2008 09-18Meridian Plannin~a and Zonina Commission September 18, 2008
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 18, 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, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Nancy Redford, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters,
Scott Steckline, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay O 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 the Planning and Zoning Commission for September the 18th. At
this time I`d like to open the hearings -- or open the meeting and ask the clerk to call roll.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
There are a couple items that are going to change this evening for you folks out in the
audience here. I'll just go -- basically, there will be some hearings that are going to be
continued. Item No. 5, which is for Volterra Mixed Use that will be continued to the
meeting of October the 2nd. Items 6 and 7 for Shays Cove will also be continued to our
regular meeting of the 2nd of October. And, then, Item No. 8, which is for Fairview
Lakes Retail, that will be continued to our meeting of the -= October the 16th. Other
than that, the others will be heard and we will continue those in order as we go through
our agenda this evening. So, with that said, can I get a motion to approve -~ to adopt
the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 2 of 24
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 4, 2008 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which is the approval of the
meeting minutes of September 4th, Planning and Zoning meeting. Any comments?
Questions? Any motion? Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Marshall; Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as written.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Okay. Very quickly, I'm just going to go over the format that we are going to go
through this evening. I know most of you have been here once before, but there are a
couple folks that don't. We will -- I will open the public hearing on the matter and at that
time staff will give a brief overview of the project, explaining their conditions and whatnot
and reasons why those were put on that. After their time is done I will, then, ask the
applicant to come forward and the applicant will, then, have 15 minutes to, basically,
give their interpretation of the project and their reasons why they either agree or don't
agree with the staff report and asking us to change anything on that, if passible. After
that 15 minutes I will, then, ask anyone in the audience if they would like to come
forward and they will have three minutes to give their say, at which time after that, if
there has been any people that have came up I will, then, ask the applicant to come
back up to respond to any of those comments. And after which, then, we will, then,
close the public hearing and, then, make motions on what to do.
Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 08-004 Request for Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-O
(Limited Office) and R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to C-G
(General Retail and Service Commercial) (25.10 acres), L-O (Limited
Office) (10.70 acres), C-C (Community Business) (37.84 acres) and R-15
(Medium-High Density Residential) (20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed
Use by Primeland Development Company, LLP -west of N. Ten Mile
Road and north of W. McMillan Road:
Moe: So, having said that, I would like to go ahead, then, at this time and open the
public hearing for RZ OS-004. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Yeah. I do want to do that. And I
want to continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 2nd. Could I get a
motion to approve that?
Rohm: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 3 of 24
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue the public hearing on RZ 08-004 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of October the 2nd, 2008. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Oops. I'm sorry, I did go out of order. I just noticed that.
Rohm: I don't think that hurts anything.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2008: PP 08-008 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 commercial lots on approximately 8.7
acres in a C-G zoning district for Trade Plaza by Land Investors, LLC -
555 S. Meridian Road:
Moe: Okay. Well, anyway, then, let me back up and I'm sorry about that, we will open
number four, which is the continued public hearing for PP 08-008 for Trade Plaza and
ask staff to report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The project before
you this evening is a preliminary plat request for a seven lot commercial subdivision on
an 8.7 acre parcel -- or, actually, two parcels of 8.7 acres in a C-G zone. To the north of
this site is John's Auto Care and Troutner Subdivision, zoned C-G. And to the south of
this is some storage units, zoned C-G. To the west is some office uses and some
construction yards and a vacant parking lot or unimproved parking lot to the west, zoned
L-O and C-G. And, then, of course, to the east of this is C-G zoned property with a mix
of commercial uses, restaurants, drive-thrus, et cetera. Here is an aerial of the site.
Again, you can see that this parcel right now is currently vacant. To north is John's Auto
Care, as I mentioned. Here is Pennwood Avenue that parallels the site, north of the
site. The applicant, again, is proposing aplat, aseven -- excuse me -- a seven lot
commercial plat. Phase one will, essentially, end here and be the front portion of that
and phase two is expected to continue to the west. Here is what the applicant has
proposed. Again, here is one access point that they are proposing to Meridian Road
here, a full access point here and, then, of course, with the phasing of their plan they
are proposing to construct that portion of corporate drive and kind of stub at that
boundary -- the phase one boundary and have a turnaround located in this location for
emergency vehicle access and whoever else goes back in there needs to use that as a
turnaround. This area of the plat is -- this lot is proposed far a future drive-thru bank for
that site. One thing I'd like to point out is staff is not supportive of the access onto
Meridian Road. UDC restricts that. We feel -- we have conditioned the applicant to
actually take access onto Corporate Drive at this time. The other thing -- another
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 4 of 24
condition that staff has placed on the applicant is to actually extend Corporate Drive to
and through to where it's currently stubbed at the western property boundary. That road
section is approximately 1,253 feet. So, it's quite a substantial amount of road
improvement for the site, but I just wanted to bring that out and let you guys know that's
what we'd like to see with phase one of the project. The applicant has also submitted a
landscaping plan for the site. Again, staff errored when we originally transmitted the
staff report back on -- for the August 21st hearing and we were under the -- staff was
under the impression that Corporate Drive was a local street and after doing further
research and meeting with the applicant, it has, indeed, been designated a collector
street and, therefore, the UDC requires a 20 foot landscape buffer and on this submitted
landscape plan the applicant has proposed a ten foot landscape buffer. Since this site
does fronton Meridian Road, the UDC also requires a 35 foot landscape buffer adjacent
to Meridian Road, which has been designated an entryway corridor based on our code.
The other thing I'd like to step back and also address that access point a little bit further.
