. Light professional offices, flex space uses, including
light warehousing. No new residential uses will be permitted. Existing residential will be
allowed to remain. Limited small scale retail uses, mini storage uses, are examples of
uses allowed in this designation. This site was designated as such to reduce human
exposure to odors and noise generated from the nearby wastewater treatment plant,
which you can see the city-owned property is right here, the subject property is
highlighted in the green there. So, it's less than a thousand feet away from the
wastewater treatment plant property. The applicant, as I mentioned before, did not
submit any development applications, but they have submitted a conceptual site plan
with some elevations also shown on that site plan, showing how the property may
develop in the future. There are 17 single family residential building lots, four office
retail buildings. You can't hardly make those out at this scale, but, basically, four office
buildings in there and a common area lot. Access to the site is proposed from a street
that runs approximately right up the middle of the property out to Ten Mile Road. A stub
street slash cul-de-sac is proposed at the north property boundary for access to the
rural residential property northwest of the site at 3417 West Elk Bugle Lane. So, that
would be this home right now. No stub streets or pedestrian pathways are shown on
the south or the west of the site for interconnectivity. Further, there is a private street
easement that runs along the north boundary of the site. That's actually where that
home previously mentioned on Elk Bugle takes their access, as well as these
properties. There is -- I believe the aerial shows it a little bit better. Let me jump back
there. That red line kind of goes right over the top of it, but there is a shared access
private street right up the north property boundary of the site. That will have to be
vacated in the future when a development application is proposed in this area. Two
story residential buildings -- elevations are depicted on the conceptual plan submitted
with the CPA application. There weren't any conceptual building elevations shown for
the office buildings. Without an annexation and zoning application and subsequent
development agreement, the city cannot require the applicant to develop the site
consistent with the submitted concept plan and elevations. If the subject CPA is
approved, the site may be developed entirely different from the plan and elevations. So,
that will hold true for all these this evening that we only have a Comp Plan map
amendment proposed. We don't condition those. There is no way to condition them.
This is the owner's -- applicant's representative's best guest at how they intend to
develop the property, but as the market changes or shifts or new property owners
acquire the property, the site plan could look entirely different. So, I just wanted to put
that out there as well. So, the City of Meridian had an odor and noise assessment
prepared for the wastewater treatment plant in 2004. The assessment was prepared by
Carollo Engineers and it was intended to assist with evaluation of development
proposals in the surrounding area. This study designated a buffer zone, approximately
4,000 feet, around the wastewater treatment plant property line. This buffer zone is in
the area that the study determined is affected or may be affected in the future upon
expansion of the plant by odors and noise created by the operation of the wastewater
treatment plant. I have a bunch of slides in here. I'm not going to try to bore you with.all
of the lines. Basically, in a nutshell, there are two levels that are talked about in the
study. Level one is kind of some intermediate mitigation and the impacts that it would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 12 of 61
have on adjacent properties. Level two would be some pretty stringent improvements
that would be -- that would be put up on the water treatment plant site. These could
include air scrubbers and tall walls and other things to keep odor and noise basically
contained on site. Right now there are no plans to make the wastewater treatment plant
a level one or a level two facility, but those are what's evaluated, basically, in the -- in
that study that was done and it shows, again, basically, if you're assuming -- I think it's
seven DTs is acceptable, your nose -- the human nose can pick up things at seven DTs.
So, there is frequency charts, as well as duration -- or -- yeah. Duration, frequency, and
levels, of course, that are expected based on current conditions, future conditions, and if
the plant is improved to level one or level two standards in the future. I do want to read
a few of the excerpts from the staff report. At level one the subject property is shown
have a peak DT of between 26 and 50, with a frequency between 40 and one -- 40 and
160 hours per year that are greater than seven DT. These levels exceed the accessible
level for odor control. Upon expansion of the wastewater treatment plant to capacity --
right now that's planned for 2023, but we don't know exactly when we will get there to
capacity. If there are no odor control devices in place, the subject property is shown to
have a peak DT of between 37 and 64, with a frequency between 98 and 250 hours per
year that are greater than seven DT. These levels far exceed the afore-mentioned
levels of acceptable odor control. As I mentioned before, our wastewater treatment
plant has not been rated. It's not required to be rated and it's neither -- it's even at a
lesser level than the level two or the level one, so -- noise levels weren't evaluated in
that study, but certainly noise from the process can have an impact on adjacent
properties. Because the odor generated from the wastewater treatment plant and the
area of the subject property exceeds the odor control performance standards noted in
the wastewater treatment plant odor and noise assessment, staff cannot support
residential uses in this area. Staff does not believe that low density residential uses on
this property are appropriate, as the property lies within the mixed use wastewater
treatment plant designation and is within the area affected by odors and noise
generated from the wastewater treatment plant to the southwest. Further, staff believes
that a mix of commercial uses would be more appropriate in this area, as allowed under
the current/future land use map designation. Staff believes the existing designation is
the most compatible designation for the property and that new residential uses should
not be allowed in this area at this time. Staff does not believe approving the requested
CPA to change the future land use designation for this property would be in the best
interest of the city. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the subject application.
As with the previous application, we are not asking that you make that recommendation
this evening, though. That is my presentation and I will stand for any questions you
may have.
Moe: Are there any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 13 of 61
Kartchner: My name is Richard Kartchner, 4325 North Ten Mile in Meridian. First of all,
I guess I'd like to just state briefly that the main objection of staff is the odor and noise
problem that they perceive to be a problem on this piece of property. Caleb, could you
do the -- show the aerial for a second?
Hood: Is that one okay? It's the aerial. It's just got those other lines on it. Or do you
want me to go to the other aerial?
Kartchner: Yeah. The one with the satellite. That -- there we go. So, I think any other
-- many of the other comments or their concerns about noncompatibility with the
surrounding area are -- are not a valid argument. As you can see, there is all kinds of
homes here. These are the kinds of homes that we would propose to put in the back
half of this property. And even the existing homes south of this are similar to the kind of
homes that we want to put in. All of these people, including ourselves, would like to
protect our -- our property value by providing homes compatible with those surrounding
us. There are homes -- many homes like this over here in Drawbridge as well. Also,
the proposal to put commercial in the front of the property is very consistent with what's
happening on this side of the street and when the Ten Mile Road is increased in width
and whatnot, then, that will become even more compatible with that kind of use and our
proposal is to provide a buffer between this commercial and the residential, so that it is
acceptable to all of the people that are here that are in the area presently. These
people have no more desire to have the kind of use of the land that the treatment plant
designation allows, which is storage facilities -- I don't know. Auto -- auto-type things.
Commercial, industrial type use that we don't -- nobody here would like to see that and
so we are providing an alleviation of that problem on this piece of property. Now, if I
can talk for just a minute about the noise and odor. First of all, I'd like to eliminate the
concern about the noise. Even the staff report on page ten indicates at the bottom of
that page, if you want to turn to that, that noise wasn't even considered in the
evaluation, because all of the reading of the noise were taken on the wastewater
treatment property and those levels are so close to acceptable levels based on some
evaluation of other sites, that they don't think it's an issue either. So, the only thing we
are really concerned about is odor and I have lived on this property for the last 20 plus
years and have never experienced an odor problem there. Now, I can't say never.
Some calm summer evenings once in awhile we get a little drift of it -- of some of the
plant odor. But, essentially, it's anon-issue. You have never had complaints from this
subdivision of odor from that treatment plant. The city has never had that. Now, can we
go to another one of those -- the -- yeah, the line maps. Now, you do have problems
down here with complaints from people because the prevailing winds go like this from
north -- from northwest to southeast and so these odors, whatever they might be -- and
they are sometimes excessive -- blow into this subdivision. They don't blow up this way
to this subdivision. So, the odors are just not a problem. I think that the evaluation of
this study -- and it's a fairly thick study, as Caleb has suggested, was done -- hasn't
been done carefully and applied directly to the land use here. There -- this is our
property right in this little square here and as you can see it's between these two lines
and there is many many homes in this area and down in this area, way down into here,
that are in that same category and because of the prevailing winds you do get some
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 14 of 61
complaints here, but never any up this direction. And, in fact, we are outside of that
area of concem. One other item I would like to mention in concem in regards to the
odor is that these levels to -- to simplify it, the level -- the dilution level of odors in these
areas have -- are based on a subjective evaluation that's a computer model. There has
not been one measurement of odor, because odor is so objective you just can't
measure it. And so they assume there is going to be some sort of throw or diversion of
the odor and, then, put it in a computer model and, then, they overlay it on the land and
so what we have here is an evaluation based on the computer modeling and it doesn't
mean anything unless you have got some actual substantial information and that
information I have given you, I guess, is that it doesn't exist this way of the plant. If
there is -- if some of this information -- and I assume there is some relevance to it, of
course -- is acceptable, then, when '03 comes along -- '23 comes along and the plant
has been expanded, they are going to have to do some sort of treatment of whatever
they do, because the odor levels are unacceptable for the kind of use that the treatment
plant has designated. So, whatever they do, if they expand the plant, they are going to
have to do some odor control or you will be outside the acceptable levels of odor even
for the commercial use designated. That said, I still don't think it's a problem, even
though there will be treatment and some mitigation of those odors, that those odors are
not going to be affected by this parcel. So, I would entertain any questions, I guess?
Moe: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. First
sign up is Brent Rassmussen.
Rassmussen: Brent Rassmussen. 4315 North Ten Mile Road, Meridian, Idaho. So, I
also live on the property. My property is the one under consideration and most of my
information has been said, but odor is, obviously, the biggest hindrance right now to
changing it. I have lived there for 16 years and have never had an offensive odor there.
And only occasionally, once or twice a year, been able to even know that -- notice it.
And both my wife and I have obtained a copy of the study that was done and went
through it quite thoroughly and we are outside the limits, like they are saying, of the
prevailing winds, make it such that that particular property is outside the -- the range
and a lot of other houses exist within it already that were outside the boundaries of what
the city has done. So, I wanted to just reaffirm that I don't think the odor is really a
concem, because I have lived out there and haven't noticed it.
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Moe: Thanks very much. The next name was Beth Rassmussen. From the audience
she passes. Again, that was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else that would
like to speak? There is no one. Any comments, Commissioners?
Rohm: I have a couple of comments.
Moe: Commissioner Rohm.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 15 of 61
Rohm: This kind of reminds me of -- of a new development going in adjacent to
farmland where they are raising cattle or growing beets and in the past what we have
done is we have said, well, you know, this other condition existed prior to your
application and we have always made it a -- I don't know about always, but we have
traditionally made it a part of the plat, that if accepted that they put right on those lots
that it is adjacent to property that's been previously developed and the potential is there
for the added odor or something to that effect, but allow them to continue with their
project, full well knowing that that could be an issue. The one thing that the applicant
did say that makes sense to me is that the prevailing wind does come out of the
northwest to the southeast and there are subdivisions that have developed that are
probably insolenced by the odors from that plant significantly more on an annual basis
than this property itself. So, I guess my thoughts are I kind of agree with the applicant's
comments.
Moe: Okay, Mr. Rohm. Anyone else?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple questions.
Moe. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: One, I'm curious what kind of factor is put into the calculation to
account for wind in this odor study, because it does seem somewhat uniform as it
explodes out from the center and if it does even have a calculation for wind. And then --
we will answer that one first. Thanks, Scott.
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, as Caleb
stated, we did a study in 2004. I just wanted to clarify, just because they are in between
these two units of measurement doesn't mean they are outside of that area of impact.
What it is is it's from area 100 to area 50. In the book -- give me just a second. What
that is is a dilution content. So, they are, actually, in that area of impact. They are not
fully absorbed by it, it's just it has a longer duration time to threshold from area 100 to
area 50. The other factor I wanted to make was over the lasts three years we have
been doing some plant upgrades to the Meridian wastewater treatment plant. We aren't
currently sanctioned by DEQ for noise and odor. This assessment is for the year 2023,
with the impacts of new clarifiers and digesters; we might potentially have some noise
and odor factors heading north to these properties. For the noise, they did do most of
their assessments within the wastewater treatment plant and that is computer modeled,
as the applicant stated. What they did with that computer modeling was took the
duration dilution to time from how far it went from a generator within the plant to the
fence and carried that out without obstructions and that's how you get your set ratio for
it. In the report they do not show a wind current factor for noise and odor. What they do
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 16 of 61
is they projected out off of a computer model also. The other factor that the applicant
had brought up with the developments around the surrounding area, these were all
approved before our study was done in '04. Had we had that study done before we
would have not allowed residential components to go in this area. I know that was kind
of long winded. I apologize.
