2006 08-17,a
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
IDAHO AGENDA
f.
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
7. Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4
commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Cope
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 2006 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
f�
l
Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker — east of Meridian Road and north of
Overland Road:
8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one
drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by
W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H. Moore
Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Subdivision):
10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road:
11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle
Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision):
12. Public Hearing: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development
Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
13. Public Hearing: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55
residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for
Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
14. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements
Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. This public
hearing regarding the Capital Improvements Plan is required by the Local
Land Use Planning Act before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommendations for parks, police and fire impact fees can be forwarded
to the City Council:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
11
fi
CITY OF
�P
IDAHO I�
y
Fc ./
N
1�3
• REVISED 08-17-06
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe _David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: 6Y
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting: A" k'_�
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road: 40 a'2'
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
7. Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4
commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Cope
Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker — east of Meridian Road and north of
Overland Road: 4y/-00acf-L ��
8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one
drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail uilding #1 by
W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:1 61
�r1�G-ems
9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H. Moore
Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Subdivision):
9-A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H.
Moore Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe
Subdivision): ALS
10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road:
11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle
Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision):
12. Public Hearing: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development
Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene & Shepherd'sCreek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
e m l t -i -/-u- Q -21-o&
13. Public Hearing: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55
residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for
Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
�t-2-t-d4
14. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements
Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. This public
hearing regarding the Capital Improvements Plan is required by the Local
Land Use Planning Act before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommendations for parks, police and fire impact fees can be forwarded
to the City Council:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
;fit
u
ask 4
.rtzet+,#
T
7. Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4
commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Cope
Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker — east of Meridian Road and north of
Overland Road: 4y/-00acf-L ��
8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one
drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail uilding #1 by
W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:1 61
�r1�G-ems
9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H. Moore
Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Subdivision):
9-A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H.
Moore Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe
Subdivision): ALS
10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road:
11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle
Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision):
12. Public Hearing: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development
Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene & Shepherd'sCreek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
e m l t -i -/-u- Q -21-o&
13. Public Hearing: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55
residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for
Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
�t-2-t-d4
14. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements
Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. This public
hearing regarding the Capital Improvements Plan is required by the Local
Land Use Planning Act before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommendations for parks, police and fire impact fees can be forwarded
to the City Council:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
;fit
.rtzet+,#
,.,
t
ir*
J
§ •i: •� -.- ',
„ ,,,
� �. n,t, _ �.. :� t
�'�'8 i
# "^y�w^��'2�t�i�Zr�
,,v _�.�rz�a�,.`a'3
TU,r't'S0?vS11t J�- �� � �''"�47 CC-, REVISED 08-17-06
f
pTl.f '
CITY OF7 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
PYIG1�'YI REGULAR MEETING
IDAHO } AGENDA
yFC'
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
n�
K�
� �
Y
h k't
w c�
TU,r't'S0?vS11t J�- �� � �''"�47 CC-, REVISED 08-17-06
f
pTl.f '
CITY OF7 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
PYIG1�'YI REGULAR MEETING
IDAHO } AGENDA
yFC'
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
f
K�
t
;y f
Yn :.
itis
Y t
�, Se
y 1
I'Ra
r,
k
��
.i
TU,r't'S0?vS11t J�- �� � �''"�47 CC-, REVISED 08-17-06
f
pTl.f '
CITY OF7 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
PYIG1�'YI REGULAR MEETING
IDAHO } AGENDA
yFC'
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
K�
;y f
Yn :.
itis
Y t
�, Se
TU,r't'S0?vS11t J�- �� � �''"�47 CC-, REVISED 08-17-06
f
pTl.f '
CITY OF7 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
PYIG1�'YI REGULAR MEETING
IDAHO } AGENDA
yFC'
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
Yn :.
y 1
I'Ra
r,
.i
7. Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4
commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Cope
Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker — east of Meridian Road and north of
Overland Road:
8. Public Hearing: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one
drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by
W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H. Moore
Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Subdivision):
9-A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for
Approval: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H.
Moore Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe
Subdivision):
10. Public Hearing: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road:
11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle
Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision):
12. Public Hearing: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development
Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
13. Public Hearing: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55
residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for
Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
14. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements
Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. This public
hearing regarding the Capital Improvements Plan is required by the Local
Land Use Planning Act before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommendations for parks, police and fire impact fees can be forwarded
to the City Council:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
TX ARMT I ON REPORT AS OF AUG 17 '06 1*1 PAGE. 01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
�Pl2as� dost 1�r �uj��G �i1rr ce. — litEVISED 08-17-06
c�ry or J� MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
C.. /VCG'YI�ILYI yyY REGULAR MEETING
inaio AGENDA
`V 1 City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning $ Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06.029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.86 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overiand Road:
DATE TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMD#
STATUS
02
08/17 1655 3810160
EC—S
01'15" 002
230
OK
03
08/17 16:56 PUBLIC WORKS
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
04
08/17 16:58 8848723
EC—S
00'47" 002
230
OK
05
06/17 1659 WATER DEPT
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
06
08/17 1700 2088840744
EC—S
00'47" 002
230
OK
07
08/17 1701 POLICE DEPT
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
08
06/17 1703 8985501
EC—S
00'45" 002
230
OK
09
08/17 1704 LIBRARY
EC—S
00'47" 002
230
OK
10
08/17 1705 2083776449
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
11
06/17 1707 3886924
EC—S
00'45" 002
230
OK
12
08/17 1708 P -AND -Z
EC—S
00'45" 002
230
OK
13
08/17 1709 FIRE DEPT
EC—S
00'45" 002
230
OK
14
06/17 17;11 208 888 2682
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
15
08/17 17 12 208 367 6393
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
16
08/17 17:13 ADA CTY DEUELMT
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
17
08/17 17:14 208 5052
EC—S
00'47" 002
230
OK
18
08/17 17:16 POST OFFICE
EC—S
01'15" 002
230
OK
19
08/17 17:18 IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
20
08/17 17:19 ID PRESS TRIBUNE
EC—S
00'46" 002
230
OK
21
06/17 1721 2088886701
EC—S
00'45" 002
230
OK
�Pl2as� dost 1�r �uj��G �i1rr ce. — litEVISED 08-17-06
c�ry or J� MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
C.. /VCG'YI�ILYI yyY REGULAR MEETING
inaio AGENDA
`V 1 City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning $ Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06.029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.86 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overiand Road:
Pi
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
C�Warid&h REGULAR MEETING
IDAHOAGENDA
deo
seg 7R�nsuae VY
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
. '
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
_
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony,
4
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the the
ability of presenter."
1.
Roll -call Attendance:
Keith BorupvWendy Newton -Huckabay
David Moe David Zaremba
x.
Michael Rohm - chairman
,4
r i
t
2.
Adoption of the Agenda:
s
3.
Consent Agenda:
r.
{'
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
t>
4.
Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029
t.
Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
N
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed —south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
5.
Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
x
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
r
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed —south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
x
6.
Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoningof 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
7.
Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4
commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Cope
.,
�k
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 2006 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
4,
e
>^ f
`'
#tx'".s,[ ..
`. . , a :' ��o-r Oke 4;a, �.v ti�i"}��' 4x' ;.•
i
Y t
ry+i
IF
3
4t
h*��-
_'� it't T'�}i �"N�4 •��� t1.?' i'"a 3 ' '7 �''_� a
,
s
' ....
�w�,jx,3`$S t t � �§�i hy.
`=R.
,'�, " # C ii.,ixi" k�" J.v •t t k b +.,( lkfi v„ae
y
w a,
14. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements
Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. This public
hearing regarding the Capital Improvements Plan is required by the Local
Land Use Planning Act before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommendations for parks, police and fire impact fees can be forwarded
to the City Council:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
a w
*Ronald
Subdivision Van Auker — east of Meriran Road and north of
Overland Road:
g
r i
4 ➢t
8.
Public Hearing: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
4
construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one
drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by
W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
F
9.
Public Hearing: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H. Moore
K
Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Subdivision):
r n
}
k✓f
10.
Public Hearing: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road:
j
IMW d t �f "'•,py
11.
Public Hearing: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
H b
13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle
Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision):
y
12.
Public Hearing: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development
E
yt� �},.
{ TS �`1�++.. +FV,x". tr e�Y'e 'pit
Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of
A}
the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
13.
Public Hearing: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55
residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for
x
Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
14. Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements
Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. This public
hearing regarding the Capital Improvements Plan is required by the Local
Land Use Planning Act before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommendations for parks, police and fire impact fees can be forwarded
to the City Council:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 2006 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
g
r i
L 7 F
r n
}
k✓f
GA AAk',
_
j
IMW d t �f "'•,py
.�.j.
H b
A�
yt� �},.
{ TS �`1�++.. +FV,x". tr e�Y'e 'pit
#+r;P� FS Y
t;
ar sLOx`r
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
{f
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
fix«
"
e !
NoK TXC TION REPORT Nok
AS OF AUG 14 '06 IS PAM. 01
=Y
r
urnno AGENDA
2
.
v City Council Chambers
:.,
CITY OF
MERIDIAN
Yah
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00
p.m.
Although tele City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
DATE TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMDti STATUS
"
03
08/14 13:58 3610160
EC—S
01'15" 002
189 OK
Q'
Michael Rohm - chairman
04
08/14 1400 PUBLIC WORKS
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
05
08/14 1401 8848723
EC—S
00'45" 002
189 OK
06
08/14 14:02 WATER DEPT
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
07
08/14 1403 2088840744
EC—S
00'47" 002
1e9 OK
7. Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat
08
08/14 1405 POLICE DEPT
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
09
08/14 1406 8985501
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
'
10
08/14 1407 LIBRARY
EC—S
00'47" 002
189 OK
w .h
11
08/14 1409 2083776449
EC—S
00'45" 002
189 OK
>'
12
08/14 14:10 3886924
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
13
08/14 14:11 P—AND—Z
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
z
14
08/14 14:12 FIRE DEPT
EC—S
00'46" 002
leg OK
15
08/14 14:14 208 888 2682
EC—S
00'47" 002
189 OK
16
08/14 14:15 208 387 6393
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
17
08/14 14:16 RDA CTY DEUELMT
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
18
08/14 14:18 2088885052
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
19
08/14 14:19 POST OFFICE
EC—S
01'16" 002
189 OK
20
08/14 14:21 IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC—S
00'46" 002
leg OK
21
06/14 14:22 ID PRESS TRIBUNE
EC—S
00'46" 002
189 OK
22
08/14 14:24 2086701
EC—S
00'45" 002
189 OK
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
{f
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
fix«
"
CmrTy `"1 z w MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
=Y
\✓ YLG'Y�(JlI`fY� "� REGULAR MEETING
urnno AGENDA
2
v City Council Chambers
:.,
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Yah
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00
p.m.
Although tele City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
I. Roll -call Attendance:
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
x
David Moe David Zaremba
Q'
Michael Rohm - chairman
6. Public Hearing: AZ 0"37 Request for Annexation
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
,w
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
,*
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
{f
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
fix«
"
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
=Y
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
:.,
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06428 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family
residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
Q'
6. Public Hearing: AZ 0"37 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
,*
7. Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 4
commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Cope
'
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — August 17, 20DS Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shag become property of the City of Meridian.
"
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
ft Nr
,#%ri
4
S `# 4
f
ya ^s
G
l rxVZ
k _fes
X
! y
;
t •' 's°"'
-.,F s� '1".0 Gy�4x & Si yT
-"+-P,
;�*i."vv
i v
s+
y,
�.}=z-.s.
{ 4 '
3 ^wf
w
x
t
DATE TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMD#
x �3
01
08/17 2251 208 888 2662
EC --S
x
232
� 1
02
a
x�
EC --S
�Y
232
OK
03
08/17 2253 ADA CTY DEVELMT
EC --S
zp Y
A"
OK
04
08/17 2255 2088885052
{ 4 '
3 ^wf
w
x
t
Ic TX CONFINTION REPORT ** AS OF AUG 17 '06"2307 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMD#
x �3
01
08/17 2251 208 888 2662
EC --S
3 �1 y
232
� 1
02
a
x�
EC --S
�Y
232
OK
03
08/17 2253 ADA CTY DEVELMT
EC --S
t
232
OK
04
08/17 2255 2088885052
EC --S
00'49" 002
A"
OK
05
08/17 22:56 POST OFFICE
EC --S
01'25" 002
232
k
06
08/17 22:58 IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC --S
00'49" 002
Ic TX CONFINTION REPORT ** AS OF AUG 17 '06"2307 PAGE.01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CUcarr on
rirr��a-
IDAHO 1
�a lj
REVISED 08-17-06
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
I. Roll -call Attendance:
X Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe _David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Apprro-c"
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning $ Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public 'Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06.029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road: 40 CeG
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road: Peemivnd YweJ 7o ac,
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
DATE TIME TO/FROM
MODE
MIN/SEC PGS
CMD#
STATUS
01
08/17 2251 208 888 2662
EC --S
00'49" 002
232
OK
02
08/17 22:52 208 387 6393
EC --S
00'49" 002
232
OK
03
08/17 2253 ADA CTY DEVELMT
EC --S
00'50" 002
232
OK
04
08/17 2255 2088885052
EC --S
00'49" 002
232
OK
05
08/17 22:56 POST OFFICE
EC --S
01'25" 002
232
OK
06
08/17 22:58 IDAHO ATHLETIC C
EC --S
00'49" 002
232
OK
07
08/17 2300 ID PRESS TRIBUNE
EC --S
00'49" 002
232
OK
08
08/17 23:01 2088886701
EC --S
00'48" 002
232
OK
09
08/17 2306 3810160
EC --S
01'20" 002
232
OK
CUcarr on
rirr��a-
IDAHO 1
�a lj
REVISED 08-17-06
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
I. Roll -call Attendance:
X Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe _David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Apprro-c"
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning $ Zoning Commission
Meeting:
4. Continued Public 'Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06.029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road: 40 CeG
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road: Peemivnd YweJ 7o ac,
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
'n AYi
4 ra i ""bar `'P(?