At this time it would be considered a full access, but if you're not aware with the corridor
study that's going on right now what's proposed to happen in that area. Meridian Road
will be southbound in the near future and Corporate Drive is expected to be a signalized
intersection and so that -- in essence, that access to Meridian Road will actually
become aright-in, right-out only in the future. The applicant has not -- staff had asked
the applicant to have some elevations for you tonight, so kind of give you a vision on
how the site would -- how the buildings would be constructed on this site. Nothing was
turned in for you to review for tonight's hearing. However, the applicant has submitted a
concept plan -- preliminary concept plan for how the first phase of the development is
expected to look. Here, like I said, this has been left out. This is potentially to be sold
to a bank for a bank site. The applicant's also showing a two way drive-thru here, one
drive-thru coming this way and the other one going west to east and, then, you have
same multi-tenant commercial buildings there as well. I apologize for that. And, again,
the staff -- or staff did receive comments from the applicant today, the owner of the
property, the applicant. Basically, one of the things they wanted to bring before you
tonight and discuss before you is, one, the access road, because staff doesn't support
it. One thing I would bring out and for the applicant's sake is that they have entered into
a settlement agreement with ACHD to grant them that access paint, so they know more
about what happened on the history on that site than I do. I'll let them try to explain their
agreement -- that settlement agreement with ACHD. The other issues is they are
asking that the 20 foot landscape buffer remain at a ten foot landscape buffer. They
were concerned -- you know, I mean understandably they were informed at a later date
-- they just found out maybe a week, week and a half ago, or whenever I sent the staff
report out I called them and e-mailed them and prior to sending that staff report I called
them and, then, I also, after the staff report, to reflect that 20 foot requirement. So, they
felt that was an undue hardship on them and they have asked to have you consider that
being a ten foot landscape buffer. And also they had ask that you allow them to -- just
to allow them to stub Corporate Drive at the phase one line as proposed. With that staff,
is recommending approval of the preliminary plat and I'll stand far any questions
Commission may have.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time?
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 5 of 24
Rohm: I do.
Moe: Mr. Rohm.
Rohm: The Corporate Drive recommendation of staff to take it the entire 1,200 feet
west, will it tie into any other road at the end of that 1,200 feet? Does it complete a loop
or what's the -- what's the purpose of requiring that or recommending that from the staff
level?
Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, if I can direct your attention to the
aerial here, this pretty much tells the story. here. One, you have Corporate Drive to the
east of this site. Corporate Drive is currently west of this site and if you remember,
Commission acted and Council's -- I think it's reconsideration for the next City Council
meeting, but you also have Browning Plaza that was acted by this Commission as well
and, eventually, that will be extended with a bridge over that canal to come in and
connect to Corporate Drive. So, one of staffs reasoning was if this comes in and this
develops, it would be a good time to have the rest of this completed and extend that
street to and through now and finish that connection as far as --from the standpoint of a
public safety issue, too. It gives the fire department some further access -- more access
in the future, as well to some of those back lots as well, rather than having to come
down and go out here and, then, come back around to this development.
Rohm: But currently Corporate Drive does not cross the canal; is that correct?
Parson: That is correct. It is stubbed right there. Probably at tap of bank right there.
Rohm: And is there an agreement that it is going to be completed like --
Parsons: Commissioner Rohm, I believe MDC and the applicant's currently working out
those issues right now, as far as reimbursement and acquiring that right of way.
Rohm: Okay.
Parsons: They are in contact with the owner of that property.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward,
please. State your name and address for the record.
Berry: Good evening. My name is Art Berry. My address is 4804 Roberts Road in
Boise. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and members of the .city and staff
and guests, I have not been here before, so I hope I'm doing this right. In any event,
bought this property some 15, 18 years ago and have been waiting a long time to be
here this day. If you recall this was the junk yard -- a Howard Paul junk yard, which was
Meridian Planning & zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 6 of 24
the entryway to the City of Meridian at the time we bought it and with the help of Ron
Sargent and his partner and with a commitment from a Nampa based credit union, Ida-
Div, who wants to make this their gateway office into Meridian, we think we have got a
heck of a project that we are real proud of and hope you will see the reasons why we
think it should be approved. By and large we have three issues only that -- to contest
with in relationship to the recommendation filed by the city. I will address the first two
very briefly and Mr. Perez will address the other issue, which is the extension of the
street issue dawn Corporate. The first two issues -- and I do have elevations, as best
they are. We haven't commissioned the architect yet and the credit union does not
have their work done yet. They have their site plan work done. But I have the
architect's conceptual rendering, if that gives some better indication of what we want to
do. Mr. Chairman, may I approach the desk and let you hand these out as you may.
Let me keep one in case you ask me questions, because I don't have it all in my head
here. In a nutshell -- Mr. Parsons suggested -- or accurately stated that he wanted to let
me speak to the Meridian Road curb cut, because of a long standing and hard fought
negotiation, which resulted in our giving the -- and getting condemned the -- both
frontage on Corporate, as well as significant frontage on Meridian some time ago by
ACRD. I take technical issue, if I would, to the -- bath wording in the staff report and the
representation today that the curb cut was not supported by the City of Meridian. I was
under the impression from our prior planning meeting that they were going to back off of
their initial nonsupport and come in with a more favorable neutral comment of it in the
light of the litigation and the ensuing court order granting us this deeded curb cut. But
that might be semantics and I'll leave it for you to decide. I don't know whether that you
will take public notice of the filed report and I thought it had been provided. It was
referenced in sections C-7 of the ACHD report where they recommended the approval
of 150 foot full access curb cut, I believe, based upon this 2000 settlement agreement
and because of that I didn't think that we had an issue that was arguable here and I
didn't come prepared to address it. The statement in the settlement agreement with
ACRD and myself in paragraph two, reads, as agreed by the parties: ACRD shall allow
Berry to erect and construct a full access curb cut frontage to their property on Meridian
Road, with the condition that the curb cut be located in the southwest region or frontage
of the road and it goes on. But it's real clear this was a major reason why we took a lot
less in concession dollars for the Meridian curb cut and this was even before a lot of
long range planning. We feel that -- and if you can remember the other slide, for what
we are trying to put, which is a one acre bank on the corner and the -- a center road,
which will connect to same very high end strip center buildings, which you see in front of
you, that it's instrumental to have that Meridian and access point and instead of initially
coming out with a two way cut, we were more than happy to reduce that to a right-in,
right-out only based on inevitable change of that road. So, there is no sense wasting
dollars setting it up to be a full access, when it's going to be right-in, right-out and so we
would, you know, concede to setting it up that way.