Newton-Huckabay: That's okay. On the dilution to time, what is getting diluted? How
are you measuring --
Steckline: Basically, what they -- this study that we had done -- I apologize -- for a level
one to a level two -- and keep in mind the treatment plant is not rated at a level. We are
not required to by DEQ. What we wanted to accomplish was to stay ahead of the grade
curve and be proactive as opposed to reactive with the treatment plant. From that,
basically, what is being diluted is like you can put a muffler on a diesel backup
generator and that will muffle the sound, kind of like Caleb has said. An attenuator wall
that blocks the sound from going. But we have a couple other things on plants -- on our
plant that we can't -- can't noise reduce. Like we have a dog kennel that's in a facility
there.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. I guess I'm talking about what -- how is that -- so, the dilution
to time is for noise, not odor?
Steckline: Is noise, yes.
Newton-Huckabay: So --
Steckline: There is also for odor for our -- for our digesters. There is -- they had a
study. It would be about 2.8 million dollars for the digesters, to have those to the point
of where you would not have a DT at the fence line. We currently don't have that
budgeted at this time.
Newton-Huckabay: And we will or will not in 2023?
Steckline: It -- that's a question for the Public Works director. I'm sure we do have
money budgeted, set aside for plant upgrades. We have gone through a lot of annexing
other properties into the north and to the west that will be dumping into that wastewater
treatment plant. We also have two other wastewater treatment plants out at McDermott
for those surrounding areas, but with development kind of being spurred down right
now, we are allowing other developments to flow to our Black Cat wastewater -- or
wastewater treatment plant until that time when those developments
can build those treatment plants out there, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. You're going to have to -- I'm sorry, you're going to have to
keep --
Steckline: Sony. I know it's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 17 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: No. You're going to have to humor me on this, because this is stuff
I don't have a total grasp on. So, this computer model here on this slide, that's
measuring noise? That greater than seven DT is noise is what you're telling me? Or it's
some measurement of some chemical compound of odor?
Steckline: I apologize. We have seven slides. This is for level one for odor control. Go
to the next slide. This is for level one for frequency control, which is noise. This is if the
plant has set aside the funds to do the noise and odor, which has been outlined in this
book, for controlling methods for a level one at the wastewater treatment plant. Go
ahead to the next one. This is odor control for a level two and, then, the next slide is
odor control for level -- or, excuse me, frequency control for number two. This is the
slide that the applicant was referring to. This is the most stringent that we have for our
study that was done in '04. So, this was four years ago at plant capacity with smaller
digesters, smaller diesel generators. So, yes, he is outside that area of impact, but now
with the growth of the treatment plant and not even being a level one or a level two, if
we did the study today, those areas would probably grow even further.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Steckline: That's why we are asking for you to recommend to keep that boundary that
we have set and abide by this book for the noise and odor control for the wastewater
treatment plant designation.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you.
Steckline: Thanks.
Moe: Mr. Marshall, do you have anything?
Marshall: I don't have any questions, but I have to admit I -- I think a lot of work went
into not only the odor and noise control studies, but an awful lot of work went into the
Comprehensive Plan and that area was set aside with the idea that that plant would be
expanding in the future- and that when it does oftentimes you get people that will come
in and complain to the city at length that we have destroyed their property values and
everything else. And that would be out in the future. I have no doubt that the applicant
is right, that there is probably no odor or noise problems at this time, but I worry about
the future.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I want to comment. I do have an issue that this analysis
doesn't account for wind. I mean ignoring that is really looking at an analysis in a
vacuum, because you're always going to have wind, you're always going to have wind
patterns, and that -- I think that's -- I think that that's an Achilles' heel and understanding
as well as I can this, that I think without some kind of a wind factor in that -- in that
equation to calculate these boundaries, I don't really think you're telling yourself a true
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 18 of 61
story. But, then, also I'm sure that a lot of money -- I know a lot of money was paid to a
lot of very smart people to do this analysis, but --
Marshall: Again, I agree that there may be an Achilles' heel there that when maybe
something that should have been factored in -- I don't know, to be honest. I rely on the
experts. That's what they do for a living and that's what they are hired for and, again,
the study is about the future, not right now, and that's what bothers me.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any comments?
O'Brien: Pretty complex issue. I like the analogy Commissioner Rohm made about
knowing that there is an issue there for a subdivision or before buildings are built --
before residential buildings are built and on the same -- the same token, the increase in
usage of the plant downstream is going to -- I think going to provide a true measure of --
of the issues that will come out and if I was to buy a piece of piece property on the sole
word of previous owners that surround the area, even if I sign something, there is going
to be I think potential for complaint, either against the city, against the previous
homeowners, or something that may cause a problem and Ijust -- I think that the true
measure right now -- that's the only thing we have, we don't measure the wind, which I
wish we could, but I think that would be helpful. But right now the only measure we
have is what study has been provided and later on, if things -- when things change, I --
we don't have that crystal ball to say, yeah, there is going to be a problem, no, there is
not going to be a problem. I just don't think this is going to work. I just don't think it's
going to.
Rohm: I do have just one additional comment.
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: The property to the south of the wastewater treatment plant has come before us
on a number of occasions for redevelopment and we have consistently not allowed
development that -- that circumvents this same type study. I don't know that we have
referenced that specific study, but, basically, the wastewater treatment plant was there
first and adjacent properties can only be developed based upon their compatibility with
the existing wastewater treatment plant. So, that -- I guess there is more than one way
of looking at this than just the fact that it would a nice redevelopment to protect the --
the properties of the existing people in that vicinity. But we also have in the past kept
other people from redeveloping on the south side of that same plant. Just throwing that
out.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 19 of 61
Moe: Newton-Huckabay. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I want to ask Scott another question. Can you answer my question
why there is not a wind factor in that study?
Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, I cannot. I can
speculate a little. I think when the study was done, the first preface in the book is that
the surrounding areas that they looked at were all farm -- farmland. I think it might have
been even a taxer study at the time when they accomplished it, opposed to if we did this
study to today's standards and today's date, I think you would find more stringent areas
in there, but as far as factual evidence in the book stating why they don't, Idon't -- I
don't know. I don't know if it's something that they can calculate or if they can factor or
how exactly they would do that, to be honest with you.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And odor is measured primarily on perception, is that how
I'm reading this and understanding it?
Steckline: That's -- Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, it's
dilution to threshold. In other words, it's basically what -- kind of what Caleb had said is
the human nose, how it can be -- an odor can be detected and with the study that they
did from our digesters, figuring out from the point of where the digester is working in
relation to the wastewater treatment plant, how that travels in time -- or in feet per
second to where a human would be and how fast that reacts to their -- their sense of
smell.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay.
Steckline: So, you're also going to have a dilution factor with wind. I think with as much
time as we have spent on the odor section, it's more of a noise problem. I think we are
going to be proactive in the future with the wastewater treatment plant, because odor is
more offensive. We are definitely going to take care of that. It's the noise. With the
construction that we have going on right now, we have got cement trucks and
construction trucks working out there all the time. Also, with the mechanical
mechanisms that we have working the wastewater treatment plant, too. Your most
offensive thing is going to be the noise. Any complaints that we generally get from DEQ
are for noise, as opposed to odor.
Moe: Well, that just shoots my theory all the way down. My biggest concern, quite
frankly, was the fact that the DT levels and such and whatnot, when they go to expand
this thing, based upon the study and whatnot, they are going to be 37 to 64, you know,
peak levels, you know, that would be a way greater level and, therefore, it's going to be
more offensive, you know, as this plant expands.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 20 of 61
Moe: That is a big concern with me and, no, I don't know that I won't put something on
the plat saying, yes, I understand that, but, gee, I still want to build here. Yes, Mr.
O'Bien.
O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. I -- just to add to that. And I agree with that. I live
about a quarter mile from a feedlot and the prevailing wind, which is south of me. The
prevailing wind right now is usually from the west, but if those -- one or two instances
during the summertime when the wind does shift, oh, wowy, you sure know it's there
and it's very offensive. If I -- if I was to build in this area, and even if I signed whatever, I
fear that as this thing increases in noise and odor, that the value of the homes are going
to go down and I fear for the homeowners of the future, more than anything that this is
going to get worse before it gets better. The waste treatment plant is always going to
be there, the feedlot will not, so I had my concern.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh.
Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment on the -- because there is no development
agreement, approve -- recommending approval on just the land use map in such a
controversial area -- we are going to get ourselves into trouble on that. That's going to
come back. If I were to recommend approval of a residential development in this area, I
would want apretty -- pretty high level of comfort about what it was going to look like
and the -- I think I would want to see a development agreement with that and I think the
-- I think that the applicant's being extremely optimistic that they will be able to build and
develop that subdivision the way they have it planned out. There are a lot of places to
build homes in this valley right now and not very many of them are next to a wastewater
plant and those are some pretty -- I think it's very optimistic that -- that that's not going
to be a detractor and so I would myself -- I agree with the applicant that when -- what
little base of knowledge I have, the study is flawed. I think the wind is a key factor. I
live in north Meridian and I agree with you on the odors. I think that -- that from a
perception level that they do blow -- blow predominately to the south and all those folks
who live in Bridgetower probably go, hum, wish I would have known that before I moved
in. And so I -- but I am not comfortable just making a Comp Plan amendment
recommendation.
Rohm: I think that's going to be the consensus of this Commission. I think you have
well stated it. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: I think we have discussed this --
Newton-Huckabay: He gets to rebut.
Rohm: Oh. Go ahead.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 21 of 61
Kartchner: I do get a rebuttal, I guess; right?
Moe: Yes.
Kartchner: I appreciate your concern. But this is our property and we feel like this is the
best thing for that piece of ground and we are willing, without any problem, to put a
statement in our selling agreement that notifies these people of this question. I'm a
professional engineer. I have had this study for awhile and I have studied it. I don't
want to shed any ill light on those others that have stated this, but I also don't want
misinformation given out. All of these graphs here are odor only. They have nothing to
do with the noise. The noise is a different section of the study. Frequency and dilution,
DT levels, is a odor measurement here. And this frequency issue that we are saying
may be a problem here is 195, maybe, maximum if there is no treatment. That's eight
days out of 365 days. Very small impact. So, also prevailing wind is an issue. The fact
that this odor measurement is done without any uninhibited movement and there are
trees. If there is a development made there will be more trees, more buildings, more
stopping of any kind of odor migration that might go that way. So, we feel comfortable
in being able to develop this land as we have shown it, without -- without a problem.
And maybe not today or next year, but soon. And so we would still request that you
honor our request to have this changed and be able to do what we need to here. I
understand that your job is to evaluate these things and I would expect you to be able to
tell people south of the plant that the prevailing winds make it pretty stinky and maybe
you can't approve that space. But north is a different story. Completely different story.
And I would expect you to take that into account and do what needs to be done for
ordering the city in that way. We think this is a very good use of the land in that area, as
I have stated initially. Thank you.
Moe: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I have a question.
Rohm: Go ahead.
Newton-Huckabay: I want to understand -- I just want to make sure that I fully
understand the implications of -- if this Comp Plan amendment were approved, this
would, then, be zoned -- or have the future land use designation of office and low
density residential, which, then, if the applicant were to find that they could not develop
the property, they could apply for a step up to R-4; right?
Hood: Let me jump in there real quick. R-2 and R-4 are both consistent with low
density on the Comp Plan future land use map. So, if you're looking -- if they requested
a step up, they could potentially step up to an R-8. We have even looked R-15 before.
I don't think they'd probably do that, but there is potential without having to go through
this whole process again.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 22 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: And you can apply for that step up on the short plat -- or you have
to come back before us.
Hood: It's done with annexation.
Newton-Huckabay: With your annexation. That's right. Okay. Boy. I still think I -- I
don't disagree that potentially residential is a good use here, but I think approving this
just as a Comprehensive -- or a Comprehensive Plan designation, without a
development agreement, I think is a risk I'm not willing to recommend to City Council.
Moe: Any other comments before we need a motion? Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-006.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-006. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue this CPA 08-006 to the special meeting of August 14th,
2008.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-006 to the special meeting of
August the 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 08-001 Request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 15.46
acres of land from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community
for Janicek Ten Mile /Chinden Property by Janicek Properties, LLC -
SWC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-001 for the Janicek Ten
Mile /Chinden Property and ask for the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 23 of 61
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is my last one for
awhile. I'll tum it over Bill after this one. Again, this is Sonya's staff report and I will
make the presentation on her behalf. The site is located on the southwest comer of
Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road. It's a 15 acre property currently zoned RUT in
Ada County, as you can see on the map. The adjacent land uses include to the north
State Highway 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, and rural residential properties in West Wing
Estates. And they are large 75 percent open space that was platted with that
subdivision in Ada County. To the east is Ten Mile Road and agricultural property. To
the south is agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west is aglricultural
property zoned RUT in Ada County. I think the next slide -- this slide maybe shows it
best. The current city limits for Bainbridge -- the Bainbridge development currently do
this. I believe that the developer of this subdivision still owns this property, but has not
come into city for -- for annexation or development right through that property. So,
that's why it says ag on those sites. But it's under the same ownership as the rest of the
Bainbridge development. So, the subject property is currently designated medium
density residential on the Comp Plan map. The requested mixed use community
designation allows up to 25 acres of nonresidential uses, up to 200,000 square feet of
non-residential building area, and residential densities of three to 15 dwelling units per
acre. So, the applicant is proposing to change all 15 acres -- approximately 15 acres
from the medium density residential designation. The yellow. This is all medium
density residential. To the mixed use community. One of the brown shades on the
map. All the land surrounding the subject are, again, designated medium density
residential. Staff believes that the map currently depicts appropriate future land uses
site for medium density residential designation. As with the last application, the
applicant has not submitted any development applications or conceptual building
elevations, but they have submitted a conceptual development plan showing how the
site may develop in the future. The plan shows one multi-tenant retail building
consisting of 12,808 square feet. One bigger box retail building consisting of 50,180
square feet. Four retail office buildings, each at 2,853 square feet, fronting on Ten Mile
Road and 39 multi-family residential units in the southwest quadrant of the property.