"S&.�,"`S
"i`
r F
A
1
�Wk TX MATION REPORT AS OF RUG 17 ' so PAGE.01
+
s.^
CITY OF MERIDIAN
DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS
22 08/17 2236 PUBLIC WORKS EC—S 00148" 002 232 OK
23 08/17 2237 8848723 EC --S 00'49" 002 232 OK
`, %`
24 08/17 22:39 WATER DEPT EC—S 00'49" 002 232 OK
25 08/17 22:40 2088840744 EC—S 00'50" 002 232 OK
26 08/17 2241 POLICE DEPT EC --S 00'48" 002 232 OK
27 08/17 22* -42 8985501 EC—S 00'48" 002 232 OK
28 08/17 2244 LIBRARY EC—S 00'49" 002 232 OK
s'g
29 08/17 22.45 2083776449 EC—S 00'49" 002 232 OK
30 08/17 22:46 3BB6924 EC—S 00'48" 002 232 OK
uN
31 08/17 22:48 P—AND—Z EC—S 00' 49" 002 232 OK
32 08/17 22:49 FIRE DEPT EC—S 00'49" 002 232 OK
tC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
i
REVISED 08-17-06
clrroa MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
�
L�i%7li11� REGULAR MEETING
ri^li0 . ` j
iAGENDA
!
�rt G
w
v City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
'"Although
b§ 1`Xc
the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe !_David Zaremba
�- Michael Rohm - chairman
u
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
-
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
;..
Meeting:
4. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Sllversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
'
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
%�CGO�rinzr�roPA197Wa.O -/o �G
'
5. Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road: )2e&nV 'noe y yr'V'j 7�9 ac,
6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
d
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
a
� x
q o-
2 6 7 ? -5
^
IVB,`.
rP, .£F�,
g
4t*c+¢5
5a
�""
3
'Q .u� e5t "y%73`..,
,. S`4".r.}�raY+yg s } �;> q..,
:.^
Vitt
7 F
s "t:^'tk ;;`3✓'1�;�„^,s,,, 1�4j k
a#:
,4., ^
,.k .Ar ami r _„'. i v. „,_
} j.S,bs�A6tk.+S t."
k
,+ rk
,..-. r.
�T "s
17
*A*i F
`zb^I "�" }$. ��• 4{ ����������4 3aw 'r�� P r1�A,
if.v
'�x�"a x`e
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 17, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 17, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: "Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, and David Moe.
Members Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Sharon Smith, (Craig) Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Jenny Veatch,
Justin Lucas, Amanda Hess and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
`
Roll -call
na
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
w
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to now open the regularly
3
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, August 17th,
n
2006, and begin with the roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
�t}
+
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Begin with the adoption of the agenda. There has been an
item added, which is Item 9A, which is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
CUP 06-027 from the originally posted agenda, but other than that, everything else
'.
remains as originally posted. Could I get a motion to accept the agenda?
Moe: The revised agenda, sir?
A
�
�Y
Rohm: The revised agenda.
4
Moe: So moved.
.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as posted. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
' h
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: The first item on the agenda --
irk
tee;;
5
5
z 2
"�`.t("
J' Yr
t
, .
.'
sE•" .:'":
,: - ? . .< .., .,.i h Viz..: ,k z ,
i cp
xiii
b
4
b M1 !
Y
s'
a,y
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 2 of 52
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, would you care to mention the development on -- I think its
Items 12 and 13.
Rohm: Yeah. I could do that. Items 12 and 13, both related to Shepherd Creek
Subdivision will be continued, because Ada County has not rendered their decision as
far as the roadway. Originally, we were going to continue it to the September 7th
regularly scheduled meeting, but we just kind of took a straw poll up here and we will
not have a quorum that night and so there will be no P&Z meeting on September 7th
and so my guess is the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission is September 21st and that's when that project will be heard. And so we
will open it only to continue it to September 21st, presuming that staff has no issues with
that. Caleb?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that agenda is very full and if you
double it up there is no way we are going to make it through everything. So, I don't
know if you can do another straw poll here and see if there is maybe a special meeting
that we could either have the 14th or the 28th.
Rohm: I am traveling both of those weeks. I will be out of town and Commissioner Moe
is going to be out the fourth -- the week of the 14th.
Zaremba: I couldn't make the 14th. I could make the 28th.
Moe: I could as well. What about you, Mr. Borup?
Borup: I'm going to be gone on the 28th. Other than that, I'm fine on the others.
Rohm: We are kind of running out of dates here, aren't we?
Zaremba: We are talking about September; right? September 28th?
Borup: Can we figure this out at the end of the meeting?
Rohm: Yeah. Well, other than there is people in the audience that are interested in
what date that would be continued to. I think --
Zaremba: The applicant said they will repost the property, so if they watch the posting,
he said they'd repost it with the correct date.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, I did talk to the president of the Bear Creek HOA yesterday and
told her I could call her if that date didn't fly, if for some reason we didn't have a quorum
or something like that happened. I do understand that they made new fliers and sent
them out to everyone already, so people weren't here tonight, and we could kind of
avoid that. The 21 st we could probably do Bear Creek on there, but we already have a
full agenda on the 7th, so we have got a bunch of other items that we have got to find a
home for here. So, a special meeting sometime. If you want to set the -- set this one
o�
ATF -11`
k
U
c
'
1`-
q
3
,r
i`sk'
A�{.'C1�s�i a Y'
` 'a'.i'.�.'"3�
r.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 3 of 52
over to the 21 st, that's probably okay, but we probably maybe at the end of this meeting
tonight need to have another quick discussion about when we can put those other four
or five or six items that we have on that September 7th agenda -- and I believe the clerk
has already noticed everyone for that agenda, too. So, new notices are going to have
to be sent out and the whole deal, so -- and we need to find a date when we can,
obviously, have a quorum, so September the 21 st would probably be okay for Shepherd
Creek, but --
Rohm: Okay. Well, then, the 21st will be the date for Shepherd Creek and, then, we
will find new homes for the other items. But that's when that particular item will be
continued to, so that will be another adjustment to the agenda.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting:
Rohm: Okay. With that discussion complete, the Consent Agenda consists of approval
of minutes from the July 20th, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any
adjustments to that set of minutes? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent
Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Before we open up any public hearings, I'd like to just discuss a little bit
about the process we go through for our hearings here at the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The first portion of the process is we ask the staff to give their
presentation and what that is is they take a look at all the projects and they try to match
them up with the Comprehensive Plan and our ordinances for the city. They will give
their position based upon how they see that particular application fitting those two
documents. Once the staff has given their presentation, then, at that time we ask the
applicant to come forward and at that time they have got -- I believe it is 15 minutes to
make their presentation. That's basically their sales pitch to the Commission. They tell
us all the good things about the project and how it will enhance the city over time. Once
those two presentations have been made, then, it will be open to the public and anyone
that chooses to speak on any application has their option to speak at that time. The
applicant, then, has the final say. Once we ask the applicant to come back up and
respond to any quires from the audience, we will not take any additional testimony,
because it's not a -- it's not a debate, it's a presentation, respondents, and, then, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 4 of 52
applicant has the final opportunity and, then, if we have any questions of staff we can
ask that and at that time we will deliberate and try and find a conclusion to each
application as they come through.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for
Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan
Road and west of Locust Grove Road:
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4
common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings
Subdivision by Reed Kofoed — south side of McMillan Road and west of
Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to at this time open the continued Public Hearing
from July 20th of AZ 06-029 and PP 06-029, both related to Silversprings Subdivision
and begin with the staff report.
Veatch: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. Tonight's project is
Silversprings Subdivision. The applicant Reed Kofoed, representing F&C Development,
Incorporated, is asking for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-4 and
preliminary plat approval for 29 single family residential building lots and four common
lots on 9.88 acres. The subject property is located, excuse me, on East McMillan Road
and North Meridian. These two parcels here that are part of the Silversprings. It is
mostly R-4 residential. We have the Cobre or Copper Basin Subdivision here. Other
parts -- this all, originally, was part of the Havasu Subdivision and it's coming in different
phases. We have a little bit of Ada County rural parcel up here. Down south here is the
Prospect Elementary School. To the east -- all of these are part of Crestwood
Subdivision and we do have a number of applications coming in for these. There is only
one of these towards the middle, I believe, that has not come in yet, to at least have a
pre -application meeting with staff. And, then, we also have Saguaro Canyon up to the
north. Originally this was postponed because we were trying to seek some clarity with
ACHD. Cobre Basin has what -- when they first came in for a preliminary plat was a -- a
stub street. During the final plat stage that was changed to an ingress -egress easement
and it's been landscaped. There is a large stamped concrete wall that runs along in
there. And, then, Red Horse -- North Red Horse Way is a collector that runs north to
south. Their road that we were hoping to connect to Silversprings is East Copper Ridge
Street. We met with ACHD, with members of the homeowners association from Cobre
Basin and with the applicants and it was determined that that right of way was not going
to be given. They were concerned with a number of issues, the primary one being the
traffic that would be traveling down towards the elementary school and people coming
through the subdivision. So, we are accepting the application as it is platted here, with
the main access point being up here on McMillan. In talking with ACHD they are
comfortable with this. There will be other developments in the Crestwood Subdivision
down the road that will give more access internally, connecting east to west, so we feel
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 5 of 52
that we can go ahead and -- although it would be more desirable to have that, we are --
we are accepting it as is. All existing buildings will be removed and there is a number of
open space here with internal parkway, the common lots and such, and they exceed the
minimum requirement for open space. And with that I will stand for any questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Ross Erickson, 1854 East
Lanark Street here in Meridian. On site we are asking for annexation and zoning to an
R-4 and a preliminary plat approval for the Silversprings Subdivision. Staff did a good
job of putting together the report and, as you can see, the hearing was continued to get
some resolution on that stub street connection issue. Within that time frame we did
meet with the homeowners association, ACRD, and the city and the developer and
myself and we went through and actually requested that the association, you know,
consider dedicating that cross -access easement as public right of way and after I guess
a lengthy discussion with them, they had unanimously voted not to dedicate that strip.
So, that's, I guess, why you're looking at the layout that we have here tonight. Some of
the highlights of the project -- and, actually, let me back up real quick. I just wanted to
correct one thing. There are two homes on the property that will be retained. One of
the homes is located right here and the other home is located right here. You can see
that the lots for those homes are actually a little bit larger, just to fit and meet some of
the zoning requirements, so we could retain those on those lots. Some of the highlights
of the project -- we do have a parkway that runs on both sides of the street throughout
the entire project. It's an eight foot wide planter strip that will be landscaped with trees,
sod, and irrigation as part of the project. We have a centrally located common lot here
that will provide some open space and also a location to dispose of some storm water.
We have a swale located on that lot. To the south we have a pathway connection that
will connect the project to the Prospect Elementary School. It doesn't show very well on
this drawing, but down here from Havasu Creek there is also a pathway connection in a
similar corner to the site. We have met with Wendell Bigham from the school district
just to the discuss, you know, whether or not they were comfortable with the connection
he had indicated that they were okay with it. So, I think that's something that will be a
nice feature within the project. Other than that, you know, I think the development fits in
really well with the neighboring developments. We are at a gross density of 2.94 units
per acre. So, it's definitely not crammed in there. And we'll just ask for your approval
tonight.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this applicant?
Moe: No, sir.
Rohm: Boy, it looks like you have done a good job putting this together. Thank you.
Erickson: All right. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 6 of 52
Rohm: Any discussion amongst the Commission before we close this Public Hearing?
Oh, there is nobody that signed up. I guess I should ask. Is there anybody that would
like to testify on this application at this time? Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask to clarify one thing with staff while we are still
open and that is is the length of the cul-de-sac, plus the private driveway, within the fire
department's -- they add those together, I think, and have a maximum length.
Veatch: I don't recall that the fire department had issue with that. Let me just double
check.
Zaremba: I didn't see a comment.
Veatch: It looks like Mr. Cole is checking the length for me. Six hundred feet to the cul-
de-sac and I believe 750 is the --
Zaremba: Seven fifty sticks in my mind. So, if it's 600 that answers my question.
Thank you.
Veatch: Then, for the shared driveway, as long as they can reach 150 feet back they
are all right.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just one kind of informational for future for myself and that's what
was originally a stub street was changed to an easement, but you said the homeowners
association did not want to grant use of that easement. Is it -- who has control -- I mean
if it's an easement, isn't it already in existence and -- I'm just confused on that a little bit.
Veatch: Right. That right of way does belong to the homeowners association and that
was at the time staff accepted that. I actually have --
Borup: Well, then, what was the purpose of it at the time? I mean what -- I don't see
where it accomplished anything by even creating it if -- if it's not really an easement.
Veatch: I believe there was some concern that until something developed to the east of
them that there would just be this ugly expanse of concrete and so staff had gone
ahead and decided upon this, so that they could have that as a common lot to
landscape until such time that it develops. So, the intent was there --
Borup: But there is no teeth in it? I mean it has developed now or it's in the process of
developing.
Veatch: It has, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
n t
August 17, 2006
Page 7 of 52
Ja
Borup: And so the easement doesn't mean a thing it looks like.