Rohm: Can you point out on the screen there where you want your access point?
There is a laser pointer right on your --
Meridian Planning & zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 7 of 24
Berry: Okay. I will, as best I can. This is the platted -- proposed plat map of what you
just saw and this is approximately 145 feet from the corner. This frontage here,
believe, is about 275 feet. We had a significant taking, which I'm going to get into in just
a second on the landscaping issue, but Corporate doesn't align on its eastern and its
western frontages and this goes back into maybe why the mistake occurred on the
designation. This street was originally designated as a collector and, then, it was
downgraded to a residential street, I guess, or something and then -- and the -~ because
it didn't align that ACRD said we are going to require you to give us approximately 17
more feet of frontage here and we will taper that back, generally, the full length of my
first phase one. So, the roads -- if we can advance to the next slide, Bill. Even the next
one, too, please. This would be -- this is the Meridian Road. I believe it's a 30 foot
entryway access point and it's intended to not quite bisect the property, but to leave
enough access to have a very good turning radius and clean ingress-egress point to the
remainder of the four platted lots in the subdivision and, then, have an easy in and out
point on Corporate and, then, down to the signalized corner.
Rohm: And that's aright-in, right-out?
Berry: This would -- we would be happy to do a right-in, right-out with.
Rohm: Okay.
Berry: If there is no other questions concerning the ingress point, I'll address the only
other concern that we had and that was the requirement of changing the landscape
buffer on Corporate from the initial ten feet, which was planned and discussed to the
now 20 feet, which. I understand is a requirement based upon the collector nature of the
street. I don't know why the mistake was made. There has been a lot of confusion in
this project over time, but one of the reasons why it's causing us some real hardship is
this portion has been platted, engineered and sold off already and so -- and with the
ingress-egress, which is primarily intended to be off of Corporate for the credit union
and a lateral street and, then, some -- I don't know if they are up here or right here, but
the bank out window, canopied -- what do you call them? Drive-ups. Trying to be out of
the way and try to both fix a good landscaping -- and the landscaping is going to be, if
not 25 -- it's not 20 -- 35 feet in frontage, whatever was required and we are more than
happy to do that, along with the sidewalk, et cetera, but by having to give up this 17 feet
of taper lane and by having to work around this mistake and by having to go back and
either redesign the project and/or resell them property, so they can fit the footprint of
their bank in here, causes a hardship to us and so we are asking for a variance from it,
at a very minimum on the first hundred -- or there is 226 feet and, hopefully, it would
carry through further. And I understand that -- and I'm not here asking for things that I
wouldn't be willing to give something back for, but I hope that you take into
consideration that excess taper lane that we had to give back and how far that building
is going to be setback from the primary driving lane on Corporate, is a pretty big setback
already and we are willing to add mare trees. We intend to make it a real first class
entry point for the city and if adding more trees or some concession you would find to be
more palatable, I'd sure be open to doing that, too. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18.2008
Page 8 of 24
Mae: Are we still working off of 15 minutes?
Perez: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Rob Perez. I reside at
12833 West Ventana Court in Boise, Idaho. And I'm a member of the Land Investors,
LLC, which owns the land from this property line on through. As a member -- excuse
me. As a point of clarification, this subdivision is for 17 lots, not seven lots, as staff
communicated a moment ago. Quick background. When my partner Ron Sargent and
acquired this property approximately three years ago, we approached Mr. Berry, as he
mentioned he had owned the land for some time prior to that, and we signed a
memorandum of understanding that at some point in time if he were to proceed and we
were to proceed for reasons of having a tenant in hand or some other use for the
property, that we would cooperate with the development activities and when Mr. Berry
obtained a letter of intent from the credit union, we, in concurrence with that
memorandum of understanding cooperated with respect to engineering, site drainage,
and other preliminary plat requirements. We are phase two again, which references
that point to the west. We -- in looking at the staff report concur with all the
recommendations, including the 20 foot landscape buffer, with the exception of the
requirement of extending Corporate Drive to the end of our property line and the reason
far our exception to that requirement is really three fold. One -- and most importantly,
there is no code requirement, we believe, far that extension. Two, to Commissioner
Rohm's point, the road really at this point goes nowhere beyond that property line and
although it's conjecture that that road will be extended beyond that, there really is no
absolute assurance that that will be the case, particularly given the current economic
scenario. Secondly -- I guess thirdly, our location is challenged. This is not unlike
where Browning Plaza might be where there is a retail -- but perhaps a large retail user.
Even if there is a retail user there, we are directly across the street from a mini storage.
They have razor wire. They have, you know, storage units in visibility and this site is
probably light industrial use of some sort, maybe some B or C office and to see any
visibility economically to this being developed in a fashion to where the several hundred
thousand dollar obligation to build that road would make sense is just not there. Again,
we got into this phase two and the supporting efforts with Mr. Berry because of his
tenant in hand, but we have no use for this property. We have no visibility to
improvement of economic conditions and we believe that it is a significant hardship for
us to spend several hundred thousand -- we estimated somewhere in excess of
250,000 dollars to construct that road when we have a marketplace today that, frankly,
doesn't justify it and a road that will not go to create a connectivity. Staff has asked us
is there a time in which -- or conditions under which we would be willing to say we would
construct that road and, you know, you ask that question six months to a year ago, we
probably could have come up with some ideas, but whether it's Target or whomever it
may be that goes significantly further away from us, short of that large box locating right
next door to our property line, which would clearly give us a draw and an understanding
of usage for that property, given where we are located again, short of that we just don't
know of anything. We'd like to help staff. We want to be good neighbors in all respects,
but it really is, in our opinion, a significant hardship and we would respectfully ask that
you approve our plat application without that condition.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 9 of 24
Moe: Any questions?