Access to the site, as you can see, is depicted from one full access point onto state
highway at this location and one full access point to and from Ten Mile Road at this
location. So, those two access points create this L-shaped road, the two arterials. No
stub streets or pedestrian pathways are proposed to adjacent properties. This site is
located on the comer of two major arterial streets. However, staff does not believe that
the design of the site shown on the concept plan sufficiently demonstrates how the
proposed mixed use development will compliment adjacent future residential properties.
Again, there is no pedestrian or vehicle access shown to any -- any adjacent properties.
Staff believes additional transitional uses are needed at the perimeter boundaries,
probably at least one, if not both of these areas more residential should occur, because
we are looking at residential, again, when this property comes into the city as well.
Further, the UDC specifically prohibits access to State Highway 20-26, a major
transportation corridor when a change or increase in intensity of use is proposed. For
these reasons, if the map is approved and the site is eventually developed as a mixed
use project, staff will not support access to Highway 20-26. ITD also does not support
access to 20-26 from this property. You should have a letter from them in your packet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 24 of 61
Access to the site should solely be provided from Ten Mile. Stub driveways or streets
should also be provided to adjacent properties to the west and south for future
connectivity. Again, because we try to limit those curb cuts to arterials and collectors,
the existing Comp Plan designation for medium density residential makes the most
sense. This could develop with medium density and usually medium density
subdivisions, although they would probably take it if we gave it to them, it's certainly not
contingent upon an access to a state highway. So, the site could develop without that
need as residential. If something similar to this -- we do see -- you might as well count
on there being an associated variance application with it, because there is the proposed
access point to the state facility. So, staff is not supportive of the proposed mixed use
designation for the site and does not believe that commercial uses are appropriate,
because of the location of the site adjacent to Highway 26 and the associated lack of
access and the residential nature of the rest of the surrounding area. Staff is
recommending denial of the CPA application and that's the end of my staff report. I will
stand for any questions you may have.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward?
McKay: Can it get any hotter in here? Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 1029
North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the Janiceks on this particular application for
a map amendment. I need to give you a little bit of history on the property, just so you
kind of have an understanding of how this particular parcel came into this configuration.
Caleb, could you put up the vicinity map? Yes. Thank you. Initially, the Janicek farm
consisted of 220 acres. They sold 205 acres to Brighton and that's what you see, a
portion of that 205 acres was annexed and approved for a preliminary plat as
Bainbridge Subdivision. In their initial negotiations with Brighton they had a provision in
their contract that stated that they wanted to retain this 15 acres here at the comer for
the possibility of some future commercial development and that Brighton would provide
some assistance as far as submitting for this type of commercial activity when they
submitted the remainder of the property. Well, at the time it was submitted showing all
of the parcels as residential with this commercial comer, the staff was not supportive of
it and said, you know, if you don't -- the Comprehensive Plan states that's medium
residential, you're asking for commercial designation without a Comp Plan map
amendment, we, obviously, could not support the application and we would have to
deny the whole application, unless you remove this area. So, they eventually decided
that they would just cut the project off of Bainbridge right here at their proposed
collector. So, the Janiceks have kind of sat patiently waiting as the utilities were
extended out to this area and they came to us and said, you know, we have got -- we
have this 15 acres and it's our understanding, based on what staff has indicated, that
we need a Comp Plan map amendment in order to develop this in some type of a
commercial fashion. In our meeting with the staff, they recommended some type of a
mixed use, they didn't want to see solely commercial use, and so we went through kind
of an evolution. on site plans, coming up with some different types of multi-families and
different combinations of retail and office. We did take our site plan and we met with
Mr. Wardle and Mr. Turnbull of Brighton Corporation. We showed them our particular
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 25 of 61
plan. I asked them if they would be supportive of our application, since their property
adjoins us on the west and on the south, if we requested a mixed use community
designation and proposed to develop it in this type of fashion. They indicated that they
were still working on their plans for the adjoining area and that they weren't sure what
their product was going to be, but it definitely would not be detached single family
dwellings. It would most likely be some type of a mixed residential type component,
whether it be townhouses or patio homes. So, Mr. Tumbull's recommendation to us --
he said, you know, I'd like to see townhomes adjoining my parcel and he said I'm not
opposed to vehicular interconnectivity or pedestrian interconnectivity, but until we come
up with a more solidified plan, we don't know where that's going to work best for us. So,
we did not show a stub street to that property for that very reason, because, obviously,
we are going to need to coordinate with Brighton on that location. As far as pedestrian
interconnectivity, we have all of this green space along the south and west, so,
therefore, pedestrian access would be very easy. We also made sure that we had good
pedestrian interconnectivity between these -- these are townhomes with attached
garages. Central common area here, with a splash pad and a gazebo area, play
equipment, and, then, we had pedestrian friendly crossings, awider -- like seven foot
ped path coming up here and in our transportation we matched up with this future street
here in Irvine Subdivision. We went ahead and looped out here. That was at the
request of my client. We, obviously, have not submitted to ITD for any particular permit
at this time, but it did align with the existing street to the north. Now, when Mr. Turnbull
and Mr. Wardle kind of solidified their plan, obviously, this roadway could go on and
head westward and create that vehicular interconnectivity. This access here, unless
approved by ITD and approved by the Council via a variance, would not be possible.
But that's how my client kind of wanted to show the plan. In looking at that, Mr. Janicek
said, you know, I had a 220 acre farm. I kept 15 acres. All I'm asking for is just a
portion of it. I'm surrounded by, you know, mixed residential. His calculation is I'm
seven percent of my total original farm and I believe that is acceptable. One of the
things that we also consider is Highway 20-26, they have been working on their comdor
study. It's anticipated it will be five lanes. One of the things came to light with ITD --
worked on the Renaissance Apartments years ago at Hobble Creek and that's over
there just east of -- or west of Cloverdale. They had to compensate -- ITD, because
they had federally matching funds for those improvements through there, they had to
compensate the owners of those Renaissance Apartments, because they are a
residential use and due to their close proximity to the new improved roadway and I
guess they have to look at it from the perspective that there is some type of noise
damage to that. In that particular project at the time we put three story buildings there
to kind of create some noise abatement to Hobble Creek. So, if this were to stay
medium density residential, we are going to have problems, obviously, with some type
of a setback, which I think the last time I talked to ITD they were talking 200 feet from
the edge of new improvements to the edge of any dwellings. Otherwise, they have to
pay damages for that -- the impact. I don't want you to get hung up on the site plan,
because it's just -- we are making assumptions. In many instances we submit Comp
Plan map amendments and we don't have site plans. The staff encouraged us to come
up with some different ideas. They thought it would be a little bit easier for the
Commission and themselves to evaluate the project. So, they have been pushing us
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 26 of 61
toward more detailed plans. But, obviously, this is just made up of assumptions. It
would have to come back as an annexation with a development agreement. If it is
designated mixed use, the Comprehensive Plan mandates that everything comes in as
conditional uses. So, there is plenty of opportunity, obviously, to review the internal
circulation, interconnectivity, pedestrian access, architectural and the true mixture of
these mixed uses. When I look at your Comprehensive Plan, it talks about -- in the
purpose statement for mixed uses and that's, obviously, what -- what we focus on. It
talks about creating a combination of compatible uses. The purpose is to designate and
identify key areas and one of the criteria is that they are situated in a highly visible area.
20-26 is a state highway, a major arterial. Ten Mile, that is a minor arterial. When the
Ten Mile interchange change goes in we are going to see, obviously, the number of
trips elevate on Ten Mile. So, I guess I'd like the Commission to ask themselves would I
want to live in a dwelling at an intersection of two arterials. And I would think that the
answer would be not really, unless, you know, that's all that was available to me in a
price range or something along that line. We learn from our lessons in the past. One of
-- an example I want to give you is Eagle Road. It was a two lane rural state highway. I
was working on a subdivision called Madison Park with Boise city. The only thing at the
intersection at that time was Lowell Scott Middle School. Boise had that area all
designated low density single family. We went ahead and we designed Madison Park,
had low density, R-1-B zone, and every time I sit at that intersection I kick myself and I
feel bad that those homes back up to McMillan and Eagle Road, because Eagle Road is
now five lanes. So, I think from a planning perspective we try not to repeat the mistakes
that we have made in the past. We have got to look forward. Obviously, taking into
account that Chinden will be five lanes. The Ten Mile interchange is going to happen.
Some of the other general guidelines that your Comp Plan talks about is -- it says, you
know, where feasible multi-family residential uses are encouraged, especially for
projects with a potential to serve employment destination centers and projects adjacent
to State Highway 20-26. So, even the Comprehensive Plan promotes this type of -- of a
mixed type use. If you look at your current land use map, there are mixed use
community designations at Locust Grove and 20-26, Meridian Road and 20-26, Linder
and 20-26, Black Cat and 20-26. So, obviously, this is not a preferential treatment of
this property. It appears to us to be reasonable and consistent with other designations
along this corridor. One of the things that staff brought up in their staff report is the
compatibility with the adjoining medium density residential that will take place.
Obviously, we don't know exactly what that configuration is going to be. Even your
Comp Plan says, you know, where the project developed adjacent to lower medium
density residential, transitional use is encouraged. So, that's what we have
incorporated here. Now, obviously, if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is
successful and we get more information from Brighton and we start, you know, trying to
massage this site plan and finalizing it, we may incorporate more residential and,
obviously, the Commission and the Council would have to review that at that time and
make a determination. The designation does not guarantee you anything. All it does is
allow opportunities and we still have to comply with other sections of the policy manual
and the ordinance and it is discretionary, what is compatible and what is not. I guess
lastly -- I know there is a lot -- a lot of apps behind me. In conclusion, I guess I would
like you to recognize the fact that the Comprehensive Plan map is a living document. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 27 of 61
mean it's ever changing and the reason that the Commission is allowed to reevaluate it
every six months is due to change in condition. You know, this -- the medium density
residential, I just don't think that designation is appropriate at this major intersection and
I would hope that the Commission would see that and understand that this does make
sense. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, there is no
one that has signed up. If there is anyone that would like to come forward? Seeing
none, any comments, Commissioners?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: My thoughts?
Moe: Yes.
Marshall: A little bit. First, I'm not going to really make any comments about this
conceptual plan. My comments are based on the CPA. Looking at this area, I know
that in the past we have traditionally placed all commercial at major intersections.
That's been very traditional. That changed -- we changed that with this Comprehensive
Plan, with this land use map, for a reason. We found that the accesses to commercial
areas at comers slow traffic down. They -- the traffic moves through the intersections
slower. There has been a lot of time and effort put into those studies and that's why you
see commercial areas at the half mile points where they can offer up slow down lanes,
get people off the major thoroughfare and get them into these half mile points and the
studies have shown that by placing commercial at the half mile points, not at the major
arterial intersections, allows for better traffic flow and that's why the land use map was
placed this way. I can't account for sins of the past. I -- you know, yeah, that's the way
we always did it. To me that's not how we should do it in the future. This was marked
medium density residential. We have been doing that just fine all along Chinden. We
have been requiring very large berms and fences and noise abatement along that area
and as far as I know there has not been a lot of complaints about noise and the like
when -- when these large berms and fences have been placed up and -- and I -- to be
honest, I don't see a problem. I think the developer would be wise if they are going to
place medium density residential here, to continue that along Ten Mile, because Ten
Mile will expand and be large and I would continue the large berms and fences for noise
abatement to the residential areas to keep my property values up so I can sell those
homes. But, to be honest, I'm not excited about changing everything we have worked
on on the Comprehensive Plan to move the commercial to the half mile points. There
was a good reason for doing that and now we are talking about going back to the way
it's always been. Those are my thoughts.