Y
A '5
}
Veatch: It doesn't have any teeth as far as giving us any leeway. We would have to --
ACHD would have to take that and they were not comfortable with that.
y �
Borup: And I understand that and, actually, as close as that is to the entrance maybe it
makes sense. I don't know. But I'm thinking in the future how do we prevent something
�
9t ,lra. °tom
like that from happening, assuming it was a good thing to start with.
I 7c b
Hood: Mr. Chairman. Yeah. It was a good thing and when that applicant submitted
their final plat they made the change from a public right of way through an easement
cgs
and our staff did not notice that and it got through the process as just an easement to
x iO
,. ..�
that property. Now, we could connect a road to that easement, but it wouldn't be a
F
WP
public easement, it would just be an easement to that property, so it wouldn't function
like a public street. So, really, you don't get the functionality that we would be looking
for of a stub street. So, yeah, we missed it as staff or three or four or five years ago,
whenever that final plat was submitted to the city and should have required it to be a
public stub street, but it was just a private access easement.
Borup: So, it was a change on the plat from --
e
�z
'
Hood: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Well, then, that explains how it happened.
Rohm: Okay. Goodquestion.
Borup: Thank you.
w.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
yk<
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
P
r
Moe: I Move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-029 and PP 06-029.
_
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-029
and PP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
f^
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Ja
A '5
t
y �
�
9t ,lra. °tom
I 7c b
,. ..�
..
Meridian Planning & Zoning r
August 17, 2006
Page 8 of 52
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council on file numbers AZ 06-029 and PP 06-029 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of August 17th, 2006.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-029 and PP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same
sign? Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85
acres from R-1 to C -G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker
— east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road:
Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4
commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C -G zone for Cope
Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker — east of Meridian Road and north of
Overland Road:
Rohm: Thank for coming in. By the way, for those of you that may have come after we
started this hearing tonight, the reason the lights are off is because the bulb on our
projector is going out and if we turn the lights on you wouldn't be able to see anything.
So, that's -- it isn't our intent to keep you in the dark, but it just happens to be that way.
So, there you have it. Okay. All right. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open
the public hearings on AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035. Both of these applications are
related to Cope Subdivision and I'd like to begin with the staff report.
Veatch: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. We are going to shift gears a
little bit. This is a commercial project. The applicant is Ronald Van Auker of Van Auker
Properties and the subject applications are an annexation and zoning of 4.85 acres from
R-1 to a C -G zone and preliminary plat approval of four commercial lots on 4.31 acres.
The site is located in the northeast corner of Meridian and Overland Road. It is
surrounded primarily by commercial areas here. We have a light office area here and,
then, R-4 density just to the tip here. Let's see here. Wanted to note that we have
received comment from the applicant in agreement with the staff report. However, there
is one condition of the development agreement which I will go into more detail, but it's a
condition that has already been met. There is existing sewer and water in Overland
Road and so it's not necessary for it to be stubbed to the property and so I believe it's
the second to the last condition that says a 25 -foot wide commercial drive aisle. Sewer
and water shall be stubbed to the property located at 130 East Overland Road. And I'd
like to delete that from the staff report. We have an aerial view. It's very near the
interchange. This is the site here. We have Gold's Gym located up here. The Ten Mile
drain is on the Meridian -- or, excuse me, the Overland side -- or Meridian side. Sorry.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 9 of 52
Having trouble looking at this. Anyway, it goes through two of the back lots here and we
would like to see elevations for this project, so that we know where things may sit, what
the building may look like, what the intent of the property is, what parking lot
landscaping may look like. Right now we do have landscaping for the perimeter of the
site. Some of the other things that we were concerned with as far as a development
agreement would be that we have some sort of design review for these two properties
along the principal arterial. This access here will be a right -in, right -out access only and
principal access will be taken off of South Country Terrace. Most of the improvements
are in this. The applicant has proposed to provide additional off-site improvements and
so that will also be a condition of the DA. This, again, shows some of the off-site
improvements with landscaping. Let me make sure there is no other things to point out
as far as the development agreement are concerned. As we said, we would like to see
elevations. If you approve this tonight, before this would go to City Council, just as we
said, it's not something that's required in the UDC, but we would like to see how it's
going to be developed. I guess I will go ahead and stand for any questions that you
may have. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I do have one question and it's one of the points in the development
agreement that you have talked about, the 20 foot wide commercial drive aisle. I'm a
little bit confused. It says it shall be stubbed to the property at 130 East Overland. This
is 130 East Overland.
Veatch: Correct. And that's why we wished to delete that, because it's already been --
Zaremba: It's talking about stubbing into it, as opposed to stubbing out of it.
Veatch: Right.
Zaremba: Okay. That clarifies it for me.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Van Auker: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ron Van Auker,
3084 East Lanark Street in Meridian. Basically we are proposing four one acre lots,
more or less, on this piece of land here. We are going for a C -G zone and our proposed
uses, people we have been talking to, we have had some interest from hotels, office
building -- we might put an office building in there. Doctor's office. Physical therapy
office. Uses like that. We believe that the location will attract high quality businesses
with the very attractive elevations and we think it's a good thing to annex. This is the
last piece of un -annexed property around that area and we think it will be very good for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 10 of 52
the city to get that in and get a development going there. So, I'd stand for any questions
that you might have.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Just one. Are you anticipating that you're going to put four different structures on
these properties or are you going to possibly do one and develop the whole site? My
concern is is, basically, your lot to the southwest right there, there would be really no
access into it, unless it's going through the rest of the property. So, I assume you guys
are planning to do that.
Van Auker: That's correct. We are planning -- it's a requirement of ACHD to provide
cross -access easements throughout the whole property for the purpose if we have
multiple buildings, they can all access through each other.
Moe: Okay.
Van Auker: Right now we don't have anybody committed to any lots, but we --
Moe: Access will be afforded.
Van Auker: Yes. Definitely.
Moe: Thank you. That's all I had.
Rohm: Anybody else?
Zaremba: Yes. One question. Would you be able to provide elevations to staff before
the City Council hearing?
Van Auker: Yes, we would.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Van Auker: Conceptual elevations of what we think might -- examples of what we would
propose in there. We could do that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: I'm a little bit uncomfortable moving forward with this without having an
opportunity to see them myself. I -- I think that this is -- is kind of an entrance to the city
from the south and as you come in -- as you come towards the city from Kuna you're
going to see all of the development on either side of Meridian Road all the way over to
Gold's Gym and everything between there and Meridian Road and as we have taken
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 11 of 52
applications from others in -- that are developing properties in the entry corridors, we
have requested that we see a very -- not -- a conceptual drawing of how it's to be laid
out and it should be something that is actually doable, it's not something that just -- this
is just one plan and, then, have it end up being a single box after the zoning has been
approved. And from my perspective it just seems to me that before we pass this on we
should have an opportunity to see it first and I -- my personal opinion is I think we
should continue this and have you come back to this body with a conceptual plan and,
then, if, in fact, there is concurrence, then, at that time we will make our
recommendations onto the city -- City Council. That would -- that's kind of my thought
on this. I would be interested in what the balance of the Commissioners had to say.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I certainly agree on having an opportunity to look at the architecture in the
buildings, especially as it is a gateway, but I can also see at this point they have no
tenants, they have no -- you know, he had mentioned all the way from a doctor office to
a hotel and I don't know how you come up with conceptual plans to try to meet that
criteria. It's -- you know, the marketplace is going to dictate that. I know in previous
things we have kind of left that up to the applicant. We can wait until we have some
pretty precise conceptual plans or the other option was to go in with a conditional use,
which is not something you normally need to do. I'm comfortable with the annexation
and zoning, it's just being zoned a C -G and that seems an appropriate area at that
location for a C -G. But where we don't have -- we don't have a design review
committee to go through, so this Commission is, essentially, that and, then, the staff
does a good amount of the design review, but I would like to see another alternative,
rather than wait until they do conceptuals that aren't going to mean anything. I mean
they can come up with a lot of conceptual plans, unless the applicant has a comment on
that.
Van Auker: If I could interject. We are agreeing to the staffs report that says some sort
of design review will be necessary for this project as it fronts on Overland Road and I'd
just like to add that this will be very high quality, probably a lot of block, brick, or
concrete tilt up construction. There is not going to be any attractive structures that we
are going to put in there, so I'd just like to add that.
Rohm: Okay. And I appreciate your comments. That's -- you know, in some ways
having commitment via this discussion that you're going to put in, you know, quality
construction and it's not going to be something that would be an eye sore as an
entryway into the city, that is well appreciated. What -- how does the balance of the
Commission feel about making it a requirement that a Conditional Use Permit be made
a requirement as each lot's developed and -- so that we could see the specifics of the
project as it unfolds?
Zaremba: We have done that other times. I would support that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 12 of 52
Rohm: This is a real -- in my opinion, this is a real important parcel of ground and we
want to make sure that it's done right and we'd just like to have a little hand -- I'd like to
have a little hands-on with this parcel and if -- if we can move forward with the
annexation and, then, with the understanding that a CUP will be required for a specific
development, then, I think that you will get your annexation and we will get our
opportunity to take another look at it. How do you feel about that, Commissioner
Borup?
Borup: Makes me ask another question and maybe we need an opinion from the
attorney. The condition says it will be an administrative design review. I assume that
would be from the staff. Is there any way that a condition can be put on here that there
will be a design review by this Commission, rather than a Conditional Use Permit
required, where we don't have a design review committee? I mean if a Conditional Use
Permit, a CUP, is that only way for us to have that design review, then, I would be in
favor of that, if there is other options -- because that's all we are trying to accomplish,
right?
Rohm: That's right.
Borup: We are not looking at any other conditions, other than review of the structures.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, I guess one
of the things I'd recommend -- and I don't recall if the staff report indicated that, but if
you want those types of conditions you may want that as part of a development
agreement. It's probably easier from an enforcement standpoint to deal with it that way.
But I don't -- I can't think -- and maybe Mr. Hood has a suggestion. I can't think of a
method for your Commission to, then, act as design review body. The intent I think of
the -- unless it's a CU. Unless you just require a CU that all you're going to be
approving currently is the annexation and zoning with part of those conditions of the plat
being that they have conditional use requirements on each of the structures they want
to put on those parcels, so, then, you would have to see each of them again. I think the
intent we have been working from recently is trying to develop design standards for staff
level review, so I think that's what we have been trying to do. But to simply just put a
requirement that all the design comes back to this Commission seems more of a
stretch. I think you're going to probably have to do the CU route if you want to do that.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may chime in there. Mr. Nary's correct, I mean there is standards
in the design review section and all you would be doing is a staff report that says, yes,
they comply with all of them and you would just be saying, yes, they comply with all of
them and if they comply there is not much else you can do. There isn't really any
leeway in those design review standards, that's why it's built in for staff to just go down
our checklist, essentially, and say do they have varied roof lines, do they have 30
percent glazing on the front, do they have a pathway to the adjacent sidewalk, those
types of things is what we are looking for. Now, I would say if you want to put your
stamp on this, so to speak, this is your opportunity. This is an annexation. If you want
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 13 of 52
to see all, you know, stucco buildings or you want to see 30 percent windows facing
Overland Road, or you want to see maximum two stories or you want to see -- whatever
it is, you tell them what a good development for this is. And, then, they have to kind of
work within those guidelines. I think that's -- that's easier to do if you have some idea of
what you would like to see here to put that into a development agreement and say you
shall build it this way. This is, really, your one shot at it. A Conditional Use Permit in
the future -- there is no standards for staff to evaluate it at. If they are proposing either
an office or a hospital, staff says they are both principally permitted, what are we -- you
know, what are we looking for here. There is no guidance and, then, at that point you're
-- you know, they have a possible tenant that has to go through a Public Hearing
process and we have no guidance for them and it gets to the Commission and the
Commission says yea or nay, and we don't know what -- how to guide them in saying
this is what the Commission is looking for. So, really, this, I believe, is your opportunity
to put your stamp on the development and if there isn't that detail now or the applicant
can't conform to the detail that you're saying you want to see, then, it needs to be
continued or there is some other avenue to go down, but the CUs really -- we are trying
to get away from that, because, again, the UDC covers uses that are principally
permitted in the C -G zones and just to let the applicant know -- I'm sure they have heard
it before, but the Council is going to be wanting to see the elevations, too. That's
something they have been harping on staff and applicant as they come in. You know,
seeing a blank slate of just zoned C -G, they are going to want some commitments of
what those buildings are going to look like. And it doesn't have to be exact, but there
are going to be, you know, okay, all of them are going to have columns out front and
they are going to have -- you know, I mentioned, you know, a certain percentage of
glazing and varying roof pitches and things like that where it doesn't say it needs to be
red, white, and blue, but you need to have these concepts for the development. So,
depending on how you all are comfortable with that, but, again, I'd rather not put the CU
requirement, because it -- it really doesn't do any good for the applicant either. I mean
they get -- you know, perspective tenants, they are looking a four more months before
they come in, they are going to lose those tenants. I mean you need to have something
up front where they can see what those requirements are and work within those
guidelines up front, I think, unless you guys see something different, but if we can kind
of give them the parameters to develop in, I think they are going to be better off and the
city is going to be better off, because you don't have to have four additional CUPs on
your agendas in the future, so with that I will shut up, so --
Rohm: Well, there you have it.
Borup: See, I don't know that I'm comfortable with us telling -- us dictating the design.