Rohm: No questions.
Marshall: I do. So, at this time I'm curious why you would want to plat this back half.
Where would you take access to it? There is no road here.
Perez: Simply to put a plat on our -- Commissioner, simply to put a plat on, in our mind,
does move the project one step from bare land and the current financing and the current
economy financially, we do have a loan on this land and banks like to see at least some
activity, as opposed to bare land. That's become more and more of an issue today and
there are no bankers in the audience, except for myself and having known a little bit
about that, you could say this is somewhat posturing from a banking perspective.
Marshall; Understand. Thank you.
Moe: Questions? Thank you.
Marshall: I do have a question for the first gentleman that was up.
Mae: You're fine. Well, no --
Marshall: I have a question for you.
Moe: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. Come back up. I didn't hear him say that.
Marshall: I'm sorry, I wasn't loud enough. I will talk louder. Your conceptual drawing
here that you provided, I'm curious as to where that fits on the site. I mean it's -- I
assume your idea is to have same sort of coffee shop or something up here?
Berry: Yes, sir.
Marshall: And, then, you're going to have adrive-thru bank here?
Berry: Yes, sir.
Marshall: Right here. And, then, I'm assuming this style of building that you have got
here is for these four buildings or one of them or --
Berry: It is for these four buildings.
Marshall: The four buildings.
Berry: The only thing that this -- this rendering doesn't show is a conceptual design of a
frontage food -- and we believe it to be coffee because of the morning drive, freeway
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 10 of 24
connectivity portion, and the theory is that because of the smallness of the structure and
the design capabilities of an in and out access, that the building might have two drive-in
windows, one which would serve as coffee in the morning and one a subway type
sandwich, non-grill food after that.
Marshall: So, the idea is to have a considerable amount of traffic moving through this
area, all in an access that's 15Q feet from a signalized intersection?
Berry: I don't know if considerable is the right word, but what the traffic engineers tell us
would logically be supported by when Meridian Road gets widen to on the extent it is
and I understand that western lane of Meridian Road might even be a turn lane into this
center, so I don't anticipate -- or we didn't anticipate that the ingress-egress problem
typically associated with being close to a major arterial and signalized center would be
as extreme when the road is converted to a minimum three lane one way connection.
Marshall: So, it's your understanding that this western lane on Meridian may possibly
be a turn only back into Corporate Drive, in which case anybody coming out here would
have to go over two lanes to get to the intersection.
Berry: I don't know, Commissioner, what it is, because I haven't been able to get a
comprehensive answer from ACRD yet. This taper lane situation was something that
was -- was removed before and was just added at the time we filed far this application
and I haven't gotten them to tell me what their plans are for deceleration down Meridian.
But I had consulted with our architect and the thought being with the -- bifurcating the
traffic loads an Meridian and Main, that there would not be a congestion problem.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Okay. There is no one signed up. Is there anyone else out here in the audience
that would like to speak to this? Okay. Thank you. I do have a question of staff. I'm --
and the applicant may need to come back up. I'm a little confused. We have got phase
one, we have got phase two, and we have had the applicant come up and discuss
phrase one.and, then, we have had another party come up and talk about phase two. It
sounded to me like we have got two different owners and how can this project go as
one? Is this property separate or is this a whole or how -- just exactly what's going on
with the property here?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, let me try to explain that a little
better. Where you see this phasing line, you can see that's labeled phase one. Mr.
Berry owns that. Mr. Perez and Mr. Sargent owns -- Land Investment, LLC, owns the
remaining 5.3 acres or whatever that is. Staff isn't really -- doesn't really know much of
the history on this site. I'm not sure when the property zoned or if this property was
even legally split from one another, how this lot was even created. So, we have some
reservations. If the applicant were to pull this application and just submit the first part,
we would need some -- some kind of deeds dating back prior to 1984 showing that this
is, indeed, a lot before our subdivision ordinance was recorded.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 11 of 24
Moe: That's kind of where I was going. I'm a little bit confused there. Okay. Any
questions, Commissioners, at all or --
Marshall: I do of staff. Bill, do you know anything about Meridian Road, whether there
is an intended right-in to Corporate Drive there or what's intended there from Meridian
Road, other than I know it's southbound.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, my understanding -- I looked at the
diagram prior -- while I was working on the staff report, so forgive me, it's been almost a
month now. I believe it is three lanes southbound. I think, if my memory serves me
right -- and I'm not a hundred percent certain on this, but I believe that de-cel lane
actually goes to Waltman Lane, not to Corporate Drive. I think it might stub off into that
-- going towards that way. I don't believe it starts at Corporate Drive, but if I could
access the website and look at that, they have that drawing on the website to see haw
that design is laid out. ACRD does.
Marshall: Bill, do you have that aerial? Does that show Waltman Drive there and how
much further that is? Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: You're welcome.
Moe: Well, Commissioners, what would we like to do here? Any comments?
Rohm: I guess I would have a comment on the buffering. I understand that this is an
arterial, that they --ordinance would like to see a 20 foot buffer, but I kind of concur with
the applicant that the property to the south of Corporate is all kind light industrial in
nature, being that it's the storage and what have you and I'm not sure that this total
project will develop out to be a --
Newton-Huckabay: Retail.
Rohm: -- retail center that would almost require that you have that type of a buffer there
just far esthetics. I think it ultimately will probably develop from a little bit mare of an
industrial usage and maybe -- maybe there is a point there to be taken that we could
take a look at that a little bit differently. But that's my comments onthe -- on the buffer.