Moe: Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 28 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: None of the developments that are along Chinden right now that
are developed -- developed out, because Irvine isn't built out yet; am I correct? It's still
just a plat. Lochsa Falls, Paramount, all of those are set south. The homes are
substantially south of the intersection. None of them butt up to Chinden. You have the
commercial area north of Lochsa Falls, it's just starting to build out there, with --
recently. You have Paramount, is almost solely surrounded by light office, to insulate
their development. I am going way back in the file cabinet of my brain, but it seems to
me like when Bainbridge came through, that Brighton was talking at that time -- we are
discussing mixed use and I almost want to think that there was a potential school site or
a private. Am I --
Moe: I don't remember.
Newton-Huckabay: Seems to me like -- I would have liked to have seen, actually,
where that collector is supposed to go -- that entire portion come through with -- I think I
-- my personal opinion is -- and I think that Becky made a great argument in that favor
that ,mixed use community out here is a good designation for this area. I think the
location as far as between Boise and Nampa -- I agree that if it were to -- it would need
to interconnect into the Bainbridge property, so you could take and leverage those
collectors and I think some -- you know, there is employment opportunities close to
home again. I know that development at the half mile, neighborhood centers, is -- all of
that was put into our Comprehensive Plan and in the years I have been on this
Commission I have yet to see a neighbor center develop out the way that -- the textbook
says that they are going to be so brilliant and the closest we are coming is there on
Ustick with that -- there by the park. And I -- I think that -- I don't think that mixed use --
Ilike that. Of course, I like that land designation in general anyway, because I think it
adds -- it gives a potential for a lot of quality of life things for those people who live
around it. You get a ton of variety in there that you can -- in a mixed use community. I
would be in favor of that. Again, I'm not in favor to access to 20-26, but that's a burden
the applicant's going to have to push that through. I don't like your site plan. I would
like to see something better. But, again, seeing a lot of work and I know that something
could be done better and I know that Brighton Corporation would work in concert with
that. So, I would be in support of it, myself.
Marshall: May I --
Moe: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: -- for just a minute? Again, I -- Paramount was approved with their
commercial site and Lochsa was approved with their commercial sites out against
Chinden prior to the implementation of the land use map as it sits today.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 29 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: I believe the current Comprehensive Plan land use map in that area
was -- wasn't it '04?
Marshall: The last it was approved -- the last I read it was '06, but --
Newton-Huckabay: In that area. Well, I can't argue with you on that, because I don't
know the date.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I don't know exactly which properties changed
and when we did the Comp Plan map amendment, north Meridian in 2006. Obviously,
Paramount was done before the north Meridian map changes were made, but I don't e
we did go -- if you look -- and I know it's kind of far away. There is a hard copy of the
entire Comp Plan future land use map just below the screen there. We did diverge from
more of the circle and half circle neighborhood centers that were shown on Chinden in
2002 to more of the linear neighborhood mixed use designations and we did, if you will,
clean up some of those areas -- the Lochsa Falls offices, we did clean those ~up to give
them I think a mixed use designation. Well, it could have been office. I don't -- mixed
use. So, we did -- we did kind of diverge on Chinden a little bit from that, but there is
one a few more miles to the east that is developing out that has some of the situations
that were brought up recently. The Hightower development is at the mid mile between
Locust Grove and Meridian. It has core commercial at the center. It's located at the mid
mile with the mid mile access point. I will talk about that a little bit later in another
application. And they do have residential as well that abuts their -- now, you may have
seen their nice berm and they have the -- it's a faux wall -- a faux rock looking fence, but
there is six foot or so tall fence on a berm. So, ITD, as well as the city, does require, if
we do put residential up to Chinden, you can't put a chain link fence up there, it needs to
be at least ten foot tall to mitigate for some of that. We do have setbacks and Becky's
right, ITD is looking at a 200 foot total right of way, so we get a hundred foot from center
line and, then, you'd have your landscape buffer with the wall on it. So, we are setting
those residences back. But there are -- there are cases of both up and down Chinden.
I mean you see a mixture of the old and some of the new. So, just -- I don't recall when
the changes were made or exactly what properties either, but we do have some of both.
Moe: Thank you, Caleb.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't know if we want to get me started on that Hightower and
Jericho area, because I think we all know how I feel about that.
Moe: Well, that's not what we are discussing tonight, so --
Newton-Huckabay: No. You're all very lucky.
Moe: Mr. Rohm, do you have any comments?
Rohm: My only comments are, really, that as Ten Mile redevelops and they are putting
in the interchange and that's going to be a major north-south roadway and just from the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 30 of 61
other roads that have redeveloped and have that same designation at Chinden, that
seems appropriate to have some mixed use on -- at Ten Mile and, obviously, you're not
going to be able to take access off of Chinden without a fight. But just because they will
have to take that battle, I don't think the change -- I think it's appropriate to change this
land use designation at this time and, then, we will battle the rest of the development at
such time as they bring a preliminary plat or annexation request.
Moe: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Brien, any comments?
O'Brien: Just a little, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to take these type situations on a
one-on-one basis, one case at a time. I think that this is one of those situations where
I'm in favor of the mixed use designation on this particular site, mainly what previous
Commissioners had mentioned, Ten Mile traffic and the build up that's going to happen
along Ten Mile, as well as Chinden. So, I'm in favor of the mixed use as that. So, thank
you.
Moe: Thank you. Well, I have gone both ways on this property here. I think, basically,
the biggest concem I have is, in fact, when the surrounding area develops with it and
we decide how we are going to have access in and out of the parcels and whatnot, are
going to be a very big concem of mine to make sure that we do have the connectivity
and whatnot, that's going to be required. I also think that any residential in that area,
once the -- that Ten Mile widens out and Chinden, that's going to be a very busy area
and whatnot and I'm not so sure that medium residential is what should be in that area,
so --
Newton-Huckabay: My bigger concem with these is that none of them have -- I mean
we approved Bainbridge three years -- four years ago, it seems like, and it hasn't built
out yet and, you know, Imean Ijust -- it just -- it can rack your brain worrying what this
is going to actually, eventually, come in as -- you know. Scratch that. I can't enunciate
what I'm trying to say. I'm in favor of the mixed use.
Moe: I think I knew what you meant. But we will stop you.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Understand what I mean, not what I say.
Moe: Absolutely. Mr. Rohm?
Rohm: I think we are ready.
Moe: You were getting ready to do something, I believe.
Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-001.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 31 of 61
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-001. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue Item No. CPA 08-001 to the special meeting of August
14th, 2008.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: Yeah. End of motion.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: That's what I was waiting for. It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-
001, to the special meeting of August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Before we get going on the next hearing, we are going to go ahead and take a ten
minute break right now and we'll be back at 9:00 p.m.
(Recess.)
Item 8: Public Hearing: CPA 08-003 Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use
designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Community
for approximately 94 acres for Volterra Commercial by Primeland
Investment Group, LLC -west of North Ten Mile Road and north of West
McMillan Road:
Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to reconvene the public hearing on CPA 08-003 for
Volterra Commercial and start with the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Volterra
project. If you recall, in 2005 this site was approved as the Volterra Subdivision. It was
approved as a PD under a mixed use development, so to speak. They proposed their
commercial here at the intersection of McMillan and Ten Mile, transition to an L-O
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 32 of 61
district, and, then, the remainder of the property was to be single family residential. The
subject -site is bordered on the east by Volterra -- excuse me. Verona Subdivision. To
the south is the Volterra South Subdivision. To the north or -- and a excuse me. To the
west is just the remainder of Volterra Subdivision. And then -- excuse me. To the west
is the Volterra Subdivision. Extension of that. And, then, to the north is the Bainbridge
Subdivision, as we saw on the last slide. Or the last presentation. Excuse me. One
thing I did want to point out for you tonight is the portion of the Comp Plan that they are
proposing for the Comp Plan amendment is reference -- has left this portion out and it
actually goes all the way through the mid mile. So, it's roughly 94 acres that they are
proposing as a mixed use community designation. Here is the site -- here is an aerial of
the site again. You can see it's pretty undeveloped at this point. Still a lot of agricultural
land there. There is that C-G portion here to remain out and, then, again, roadways and
collectors to connect with these subdivisions are proposed. Here is currently what we
have on the current Comp Plan map. Again, you can see where there is some lots
platted there. Again, it's kind of running up here to the north and, then, continuing to the
half mile, again leaving this commercial portion out. If you were to choose -- again, staff
is recommending approval of this, but this is what the map would look like once it got
through the system and was approved with a mixed use community designation. There
haven't been any subsequent applications submitted with this. The applicant is in the
process of submitting a rezone and a development agreement modification application
to us for our review. You should be seeing that within the next couple months at least.
Here is their concept plan that they are proposing for the project. Again, it is a mixed
use development. So many times, like you said, usually we -- in the past we have seen
these projects come in and it's pretty much turned into a commercial development. This
time staff is pretty favorable of this project. We believe that this is really a true mixed
development going on here. The applicant wants to really market this as an
employment center, something similar to an EI Dorado or Silverstone Subdivision there
on Eagle and Overland Road. Here you will have your mix of residential uses. A
nursing care facility. Possibly an assisted living facility. Condominium project here.
Forty to fifty units proposed. Some med tech, high tech, buildings here. Possibly
medical offices. Some other professional offices along here and, then, you kind of have
your merging employment center here with your supporting uses to kind of add to that
and draw people into the development. The other factor staff put into this also is a as
you're aware of, those intersection changes are underway right now. I'm not sure
exactly when they are scheduled to be completed, but I know they are in the process of
doing that now. Staff has not received any elevations at this point for how this site is to
develop. The other thing I would caution the Commission on is we haven't received --
with this concept plan they haven't really proposed the amount of square footage that
will be on this acreage. Like I said, the Comp Plan is really only 94 acres, but the whole
-- the whole site encompasses roughly 116 to 120 acres. So, it's a pretty significant
development on that -- in that area of north Meridian. Sometime -- I don't know exactly
when the study was conducted, but they have had this concept of what was called a
BEC, a Business Enterprise Comdor study and it actually identified a portion of this area
in that plan as a particular -- a business employment area to develop in this area and
this area was identified as being one of those comdors. And so the applicant's tried to
work with that and go with that study and make the justification that this is what the city
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 33 of 61
envisions to happen here and staffs reviewed it, looked at these access points, believed
there is some vehicular connectivity. It does stub here to Bainbridge to the north. All
these access points along the west link up to existing streets that were proposed with
the original Volterra Subdivision. You have Verona street -- streets here from Verona --
the Verona development -- driveways here that line up with the proposed Verona
commercial -- or the approved Verona number four development here and, again, these
roads align with Volterra to the south. So, the applicant's really done their homework on
this and really tried to come up with a strong concept plan for the area. But, again, with
the Comp Plan amendment we can't tie them to this concept plan until we have an
actual -- either a rezone or a preliminary plat on this site. With that, staff is
recommending approval and I would be happy to answer any questions Commission
may have.
Moe: Is there any questions of staff at this time?
Newton-Huckabay: None.
Moe: Mr. Marshall, you look like you have --
Marshall: Bill -- yes, I do. Mr. Chair. Bill, so the plats that were there that we are
overlaying have already been approved?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, that is
correct.
Marshall: Okay. And so --
Parsons: They have actually asked for a time extension to keep that plat alive for the
residential portion, if this weren't to go in their favor.
Marshall: So, if -- if that's approved, then, the connectivity, that would be a medium
density residential thereon the left-hand side; is that correct?
Parsons: That is correct.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Larsen: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is
Cornell Larsen, I'm here tonight representing the applicant. My address is 210 Murray
Street in Garden City. Trying to be brief tonight. We have submitted a rezone
application on the property and we have filled in this part of the map with that rezone,
which you should be hearing upon your agenda as it comes forward from staff. We are
in agreement with the staff report and all of the conditions. We have worked with them
for quite a little while on trying to develop the project. We don't have too many
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 34 of 61
comments or issues with it, so we would be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Moe: Any questions?
Rohm: No questions.
Larsen: I might like to come back if there is public comment or if something comes up.
Thank you.
Moe: Well, there is no one signed up for public comment. If there is anyone in the
audience that would like to come forward, you may do so now. I'm sure you don't want
to come back up, then; right? Any comments, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to say that this -- well, in trying to enunciate this
earlier, is that -- when we were talking about the previous application, this is what I am
concerned about is when the rezones start coming in from what we platted or we
approved and it was platted four years ago and markets have changed and it's just --
that Ithink is a very difficult position for us to be in and -- but, generally, I think this
development looks -- looks good for a concept. Could you go back to the one that --
what we are replacing?
Marshall: You're talking that whole area.
Moe: Commissioner Marshall?
Newton-Huckabay: That's all that's been platted as residential and Bainbridge is north
of it, which has been -- by the residential, that will likely come in, I suspect. I have no
other comments.
Moe: Okay. Anyone else?
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Marshall: Personally I like the idea that it's moving the access to the commercial up
more towards the mid mile point. Ithink it's an appropriate location there on Ten Mile.