There is a lot of good designs. I mean whether it's brick or stucco or -- or other things
that's added in there. But I don't think it's up to us to design the buildings and I think we
all know what an esthetically pleasing design is going to be. We don't want to see a
blank wall facing Meridian Road. And so I don't know if that -- I don't know if I know
whether I feel anymore now than I did before.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 14 of 52
Hood: So, Mr. Chair, can I just rea
want to see. We don't want to see
facade facing the street. Your front
like that that can at least give som
another way to approach it.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
0
I quick chime in on that. Tell them what you don't
concrete tilt up or we don't want to see a blank
door must face the street. If there is some things
e guidance on what you don't want to see, that's
Moe: I have a real problem with, basically, us sitting up here and trying to design a
project for the developers who are doing this morning, noon, and night. I don't think
that's our job to do that. I do believe that within -- within this report and whatnot they do
have to follow the UDC. There are definite requirements within the UDC that they have
got to follow. You know, we have had other projects that have come through here that
we have been able to make changes, you know, esthetically and whatnot to some of the
buildings to verify that they were sticking with the UDC requirements and whatnot. So, I
think, in my opinion, I'm willing to go forward as this report is tonight, basically, because
they do have to follow the UDC and as well it's noted in here that the design review will
be done and that would be at staff level or whoever is going to be redoing that, so -- and
Mr. Borup has made the comment that they don't know what they are going to put in
here as of yet.
Borup: But -- and if City Council is going to require something, it -- I don't know. I have
seen so many -- so many preliminary designs and sample buildings shown to this
committee and when the project gets done there is no similarity at all. So, I consider
most of those things kind of useless, unless there is -- I mean not always, but -- a
question I have for staff, then, is those guidelines do have a lot of leeway and I mean if
you're just going down -- you don't need to look at what would be considered a
minimum standard, I assume, where this is the -- the back of the building is probably
going to be facing Meridian Road on most designs, unless you have got a parking lot
out around that direction, but it doesn't look practical with this layout to me. I don't
know. I think from my standpoint we don't want to see what's going to be a normal back
of a building. You know, if it's -- I mean it's usually back in -- you know, with the loading
areas and that kind of thing, which is -- which would be a normal thing. But this is --
mean you have got two -- two major roads intersecting here. So, I think there is
probably going to be some -- some little more difficult design criteria that needs to be
taken into consideration. And how that works, it needs to be up to, you know, your
engineers and architects how that works out. But I would like to see on -- at least on --
on those two roads something maybe on the upper end of the design criteria. I mean
saying there is going to be modulation and height variation, it doesn't say how much,
you know, you can do -- you know, two feet could be a variation, but that may not
accomplish what I think we are trying to do here.
Van Auker: We would definitely work with the design review and make it acceptable to
their standards also, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 15 of 52
Borup: Caleb, I mean do you feel staff has a little bit of leeway in -- I mean just go
through and basically a checklist, yes, it has this and, yes, it has that, but staff can use a
little bit of their own ideas on what's appropriate for this location.
Veatch: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, the design review
checklist itself is pretty specific, as Caleb was saying, as far as percentage of windows
facing the street, it asks for them to call out the entrance using certain design features,
like a parapet or an entryway. It also calls for a number of different -- like two or three
different types of materials to be used in the building, facade as well as color variation,
and, then, also the roof line, as well as things that make it less -- I mean more than,
rather, a slate -- a blank slate or a box. Now, we have put the condition for it to be on
those two parcels down on Overland. If you would like to see also, perhaps, the other
one that's up in the northwest corner that will be also kind of visible from Meridian or at
-- my thought is that they were already building some on that one side of the road, they
continue the concept throughout the entire development, but if you would like to hold
them to that standard, we can certainly condition that it be for all of the lots.
Borup: I'd like to see it on all three at least.
Veatch: But I don't know if we can say we want it to look like an Italian villa.
Van Auker: And with regard to the design, we -- we except that we will maintain the
properties and own -- we will maintain ownership of all the properties. We usually don't
sell off lots. We maintain ownership and lease out the facilities to businesses. So, it's
going to be our interest to make sure they are of very high quality design, so they will be
easy to lease out.
Borup: Probably the only reason we have spent so much time on this is because it's a
very visible location --
Van Auker: Right. I understand.
Borup: -- and a very prominent gateway area to the city.
Rohm: It kind of sounds to me like after having listened to staff and applicant that
everybody understands that this is a gateway location into the city and if, in fact, you're
aware that City Council is going to want to have some conceptuals and some elevation
commitments in terms of possibly the type of product used for your walls and varying
roof lines, if you are going to be prepared to discuss that and make that available as
part of the presentation before City Council, maybe that's suffice to address the issue
and we will just deal with the annexation and move on from there. That seems
appropriate at this time.
Van Auker: And we are. We will work with the city -- or City Council to do that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
� o
August 17, 2006
Page 16 of 52
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: If I may, I would suggest some guidance. I'm very comfortable with the
designs that are intended for gateways and arterials. I think the guidance that we are
looking for is those pretty much refer to the front of the building and we need to know
that anything that's facing a street is going to have a similar treatment, so that it's not
just a boring back of the building. I don't know if that's sufficient guidance, but we just
don't want blank walls facing the street. So, something similar to the front needs to be
on the back, if that's the way the building is oriented.
Van Auker: Okay.
Zaremba: Is that a good statement?
Borup: Yes. I agree.
Rohm: Yeah. Good. Thank you.
Van Auker: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. And, again, we do not have anybody signed up to testify on this
application, but at this time it is open and if there is anybody that would like to come
forward and offer testimony, now is that time. Seeing none, discussion amongst the
Commission or additional questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a couple of comments. I would add to the development agreement
another bullet that says provide building elevations to staff ten days prior to the City
Council, if that's what we are -- the direction we are going.
Rohm: I think that's a good add.
Zaremba: And the other question is on Exhibit B, page one, the very -- the paragraph
that introduces the development agreement gives the applicant 18 months to talk to the
city attorney. I would like to see that shortened to something like six or less. I know
that's been a topic of discussion.
Nary: Ninety days is plenty.
Zaremba: Ninety days? Okay. And, then, I have one other comment. It's not really an
issue, but I just want to make sure that people are aware of it. Exhibit B, page six, Ada
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 17 of 52
County Highway District requirements, the first one is that the driveway that we have
talked about be a right -in, right -out, and that the applicant will supply a center median.
This driveway aligns with the street that comes out of the project to the south of this.
Putting a median in will make that a right -in, right -out also. I just want to make sure
everybody's thinking about that. That was it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Dave. Appreciate that. Any other comments from the
Commission?
Borup: Maybe a clarification. Did you --
Moe: No. Go right ahead.
Borup: I'm trying to see if one of the original comments got over into the requirements.
Let me -- and that was on page -- page seven, stub streets. It's -- it was a little
confusing to me. It says staff supportive of connecting -- of the connection to the stub
street from the south from Country Terrace. Is that released or are we talking about
another stub street?
Veatch: I believe what I was referring to is -- Commissioner Borup, Chairman Rohm,
with South Country Terrace here, if you go across Overland, South Country Terrace
continues.
Borup: But that's not a stub street from the subdivision, is it?
Veatch: From the subdivision to the --
Borup: Yeah. So, there is a stub street from the subdivision. You mean the
continuation?
Veatch: Yeah. I think so. Yes. I think I misinterpreted that as far as they are aligning
that together, so that there is interconnectivity. So, if someone were to come from the
south, they would be able to go across Meridian and those would be aligned with each
other. So, it's not, actually, a stub that they are providing.
Borup: Okay. That's kind of what I assumed, then. I mean that's what I was
wondering. All right. Thank you.
Veatch: Was that in my comments on page seven or the highway district?
Borup: No. That was on yours on page seven.
Veatch: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: At the top of the page there in the analysis and I'm not -- can't remember if it got
over in the comments. Commissioner Moe, you had something?
war s��
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 18 of 52
Moe: No. Go right ahead.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-037
t,
Y
and PP 06-035. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
�
�
Q@n
*yr 3
,,.
xr',
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, with the following
modifications: On Exhibit B, page one, the first paragraph under annexation comments,
z
the applicant shall contact city attorney Bill Nary -- to da, to da, change 18 months to 90
days. Initiate this process within 90 days. Then below that same paragraph where
there are bullets, I would add one more bullet that says provide building elevations to
'a
staff ten days prior to the City Council hearing. Did I miss anything?
Moe: The development agreement on that -- the drive aisle. Is there a change to that
or am I mistaken?
t
Boru Oh, yeah.
P�
�
k'
Zaremba: I missed -- what was the change there?
X
F
Hood: The stub to this address with sewer and water.
4
Zaremba: Say it again.
Veatch: The second to the last bullet. If we could delete a 25 -foot wide commercial
drive aisle sewer and water shall be stubbed to the property.
Zaremba: We delete it; is that what you said?
e
tea:
�
Veatch: Yes.
*�
s r
rt ,( e x
L
`Y n 3
1 'k t.T
,j ,
•g 9fi a : .;
, , .F ." S' F � .� *�. �"kS .5...;
'
kbT
y
IMP
1 ` s
I
jr V
3
§�, W
x tt.
Fk''ri#iMIA
iC.,'&.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 19 of 52
Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Okay. So, I add to the motion to delete that bullet.
Borup: Did we also add Lot 4 to the design review? Did you say design review only
included Lots 2 and 3?
Veatch: Correct. Those along Overland Road.
Zaremba: I would agree. I would add that --
Borup: Add Lot 4.
Zaremba: -- number four that faces Meridian Road. I don't believe there will be
anything built between there and Meridian Road.
Borup: No. It's just that pond -- that parking lot. I just thought -- I wasn't sure which
paragraph that was for you.
Veatch: Commissioner Borup, I believe that's under 1.2.6 that --
Borup: There we go. Yeah.
Veatch: -- the lot being subject to a design review application.
Hood: And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, to jump in here again. That provision should really be
in the development agreement and not a condition of the preliminary plat. So, if you
could just cut and paste that 1.2.6 with your amendment to add the lot and add it as a
bullet point to the DA, that's, really, where it should be, so --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, as part of the motion I would move 1.2.6 into the development
agreement and add also the buildings that would face Meridian Road.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council
recommending approval of AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035 to include the staff comments --
all staff comments with the amendment as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? The motion carried. Thank you for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 14,315 square foot multi -tenant retail building with one
drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by
W.H. Moore — NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 20 of 52
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-023 related to
Grandview Marketplace Retail Building No. 1 and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is a Conditional Use Permit for a 14,000 square foot retail building, Grandview
Marketplace Retail Building No. 1, to be located within the Dorado Subdivision. Dorado
Commercial Subdivision is generally located at the northwest corner of Overland Road
and Eagle Road. So, we are seeing that right there. The subdivision is currently zoned
C -G, general retail and service commercial. Dorado was granted final plat approval in
2005. A Conditional Use Permit would typically not be required for this project, as retail
uses are principally permitted in a C -G district. However, the development agreement
in effect for the Dorado Subdivision required all construction on lots adjacent to a
residential district to obtain a CUP prior -- CUP approval prior to the submittal of a
certificate of zoning compliance. And as you can see there is still a residential district
on -- just to the east of this subdivision that is currently zoned in Ada County. As
previously stated, the applicant has proposed an approximately 4,000 square foot retail
building with a drive-thru window. It will generally be located on these lots here in the
middle. The tenants are unknown at this time. Although not required, the applicant has
also provided an amenity on site. Let's see if we can see that here. There is the site
plan. I guess do we not have -- was that -- oh, yes, there it is. Up there in the northeast
corner they have proposed an amenity in the form of an outdoor seating area with a
gazebo. The primary issue highlighted in the staff report for the Commission is the flow
of traffic just to the north of the proposed drive-thru, which is right here on -- the staff, as
well as the Meridian police department and fire department feel the proximity of that
stacking lane barrier with the trash enclosure right here -- with the trash enclosure right
here, it inhibits safe two-way circulation. So, staff is recommending that the drive aisle
to the east of the trash enclosure be restricted to one way only where traffic will be
directed to the west. So, that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions at
this time.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I'm just kind of curious. Is there any screening on the west property line?
Hess: I don't think they have proposed screening, other than they have a five foot
landscaped barrier that was part of the planned development at the time of annexation
and platting.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions before I ask the applicant to come forward?
Jonathan.
Meridian Planning &Zoning
o
August 17, 2006
Page 21 of 52
Seel: Good evening, Commissioners. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company, 1940
Bonito, Meridian. Before I get into the staff report here, if we can flip back to the master
kind of plan there. One of the things there was a comment about whether there was
any screening here and one thing may refresh the Commissioners' memory on --
because I know you see a lot of projects here -- there is one home here, one home
here, and one home here that sits on this lot. There is also several residential homes
on this side. Ron Van Auker owns all of these homes over here. We own the home
here. We have an offer to this individual here, which I think will sell to us fairly soon.
The discussion when we came in on this plan originally was that this whole residential
area is in transition. In fact, that's one of the reasons that we were able to get approval
for a five foot landscape area. What we did is because for this lot, this lot, and this lot,
we are required to have CUs. We will put a six foot vinyl fence along here as well, so
when we come in, which you will be seeing again in another couple of weeks on this
one, on this property here. So, we will have screening. But the reason I mentioned
that, I want to emphasize that although this is residential, it's residential in transition.
And even the homeowners have admitted that and when we went through with the
Commission and City Council. So, I think that's an important point to point out. As --
Borup: So, Mr. Seel, then, so all but -- there is only one lot potentially left? One
residential at this point?
Seel: There is two residential lots right here. Bill Uras owns this one. We have an offer
to them, which here it's --
Borup: And I meant one besides your offer.