Parsons: Commissioner Rohm, the buffer -- the land use buffer isn't based on the use
on the property, it's based on the road designation. The UDC says if it's a collector
street it's required to have a 20 foot wide landscape buffer, regardless of the use.
Rohm: Oh. Okay. Well, that's --thank you. I appreciate that.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 12 of 24
NewtonTHuckabay: I was just going to comment that in the short term I don't see it
developing with the vision presented by the applicant either, but I also could see with
the Browning -- is it Brownlee -- Browning?
Marshall: Browning.
Newton-Huckabay: Something. Down south and once the street realigns and given the
other destination retail type stuff and I could see where the storage facility could be not
necessarily the highest and best use for that property. So, for that reason I would be
more -- I would like to see the landscape buffer without the variance. I'd like to see the
street extend all the way through to Corporate Drive. I would agree that maybe -- that
Corporate Drive be finished as each phase of it developed, something of that would be
reasonable to me. I'm not sure how that would be worded. And I don't have any
problem with the right-in access on the east. Now, that was still the stub there to the
north, right? That would still -- in the -- eventually we'd have that north access as well?
Parsons: That is correct.
Mae: Okay. Well, my comments, as far as the Meridian Road access point and
whatnot and what they worked out with ACHD, that's all well and good and -- but, you
know, there is certain things the city likes to do that aren't the same as ACHD. So, you
know, I'm not so concerned about ACHD and any agreement they put together.
However, the applicant's already stating that he would give up a full access and go to a
right-in, right-out right now, so I don't have a problem giving him that access if it's a
right-in, right-out into that area off Meridian Road right now. As far as the landscaping
and whatnot, I also believe that it needs to be put in as -- as required, but whether or not
-- you know, I guess where I'm going from is the city didn't catch it in their first review,
however, I think when it was being designed you guys do check your UDC
requirements, everything else, so I'm going to say we all kind of made the mistake there
-- both parties didn't get that correct. So, I do believe the 20 foot is required and needs
to be there. As far as the road, I, too, think the road needs to go all the way through.
My biggest concern is trying to come up with some kind of a time frame as to, you know,
when things happened or whatever. I guess the only time frame I can see that would be
-- to trigger the road going through phase two is when that bridge gets built to go over.
At that time, then, that's -- that's a full access to get -- get going and we need that road
in. So, whether it's -- you put it in now and, then, they, you know, make the agreements
and get the bridge in or you come to the concession that they don't have to put their
road in past -- you know, in phase two until that bridge goes in, I can see doing
something like that. But I do believe the road needs to go in.
Newton-Huckabay: I think connect the road all the way through now isn't going to
connect to nothing, because it will run into 8th Avenue -- is it -- 5th Avenue. 5th
Avenue; right? Which then, connects up to Franklin.
Moe: That's correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 13 of 24
Newton-Huckabay: So, I mean it's not -- it's not a road to nowhere in the sense that it
doesn't have connectivity to something and so it would, in essence, give -- give an
alternate route to any of the sites there.
Marshall: I am absolutely convinced that Corporate Drive is going to become and will
eventually -- it may be a number of years out. Given today's economy it may take a little
longer, but that's going to become a significant retail area. That storage facility -- its
time is numbered. It's not -- eventually, that land is going to become too valuable to
keep it as storage, especially with all the retail going in down here and all the rework
down through here. That's going to become a very significant retail area, as well as
Corporate. You know, I could see platting this part here and only extending that here,
but if you want to plat the rest of it, I really think that ought to extend through when that's
platted. I understand it's posturing with the bank, but I mean the city's got to look out
after the rest of the city, too. And I think that's going to become a major thoroughfare
and that's going to very much -- when that road is put through it will very much increase
the value of that land significantly, as well as the storage area across the street and
that, too, will change. I also -- because Meridian Road will not -- as long as it does not
have aright-in only to Corporate Lane, I don't have a problem with that full access or the
right-in, right-out access. I would have a problem with it if there was aright-in only to
Corporate Lane off of Meridian Road, because, then, traffic coming out 150 feet from
Corporate Road has to crass -- they don't want to turn right back to Corporate Road,
they are coming out of that establishment and coming right out they'd have to cross two
lanes within 150 feet. As long as there is not aright-in there I don't have a problem with
it.
Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners? Well, then, can I get someone to close
the public hearing --
Baird: Mr. Chair, in the interest of developing a full record, it looks like the applicant has
something in the nature of rebuttal based on your comments.
Moe: Okay. That would be great. Please come forward. Thank you, sir.
Perez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Rob Perez, 12833 West Ventana
Court, Boise, Idaho. We would certainly be happy to build the road at such time that we
actually began a development of phase two. We understand that the road would need
to be built. Again, at this point all we were doing was cooperating with the phase one of
this who actually has a use. We have no use and with the marketplace the way it is
today, the land values are not increasing, they are decreasing. The retail marketplace
is getting significantly depressed, not just here, but nationwide. If there was a signed
agreement with a Target or whomever it may be, I do not believe it would have a
significant impact on our property and, again, we are -- the financial burden, over a
quarter of a million dollars, just because we are trying to create a few lots, Ijust -- you
know, I really ask that you -- that you reconsider that. Thanks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 14 of 24
Moe: Thank you. So, Commissioners, back again. Do we have any closings we want
to do or anything or anyone's comments?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: May we recap kind of where we are? I have got that, generally, the
Commission is in support of the right-in, right-out, with the 35 foot landscape buffer an
the east side. The Commission does not support a variance on the south landscape.
So, to keep it 20 feet. Is that the generally -- and so the one question I have is -- you
know, we made comments about -- I believe everyone is, far the most part, in support of
Corporate Drive being built out, but wasn't clear to me whether -- I mean felt it should be
all done at once or could begin at some other point in time. That's what I have as the
only open item.
Moe: Well, I guess my point would be on that is is that if they plat it all that the road
should go in and the best case scenario for phase two would be that they wouldn't have
to do that until the bridge went in, in my opinion. That's my opinion.