One of the things -- if we can go back to the potential site plan -- that does bother me is
that having commercial right across the street from the residential, I would be womed to
see how that develops. I personally would like to see professional offices, low intensity
development, up against the residential, but --
Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, may I have a minute?
Moe: Yes, you may.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 35 of 61
Larsen: Actually, in that area we have a park and so there is a park across from that
portion of the office planned in the master plan.
Marshall: Thank you.
Larsen: Thank you.
Moe: I, myself, think this is a perfect use for this area and somewhat look forward to
seeing it start to develop and, then, become a reality. If there is no other comments --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA 08-003 for
Volterra Commercial.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-003. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would like to continue CPA 08-003 for Volterra
Commercial to our specially scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of
August 14th.
Rohm: Second.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-003 to the special meeting of
the Planning and Zoning on August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Public Hearing: CPA 08-004 Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use
designation of approximately 40.5 acres from Medium Density Residential
to Mixed Use-Regional for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies -
Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 36 of 61
Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 72.67
acres from RUT in Ada County to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.52
acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.11 acres) and C-G (General Commercial)
(64.04 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins
Companies -Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian
Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-004 for Meridian and
Amity. Start with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is, again, the
Meridian and Amity CPA request tonight. Basically, if you look at the zoning map that
we have in place, this site is, basically, zoned RUT at this point. There is four parcels
with this CPA request -- or, actually, part of this project. This portion here. This parcel
here. There is a little parcel here that's hard to identify. And, then, you have this parcel
as well. The Comp Plan amendment is just, basically, addressing this parcel located
here to the north and this section here. These are where the two changes are to occur.
Right now currently this -- on the land use map you will see that this site is medium
density residential and, then, so is this 38 plus acres to the north -- the northern half of
the development. Step back here. You can see that this area is fairly undeveloped
within the city still. The applicant is proposing to change this from a medium density
designation to a mixed use regional designation. The site is located -- abuts Meridian
Road here on the east. Hams Avenue -- or, excuse me. Hams Street to the north.
Amity Road to the south. And, then, you have some rural residences, agricultural lands
to the west. This is that wonderful development to the east, the chicken coop site.
Actually called Valley Storage. I have a trailer in that location, so, please, let's not take
that away. Anyway, back to the project. Go to the concept plan. The applicant has
submitted basically a bubble plan and concept plan with their CPA request. Under the
current -- when this application was submitted to us, the Comprehensive Plan had a
different definition for a mixed use -- or mixed use regional designation. Since, then,
Council's acted on some new provisions for that designation, but the old provisions,
basically, said that you could have over 200,000 square feet of retail, really no limit on
nonresidential uses. It asked for those components to have some residential in there, to
have a mix of uses, but it really had no cap on that. The current designation that we
have in place for mixed use regional caps your development at 50 percent retail or
nonresidential uses. You can have as much unlimited office as you want, but have ten
percent residential. And so if you look at this concept, the applicant is providing some
residential here, a small office component here and the remainder of this is primarily
retail or shopping center is what they are proposing on the site. This area of the
concept plan is roughly five acres. This is roughly three acres. And the rest of this is
primarily up to 64 acres that they are proposing to develop. Right now if you look at this
concept plan, you can see that the applicant is proposing three access points onto
Meridian Road. Again, staff isn't in favor of that based on the code. Again, it's the
same situation you had with the Janicek property. Our code strictly prohibits -- you
increase the intensity on this parcel, you restrict access to the state highway-and it's the
State Highway 69 in our code. The other thing I'd like to mention is this is a scenic
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 37 of 61
byway. It's classified as that. So, talking with ITD, ACRD, and even staff, we are all in
agreement that we do not want to see these access points happen on Meridian Road.
The other thing I'd like to point out is ACHD has made comments to a traffic impact
study. They are recommending that no other applications be submitted on this site until
they have a chance to review that TIS and make sure that this development can actually
function as they are proposing or by a -- add a backage road, like staff and ITD and
ACHD have commented on to provide that backage road here. We feel that provides a
better solution for them as far as access. It alleviates this -- these concems onto
Meridian Road and a little later on in tonight's presentation I will be talking about a
proposal here, which makes sense to tie into this one to have that backage road and
give them future connectivity as well. So, at this point staff is real supportive of having
some kind of road at the west end of the property. As you can see here, the applicant's
proposed on their concept plan roughly 460,000 square feet of retail. That doesn't
include the multi-family component there that they are proposing. The other issue is
there really isn't -- there is a pathway showing -- if you guys are familiar with it, there is a
gas line that comes through the development here. In our pathway's plan it's identified
as that being a greenbelt with a ten foot multi-use pathway to come through the
development. Staff actually proposed that here, to be located on the western edge and,
then, connect to Amity Road here. Staff feels they could actually probably incorporate
that amenity into the development and to really add to a mixed use development in this
area. Staff believes there are -- this area does need those type of services there.
That's why we are in support of the CPA at this time. Again, staff is recommending of
that and I will be happy to answer any questions Commission may have regarding the
project.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time?
O'Brien: Bill, regarding the percentage of residential to -- what is it, light office, is there
some kind of a ratio there that you need to achieve within a development area?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, under the old requirement there
wasn't. Under the new mixed use regional designations -- under the old we didn't have
a stipulation on what the residential component was going to be, but under the current
mixed use designation we require ten percent. Since this site would encompass
roughly 72 acres, we would be looking at a minimum -- under the new standard we
would be looking at a minimum of 7.2 acres of residential in that development.
O'Brien: So, you're not taking into consideration development surrounding the outside
of this -- this particular area?
Parsons: We are. I mean that is some of the concems that we have, is that these big
boxes do butt up against residential and that's why I can't really comment. The
applicant has submitted an annexation with that, but we are not opening that tonight.
But at this point it's just a Comp Plan amendment, so I'm just going over some of the
layouts of their concept plan, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 38 of 61
O'Brien: So, to say, then, if there were going to be some more residential areas
surrounding this development here, would that satisfy the needs of percentage, so that
they could maintain their current site plan?
Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, not really. It has to be on their site, not just
surrounding the site.
O'Brien: Okay. Well, that's what I'm wondering. It just seems like you're cutting off our
nose to spite our face and not being able to develop it to its full potential, because of
that rule, (just -- it just seems kind of odd, even though other areas develop -- you
know, developed out residential-wise. That's all.
Parsons: I bring those points up to the Commission just as a reference to see where we
were and where we are trying to transition and from staffs point of view we look at this
as one of the first major developments in south Meridian and we should really set the
standard here now while we are going forward in that area for future development.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I agree. Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I think, Tom, what -- with the amount of commercial retail that they
are proposing in their conceptual site plan, they almost should have came in and asked
for commercial C-G zoning and -- but tonight all we are going to worry -- when they
come back in September with their -- with their annexation application, that's when we
will have a whole new site plan, I hope, to look at.
O'Brien: Appreciate that comment. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: But there is just way too much to -- there is way too much
commercial on that to really get the real spirit of mixed use -- a mixed use designation
on there.
O'Brien: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. Marshall. Excuse me.
Marshall: I have got a couple of questions for Bill. Bill, you mentioned that there is
residential -- meeting this density residential to the -- on the left side there?
Parsons: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, are you referring to this
or this portion here?
Marshall: Yes. Just on the -- on the left side of the property here.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 39 of 61
Parsons: That is correct.
Marshall: Okay. And that's existing --
Parsons: That is existing. Correct. This is the current map as it stands today.
Marshall: Okay. And, Bill, one more question. Is there any other regional or C-G areas
anywhere close to this?
Parsons: Well, if you look farther to the north, Commissioner Marshall, you can see that
there are some C-G properties here and, then, of course, you have Overland with your
Southern Springs and, then, you have Medina Subdivision and Lowe's. That's all
commercial there along Overland Road.
Marshall: But nothing along Amity or down the south.
Parsons: Not at this time.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Evans: Good evening. My name is Lance Evans. Address 855 Broad Street, Boise,
Idaho. Suite 300, Boise, Idaho. I'd like to just focus tonight on this Comp Plan
amendment, the land use map amendment, and while there are a lot of details that
need to be worked out and we will talk about that in a minute I'm sure, what we really
want to focus on tonight is just the concerns and, really, staffs support of this Comp
Plan amendment. We agree with staffs recommendation, obviously, for approval of it.
We believe that this area is going to be a place where we can provide services for all,
for the entire south Meridian area. If you look at it now, currently, really, most people
living south of 84 have to go quite a ways to reach any kind of regional services and that
is why we have requested this. We submitted this -- this application in December of
2007. It fell into a different set of standards. We understand that the code's been
amended, that there has been changes that have been made, but we have gone
forward, been working in the past for a couple years on this project, going forward with
the understanding what we would have to do and how to make it all happen under those
existing rules at that time. We -- we hope to continue to work on some of these issues
that Bill has brought up tonight, but it is a concept that we are looking at tonight only.
We are not asking -- you know, those details need to be hammered out and we want to
work on those. But when we look at just the Comp Plan land use map amendment, the
general uses, this is really the only commercial site -- only commercial uses that will
exist. We will have an office and residential component to meet -- to satisfy the code
standards. Given that we are just talking about the Comp Plan amendment, I don't want
to go into a lot of detail on all these other issues. I hope to come back and be able to
talk a lot more about those. But it is critical for us in the development of this project to
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 40 of 61
be able to say, all right, this time -- at this time we are going to -- it's going to work. The
mixed use regional designation will be able to be applied, really just to the northern half
of this. Currently we have that designation on, you know, this -- this lower portion. So,
we are really just -- this is what's being added to that mixed use regional and that if you
were to break those two parcels or break that development in half, the percentages of
residential and office go up considerably. So, we start to really approach the standards,
even at the higher level. I'll leave it there and be happy to come back and answer any
questions you have about those -- you know, if you have any other issues or whatever
tonight, knowing that we are going to come back and work on the annexation and
zoning elements. Thank you.
Moe: Any questions of the applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Thank you very much. I have a couple folks signed up. Carol Gossett and, then,
I --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, she was for?
Moe: She was for the project. That's correct. And, then, the other one -- is it Steven
Hasson. Sorry if I beat that up.
Hasson: Good evening.
Moe: How bad did I do that?
Hasson: Pardon me?
Moe: How bad did I pronounce your name?
Hasson: You take -- it's has and son and you glue them together. I think you did fine.
Newton-Huckabay: Hasson.
Hasson: There you go. All right. Well, thank you Commission members, Commission
chair. For the record Steven Hasson. I'm the planning director for the city of Kuna and
I'm here in -- as a representative of the city this evening to comment on this
development also that you have before you. Originally I just came here to ask a
question and that was whether or not this site was being entertained for a Wal-Mart,
because we had heard from public agencies and other interested people that it had and
we just wanted to either confirm or quell that rumor, but now that I see this conceptual
site plan, I would like to add two comments if I may and that is whether -- however the
Kuna-Meridian Roadway, Highway 69 develops, it's real important to maintain the
integrity of that road system. It's important to maintain that road system by good access
management control and good access management control, be it ITD, be it ACHD, be it
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 41 of 61
Meridian, be it Kuna, would suggest that there be three driveway entrances per mile.
There would be one at the section lines and there would be one at the half section line.
Certainly, if this proposal were to come to Kuna we would limit them to the half mile and
I heard your staff say that they vigorously request your consideration for that and,
likewise, and I tell you that if you have too many driveway accesses, full or even partial,
on Highway 69 or any highway for that matter, it does two things, it creates traffic
conflicts and it slows down traffic. And I think it's in the economic best interest of
Meridian and Kuna to be able to have Highway 69 between the freeway on the north
and Kuna-Mora on the south as afarm-to-market road where your traffic skates along at
55 miles an hour and that there be a series of frontage or backage roads provided along
that corridor to afford retail commercial enterprises opportunity, but not at the expense
of the general public who has to drive there every day. And, then, the other thing -- and
I have been in this business now for 30 years. I have been a planning director in nine
jurisdictions in six states, so I have been around the block, and when I see this I do not
see a mixed use, I see a commercial land use proposal before you and if that's what
they are offering up, that should be what it is and thank you very much for your time.
Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much.
Hasson: Thank you. Oh. Is it a Wal-Mart? If I could find that out.
Moe: Well, there is no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to
come forward, you're more than welcome. Okay. If not, would the applicant like to
come back up. Can you answer that question?