Seel: Right. And, then, Mr. Gale Sasser own this, which he is now renting out at this
point. He no longer lives in the house. He's moved out, so -- so, those are the two.
Other than that, Winston Moore has already purchased this one and, as I mentioned to
you, Ron Van Auker has purchased all these homes over here. So, it is clearly an area
in transition that I just want to emphasize. I think that's an important point. As I say,
with respect to the drive-thru, I just want to get some clarification on this. What our
understanding is for traffic coming in, they can come in, turn around and go out this
way. So, this is, essentially, two way. This is the one way area. So, in other words,
people can come up here and drive out this way, but, of course, people can come that
way and we are okay with that. To mention also we have an amenity over here, which
we think will benefit not only this project, but this is the Marriott hotel which will be
starting construction here in about another 30 days. So, we think that that will be -- we
had agreed to two amenities in here. Again, this is a multi -tenant building at this point to
be developed by Winston Moore and I think it goes without saying the quality he does
and this will be another very similar project. My only comment on the staff report -- and
maybe that's me and maybe I'm just a little dense, but on item 4.1, quite honestly,
wasn't sure what that meant. And so I would ask for some clarification on that, if I could,
please. Other than that, we are in agreement with all of the items of the staff report and
whoever can explain it to me I'm open.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 22 of 52
Borup: You're increasing this -- the question was on increasing the visibility? Is that
what you were --
Seel: Well, I guess, you know, one of the things I think is important -- I like to
understand what I'm agreeing to.
Borup: Yeah.
Seel: As I mentioned, if we can come into -- well, if we can come into the site plan just
for the building for a minute and maybe I can try to get it clarified. Go back to just that
building itself, the site plan.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: It would be my feeling that staffs suggestion that this be a one way -- the
area that we are talking about --
Seel: Right. And that --
Zaremba: -- the police department and the staff are talking about the same little strip
that you identified next to the stacking lanes that that's one way --
Seel: And, Commissioner, we have agreed to that. That's another item and this
appears to me -- and that's why I'm asking. This appears to be something slightly
different than that. If that's the case, then, there is not an issue.
Zaremba: I read it to be the same spot and I think the one way solves the problem,
although you should double check that.
Seel: Yeah. That's all I want to understand, because it was in here earlier and so,
again -- so, if that's all it is and if staff says, yes, that is -- plus it also said prior to the
next Public Hearing. As far as I know this is it. So, I guess I just simply would like to
ask for clarification. If that is all it is, then, we are fine with it and I can sit down.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I was at that agency comments meeting
and that was the concern from the police department is that -- the visibility part of it I'm
not quite following myself, but their issue was the traffic concerns with having that neck
down and the dumpster being so that through traffic, if you will, has to come down and
merge with traffic going the other way and drive-thru traffic kind of all at that one spot.
So, it was just kind of odd how the dumpster kind of protruded out to a drive aisle and
so if you can clean that up by making it one way and get Lieutenant Bob Stowe to say,
hey, that's fine, your traffic looks good, then, that was the intent of the comment.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 23 of 52
Seel: If that's the intent of the comment, then, I think it's just redundant, but that's fine, if
the understanding can go on record. Yeah. I just didn't want someone coming back
later and saying, well, your dumpster is in the wrong spot and you have got to move it
here and take out this, that, or the other thing. So, if that's simply all it is, then, I'm
satisfied. Unless there is any questions I will be glad to sit down.
Rohm: I have no more questions.
Moe: No.
Seel: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. There was nobody signed up to speak on this application either, but now
is the time. If there is someone who would like to come forward and speak, this is it.
Seeing none, is there some discussion among the Commission or --
Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing CUP 06-023.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-
023. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve file number CUP 06-023, presented during the hearing of August 17, 2006.
End of motion. Well, I further direct staff to prepare appropriate Findings documents to
be considered next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 31 st.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-023 for Grandview
Marketplace Retail Building No. 1. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carried. Thank you, Jonathan.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a 52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H. Moore
Company — NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Subdivision):
Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 06-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
24,835 square foot Retail Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail 1 by W.H. Moore Company - 3445 N. Eagle Road:
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 24 of 52
0
Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 06-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
13,653 square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for
Centre Pointe Retail "B" by W.H. Moore Company — 3445 N. Eagle
Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision):
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'm going to open up three items all at once. They .are
separate items, but they are all on the same parcel of ground and I think that there is
benefit to hearing all three of them together. We will vote on them individually, but they
will be heard all as one open hearing. So, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing
on CUP 06-027, CUP 06-025, and CUP 06-026 and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the first application before
you is a Conditional Use Permit for a 52,000 square foot retail building to be located
within the Centre Pointe Subdivision, also known as the G.I. Joe's retail building. The
subdivision is currently zoned C -G, general retail and service commercial. Centre
Pointe was granted preliminary plat approval in June of this year. The final plat for this
site has been submitted and is currently being processed by staff. The Centre Pointe
Commercial subdivision is generally located at the northwest corner of the Eagle Road,
Ustick Road intersection. To the east there is the Schmitzger -- I don't know if I have
pronounced that right -- commercial subdivision, which is right here. To the south Sadie
Creek Promenade commercial subdivision right here. And the southeast, the Gateway
Marketplace, also a commercial subdivision. Conditional Use Permit would typically not
be required for this project, as retail uses are principally permitted in the C -G district.
However, the development agreement in effect at the time of annexation requires all
development within Centre Pointe to obtain CUP approval prior submittal of a certificate
of zoning compliance. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed a 52,000
square foot retail building. The tenant will be G.I. Joe's. G.I. Joe's is a sports, outdoors,
and automobile accessory retailer. The primary issue highlighted in the staff report for
the Commission is that staff has requested a paved drive aisle. Let's move to the site
plan here. Okay. Staff has requested a paved drive aisle be provided at the rear of the
proposed retail building to extend to at least the northwest access and that is here --
here is the north -- the alternate northwest access. We would like to see a paved drive
aisle to at least that point. At the time of submittal the applicant has proposed just to
pave the small loading pad to the rear of the retail building. The remaining block was to
be paved upon development of retail structures located -- to be located to the north of
G.I. Joe's up here. So, UDC 11 -3 -C -5-B-1 requires all parking areas and driveways to
be surfaced with asphalt or concrete, et cetera. As it's very likely that suppliers will be
utilizing that alternate access, staff has conditioned the paved drive aisle be provided at
the time of approval of this application. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission
has questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Let's continue
with the staff report on the other two applications at this time.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. Let me just make sure I can
access the presentation here. I'm not going to go throughout all the details regarding
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 25 of 52
11
context that Amanda just did, because she just said it. We know what's there in the
area. These next two proposals are in that same subdivision, the Centre Pointe
Subdivision. I will start with the discussion of what the applicant is calling retail number
one. It is the proposed building to the -- to the right up here this building is a proposed
23,335 square foot retail building with one drive-thru and their proposed building is
located on 1.76 acres, once again, within the Centre Pointe Subdivision. And as with all
of the other buildings within this subdivision, it's here before us because in a
development agreement all buildings were required to obtain a CUP. Let's move on to
the site specific plan for this. Here we are. As you can see, this is a fairly standard
retail building with multiple entrances and tenant spaces. The one unique feature is the
location and design of the drive-thru facility, which is right at the -- that section of the
building there. And this facility went through numerous redesigns, much like the facility
at Grandview that Amanda discussed earlier. The police had some concerns with
circulation through this area. This is a drive aisle and cars entering this drive-thru
facility will have to cross traffic to enter their drive-thru stacking lane and upon exit they
will be exiting into oncoming traffic. As it was redesigned it looked like a difficult area to
put a drive-thru, but staff is satisfied, including a discussion with Lieutenant Bob Stowe,
who was satisfied in the end with this design, but it is something the Commission can
look at to make sure you feel comfortable with it. Other than that, that's kind of the only
issue that came up with this retail building. I think we have a copy of the landscape
plan. Pretty standard landscaping for a commercial subdivision. And I also believe we
have some elevations. And this structure, because of it's proximity to Eagle Road, did
go through the design review process and as you can see it has variations in roof length
and multiple windows along the frontages and cornices and other things that were
included to make it an attractive structure and staff found that it was consistent with the
design review standards. I guess I'd stand for any questions on that specific building
retail one if you have any.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a comment to be aware of. The site plan that was shown up on the
board is the same as the one that is on Exhibit A, page one, which is dated July 10,
2006. However, the large plan I have, SP -1, is dated also 7/10/06, doesn't have the
same configuration for the drive-thru and I just wanted to clarify that we are talking
about the most up to date one, even though the dates are the same, are the one that
you presented and is in the staff report, not the one that's the big fold out.
Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you are correct, that was a mistake in the
staff report. That date was left there by my error. This is the most updated site plan.
The reason that your large one is not accurate is because when we receive those, that's
months ago and there has been, as you can see, changes since then. But you have the
accurate site plan in your staff report, but that date is incorrect.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 26 of 52
Rohm: Okay. If we could now hear the staff report on Retail B.
Lucas: Okay. We can now move onto the next building, which is, as stated, Retail
Building B. It's this building here. To put you in context with what's going on in the
development, this is Kohl's, which is the approved structure that's going in here and so
the building is going to be adjacent to the Kohl's directly to the north. Retail One, which
we just looked at, is located right over here. And G.I. Joe's would be located across this
drive aisle directly to the north there. This building is proposed to be a 13,653 square
foot building, located on 2.03 acres also, obviously, within Centre Pointe Subdivision.
Let's see here, if we can go to that master plan. And I think it was, actually, all the way
at the beginning here. Here we are. This will help us -- it puts it in a better context of
what's going on here. As I stated earlier, this is Retail One, this is Building B, this will be
G.I. Joe's and there is further development within this Centre Pointe Subdivision to the
north there. Excuse me. Once again this is a fairly standard retail building. Very
straight forward with six proposed tenant spaces adjacent to the Kohl's. And it's -- I
guess the best thing to say about it is the only reason it's here before you is because it
was required to go through Conditional Use Permit approval in the -- in the development
agreement. I think with these two buildings staff is recommending approval for both of
them in the staff report, but beyond that there were, I guess, some issues that staff has
and that the city may want to consider and this Commission may want to consider as we
look at both of these buildings and how the whole Centre Pointe area is developing.
And although we are recommending approval of the proposed buildings, it is important
to note that this recommendation is based solely on the fact that the proposed buildings
comply with the minimum UDC requirements. A larger issue, such as this area's
regional importance can and should be considered by the Commission when making a
decision on these conditional use permits and how that regional -- the regional nature of
this shopping center impacts the entire city. And while this overall development,
especially these two buildings, Building B and Retail One, meet the minimum UDC
standards, there are some issues that are left unaddressed, such as the pedestrian
plaza or gathering place in this development, which is an issue that was voiced by the
city on numerous occasions between -- and discussion between the applicant and the
city and staff and something that's left unaddressed with these two buildings at least.
And staffs concern is that we would like to see such a plaza or gathering place, but if
these two buildings are approved as -- as they are proposed, there is a concern that the
ability to provide such a public gathering place may not be available anywhere --
anywhere else on the site or these two buildings may set a precedent where the rest of
the site develops as these two are developing. With that it's just something that staff felt
it was important to bring up, especially with the location of this Centre Pointe
development and the impact and regional nature of such a large commercial
development. And with that I stand for any questions.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff at this point in time? Okay. At this
time would the applicant like to come forward.
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 27 of 52
E
Seel: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. I don't know if I
should say that three times or not, but -- I had Barbara -- I sent Barbara kind of a master
plan of this. Could we put that up. I haven't seen that one yet. There we are. No.
That's -- there should be one for Centre Pointe. Keep going there.
Lucas: I tried to -- you know, Jonathan, I don't think she -- we included that in the
presentation. This is the closest we have.
Borup: Jonathan, is this it? It was in our packet.
Seel: No. I talked to Barbara, in fact, this afternoon and she had it loaded on. I mean if
it isn't, it's not a major issue, but I thought it gives you a little bit more perspective and
also it's a little bit prettier to look at, so --
Borup: This one does -- we do have the whole site in our packet.
Seel: Yeah, you do have that. It's more of a color rendering with the landscaping and
everything else. But if we don't have that -- why don't we first start with G.I. Joe's and
there is an elevation of G.I. Joe's I know that's in there. There we are. As we
mentioned, the first one we have the conditional use for is G.I. Joe's. G.I. Joe's is a
sporting goods store. I was not familiar with them, but they are located out of the
northwest. I guess anyone who has lived in the northwest is very familiar with them. It's
approximately 52,000 square feet. They are kind of, I would say, kind of a mix of an
REI, Sportsman's Warehouse, and probably a Gart's. They are really very attractive
and they sell some nice products. We are really pleased that they are coming in here.
They are excited about coming in here to the point that we have actually had staff work
with as far as timing and accelerating things on this. They are going to be starting
construction on this building in the middle of September and they are going to be open
next May. So, they are, obviously, very excited. But we think this is a great addition to
the community and I think for us who like sporting goods, it will be another choice. So,
we are kind of excited about that. But these are the elevations. I think it will be an
attractive building. As was mentioned it's somewhat in the center of the project. So,
this is the first one and we are asking for approval of that. We didn't have any issues
with the staff report on this one.
Rohm: Okay. Before we leave this elevation right here, that south elevation, there,
Jonathan --
Seel: This one right here.
Rohm: Yeah. That looks pretty stark.