Rohm: I think that's a great way to segway this, but I don't know how we put a date
certain time on a bridge that has yet to be required and so it's very open-ended and so I
think that we are leaving these people kind of in a lurch by making that a requirement to
build the entire Corporate Road with no date certain for the bridge crossing and I just
think that maybe, if anything, we'd say we are going to require it now and if, in fact, they
don't like that motion, then, they can go back and modify their application and maybe
split the two projects into two, phrase one being the applicant at this time and make an
application for phrase two at such time as they are ready to move forward. That seems
where -- anyway, that's my comments on the road.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair'?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Am I just missing the pink elephant in the room here? Why can't
you just say develop -- that road has to be developed at the time that phase two
develops? Am I missing the obvious or something?
Hood: Mr. Chair, maybe Icon -- Mr. Perez hit on it somewhat. We have some of the
same concerns that they do, that phase one develops and maybe it's only the bank that
comes in and phase two doesn't come for ten years. So, that's why staff made the
comment that they did that regardless of phase lines -- basically, what our thing is is not
-- the way Bill has written the staff report as not approving the phase development is the
road gets extended now, because that connectivity is important to staff and to the city.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2D08
Page 15 of 24
So, we are concerned with phase two, which I think is a concern of the applicant; at
least both property owners, is they don't know how it's going to develop or when that's
going to develop and I understand that. But that's the same concern that we have is
that if we don't get that connection with phase one, it may be a long time frame before
we do see that and we thought it was appropriate to require that connection with the
phase one, so -- and I guess maybe if I can, since I have got the floor for just a second,
to Commissioner Rohm's question, comment, about not having a date certain for the
bridge. You certainly could, if you chase to require that extension, you certainly could
tie it to something saying, okay, once the bridge is in and constructed you have nine
months or a year or some amount of time to make that connection. It's not a date
certain, but we could say the city will notify you within 30 days of this completion and
from that date you have nine months or a year or whatever the case may be to make
the connection if you so choose. So, it's not a date and time certain. If the bridge
doesn't go in, we never send the letter, they never -- they don't have to make the
connection. But if it does, then, those dominoes fall. The other thing that I want to bring
up that hasn't been talked about -- and I don't even remember talking with them when
we met a few weeks ago -- and I don't know if you want to have them come back up or if
this is even something the Commission is -- would want to consider as an option. It
certainly would still cost the owners of phase two some money, but making that road
connection -- not as a full blown street connection, like it will be in phase one with the 20
foot landscaping and curb, gutter, and sidewalk and all that, but maybe getting two
travel lanes anyways. You know, putting down the base and getting the pavement in
there. I don't know if ACHD would accept it or not, but making that connection even
temporarily, then, they can see how many people would use that and how many people
are driving by and, then, maybe they could see how to best market. If there is 10,000
cars a day driving by there, even as a slightly unimproved road, maybe it does make
sense for them to make the rest of the improvements and put in the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk and landscaping and finish out phase two. So, again, that's something I don't
remember talking with them about as a potential option. I don't know if the Commission
wants to consider it. It still gets us some public and emergency connection. It wouldn't
be the ultimate street section or at least that's what I was just kicking around. I was just
trying to think of some solution, some middle ground that may or may not work. So,
pardon me that you have to listen to my thoughts out loud, but just something else to
maybe kick around.
Moe: Thank you very much, Caleb.
Marshall: I have to admit that the city has something to provide here, an approval of a
plat, which adds value to that land. But in return I think we are asking for something
back, which is extension of that road, connectivity, something we need and if we offer
up that plat now, which is what we have to offer, how do we come back later and say,
okay, now we need the road in. I mean you don't have as much to offer. You know,
you have got approvals to offer and, yeah, you can build, but I mean if you want
something you give something to me. I --
Newton-Huckabay: It sounds like we are ready far a motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 16 of 24
Marshall: I'm sorry?
Newton-Huckabay: I said it sounds like we are ready for a motion.
Moe: First off, somebody needs to close the public hearing and we will go from there.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing on -- where is it? I have got it
here somewhere. Thank you. PP 08-008.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PP 08-008. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall seemed to have it well in hand.
Marshall: It looks like you have got it all written down, if that's the way you wanted to
move. I --
Mae: Well, basically, the way it's --
Marshall: It's written.
Moe: -- in the staff report, except for the access on Meridian Road.
Marshall: Which we are allowing. Okay.
Rohm: So, you actually think that they should fully develop the road at this point in
time?
Marshall: If they want to plat it.
Rohm: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PP 08-008 as written, with the exception of
the access to Meridian Road to be allowed.
Moe: And that is for PP 08-008?
Marshall: Yes.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 17 of 24
Newton-Huckabay: Is that the end of your motion?
Marshall: That's the end of my motion.
Newton-Huckabay: I will second the motion.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve onto City Council PP 08-008 as the
staff report and as modified. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Rohm: Aye.
Moe: Motion carries three to one. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Mae: If remember right, I did five already; right?
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. We have already continued five.
Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 08-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03
acres of land from RUT in Ada County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by
Landmark Engineering 8~ Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way:
item 7: Public Hearing: PP 08-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8
single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots an 4.45 acres in a
proposed R-4 zoning district for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering &
Planning, Inc. -- 3155 S. Mesa Way:
Moe: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on AZ 08-012 and PP 08-
009 for Shays Cave for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled
P&Z meeting of October 2nd, 2008.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 0$-012 and PP 08-009 for Shays
Cove to the regularly scheduled meeting of the P&Z of October 2nd, 2008. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Public Hearing: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit
approval to Modify the previously approved site and building layout far Lot
4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 18 of 24
recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura - 950 E.
Fairview Avenue:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on MCU 08-002, Fairview Lakes
Retail, for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled PRZ meeting of
October the 16th.