Overy: Jason Overy. 5537 North Brigadoon Avenue in Meridian. I am also a member
of Hawkins Company. I would address first his comments regarding the access and we
recognize access is going to be a tricky issue and part of the reason we requested the
deferral of our zoning and annexation is we are in the process of completing our traffic
study. We had numerous meetings with Caleb and Bill and Anna to talk about that and
we are on the verge of getting that completed and we think a couple work sessions will
get us to a better plan. So, we do recognize the concerns with access off Meridian
Road. The other issue -- and Lance touched on it briefly -- is, you know, the timing of
our application. We were working within the rules that were in place at the time we
submitted our applications and you have mentioned we submitted in December of 2007
and we are not opposed to working to modify our plan and that's, again, we intended to
do with some of the work sessions. However, you know, we did discuss that with staff
at the time and we said, hey, this is what we really want to do and I think staff
appreciated the fact that we weren't trying to hide what we wanted to do and we said
would it be better to come in as a purely general commercial project and the response
was, no, we don't -- we wouldn't support that. So, let's figure, you know, even if you're
coming in mixed use regional, we did add a component of residential and we intend to
establish what that looks like and the component of limited office and hope to be able to
satisfy staff and as they have so far recommended a positive approval for this, because
we truly belief and identify this intersection will be a great place to provide these
services. I live on the north side of Meridian, but I know that my friends that live on the
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 42 of 61
south side come to the north side to shop and we are going to have four years of traffic
construction on I-84 and rerouting Meridian Road and people that are on the south side
are going to have to deal with that and we hope that we are going to be in a position to
help solve some of those challenges needing to go to the north side of the interstate.
So, I hope that answers or addresses the two comments that Mr. Hasson made.
Moe: Is there a Wal-Mart planned there?
Overy: You know, we are talking with various retailers and, you know, we've had
various interest from all of them.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Very diplomatic.
Moe: Pardon me?
Newton-Huckabay: Very diplomatic. From the fence.
Moe: Okay. Any comments, Commissioners?
Marshall: Yes. First off, I'm glad this did not come in as a C-G and it came in as a
mixed use regional, because I would be adamantly against it, because with e I am
against any type of large commercial going up against residential and if this is
residential -- single family residential over here, there needs to be a buffering area.
These need to be moved out to the street and the access needs to come in from the
half mile point. There needs to be a frontage road and there needs to be a buffer
between these large buildings ~ and residential. I'm adamantly against any large
commercial up against residential. And that's why the mixed use is appropriate here, so
that we can get some -- some light office and some professional offices, things like that
as along this area to buffer between -- as well as multi-family and things like that to
buffer between these large buildings and residential. I think there is a need for this out
there. It won't tum on. There it goes. I think there is a need for this out there. I'd like to
see something like this develop, because it needs the commercial, but as it's laid out in
this I couldn't support the layout as it is and I agree with limiting the access. There
needs to be a frontage road and there needs to be significant buffering area and I'm not
talking a berm and a little bit of grass or trees, I'm talking about lower intensity uses,
multi-family, professional offices, things like that. Those are my thoughts.
Moe: Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Brien, any comments?
O'Brien: I think I'm just going to reserve that until after I see a more detailed plat of
where -- what's going to change and how it's going to look. And I know they are going
to move the building closer to Meridian Road anyway, as I think I read something about
that in the staff report. Anyway, there is enough changes that I don't think I can make
any further comments.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2006
Page 43 of 61
Moe: Thank you. I guess my only comment I would say is that I'm in favor of the
request, but also I want to see what's going to come before us on the 14th -- excuse me
-- on the 4th in regards to the annexation and whatnot, because I, too, have got a real
problem with the existing layout at the present time and I realize you started your design
based upon another set of decisions and whatnot and the city's come back and
requested more. Quite frankly, this is a commercial property to me. This is not a mixed
use. There is just not enough diversity in this, other than being called commercial to
me. So, I do hope to see something a little bit different come back before us. Any other
comments? If not --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA 08-004, the
Meridian and Amity mixed use regional.
Marshall: I second that motion.
Moe: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to the close public hearing on CPA
08-004 for Meridian and Amity. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion
carves. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend'we continue CPA 08-004 until the regularly scheduled
meeting of -- or the specially scheduled meeting of August 14th, 2008. End of motion.
Rohm: Second..
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-004 to the special P8Z
meeting of August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Shall I do the next one?
Moe: Yeah. Open it to continue it, please.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 44 of 61
Moe: To September the 4th.
Newton-Huckabay: 4th. Okay. I recommend -- or open AZ 08-005 for the Meridian and
Amity property for the sole purpose of continuing it to September 4th, 2008. End of
motion.
Moe: That would be a regularly scheduled meeting.
Newton-Huckabay: Regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting September 4th,
2008.
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: Could I get a second, please?
O'Brien: Second.
Moe: Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-005 for
Meridian and Amity to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of September the 4th,
2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 08-009 Request fora Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the
designation of approximately 9 acres from Medium Density Residential to
High Density Residential for Biskay by Greg Johnson -south side of
Harris Street, west of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and north of W. Amity
Road:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-009 for Biskay and start
with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you just heard
on the last public hearing item, this is where that current CPA is proposed. The
applicant's coming in, their site here. It's roughly 52 acres, but the Comp Plan really is
approximately on -- it changed on a nine acre portion of it. To the -- again, to the north
is Harris Street. Again, it does tie in with this proposed development here along Amity
and Meridian Road. Here is the other site. Again, it is pretty underdeveloped out there,
pretty much agricultural land. The only subdivision that's in the vicinity at this time that's
somewhat built out is Meridian Heights northeast of this site. Here, again, what we
have planned for -- under today's standards, mixed medium density residential and,
then, here is what -- this is a little skewed on here on -- GIS tech kind of got that off a
little bit. It actually runs along the pipe line. You can see that green line there, that's
actually, the Comp Plan amendment and it's just kind of a little sewed, but that would
connect up to Harris there. So, just to put that out there for you guys. Again, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 45 of 61
applicant doesn't have any subsequent applications -- development applications with
this. At this time they are not even contiguous with city limits, so they can't even
request annexation, but when we met with the applicant we -- they were -- they knew
what would happen on that section of the road,. Meridian -Amity, and they thought, well,
if they were coming in with a denser mixed use development, why not try to come in and
get something changed for their property as well. As Commissioner Marshall
mentioned, it is appropriate to have office slash mixed use -- or, excuse me, multi-family
development buffering commercial development. So, anyways, here is what the
applicant has proposed. Here is their concept plan. Again, it's -- this is -- it's tough for
staff to make a recommendation for approval on this, just because this site is -- is a little
premature. We don't know how this is going to develop. There is really nothing
developed out in that area at this time. We have questions with future connectivity here,
based on what happens with the adjacent property, so there is a lot of variables out
there that are hard to tell at this time. The other issue I bring up -- and I go back to the
Comp Plan map, is you see this little node right here on that -- on the subject site and
that really references from the parks department standpoint a community park. I know
in the staff report I have referenced that they were looking for a regional park, but after
speaking with Steve Siddoway and getting some comments from him today, he's
informed me that the city and the comp -- the parks comp plan actually calls for a
community park -- a 30 acre park is what they are looking for. If we go back to the
concept plan here, you can see the applicant has proposed roughly 3.5 acres. And it's
my understanding that they intentionally dipped down Harris Street to allow
development of that part for these four comers with the dividing parcels. Which makes
sense. In the parks department's comments they had referenced that three and a half
acres would not be sufficient and they would encourage the applicant to come in and sit
down and work with them to see what they could do to get additional acreage for that
community park. Again, the applicant is proposing to go from a high density residential
to more of your traditional four-plexes type R-15 zoning district, a medium high density
residential area, down to your detached R-8 lots. Staff would like to see better
connectivity with this parcel to the west of it. I mean they stub to the southern parcel,
but -- and have Harris come into that at that point, but if you look at their submitted
concept plan, you do see some roadways that come in here that have the potential to
add some additional connectivity there. And without realizing this is a concept plan, it is
important to connect our neighborhood, so any future development came in, I'm sure
the applicant would be more than willing to add some additional amenities to connect to
that as far as vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, but at this point there just aren't
enough to evaluate. They really wanted to demonstrate how this portion of the comp --
what they were proposing with the Comp Plan would develop. So, I would anticipate
with annexation, plat, they would probably have more of those details. Sony. So, with
that, again, staff is recommending denial of this Comp Plan and I would be happy to
answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the project.
Moe: Thank you. Any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come
forward?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 46 of 61
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario. I'm representing
Mr. Johnson, the applicant, on this particular application. Mr. Johnson came to me with
a copy of the Hawkins bubble plan and, then, a more specific site plan. He indicated
that he's chatted with them and they had informed him they were submitting the Comp
Plan map amendment to increase that mixed use regional further north. So, he,
obviously, had an interest in providing some type of a transition on his property, since
the intensity of the uses along his eastern boundary were going to increase. He did
want me to go on the record that he is supportive of the Hawkins application. He had
chatted with them. I have met with their representative. We have exchanged plans and
information. Obviously, you know, there -- what's proposed there, a big box user with
other complimentary retail uses. We will kind of change these -- the character out here,
so we thought that it would be prudent on our part to come up with some type of a way
to transition our use and come up with some uses that would compliment theirs. So, we
looked at it, let's integrate our uses and what would be served best, being adjoining a
large retail facility, would be apartments. If I could use the board. The black and white
doesn't quite do it justice. So, one of the things that we looked at, the Williams pipe line,
as Bill indicated,- traverses through here. That is something you just don't mess with.
They have very strict restrictions on what they allow. The depth of those pipe lines
deviates, so the other thing that we look at when we are dealing with it is minimizing our
street crossings, because typically we end up having to hump up over it. This pipe line,
at 75 feet wide, is their current easement. It continues in a northwesterly direction. In
my previous meetings with staff I said, you know, that would be an awesome pathway.
You know, you could put a big multi-use pathway in there and we have met Doug
Strong, who was the parks director at the time, and he said, you know, a neighborhood
park out here would be awesome along that pipe line and, then, they would, obviously,
have a destination as people biked and walked along -- along that new greenbelt. So, I
was also working with Mr. Centers, who owns the property on the north boundary, and
he also owns the property on the west boundary. So, when we were kind of sketching
out some different ideas and at the time the single family residential market was very
hot, we kind of got together and said, you know, if everybody gave, you know, three,
three and a half acres, a couple acres, whatever, we could make a great park and, then,
this will be a signalized intersection at Meridian Road, because that is the half mile at
Harris. The neighbors to the north in Meridian Heights were supportive. They want a
signal really bad, because it is difficult for them to enter and cross three lanes to go
northbound. We drop that collector in and, then, you have all of this nice collector
frontage on a neighborhood park and excellent pedestrian interconnectivity. So, the
way we looked at it when evaluating this site and figuring out our transitioning, this is a
natural bamer. I'm crossing it once with the collector, only, obviously, out of necessity.
It creates a partition in this property that we had struggled with when we were looking at
it from a single family residential standpoint. So, Mr. Centers wanted single family
detached dwellings adjoining him, because he anticipates in the future single family
development. Mrs. Laidlaw owns on the south boundary. She came to our
neighborhood meeting. She said, you know, if you put single family detached next to
me that would be acceptable. I just don't want the multi-family, because that's not what
I thought -- how the property was going to develop when I initially sold it. So, we do
have this kind of L shape here of the single family, then, we transition to like a multi-
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 47 of 61
family. Here we show kind for afour-plex type facility with a great loop connection and
we have got linkages to the greenbelt. We have got intemal pocket parks. And it just
made for an awesome -- what we thought transition. We spoke with Hawkins about this
-- this backage collector road. We are in support of it. We think, you know, obviously,
that would create a transition between the two uses also. Mr. Johnson was, you know,
supportive of, you know, like parking. His primary concern is, obviously, the loading
docks. But, you know, with the proper landscaping, the proper transitional residential
uses, it, obviously, can take advantage of that commercial. We think that this -- this,
obviously, makes sense. And, you know, depending on how their residential
component were to develop, obviously, interconnectivity between those linkages to the
greenbelt through us and other pathways would be incorporated. And, obviously, this is
just an idea. So, we are asking for -- out of the 52 acres -- out of the 52 acres, we are
asking for nine acres, which you see there with that apartment component, be re-
designated to high density residential. What we proposed there -- there are about 24
units per acre. So, obviously, like an R-15 designation, would not work for this. I think
-- you know, from a planning perspective, if we could get people to walk over to -- if it's
Wal-Mart or Target or whoever, walk to the dentist, walk over to other essential
commercial facilities, I think that would be great and I think that's what we are looking
for. As far as the long-term planning, keep these people off the arterials, try to keep
them in the intemal sections. Shoot these collectors, make a continuous collector, so
that we minimize the impact on the intersections. So, we felt, when looking at the big
picture, what's being proposed, that this makes sense and compliments the Hawkin
application. I'd like to address the a the parks issue. My client wanted me to state that
he owns 40 acres at the comer of Victory and Linder. He did talk with the parks
department about if they were interested in acquisition of that and I don't think the
discussions went very far. Initially, you know, what we proposed here for the
neighborhood parks, those are a donation. All the neighborhood parks that I have
proposed in projects have been donated sites. But when the staff starts talking about
40 percent of the site, I mean that's what we -- from aplanning -- in the planning world
call an exaction, that, obviously, our impact on parks is not that significant. Mr. Johnson
donated the Bear Creek park. We did get some impact fee credits on that and so I was
quite surprised where Bear Creek is just due north on Stoddard and it is a community
park, 18.4 acres. I worked with Mr. Johnson and the city on that one. So, that kind of
services that area. Typically, when you look at the parks plan, it references a park, but it
states that park would be located at Meridian Road and Amity. And it has on here a
little asterisk and it, basically, just kind of straddles three different property lines. Now,
when the city came up with these different proposed parks, they always qualified it. We
are not designating that park on any particular piece of property; it is just stating that we
want a park within that section somewhere. It calls out not a regional park, but it calls
out a community park. Now, in all of our experiences with different municipal parks
departments, the regional parks, the community parks, we locate on arterials. We don't
typically put them within the interior of a section, because of the high volumes of traffic,
you know, they have all the little soccer kids and the football kids and baseball kids and
so they -- they really generate a lot of traffic and plus the cities want them visible, so
they can be seen, because, obviously, it is a wonderful amenity. So, if the city is --
parks department is looking at the community or regional park, the interior of the section
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 48 of 61
-- I don't know, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The staff has recommended that
we meet with the new parks director and, obviously, discuss this and we would definitely
do that prior to submitting any subsequent applications on this. But right now we are
just asking for a designation of just this portion the nine acres constitutes, about 17.3
percent of the property. The rest of the property would remain in medium density
residential, which would be consistent with what you find to the north and to the west. I
think that's all that I need to cover. Do you have any questions?