Seel: We have -- if you look at the landscape plan -- and I think it was not reflected on
here, but they are going to do landscaping and trees and planters throughout this -- the
length of this. So, if you look at the landscape plan that you would have -- and I'm sorry
that's not on here, but that will show that on there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 28 of 52
Rohm: It looks to me, just from just this rendering, that it would be better if we could
see maybe an entrance from that side of the building. Is there a possibility of --
Seel: Well, if we can flip over to what's kind of the plan -- and I'm sorry we don't have
the colored one, but if we can flip over to the one that shows all the buildings back
there. There we go. Right here. This is -- right now this project is being constructed, as
you may be aware if you have driven up and down Eagle Road. This is a public street
that will ultimately connect to Wainwright, which is further up here with the light. This is
a road that goes through here and it's really very, honestly, not conducive to an
entrance on this side. This is, really, your main entrance and this is the area that's
going to face Eagle Road. This being Eagle Road right here. In fact, as you may be
aware, we are also doing quite a bit of improvement on Eagle Road right now. So,
that's where they want to put their entrance is right there, which, obviously, is the place
where it's going to draw attention. This, essentially, is a private drive lane or a drive
lane, so to speak, coming from the public road that will ultimately connect to Eagle
Road, so --
Rohm: It still looks pretty stark. There may be some -- I don't know, difference in colors
or product or -- I'm not sure exactly what I'd like to see, but it just looks so blank and
maybe the landscape itself will help dress that up, but just from that elevation it --
Seel: Well, Commissioner Rohm, if I can, I don't think this light is helping us a lot
tonight. But I understand and I think if you see the real elevation, the color, I think it's
more attractive and I guess I would point out at least when we met with staff on it they
didn't have any objections to it and I think they have been pretty tough as far as on the
design. So, I think that one's not a terribly impressive picture. Maybe I shouldn't have
even put it up. But, yes, I think it's more attractive. There will be landscaping, there will
be trees along that, so I think that will soften the appearance of it, what will be the south
side of the project.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, if -- there is relief on that elevation there. There is -- basically you
have got a -- you have got a wainscot there, it does look like there, along with the
landscape and, then, basically, you do have a parapet that comes up as well. So, there
are some differences within that. It's not going to look just like -- just one solid --
Rohm: Blank wall.
Moe: No, it's not. There is changes throughout.
Seel: Thank you.
Moe: And there is one doorway.
Rohm: I saw that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 29 of 52
Seel: Yeah.
Rohm: Thank you.
Seel: You're welcome.
Zaremba: On the same subject, Mr. Chairman, around the -- what would be the back of
the building, the west side, I think we required some extra decoration on the Kohl's
building, because these will be facing residences. I'm just wondering how -- how that
works on the back of this building.
Seel: Commissioner Zaremba, again, if we can go back to that site plan. This is one of
the few times I didn't bring a board and I wish I had now. Just, again, for clarification,
this is a portion of our project -- this is also zoned C -G. These will be, obviously,
commercial. You do have Champion Park Subdivision over here, but there is a fair
distance. The back of this building is, obviously, like any large building, you're going to
have loading docks. The loading dock is screened to the point where when the trucks
are backed in you cannot physically see them. Also, along here we have a ten foot
landscape buffer zone that we are installing with this project, not with that, but we are
doing this with the project now, regardless of whether or not anything is developed in
here. So, you will have ten feet of landscaping on both sides of this street going along
it. So, I think those things will soften. And everything is being screened back there, so -
Zaremba: And if I understood right, there is also going to be buildings on this site.
Seel: There will be some buildings. These are fairly small lots over here. These are
roughly an acre apiece. I think these might be -- these, potentially -- and don't hold me
to this, but these could be office, these could be some kind of quasi -retail service type of
thing. We don't honestly know at this point. I mean that's one of the reasons we are
going to the CU, because we are faced with that. We don't know what necessarily is
going to be there. But, again, I think it's -- this is going to be a buffer to what at one time
actually was going to be a storage facility through here. You probably recall many years
ago, so --
Zaremba: Uh-huh. Thank you. That was a good answer.
Seel: Okay. Good.
Moe: Just along that same line, though, reviewing these projects in here, the one thing
that did strike me and I was -- when Kohl's came in and whatnot, we had lots of
discussion in regards to the street going up through the north and whatnot and I do
remember you made comment that it was going to somewhat meander through. But I
also somewhat envision -- or have the opinion that that road was actually going to be
the buffer between, basically, the residents to the west and this development. But I see
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 30 of 52
you are planning to put some commercial properties between the road and the
neighbors to the west.
Seel: Commissioner Moe, we had at one time -- this -- this particular road right here
was fixed as far as it's location.
Moe: Right.
Seel: Because ACHD, when we constructed Ustick last year, we did the widening of it,
these were where the access points were and staff was -- there is a property here -- in
fact, Winston purchased it. So, this was dictated. There was a discussion at one point
about possibly deviating this road either east or west of that, but I don't think in my
memory there was ever any plan to put that road, if I'm understanding you, essentially,
along what would be the west boundary. I, frankly, think that this is a better buffer than
had this road been put over here, you jam the retail back up behind it. So, I think this is,
actually, a better buffer, in my own opinion.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: And that's what I remember, too. That there was going to be some small
building -- or small buildings along there.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Mr. Seel, I would just bring up one other subject. In CUP 06-027, which is
the G.I. Joe's --
Seel: Okay. I was going to say, I lost track of numbers here.
Zaremba: Uh?
Seel: I was losing track of numbers here.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Seel: Yeah.
Zaremba: That's the G.I. Joe one. There is an Exhibit A, page one, that shows the
Centre Pointe Subdivision master plan.
Seel: Okay.
f=
F
z
i
o¢
i"a$w
t•
1
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 31 of 52
Zaremba: I didn't notice that in the other two, but I'll focus on the one that's here. One
of the things that Meridian is trying to avoid are things that look like strip malls. If I look
at this master plan, the fronts of the buildings, Kohl's, B that we are talking about, G.I.
Joe's and the ones continuing to the north, all look like they are lined up straight with
what would appear to be a strip mall appearance. You can see a portion of it here.
This is Kohl's, I believe. That those are pretty much a straight line going up and there is
some more further north. I guess what I would like to hear addressed, is there going to
be any additional modulation back and forth or what's the plan not to let it look like a
strip mall?
Seel: Commissioner Zaremba, the answer to both those questions is yes. Right now
you are seeing it straight. It's straight because I guess it's probably easier to draw a
straight line than it is to do the modulation. We are very much aware of the Mayor and
the Council has made it very clear to us and we are aware on I think every time I have
been in front of them, you know, the Mayor has said we want some deviation in this.
There absolutely will be. In fact, if you look at this particular building right here -- and it's
probably not easy to see -- there is the corner of Kohl's right there and what we have
done is we have pushed this building back. Our plan is as we go up these buildings will
deviate. In fact, if you were to look at the one plan, which you don't have the luxury of,
but the construction drawings for G.I. Joe's, it shows these corner features, which are
on this side and this side, and the intention of that was that this -- the building next to it
would be moved back. We don't intend to have a straight line. We absolutely agree
with you. Fortunately -- and this just -- because it was drawn that way, that's the way it
is. But we are -- yes, we are very aware of that and that is our intention and I think,
working for Winston Moore, we can say that, yes, you can absolutely count on that, that
those buildings will have some deviation as we go through. Like I say, we have already
done it on this one, we were requested by the city, we did and we pushed it back as we
could, because we had some constraints with Kohl's and some of their ridiculous
requirements that we have to deal with. We have put that back. I suspect this one will
go back. This next one will probably be back, so you will see -- you will see modulation
throughout. That might work.
Zaremba: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman? I am kind of curious -- what are you doing to the west of the B
Building?
Seel: To the west of the B Building right here this is restricted; we can't build anything in
here under our agreement with Kohl's. What we can potentially do is we could build
another building here and we could potentially build another building right there. Again,
that's -- we keep saying that's on the site plan, but we don't know, necessarily, whether
we will or not. Most likely this one would be built at some point. But that's what we are
restricted to as far as there. But as far as here, this is owned by Kohl's. This is their
truck loading area. And we are restricted in here and we suspect that this will be
access for parking or something like that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 32 of 52
Moe: Okay. And, then, in regard to staff speaking of a plaza area and whatnot within
this development --
Seel: Well, I guess I -- it's a little frustrating -- and let me vent for a few minutes. I have
talked to Anna about it. Nothing was ever mentioned in the staff reports or anything to
that effect on that. When we came in we were not required to do amenities. One of the
things that Anna talked about was some type of amenities up here and we discussed
that point, but I was not aware of anything being brought up tonight, but I will be glad to
respond to it. What we talked about was the possibility of a plaza back here, kind of a
common seating area that people could use. Our partner in this, KimCo Development,
which is actually doing the Treasure Valley Marketplace also, has probably developed
about three or four hundred shopping centers throughout the country, so I think they are
pretty -- I think they are pretty knowledgeable when it came to that. If you put a plaza
here and pushed this building back, you may as well figure it's going to be vacate
forever, you know. You can count on it right now. We talked to Anna about the
possibility of putting some plaza or seating areas out here, for example, where these
walkways are back in these areas. We could look at -- as I talked to her about some
seating or something like that. We are certainly open to some of that, you know, but,
again, I wasn't prepared tonight to respond to that. That would have been something
that's been more of a conversation than anything. I take a little exception to it, because
you're going to come down here and build these that you're going to preclude yourself
from putting amenities in. Obviously, you have got a walkway and this here, but we can
certainly look at the possibility of entertaining some type of seating or something up
here. I don't think either Anna or I had any great ideas, but we can certainly look at that.
And I think that's probably about as good as I can do right now.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. I'm just curious on your comment on -- if the building was set
back they said it's going to be hard to rent. How far back were they talking about?
Seel: Well, Commissioner Borup, I think in our mind -- and we didn't design anything
specifically. But we are looking at probably 30, 40 feet back. If you're going to do a -- I
think kind of a common seating area, something that you could truly utilize. In other
words, not something that's going to be there basically as almost a facade. That's what
we were looking at. Now, if it's ten feet back or something, you know, who knows. But,
again, you know, recently --
Borup: So, 30, 40 feet, you're talking almost like a little urban park -like thing, then?
Seel: Yes. I think what I think about it, if you go to the Town Square, you have the
theater over there, there is that theater, I think it's a dollar theater right now, and as you
walk in the front you have got the front and the theater and the ticket booth is quite a
ways back and you have some shops on either side. And you have got -- I mean it's not
a seating area as such, but it's kind of a enclave or something. I think that's what we
were kind of visualizing. That's something we were going to look at and there was,
actually, discussion about doing that. In lieu of doing that we could eliminate these CUs
that I'm here tonight -- you know, all the time on. But, again, at the same time we don't
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 33 of 52
want to construct a building that's not going to be leasable. You know, we don't want to
create something that's not going to be successful. So, you know, we can certainly look
at those type of things, but that's what we are thinking, to make it meaningful I think
you're going to look at something like that.
Borup: One of the designs that's attractive to me and you're not going to be able to
know that until you get the tenants, but the outdoor seating area for the restaurants.
The -- that the movie theaters at Edwards has some in front of the restaurants there, but
they are used by other people that are just walking by, too, and I don't know if the
restaurants like that or not, but that same type of usage, maybe some benches around
that area. But, you don't need to go back 30, 40 feet to do something like that. I don't
think. You know, 20 feet could get a lot of -- a lot of tables and seating in there. And
that could be, in my mind, a dual purpose, you know, used by the restaurant and maybe
by tenants in there, too. I don't know if that's a conflict necessarily or not.
Seel: Commissioner Borup, for one, again, in here we can't have any restaurants at all.
Again, we are restricted by Kohl's. Up here it's probably unlikely that we are going to
have any restaurants, but we might. I think most of your restaurants, like you see many
of your other projects, are going to be focused more with the visibility to the road.
Again, I certainly don't purport to be an expert on retail either. And there may be ways -
- and we certainly -- as I say, we can talk as we develop this with KimCo, which I think is
really the expert on this as far as what kind of amenities we can put here. I understand
it's like, hold on, I understand what the city's trying to accomplish. I think it's a good
idea. I just don't know how best to do that and we can certainly look at things. Believe
me, I would love not to be coming here for every CU and I imagine you'd love not to
have to have me coming every CU. So, if we could find something where we could
potentially look at a trade and it would be of benefit, we would. But that was the first
thing we kind of focused on on the feedback we got on that was it would not be
successful -- it might be successful for seating, but it won't be successful for a
prospective tenant behind it, so -- but, you know, I think, again -- and I have said this
many times, that I think, you know, this is a Winston Moore project, I think he takes
pride -- I think he wants to make these attractive projects and I think if we can do things
to enhance them, we are. I don't think we have ever skimped on any of our projects. I
think whether you look at EI Dorado or you look at Grandview Station, if you look at this
project or any of the others we have done, we have always I think tried to go first class
and I think we will on this. But this is just starting to develop at this point and we have to
kind of see how it is and maybe as we are developing it we can incorporate some of the
things, so -- I don't mean to be long winded here, but --
Borup: I also like the idea of a plaza somewhere, but it also doesn't, in my mind, make
sense to have something that's not going to get any use. So, it's got to be practical and
just to put it in just to comply with something, then, have everybody drive by it all the
time doesn't really accomplish anything either.
Seel: Just spend money.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 34 of 52
Zaremba: I agree that it would not be practical to put it next to G.I. Joe's, I think, but it
would be nice if you do end up with a series of restaurants fronting Eagle Road, that you
put something in that area. Somehow work it in.
Seel: And like I say, I always try to shoot straight with you and I can't tell you absolutely
we can do this, that, or the other thing. I can say, you know, obviously, we will be
looking at those things and if we can improve and enhance it, we will, but I'm not sure
what that is.