Marshall: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue MCU 08-002, Fairview Lakes Retail, to
the regularly scheduled meeting of the P&Z of October the 16th. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 08-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district,
per requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great Wall
Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 N. Eagle Road:
Moe: At this time I would like to open the public hearing on CUP 08-022 for the Great
Wall Restaurant and start with the staff report, please.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a Conditional Use Permit request fora 6,772 square foot restaurant far
Great Wall Chinese Restaurant, per requirement of the development agreement for this
site. The site is located here on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately a third of a
mile south of East Ustick Road. Surrounding uses. To the north there are a couple of
existing residences that were annexed as Red Feather Estates Subdivision No. 2. The
property is zoned C-G. To the east and south is property that was recently approved --
well, excuse me. To the east recently approved fora 204 unit multi-family residential
development, Regency at River Valley. To the south is property that was also recently
annexed to C-G with the Regency at River Valley development also. The property to
the west across Eagle Road are single family residences, zoned R-1 in Ada County and
R-2 in Carol Subdivision. And also to the east -- excuse me -- west are office uses in
Stokesberry Subdivision. This is an aerial view of the property. And as you can see the
South Slough runs here just north of the property boundary and crosses here at the
northeast corner of the site. There used to be an existing residence on this site that has
been tom down. There are a few existing trees on the site. So, history on this site.
This property was annexed in 2003 with a C-G zoning district as part of Red Feather
Subdivision No. 2. A development agreement was approved at that time with the
annexations that included provisions for the development of the property. Among those
provisions the DA required future uses of the property to obtain conditional use
approval. They required either a public or private back-age street generally paralleling
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 19 of 24
Eagle Road and required a conceptual master plan demonstrating interconnectivity,
transitional uses, access points and other key land planning to be submitted prior to any
detailed CUP application. A variance was also approved earlier this year for a
temporary access to Eagle Road for this site. This temporary access remains available
to this property until access to either the north or the south becomes available.
Probably is going to be from the south from River Valley Street. There is a copy of the
site plans that the applicant submitted. The site is located on an entryway corridor,
Eagle Road, and is subject to design standards. The applicant has requested design
review approval concurrently with this Conditional Use Permit request. There is a ten
foot wide pathway -- detached pathway proposed along Eagle Road, as required by the
UDC. Access is provided, as I already stated, through a temporary access to Eagle.
Once this access goes away, the applicant will be required to complete the landscape
buffer here and install the pathway. A common drive aisle is provided along the east
boundary for cross-access to the south. This is a copy of the proposed landscape plan.
This shows -- the one on the left shows the temporary access to Eagle. The one on the
right is after the access has been removed the landscape that will be installed. The one
on the right is the one that is included in the staff report. The applicant submitted a
revised landscape plan, the one on the left. It depicts the trash enclosure moved over
slightly here outside of the irrigation district easement that you can see along the top
here. There is also a tree that was taken out of there. The applicant is now proposing a
five foot tall cedar fence along the north boundary here adjacent to the South Slough.
The UDC does require a six foot tall chain link fence adjacent to the ditches and
waterways. A 35 foot wide buffer is required adjacent to Eagle Road, as proposed. A
25 foot wide buffer is proposed as required adjacent to residential uses that will be
developed in the future at Regency at River Valley property. Parking lot landscaping is
proposed. This is the proposed elevations for the future building. The building
materials are proposed to consist of two different colors of stucco, with rock accents and
a the roof. The photo you see down here at the right corner is just a representation of
the colors that will be used on the building, not a representation of the actual building
that will be constructed on the site. Staff has reviewed the elevations for compliance
with design standards. The applicant revised the elevations contained in the staff report
and what you're looking at here is the revised elevation, showing windows along the
west elevation, which were not previously shown. These were added to comply with the
design standards. This is a conceptual master plan showing the subject property. The
property that was approved, the Regency at River Valley site, and, then, the properties
to the south here and the proposed extension of River Valley Street. This just shows
the access to the site via across-access drive aisle here. This was required per
requirement of the development agreement. The hours of operation are proposed from
11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There was no written testimony submitted on this application.
And staff is recommending approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions in the staff
report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time.
Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Fairchild: Members of the Commission, Chairman, my name is Mike Fairchild, I'm an
architect. I live at 1518 Mulligan Street in Middleton, Idaho. I'm representing Mr. Kinsan
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 20 of 24
Chan of Great Wall Restaurant and, basically, we are just trying to meet all the
requirements of staff as identified for us in this and we were very appreciative that we
got the temporary access, so he can go ahead and develop the property now and that is
aright-in, right-out, which we are okay with and, basically, we are just open to -- we
have met all the requirements they have asked us to and the fence -- I didn't realize it
was supposed to be a chain link fence, but we will make it a chain link fence, rather than
a cedar fence. I don't have any problem with that. And any other --
Moe: So, all conditions in the report you're fine with?
Fairchild: Yes, we are.
Moe: Okay. Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: That was easy.
Rohm: No questions.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Wafters: If staff could just add one more thing. Excuse me. If you could just include
the revised site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations in your motion to reflect
those revised plans that would be great. Thank you.
Moe: And probably note the chain link in lieu of the cedar fence.
Newton-Huckabay: Wasn't that -- that was in the staff requirement.
Moe: Oh, yeah. Got you. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: It was revised site plan and elevations, Sonya?
Wafters: And landscape plan. All of the plans. Since they weren't included in the
original staff report, I'll just include them far the findings document.
Moe: Just because I need to ask, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to
speak to this? Seeing none --okay.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved to close the public hearing on CUP 08-022. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 21 of 24
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: You closed it.
Rohm: Got to make the motion.
Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number CUP 08-022 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
September 18th, 2008, with the following modifications: To include the architectural
revisions and landscape revisions and other than the fence along the South Slough,
which is to be chain link, rather than cedar and six foot, rather than five. I so move.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-022 with the modifications as
noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10: Public Hearing: CPA 0$-010 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment to revise the Street Sections Map of the Ten Mile
Interchange Specific Area Plan for Ten Mile Area Map Revision by City
of Meridian Planning Department -Black Cat Road from the railroad
tracks to I-84; 1=ranklin Road between McDermott Road and Linder Road;
Ten Mile Road between the railroad tracks and Franklin Road and Ten
Mile Road from I-84 to Overland Road -all within the Ten Mile
Interchange Specific Area:
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 0$-010 for the
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment for the Ten Mile area map revision. Do you
understand all that? Okay. And ask staff to report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a staff
initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment before you tonight. It doesn't affect all of the
Ten Mile area, just -- it actually just affects certain arterials within that area. If you look
up at the zoning map where they -- ofi this site, you can see much of the property still in
Ada County, with a county zoning designation and you can see along the southeast
corner there there are some portions there that are zoned and annexed within the city
and also north of this in a small portion along the eastern boundary as well. Here is an
aerial of the site. Again, you can -- it depicts how underdeveloped it is currently and
mostly ag land and single family residences. If you look at this slide here above in the
north corner here, this is the adopted map that was approved with the Ten Mile area
plan that was approved in '07. The affected roads -- on the proposed changes you can
see I have highlighted the affected roadways that are proposed to change. If you look
at the adopted map up here, you can tell that we have not designated a certain portion
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 22 of 24
of those roadways with a designation. Before I go further on that, I'll kind of -- what
wanted to do is show you what those street sections would look like between an A and
a B, just to kind of give you a concept of how that area -- those roadways should
develop in the future. At least with this -- this map change that we are talking about
tonight. There is three -- three additional -- three sections that are for -- are collector
streets, but tonight we are just basically focusing on the arterials. So, I'll bounce back
here. Here is what -- the affected roadways -- basically, from McDermott Road to the
west and extends along Franklin Road to Linder Road to the east -- so, all of Franklin
Road within the Ten Mile area plan will be designated a B. A portion from the railroad
tracks to the north and Black Cat -- running south an Black Cat to I-84 will also be
designated with a B. A portion to the north of the -- at the railroad tracks going to --
connecting to Franklin will also be designated a B. And from I-84 heading south down
this roadway here, Ten Mile to Overland Road, will also be designated a B. If you're
looking at the old map, a portion of that was designated A and, then, the center portion
of North Ten Mile is to remain an A and that is to be constructed with the Ten Mile
interchange when that goes through later on in '09. The other change that I'd like to
point out that we are trying to make tonight is if you look on the adopted map again you
can see that a portion of this roadway here along the south has been designated a D.
This area -- ar that quadrant is no longer subject to the Ten Mile specific -- interchange
specific area plan, it's been removed as part of the south area Comprehensive Plan
amendment. So, this area, again, has been removed, so we thought it was appropriate
to take that designation off of the adopted map as well. And, then, if I can go .back to
this road section, if you look here again, you can see that street section B is calling for a
center median along those arterials. Well, in effect, what we have done is added an
asterisk -- I know I have kind of highlighted it out here, but we have added an asterisk
and a little footnote dawn here that basically says that this portion of that roadway from
McDermott to Black Cat would not be required to have that center median within it. And
the reason for that is, basically, a lot of the land uses in this area are typical mixed
employment or industrial type uses, so staff was anticipating that it would generate
more semi truck type trips into that industrial zone, so we thought the medians might
inhibit some of that movement and entrances into future development in that area.
Again, staff is recommending approval of this and I would be happy to answer any
questions Commission may have.
Moe: Bill, just because we talked about it earlier today, you might want to just kind of
explain to them a little bit what the A -- as far as the -- the differences between the A
and the B. You know, B is a wider roadway section than A, but A takes care of -- you
have got more streetscape and whatnot on both sides of the road, which takes into
account of where the shopping areas and everything are going to be out there. Does
that pretty much explain that?
Parsons: I think you did a fine job, Mr. Chairman. As he was pointing out, this street
section here is proposed to be a 60 foot road section from curb to curb. Section B is --
is aminimum of 68 feet. And, then, again, if you look at this street cut here, you can
see the different landscape buffers versus the two sections. So, as the chairman
pointed out, this is really more of your commercial high impact type area, retail, high
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 23 of 24
density residential type area to have this much buffering and add that pedestrian
ambience or that type of -- that portion of the development. And, again, this would be
subject to more of your commercial mixed employment. Any questions?
Moe: Thank you, sir. Any questions of staff?
Marshall: Just real quick, just out of curiosity, the bike lane here appears to be on --
these are bath drive lanes, so it's not raised, it's on the -- right on the street. Got you.
Parsons: That is correct.
Marshall: And so we are not getting rid of any A, we are simply adding B that wasn't
there.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, you are
correct. Again, you see the only -- the only arterial portion that was designated prior --
with these changes was -- on the adopted plan were the A's right here.
Marshall: Got you.
Parsons: So, staff felt it appropriate to add some additional designations for those
remaining arterials and they felt B was appropriate based on the land uses proposed for
the area.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Any comments, any changes, anything -- any motion, then?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 08-010.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 0$-010. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: He's on a roll.
Rohm: You're on a roll.
Moe: Great job.
Marshall: Oh. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number CPA 08-010, as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008
Page 24 of 24
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 18th, 2008, with no
modifications.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and second to move onto City Council approval of CUP 08-010.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: We adjourned at 8:16.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:16 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APP
DAVID~71t~E - CHAI
DATE APPROVED ~.~` QoF ~''~,
ATTEST: l
JAYCEE HOLMAN,
~~ ~,
` T
/ `• ~O
- B~AL -
CLERK ~ ~ ~`'
ter, ~~ '"~T 19~ ' ~
Q. `
~'
i Y ~
~, 'vl.lN-L ~~ ~.~.
'''r~'~~rHrrrri nN~~`~````