Moe: Any questions of the applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe; Okay. Thank you. Well, there is no one signed up. If there is anyone that would
like to come forward, now would be the time. We have someone coming up.
Overy: Jason Overy. 6537 North Brigadoon Avenue, M
are the applicant adjacent to this property and we ai
amendment as Becky alluded and we also think that
picture of the proposed uses adjacent to ours that it do
was referenced in our application. But I did want to go
her statements that we are in support of their application.
:ridian. As you are aware, we
in support of the proposed
by understanding the bigger
:s help created the buffer that
on the record that we confirm
Moe: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Any comments, Commissioners?
Mr. Marshall, any?
Marshall: Right now I like the idea that it's a buffer up against the large commercial
projects. Wony also that our infrastructure is set up to hold so many cars and I don't
know how that balances things out. I don't know -- it's a small piece of area. I don't
know how many properties that's increasing. It's not an exceptionally large piece of
property. But I have to agree it is kind of what I was looking for on -- on a buffer against
those larger residences, as in multi-family. I still would like to see something between
those big box stores and even this, a little lower intensity from the big box store, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I, generally, when I think of the mixed use -- the mixed use
community -- it's community; right?
Marshall: Regional. Mixed use regional.
Newton-Huckabay: Mixed use regional. Oh. Okay. Never mind. Never mind.
Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm, any comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 49 of 61
Rohm: No, sir.
Moe: Okay. I really don't have much of a problem with the development at all. The
only concern I still have is that I would have liked to have seen a little bit more dialogue,
possibly, with the parks department to discuss this park issue. You know, I'm not so
sure that it wouldn't be a good idea to at least have a little bit more discussion on that.
This thing is not going to develop any time soon and so whether or not you took the time
to go through -- I guess there is a couple things that I'm interested in. It would be,
basically, dealing with parks and, basically, what we also see coming back with their
neighbor as well, so I'm not just sure how to feel totally on this one, but --
Newton-Huckabay: Just to me, to put a high density land use designation in this area
just -- it seems a little odd to me. And I kind of -- when I look at mixed use -- you know,
the mixed use regional or the mixed use neighborhood designation, part of that whole
idea of that is to create a transition in and of itself and so I'm not sure that you need a
high density residential transition from a transition. Does that --
Moe: I understand what you're saying.
Newton-Huckabay: And Bill made a comment earlier on the previous application, this is
going to be one of the first -- this area is a big deal, I guess, and I -- it has -- we can --
we can mess it up or we can support it and I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with the
high density there and I don't have a use problem with the development. As always, I
think it's, you know, innovative, but I'm just not comfortable with high density right there.
I think it's premature at this point for me.
Moe: Commissioners, any other comments? If not, can we get a motion?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA 08-09
for the Biskay Comprehensive Plan amendment. End of motion.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-009 for
Biskay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue CPA 08-009 for the Biskay
Comprehensive Plan amendment to the specially scheduled P&Z meeting of August
14th, 2008. End of motion.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 50 of 61
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-009 for Biskay to the special
meeting of August 14th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Public Hearing: CPA 08-007 Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use
designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community
for approximately 10 acres for Zamzows Chinden by JR, LLC -south
side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately'/ mile east of Meridian Road:
Moe: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CPA 08-007 for Zamzows
on Chinden and start with the staff report, please.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The CPA 08-007 is for
Zamzows on Chinden. It's located on the south side of State Highway 20-26,
approximately a half mile east of Meridian Road. The mailing address is 545 East
Chinden Boulevard. This ten acre parcel, shown here, is currently zoned RUT in Ada
County. It is within the city's area of impact boundary, which you can see right in the
light blue teal color there along 20-26 and our urban service planning area, but as you
can tell from this map, it's not currently contiguous to Meridian city corporate
boundaries. So, therefore, not currently eligible for annexation. To the north, obviously,
is the state highway. On the other side of the state highway is Castlebury Subdivision.
It is an Ada subdivision, zoned R-1. To the east is a Lutheran church. To the south are
some agricultural properties. There is an estate home on that ten acres there, zoned
RUT in Ada County. To the west is a Catholic church, also zoned RUT in Ada County.
The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use
map by changing the land use designation on approximately ten acres of land from
medium density residential to mixed use community. Part of the property is currently
being used as a commercial business, the Zamzows, obviously, and, then, there is a
safe barbecue dealer - I don't know if you can really make it out on this site plan, but it's
somewhere in that location right near the state highway. The applicant has owned this
property for approximately four years. In 2006 the city amended the Comprehensive
Plan map, the one I mentioned earlier, for all of north Meridian, so from McDermott over
to Eagle, Ustick, up to Chinden, there was a study done and we changed some of the
land use designations in north Meridian. That map includes several changes, one of
which was to move the mixed use community neighborhood center designation within
this center. So, here is -- and, pardon me, this got skewed a little bit. You can see it's a
little bit wider than it is tall, so it's a little bit out of whack. But here is -- here is the one
arterial, here is another, and your mid mile half moon, if you will, with mixed use
neighborhood center. And the Zamzows site is right here. You can see there is a small
portion of it that was medium density residential even then. Here is the current
designation. The parcel lines do not show up on this, so cut this into fourths, basically.
Zamzows would be right about in there. And, again, there is your fourth. So, there is
what the map would look like if you act favorably on this. It should be noted that
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 51 of 61
although the property did previously have a similar designation on the site, the mixed
use designation, not the neighborhood center part of that designation, but the mixed use
designation, that the -- the diagram that we do shoot for -- and I will grant you that we
don't see a ton of them develop as envisioned with the Comp Plan map, but we do have
some along Locust Grove. Quenzer Commons real similar, although they don't have
real core commercial at their center, they have more core offices, but that's a
development with Brockton Subdivision where you do have your core commercial
fanning out to your high density residential and, then, on the outskirts of your medium
density residential. So, if you look at this map, you know, a quarter mile is
approximately here. The commercial areas aren't shown even within that half moon
area. It's at the center of that half moon area that your core commercial areas are
looked for. So, again, although the designation changed on this site over time from this
designation to this designation, city staff have anticipated residential development of
this once Zamzows has had their run at it and redevelopment is ready to occur at
annexation that the city requested. All of the land surrounding the subject site, as you
can see on the map, is currently designated medium density residential or
public/quasi-public. I don't know why this church got the public/quasi-public, but the
Lutheran church is shown as medium density residential. I couldn't tell you why that is
there. But the surrounding properties are either medium density residential or
public/quasi-public. The city has planned for a variety of commercial and retail
opportunities in north Meridian. This site is not one planned for commercial and retail.
Staff believes that the proposed mixed use designation will further saturate this area
with nonresidential land uses, making some other sites planned for this type of
development difficult to build. Staff believes that the map currently depicts appropriate
future land uses for the site, which is medium density residential. As you can see
tonight, but for the one in the wastewater -- mixed use wastewater treatment plant area,
everyone wants to take residential and move it to commercial. The city did do a study in
2005. I'm not going to go into the merits of that study or if it's valid or not, but it did
compare us to other -- to Boise, to Eagle, to other similar type agencies in the Treasure
Valley. Even nationally. And they said you already have enough in north Meridian to
support more than the residential you have planned in north Meridian. Again, take that
for -- with a grain of salt. Read it for yourself. But, basically, they said you have about
three times what you're going to need, roof tops to office particularly, but even retail.
We had way too much planned. Not built, but planned. We have lots in Paramount still,
Lochsa Falls that we got zoned and approved -- Bridgetower -- that are approved -- not
necessarily that the building's there yet, but are planned in the future. So, the fear is is
that if we keep changing this map and all these places are going to compete against
each other and, .then, some of the places we really wanted it, it's not going to be
feasible, because they got -- someone else got the designation and the land use. The
applicant has not submitted elevations for concurrent annexation or development
application. They have submitted a conceptual development plan shown on the screen,
showing how the site may develop in the future. The landscape nursery. So, there is a
retail aspect. And their greenhouse will remain. This building is in approximately the
same location as the current building, although on the site plan it says a new retail user
there. There is the drive-thru shown on that site. These access points appear to be the
ones that are there now. There is a shared driveway to 20-26 here with that Catholic
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 52 of 61
church. It continues on on their side and, then, feeds back -- I think it eventually leads
back over to their parking lot that they have closer to Meridian Road. But there is a
shared driveway there and, then, this one that the subject site uses for it, so -- and,
then, there are residential units, attached townhomes, zero lot line homes, something
similar to light duplexes, if you will, in this area and, then, some additional retail users
are shown due west of the existing landscape nursery store. So, across-access to the
east and west are shown. As you can see from this plan, they haven't shown any
connectivity to the medium density that's shown just to the south. Staff will recommend
both vehicular and pedestrian accesses to those in the future. Regardless of land use
we are going to want to see some connectivity. And, again, we have done the song and
dance a few times tonight, but, again, the UDC prohibits direct access to 20-26. The
thing that I think is different about this one than some of the other projects that we have
looked at on highways -- and we talked about it before. This site neither has access on
the arterial -- the other ones were on a comer of an arterial and a state highway and this
one is a quarter mile in from that and they only have access to the state highway. So,
there isn't that ability to even look at having another access for commercial purposes off
of your adjacent arterial, because you aren't there, you're internal to the square mile and
you're not at the mid mile, so you're kind of in no man's land, if you will, on this property.
So, just, basically, the reason staff is not recommending approval of the subject
application is due to the access. We can't, again, support access that would require a
variance for both of these access points proposed. Even if the accesses weren't there,
staff has a difficult time envisioning how retail would work on this property, because,
then, you're taking -- I'm going to go to more of a regional view. You would be taking
that commercial traffic through either residential to the south up and through or back
over to the Hightower development and through a church and back through. So, a
backage road even for those retail users don't seem to be appropriate, based on future
and existing land uses surrounding the subject site. Again, we don't have any
commercial users on any of the sides around them, so getting commercial users there
would have to be from Chinden, essentially, and, again, we aren't supportive of any
access, let alone two to the state facility. So, because of that and -- so, access and
future land uses and existing land uses around, staff is not supportive of the applicant's
request for the Comp Plan amendment. Staff is recommending denial of the CPA and I
will stand for any questions you may have.
Moe: Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Eisenbarth: My name is Darin Eisenbarth. I live at 307 Windsor, Nampa, Idaho, and I'm
the president of Zamzows. We are a little different than most of the applications that
you saw tonight. What we are, actually, asking is to have our designation restored back
to us. When we purchased this property -- or when we were considering purchasing
this property about five years ago, we came in and we met with staff and we kind of
went over our, you know, future development of the property and they said, yes, it
meets with exactly what we are trying to do, we are trying to develop mid mile and we
saw our designation there and, you know, not that they were giving us any, you know,
warranty, but it seemed to meet with what they were looking for. When we were in the
process of developing our Overland store about two years when that started, we came
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 53 of 61
in and noticed that our designation had changed, had been moved. When we inquired
about that, they said, well, we -- we moved that to the east to facilitate another property
owner and we can't support you having any access to Chinden, which I thought was
odd, because we already have access to Chinden. We have been operating -- that
property has been operated in that manner for 17 years. Originally, it was -- the
preliminary plan was done in '91. So, it kind of leads us -- and they originally had said,
well, you would need to negotiate with the other property owners around you to get
access back to your property, which I don't know that that leads us anywhere. So,
basically, it was land lock us there. We have not submitted an annexation and rezone
permit yet, but today we did meet with the Catholic church, with two representatives
from the Holy Apostle, and they were supportive of our planned development and they
are in the process right now of getting everything ready for an annexation and rezone
on their property as well. They have got that one small parcel that they need to get
finished and, then, they are going to submit their application as well and that's what we
met with them about today. So, that would make us contiguous to come into the city.