Rohm: Maybe the question that needs to be answered, then, is -- if not part of Retail
One or B or G.I. Joe's, at what point in the development of this as a whole do you
incorporate a gathering place as part of the application, because the balance of this
project is going to be under the same conditions that these there parcels are, they are
going to have to come before us with a CUP and it seems -- maybe if it's not appropriate
to address it on any one of these three applications, by all means it certainly should be
something that should be addressed in one of the next applications as a specific line
item that is addressed as in -- I think that you're aware that the city would like to see a
gathering place and I think we are probably going to keep beating on that drum until you
find a way to incorporate it. Maybe as part of a professional plaza as part of this overall
development and I don't know that this is all going to be retail and maybe -- maybe you
have a better feel for that than we do. Are you agreeable to that with the -- with the next
project that comes before us?
Seel: Well, Commissioner Rohm, in all fairness, first, if you look at the conditions of
approval there is nothing that's been discussed up until now about an amenity. We
have not been required to. As I mentioned to you before, it's not been -- there is nothing
been discussed in the staff reports, in all fairness to us, that said, oh, by the way, tonight
we are going to talk about amenities. Be prepared. I like to be prepared for these
things. This is the first time I understood that this was even going to be discussed
tonight. So, I guess it's very difficult for me to respond to you without having anticipated
this up front, you know. I'm not trying to dodge it, but I --
Rohm: And you have always been very straight with us. I -- that's not -- I guess I'm
trying to get a feel for where we are going down the road. If, in fact, it's not appropriate
to come to a solution for the applications that are before us tonight, I think it's important
that you go away with the understanding that as the balance of this development comes
forward, we are looking to see something like that at some point in time before this is
totally built out. I mean -- is that something that you can live with?
Seel: Commissioner Rohm, what I could say to this is that I can go back to Winston
Moore, I can express to him some of the concerns and the wishes that you have tonight,
we can look at options, we can certainly explore this with staff, but, again, as you say, I
can't -- I can't tell you, yes, we can do this or that and I understand what you're asking
and what I can say is I can give you the assurance that we will -- we will take this
seriously, I'm not going to just walk away from here tonight and just say, oh, well, that
was a nice discussion and hope they forget about it, because as I say, I know I'm going
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 35 of 52
to be back here again. And we can look at if there is things that we can do to enhance
that and beyond that I don't know what else to really say.
Rohm: And I think that that's a fair response. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Seel: You're welcome.
Borup: My final input would be if you have an area that turns out to be a concentration
of restaurants and ice cream stores or something like that, that that would be a nice
place to have it in that area.
Seel: Okay.
Borup: I mean that's where it would get some use.
Seel: Sure. And I agree with you, Commissioner Borup, that it needs be related to the
use.
Borup: At this point you don't know where that concentration is, do you?
Seel: We don't.
Rohm: Okay. All right. I think additionally we kind of broke into your presentation when
I interrupted and asked you about the south wall of G.I. Joe's, so --
Seel: That's right. That's where we started.
Rohm: -- that's when this whole -- and we hadn't even given you an opportunity to
complete your presentation and I apologize for that. And so if, in fact, there is
something that you wanted to make part of your presentation that we kind of got you
side tracked on, by all means, please, continue and we will try and refrain from
interrupting again.
Seel: I appreciate it. No, I think on G.I. Joe's I think I'm done with that one. As I say,
had no comments on the staff report, so we are agreeable to the staff report the way it
stands and we would simply ask that you approve that project, which we think is an
excellent project, so -- I think the next one was the 23,000 square foot -- what we call, I
believe, Retail One. Again, I don't think I need to belabor that. As Justin said, we did
spend quite a bit of time modifying this drive -up window. Staff was in agreement with it.
I think we worked out something that I think was a fair compromise all the way around.
Again, this is just going to be a multi -tenant building. These are going to be pad
buildings out here in front of Eagle. So, it's not going to be directly on Eagle type of
thing. Again, it's going to be a Winston Moore project. We think it's got some nice
design and features in it. My only comments on that one was they mentioned here --
and I -- hopefully you got the letter. It said that there is an island and they asked that
we landscape it. However, the island's only two feet wide. With the curb and gutter that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 36 of 52
give you about a foot to landscape. That's fairly narrow. So, we'd ask either we could
do some pavers or something like that attractive in there, instead of landscaping, which
would be very difficult. Also, mentioned something about the windows. There is
windows on the west side and, again, I hate to keep bringing this up, but 4.2 -- once
again, I wasn't completely sure what that meant. So, maybe somebody can clarify for
me again. We are kind of going back to the police department. I don't mean to pick on
the police department, but -- it says -- I'll just read it to you. Loading areas, including
trash enclosures, shall be separated from all public parking areas, which includes the
main drive aisle to the rest of the proposed building. So, I think what they are saying is
-- if I'm understanding it, that if we put a trash enclosure, they want it -- and I'm not
saying it's going to be there, but somewhere out over here. I believe that's my
understanding.
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I think to clarify, once again the police
department -- their main -- their main concerns were with the -- how that drive-thru was
originally designed and originally it was more confusing. What -- the design that we
ended up with turned out to be favorable and the police did okay that. The reason I
didn't -- I don't take all of their comments out is I didn't have a chance to speak with him
directly -- Lieutenant Stowe directly about this comment, so I felt -- as planning we are
not allowed just to take things away from the police and say that doesn't mean anything.
But I think that the intent -- as I say, Lieutenant Stowe had a chance to look at the drive-
thru design and the location of the trash enclosure and he okayed it verbally to me, so I
don't see this as being a major issue.
Seel: Okay. I guess, then, my only question is on the island and the landscaping and
whether we need to do that, so -- other than that, I would ask that you approve the staff
report for this CU. Finally, I guess -- I'm sorry.
Zaremba: Mr. Seel, would you identify where -- where the island is you're talking
about?
Seel: Yes. Well, it's -- what they are referring to is this island right through here.
Zaremba: Oh.
Seel: And it's only two feet wide and, like I say, when you start to put the curb and
gutter into it, you really just have a narrow strip. Obviously, it's very defined, so people
don't get confused, but to try to put landscaping in there would be very difficult. You
know, we could put some pavers, stones, or something like that and I think it's -- it's not
a huge island, so we'd just ask for that modification.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, question of staff. Wouldn't pavers or something come under
landscaping anyway?
Lucas: Absolutely. That is -- that does fall under landscaping. And I guess the one --
which condition are we speaking of?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 37 of 52
Borup: 1.2.
Seel: 1.2.
Lucas: Also, what I -- the other island I was referring to in the staff report -- there is this
curb which definitely needs to be visible by the public, so that they are running over it
and pavers or something -- something vertical would be appropriate there. I'm also
referring to this island on the exit of the -- of the drive-thru and I believe that it says that
most shrubs or vegetation will not block the view of the automobile exiting the drive-thru.
What I was concerned about and what staff is concerned about is as cars exit there is
not a tree or something there that is going to obstruct the view of oncoming traffic and
that's what that comment refers to.
Seel: That's fine. I consider that an island, but that's fine. Okay. That's been clarified.
Unless there is any questions on that, I'll move onto the next one. The final one is -- is
this building right here and, again, in the staff report minor things. This one -- I guess I
was a little confused by the requirement that we have to have a minimum of six tenants.
This is a multi -tenant building, but we don't know how many tenants and it requires us to
have six, because we have six bays just seems a little far reaching to me. I would have
to have you delete it. Obviously, we could have three tenants in there, we could have
four tenants in there, so I'm not sure the purpose of that one.
Moe: Could staff comment --
Lucas: Once again, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, the reasoning behind the
minimum tenant requirement was to insure that there was a variety of retail uses in this
-- in this subdivision and in this development. And try to avoid the big box next to big
box, next to big box type development that has been seen in the past and that has been
discussed tonight. With regards to the six, we went with six, because that's what they
proposed on their plan and we just said that they should stick with six, because that's
what's proposed and that's where that came from.
Seel: As I said, you know, I appreciate the big box, this is a 600,000 square foot
shopping center, I think it's going to be multi -tenant. This is a 13,000 square foot multi -
tenant. I hardly think this is a big box. Again, it just seems like an unnecessary
requirement. We have never had this before and we have done a lot of multi -tenant
buildings in here, so whether you have two, three, they are hardly going to be big box
users. We are going to have plenty of variety of tenants here.
Borup: Well, I had the same thing marked and I was questioning that, too. But are you
-- are you saying you -- not have any number or you would be comfortable with three or
Seel: Commissioner Borup, I have never encountered this one before. We have done
multi -tenant buildings; we might have two tenants in there. I mean if we get two tenants
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
August 17, 2006
Page 38 of 52
and I agree to have three, does that mean I can't have it? You know, again, it's a
13,000 square foot building with about a 70 foot depth. They are not going to be large
tenants. So, I have never heard being restricted by the amount of tenants in a building.
Moe: I guess I would wonder if we just didn't put it at multiple tenants, which could be
two or beyond that, as opposed to -- I understand what we are trying to do is try and not
make it one, so --
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Yes. I guess there is a couple of comments and I don't know if this would be of
any assistance to the Commission. I mean I heard Mr. Seel say a couple of times that
they were not required to bring in any amenities and now as you -- as you wade through
this Conditional Use Permit I think it -- it's kind of obvious that the kind of -- how this
evolved to this point. You know, at the time of this property being annexed and this
project being proposed, there was no concept plan as you discussed on your last
project, which is part of the reason why all these CUs were placed on it. So, all of those
conditions, then, are part of the reason that you're having to wade through this. If a
concept plan was brought forward with some idea of what's going to be in this thing, so
that it doesn't look like a big giant strip mall, so that there are some opportunities for
public gathering places as you discussed, some multiple types of tenants. It is a mixed
use regional zone. I mean that's the reason those are there. It is within your purview as
the Commission to place these restrictions. That's why it's there and now CUs are your
final decision, other than the City Council subject to appeal. So, you know, it probably is
obvious to all of you, but as I have sat here and listened -- I mean the reason that those
conditions the staff is trying to craft is because they have never been brought by Mr.
Seel or Mr. Moore as to what was this project going to look like, what is the long-term
result that this is going to be for the city, and now the burden is on all of you to make
those final choices, because after you there is really no one else to do that. So,
although Mr. Seel is asking you to sort of eliminate some of these conditions, no one
else is going to look at this again, except you. And this might be the only opportunity for
this pad, the other one -- the project that's in front of you tonight, G.I. Joe's, you may
never see them again, unless you have restrictions on them that you think are good for
the long term vitality of this project and in the best interest of the city. So, I don't know if
that's of any help, but as I have sat here and listened to your back and forth -- and that's
why this is here and maybe Mr. Seel feels like this is -- was blindsided to him, but I'll tell
you, I have sat through a lot of these hearings, too, and the fact that this was never
done as a concept plan and no amenities were required, was on the expectation that
when these projects came back, they would have those things. There would be
discussions about gathering places, public open space, places for smaller retail versus
the large retail and what I'm hearing Mr. Seel saying is that that's a surprise to him
tonight and I guess from my seat that isn't a surprise, that's why these were placed as
CUs and so, you know, I understand your frustration and, of course, of there is an
opportunity you think Mr. Seel needs to go get better information and bring it back to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 39 of 52
you, you can always set these matters over and bring them back at your meeting. So, I
don't know if that's been of any help, but I felt it was probably something you might want
to consider.
Rohm: Well, it helped me quite a bit. Would you like to respond to that, Jonathan?
Seel: Well, yes, I agree with Mr. Nary that we did not come in with a concept plan. You
know, if there is a particular concern that you want as a multi -tenant building, in reality, I
don't see it as being one tenant. So, if you want to put that condition on, you know, we
can do that. I guess what I was trying to say that I found that unusual that we have not
encountered this in the past. This is the first time that I have seen this before. You
know, whether it was two tenants or three tenants or five tenants or whatever it might
be, so --
Rohm: How did you feel about Commissioner Moe's comment that -- as opposed to six
tenants, just making a requirement that it's multi -tenant?
Seel: That's better. I mean, you know, I --
Rohm: I'm not sure that that's where we are going to end up, but that seems to be
somewhat of a compromise between the six in the staff report and leaving it open --
open ended.
Seel: Sure. No. I -- Commissioner Rohm, I think if you want to leave it as multi -tenant,
I -- again, I don't think that that's a major issue. I think my main concern was trying to
restrict us to six, which meant that would be very difficult. So, if you want to refer to it as
a multi -tenant building, that's fine. I'm agreeable to that, if that gives you the comfort.
Rohm: Yeah. I'm not sure six is -- six would be nice from the standpoint that you
certainly get an open plaza type atmosphere, but six may not be -- it may not be easy to
get six separate tenants. So, I can see your side of it, too.
Borup: And conditions change. Intermountain Arms was one building. There is three
tenants in there now. So, you know, it can go both ways. They could start out with six
tenants and ten years from now end up with two. So, I'm not sure, you know, dictating
too much makes a lot of sense.
Seel: Or the opposite. It could start off with two and be six and, then, be five, and,
then, be two -- I mean it's not uncommon to vary. I mean that's I, guess, why they call it
multi -tenant buildings.
Rohm: Well -- and I did think that we want to the stay with the intent of the staff report,
so we don't have box after box and if we have a requirement that there is at least multi -
tenant, then, we will at least break it up some.
Borup: Wouldn't that be the same as saying a minimum of two?
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
August 17, 2006
Page 40 of 52
Seel: That's fair.
Borup: I mean that's the same thing.