We think this designation is what the city was trying to do with the mid town center and
all of that. We have, obviously, been operating in this location for a very long time. As
far as not, you know, violating some else's designation around there, I don't really
understand that. I mean retail clusters together usually and to disadvantage one
property for the sake of another's potential development down the road, I don't really
understand. This is our -- we own six properties in Meridian. This is -- we own five
business -- we operate five business locations in the city of Meridian. What we do feel
about this is, if you could show our proposed site, is that we are going to buffer with this
-- we are going to kind of buffer in between two other commercial or quasi-commercial
uses. We have the Lutheran church to the east and we have the Catholic church to the
west and so we offer kind of a transition into that. We also offer atransition -- we spoke
with Mr. Beeler, who owns the property behind us, and, you know, I don't really want to
speak for him, but he's looking at medium density residential for his property. We offer
a good transition from Chinden, accomplishing noise buffers and, you know, good
transitions in that way. So, this site plan is very, very preliminary, but it does represent
the spirit of what we are going to try to do with this. So, I think that's really all I have to
say. And, for the record, it won't be a Wal-Mart.
Moe: Any questions of the applicant?
O'Brien: No.
Newton-Huckabay: Not right now.
Moe: Thank you.
Eisenbarth: Thank you.
Moe: Douglas Zamzow.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 54 of 61
Zamzow: My name is Doug Zamzow. I live at 415 Schmeizer Lane in Boise, Idaho. I
act as the construction manager for Zamzows. You have probably seen me before
when we did the Overland project here a couple years ago. Read through the report.
Caleb's been good to work with. We have met with Anna several times and Caleb and
Sonya. We are optimistic, similar to the Overland store, that we can make this work for
everybody's benefit. I'm not sure if any of you have been to the Overland store, but it's
doing well and we have had a lot of compliments from the neighbors and the -- and the
clientele. I don't have a whole lot to offer. I just wanted to make a couple clarifications.
The pedestrian connectivity to the south, as well as vehicular, is a doable item. There is
water. United Water is already on the site. The staff report at this point says there is no
services at the property, but we are hooked up to United Water. I haven't told Caleb
that yet, but we do have United Water already at the site. And I feel it's a good
transition from Chinden to the medium density to the south. Thank you.
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Moe: Thank you very much. Any comments, Commissioners?
Marshall: I just had a quick question for Caleb.
Moe: Okay.
Marshall: Caleb, could we go back to the future land use map in that -- right. here.
That's good. So, right here, what's this intending to be right in this area, the
neighborhood center, the NC?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, that -- that's the Comprehensive Plan land
use map before it was amended in 2006. That's -- that's the request -- they are,
basically, asking to go back to what it was. That's what Mr. Eisenbarth was saying is
that they are requesting to have their old designation back put on the property, so --
and, again, what happened was, especially along Chinden, we lost these half moons
and, again, that designation doesn't come out very well here, but it's moved along --
linearly along Chinden a half mile right here. The access is all set just a hair into that
Hightower like right in there. But the core commercial is around there with higher
density residential townhouses. So, this -- the way this is developing was what was
intended for here. But, again, not necessarily on the Zamzow's property, the core
commercial would have been right here to there and, then, fanning out so this -- the
fringe of this area is meant for your higher density residential to support some of that
core commercial at the mid mile. So, I don't have any problem giving them that
designation back, but it still means we are still looking for residential development. The
mixed use, as you know, I mean it includes commercial, retail, office and residential
from three to 15 dwelling units per acre and that's what we would be looking for is the
three to 15 dwelling units per acre. So, that's what that old designation was.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 55 of 61
Marshall: Refresh my memory, then, please. The concept plan that is being presented,
how much more commercial is being added to what's there?
Hood: You know, the applicant may -- I didn't see any square footages on there, but --
so, Idon't know exactly what this building entails. There is one -- it looks like multi-
tenant retail building here. Something about half that size there. Again, a new building
-- it looks like new. Replacing the existing shed type building that's there now with the
drive-thru. That's pretty much it for new retail. So, not -- not a ton of new retail on the
site. You know, half or a little over half of the site is for residential -- I mean there is kind
of a demarcation line between retail and residential. So, they are doing a mini mixed
use project on their site. Again, access is really the -- the big thing, the hump that we
couldn't get over, because you can't -- if you can't get there, retail is not going to work.
Marshall: So, what we are saying is the current Zamzows, as it stands there, would be
removed and be gone?
Hood: Eventually some day. I mean that's the --
Marshall: Well, as a part of this proposal. The Zamzows is not part of that?
Hood: No. No. I'm sorry. So, these were the new construction. This is the existing
building with their nursery area that's here. And, then, they are keeping some ponds,
too. These ponds are also on the side of -- I can't remember if that one is there or not.
But there is some of these larger ponds are on the site and they are retaining those as
well, but, yeah, this would be -- be kept. Some of their bins for bark and sand and other
things are in this location here. It looks like they go away. That may be what -- yeah, it
says bark storage on it. That's what this is. So, they are still retaining some of those
accessory uses to the landscape nursery business, building kind of a little mini
community around it, if will, too, so -- but, no, that stays. And just to be clear, we are
not -- definitely like to support local businesses and these folks are great to work with. I
wish them continued success in that location. It's just long range, when it does
redevelop, this just isn't really what the city had envisioned for the property, so -- and I
know that directly conflicts what they have envisioned for the property, so that makes
this one tough.
Moe: Before I get any other comments from any of the other Commissioners, I had
gone through the signing list. Did you have any comments, sir? Okay. Thank you. So,
any other comments?
O'Brien: I have question.
Moe: Mr. O'Brien.
O'Brien: Was there any type of traffic study or going to be a traffic study on the amount
of traffic that was maybe seeing going out onto Chinden from this kind of a proposal?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 56 of 61
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, depending on square
footages -- and, again, I don't remember seeing any numbers with, you know, concept
square footages. It may not meet the ACHD warrants for requiring a traffic impact
study. That's certainly something the city can do when it comes to the annexation stage
is say we want you to prepare one. Quite honestly, I don't know what that traffic study
would address. I mean there is a lot of variables to -- to look at. You evaluate it with
two access points to Chinden, you look at it with no access points or one access point
or not knowing when the other properties around are going to develop some other way
out, how do you really evaluate that traffic study would be pretty difficult. Now, again,
ACHD and ITD, if a permit is submitted to them, could require a traffic impact study, but,
again, they have those thresholds and I don't, off the top of my head, know what those
are.
O'Brien: Thank you. I just look at this as we have to make the assumption that there is
not going to be a back road to get out of that particular complex and there is going to be
probably one major access, aright-in, right-out period. To me that's what it looks like.
And that could be a problem, but that's for somebody else to decide. Thank you.
Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I like it.
Rohm: I have a couple comments. Looking at the property as it's currently being
utilized, it's more of the mixed use commercial now and doesn't even potentially look
like medium density and it seems counter to me to say, okay, even though that's the
way you're using it now as being part of the county, if, in fact, you come into the city, we
are going to make you change what you're -- how you're using it. So, from my
perspective, the way it's currently being used and the way they are proposing to expand
just makes sense and Iwould -- I would be in support of this myself. So, that's the end
of my comments.
Newton-Huckabay: Ithink fundamentally we have -- down there in that section of
Chinden, coming up on Locust Grove, when Hightower came in and the -- that county
subdivision at Jericho -- I mean I think closing that off was the biggest improvement we
are going to get in that area and having access from -- through Hightower and Ithink -- I
like this. Ithink it's -- you know, you got a church on each side, there is another
landscaping company right out there next to the other, I believe, and I like it.
Moe: As far as access to get into the property, would you condition that into aright-in,
right-out type of situation or --
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Moe: --given them full access?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 57 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: No.. I'd leave the full access. It's been a full access, so -- like Mr.
Eisenbarth said, for 17 years and I don't think you're going to get a back road in there
very easily and -- I mean I suppose if you come in and -- I mean this a major
redevelopment of the properly, but you're leaving the existing business use on it, so I
guess forme that kind of gives you some kind of a grandfather right there somewhere.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: To be honest, I like the layout. I think it kind of fits the area. But I have to
admit I really don't like the access to Chinden and we are putting a lot of traffic back out
there on Chinden and that's one nasty road to get on and off of and it's going to slow
traffic down and it's going to be a mess. But, boy, I sure do like -- you know, to be
honest, I think it fits as far as -- I'm very torn on this. I just -- but the access I keep
stubbing my toe on that.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask you a question? I mean is this going to stub off to the
west, is that going to stub into the -- isn't this a private driveway on the church on the
west side, isn't it? Because doesn't that exit out to Meridian Road? Yeah. That one
comes in from the north.
Marshall: I don't know. I -- I don't e
Newton-Huckabay: That's the question I have.
Hood: It doesn't. I have got the aerial I can go to as well. But, no, it doesn't -- the
church currently has undeveloped parcels in here, so there isn't --they have one access
to their parking lot right there and -- and, then, this driveway does come into their site,
but it's not -- again, the properties on either side of that is -- are undeveloped. Now, if
there is some cross-access amongst the properties, which is what we would want to
see. I mean at the bare minimum, if we are going to approve something at the quarter
mile, we'd want it to be shared.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I mean I would take away -- I mean I don't have any problem
taking away one of those accesses. I mean that -- that I would think would be with the
intention of getting that east-west connectivity, because I would think your -- at some
point you're going to be able to hook into that Hightower development, if, unfortunately,
the soccer field went away.
Hood: And I guess that's part of the problem that staff had, too. I mean you have got
church, church, commercial. How do you get -- it has to go out onto Chinden. There is
nowhere else for it to go. And even if it does redevelop with medium density residential,
you still don't want to push that commercial traffic through medium density residential to
get here, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 58 of 61
Rohm: Well, the point is, though, I mean even if it was medium density residential, it's
still going to exit out onto Chinden, is it not?
Hood: No. If it's medium density residential, they can develop back through here and
you use access points this way and you have got medium density to the south. There is
a stub street here. We have talked to the church about developing this. They don't
have any plans to, but we have -- they haven't ruled it out, developing this medium
density residential and stubbing right up through -- it's not Wheelers -- whatever these
folks here is, so -- Beeler. Thank you. Beeler's property. So, you will have -- through
residential subdivisions you will come back out to Meridian Road in this location. So, it
is fully feasible that this could be medium density residential and have multiple access
out to the arterials and even through the development back through Saguaro and back
all the way back down to McMillan.
Moe: Well, Commissioners?
Rohm: I think we are ready to close.
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-007.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: Did you second it?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, I did.
Moe: Oh, I'm song. We have a motion and second to close the public hearing on CPA
08-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue item number CPA 08-007 to the special meeting of
August 14th, 2008.
Marshall: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 59 of 61
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-007 to the special P8Z
meeting on August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Public Hearing: CPA OS-002 Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use
designation for approximately 10 acres from Low Density Residential to
Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group -
NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road:
Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 08-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.75
acres from RUT and R1 to C-N zoning district for Eagle and Victory by
Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road:
Moe: All right. Just to note, sir, we -- no, you're fine. The rest of the hearings tonight
are going to be continued. There will nothing to open -- it will be opened to be
continued to the 14th. At this time I would like to get a motion to continue -- wait. Yeah.
Well, continue CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010 for Eagle and Victory to the special meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission for August 14th.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Rohm: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010, to the
special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for August 14th. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 15: Public Hearing: CPA 08-008 Request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use
designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community
for approximately 5 acres for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest
Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan Road:
Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 08-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.56
acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited Office District) for Postal
Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan
Road
Moe: At this time I would like to get a motion to continue CPA 08-008 for the Postal
Annex to the special meeting of the Planning and zoning Commission for August 14th.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 60 of 61
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: So moved.
Moe: Did Iget a --
Newton-Huckabay: You got adual -- second.
Moe: We have a second. Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded to
continue CPA 08-008 for the Postal Annex to the special meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission for August the 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: At this time I'd like to get a motion to continue AZ 08-009 for the Postal Annex
to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of
September 4th, 2008.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-009 for the Postal Annex to the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for September
4th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: I move we adjoum.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjoum. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: 10:40.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
August 7, 2008
Page 61 of 61
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
DAVID MOE - IRMA
~`)
ATTEST:
u ~~~
DATE APPROVED~~~~~~~~~~,,~~~~,
.~ ca T~ 9y ,,,,
C+O~ M,T,,
~°~ o \=
~, ,.
,.
,~P ~~