Rohm: Yeah. Any other questions of this applicant?
Moe: Mr. Chairman. Jonathan, I'm -- the one thing I am a little bit concerned about is
the west elevation.
Seel: Okay.
Moe: As I look at this thing, that is pretty stark. Am I to assume that you do have a
stucco cornice and it's just going to be a painted wall at that point?
Seel: Well, maybe, Commissioner Moe, if you don't mind, the representative from G.I.
Joe's is here tonight and maybe I will have him --
Moe: Well, I'm talking about Building B.
Seel: Okay. I'm sorry. Where now?
Moe: It would be your -- the rear wall, the west wall of Building B.
Seel: You're talking about this wall?
Moe: Yes, I am.
Seel: If you have particular requirements, then, we can add them to it.
Moe: Well, I'm just noting that you're -- it's a tilt up building, I'm assuming, and it's going
to be painted, but you're showing a stucco cornice.
Seel: Uh-huh.
Moe: And, then, basically, you are either going to have two or six doors or whatever
you're going to have.
Borup: Probably six doors.
Moe: I guess I was just curious. Are you looking for multiple color, like a stripe through
this thing, or is it just all one color painted through? And, again, we are facing the
street. Even though I mean it's back away from the area, is that an area that Kohl's
won't let you build in is right there, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 41 of 52
Seel: Commissioner Moe, I mean if it's -- I have not seen the back of the color
rendering, but, again, no, I don't think the intention -- and, again, if you want to put that
on -- in condition, we are certainly agreeable to that, that there will be multiple colors in
here or however you want to describe it. We have no objection to that.
Moe: Earlier this evening I made comment that I'm not a designer, but --
Seel: That's two of us.
Borup: So, the area that Kohl's is controlling is from this building to the west or clear to
the street?
Seel: They--
Borup: I mean to the street on the north.
Seel: If we could flip back to the site plan again, please.
Borup: It sounds like you don't know exactly what they want to do there. They are not
building buildings in there is what you're saying.
Seel: Commissioner Borup, we can flip to it. I just want to make sure that I understand
your question properly. This area right here is -- Kohl's has restricted.
Borup: From there to the street to the west all the way?
Seel: Yes. Actually, if we can flip back here.
Borup: There we go.
Seel: Kohl's owns this. They purchased it. When we came in with a Conditional Use
Permit they purchased 8.3 acres. And this is included in it, so we -- we can't do there.'
If you see this cross -hatched area, we cannot -- we cannot built within that area. In fact,
if the city had said to us move this building back here, we couldn't have done it. I mean
we just --
Borup: But you don't know why they were requiring that?
Seel: They -- to be honest with you, no, I don't.
Borup: So, who owns that land?
Seel: We own that.
Borup: And what can you do with it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 42 of 52
Seel: We can have a reciprocal easement agreement and within the reciprocal
easement agreement there is restrictions on where we can build and not build.
Borup: So, you can't build a building there, but you can use it for parking?
Seel: We can use it for parking. Yes, sir.
Moe: Is that the intent?
Seel: Commissioner Moe, you know, on some of the stuff with Kohl's I'm not sure of the
intent, very honestly. I think it's just anytime they have had a bad experience they just
add it to their list and fly to the next shopping center. So, they were probably concerned
with back of building here, they didn't want anything here, but I honestly do not know.
Moe: Well, I guess, really, the question I have is what are you planning to do with it?
Are you planning to pave that area?
Seel: This will be paved, yes.
Moe: Okay. Surface paved.
Seel: Yes.
Moe: Lighting back there as well?
Seel: There will be some downlighting. We will be sensitive to the fact that we don't
want to make it real bright. We do have streetlights out here, of course, which were
required by the city, so --
Borup: I think to address maybe some of Commissioner Moe's concerns on the
starkness of that building, maybe if there is some parking lot landscaping that can
soften that, too, even though --
Moe: Right.
Borup: -- I don't know that the size of that area would require a lot of landscaping, but --
Seel: Well, what I'd like to suggest -- and I think we applied the same thing to Kohl's, is,
you know, we can certainly -- we have got to come back in with a certificate of zoning
compliance and what I would propose is that we work with staff on the design on what
goes back there. We are certainly open -- we are not opposed to enhancing it if
necessary. Again, these pictures are not -- you know, probably not the best way to sell
a product, but we can work with staff as far as either it's columns, colors, things of that
nature. Cornices. Again, I'm the same way, I'm not an expert in architectural terms.
Borup: But you're saying there may be -- but you got this space for another building?
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
August 17, 2006
Page 43 of 52
Seel: Possibly.
Borup: Okay.
Seel: We are entitled to construct it there. It doesn't mean we will. We are just entitled
to.
Rohm: Jonathan, thank you.
Seel: Okay. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Any other questions before I -- at this time there is nobody signed up for any
one of these three projects, but if there is any testimony, now is the time. Seeing none -
- I think as always Jonathan did a great job in response to our questions and I
appreciate your willingness to work with us and to hear us out and I know you'll take our
concerns back to your people and appreciate your time before us. Any comments from
the Commission before we close this public Hearing?
Borup: I don't think so. I think we can close it. And, then, are we going to hit each one
one at a time?
Rohm: Quite honestly, after hearing things as they unfold, I don't know that we would
need to --
Borup: Other than maybe any -- any changes. And the only one that I can think of that
we discussed was the multi -tenant building. Was there any others?
Moe: Other than I would like to see a condition probably put in there that the applicant
will work with staff to upgrade the west elevation of Building B or whatever you want to
call that.
Hess: Mr. Chairman, I also -- staff wanted to direct you to Exhibit A, page four of G.I.
Joe's. I know you were looking for kind of an idea of the landscaping proposed on the
south elevation and it shows a little bit -- it doesn't look like it's full -- full vegetation or
tall trees, it looks like more of low shrubbery that's proposed along that west elevation.
Do you see that?
Borup: I noticed that. But I don't know if that was the landscape plan. Was that put in
by the landscape architect or the --
Hess: If you look at the landscape plan on page three, Exhibit A.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 44 of 52
Hess: It's kind of small, hard to see, but it looks like there is light -- lighter circles, which
indicate the taller shrubbery along that elevation, with the shorter in between. There is
a bunch of small circles all along that -- that elevation. I don't know if you can see that
very well. It's a little small. Mr. Chairman, we are going to try to put up the hard copy,
Exhibit A, page four, on the screen for you to see.
Rohm: Is this the area you're referring to right here?
Hess: No. Actually, it is the area -- it's not depicted on there, but it's all along there.
That's the south elevation there.
Rohm: Okay.
Hess: North is this way up here, so --
Rohm: Got you.
Hess: Or -- sorry. West. No, that isn't -- oh, you're right. It is down here. I'm sorry.
This is the south elevation. This is the private road that he was talking about.
Borup: So, who brought up -- was there still some concern, Commissioner?
Moe: Pardon me?
Rohm: I think staff has just some clarification on the landscaping that they want to
make sure the applicant is aware of, so once she gets that cued up on the --
Moe: I think they are just going to show this. Didn't she say Exhibit -- page four of
Exhibit A?
Hess: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, we have the elevations up on the
Powerpoint presentation here and I just wanted to have you note that there is a
difference between the trees that are proposed along the elevation and what's proposed
along the south elevation here, so --
Borup: Yeah. I think the ones on the south are designated as ornamentals and
shrubbery.
Hess: Right.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: I have got some 12 foot high shrubs in my yard.
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just one quick thing. I don't -- and it's great that we opened it
all up at the same time and you can even close all the hearings at the same time, but for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 45 of 52
the record each motion I think should be made individually. It would be cleaner for the
record, so -- I didn't know if that's where you guys are going or not, but --
Rohm: Yeah.
Hood: Thank you.
Rohm: I agree, though, we should close all three together and, then, motion them one
at a time. So, with that being said, can I get a motion?
Borup: I can get them closed. Mr. Chairman, I move we close CUP 06-027, CUP 06-
025, and CUP 06-026.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close CUP 06-027, CUP 06-025, and CUP 06-
026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: I'm confused on why we have 9A in here.
Rohm: 9A is just the --
Borup: A reminder.
Rohm: -- Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law if, in fact, we pass it or --
Borup: Do we have Findings?
Rohm: Well, we will if we --
Borup: So, we do it all tonight without doing it next time.
Rohm: Yeah. We are going to -- once we have closed this and if we approve it, then,
we can, then, open 9A and do the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law tonight and
have this one done in its entirety. And that's a recommendation of staff and request of
applicant that we get both done in one meeting. And if there is no changes to it, we can
do the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law just as it's currently written. But if, in
fact, there is changes, that particular project is already cued up and they can make the
changes, print a new staff report to support any changes and we can still move forward
with 9A.
Borup: Did anyone have any changes on that one? I didn't --
Moe: No, I did not.
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
August 17, 2006
Page 46 of 52
Borup: -- have anything written down?
Moe: Could you do 9A after you do that --
Rohm: Yeah. We will do 9A after we act on nine, ten, and eleven. We haven't even
opened 9A, so let's -- let's respond to all three first.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move
to approve file number CUP 06-027 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
of August 17th, 2006, site plan labeled C1 and C2 dated July 11th, 2006. Further move
to direct staff to prepare appropriate findings document considered later in this meeting.
End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-027, to include all staff
comments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number CUP 06-025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date August 17th,
2006. The site plan labeled SP1, dated July 10th, 2006. And I further move to direct
staff to prepare appropriate Finding documents to be considered at the next Planning
and Zoning Commission hearing on August 31st, 2006.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-025, to include all staff
comments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number CUP 06-026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date August 17,
2006, and the site plan labeled SP1, dated May 31st, 2006, with the following
modifications to the conditions of approval. Under the conditions of approval 1.2 where
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 47 of 52
it's noted that the building shall contain a minimum of two tenant spaces as proposed, in
lieu of six, and, then, I'd also like to add another point, one point -- or 2.0 1 guess I would
put it, under the planning department, that the applicant will work with staff to upgrade
the western elevation of Building B.
Zaremba: Second.
Moe: Along with -- furthermore, to direct staff to prepare appropriate Findings document
to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 31st,
2006. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-026 to include all staff
comments with aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9-A: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Approval:
CUP 06-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a
52,000 sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's by W.H. Moore Company —
NWC of Eagle R. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Subdivision):
Rohm: Thank you. Now, the last item in this bundle of three is -- I will now -- let's see --
open up the -- well, request approval of 9A, which is the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for approval of the CUP 06-027.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for CUP 06-027. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: And, again, Jonathan, thank you. You did a great job. At this time we are going
to take a short break and reconvene at 9:40.
(Recess.)
Item 12: Public Hearing: MI 06-004 Request for Modification of the Development
Agreement between the City of Meridian and Valley Shepherd Church of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 48 of 52
the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision and a church on 32.45
acres for Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of
the Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-040 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55
residential, 7 common lots & 1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for
Shepherd Creek Subdivision by Valley Shepherd Church of the
Nazarene & Shepherd's Creek, LLC — 2475 S. Meridian Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open up the Public Hearing on MI 06-004 and PP
06-040 for the sole purpose of continuing both of these items to the regularly scheduled
meeting of September 21 st.
Zaremba: August 21 st. No, September 21 st.
Rohm: September 21st.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: And it has been moved and seconded to continue these items to the regularly
scheduled meeting of September 21st. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14: Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements
Plan for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects. This public
hearing regarding the Capital Improvements Plan is required by the Local
Land Use Planning Act before the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's
recommendations for parks, police and fire impact fees can be forwarded
to the City Council:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open up the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and turn it over to our legal counsel Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I do have a handout
that was sent to you by e-mail. I don't know if the clerk's office has one, so I could pass
that down. If any of you also -- if you need a copy of that I have an additional one. This
is a fairly unique circumstance that's in front of you tonight. I don't think in the past you
have had an impact fee discussion on your regular agenda and a Public Hearing. What
is in front of you is there is a Comprehensive Plan amendment that is being proposed
by the city, the city has hired some consultants, they have an impact fee committee that
has worked through the consultant's work. What is in front of you is the reason the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 49 of 52
Comprehensive Plan amendment that's in front of you is here, is because part of the
local Land Use Planning Act requires that it become -- that the CIP that is a part of it for
the ten year capital improvements plan, be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
So, it's a text amendment that doesn't require any time limits, it can be done at anytime,
and that's what's really in front of you. It's not the fee itself, it's not the -- it's not the data
that went into the calculation of the proposed fee, that will be a Public Hearing before
the City Council. It's currently proposed to be on the 5th of September for that Public
Hearing, but this portion we are asking to put in front of you was for your review and
hopefully consent and recommendation for approval to the City Council to include this
as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. It has been given a number by the Planning
Department, it is CPA 06-001. Mrs. Canning has given me that number as of today. If
you have any specific questions, I, hopefully, can answer them for you. Again, all that's
in front of you, really, is the proposed long-term capital improvement plan in relation to
both the parks department and the public safety sections of the city fire and police. That
was what was used to make the determination of what the ultimate impact fees would
be on the development, both residential and commercial. If you have any other
questions, I, hopefully, can answer them. If not, we'd simply leave it to you and,
hopefully, a positive recommendation to it move forward to City Council with an
agreement to amend the Comp Plan.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Nary, I -- when I went through this the only thing I was kind of curious about --
and you may not even be able to answer this, but when they were going through their
factors of cost and whatnot, were they putting in inflation factors and whatnot for what
these things -- what some of the stuff is going to cost five years from now or they were
just going on today's dollars?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Moe, that statute
prohibits them from putting in an inflationary factor, so they do have to go over the cost
of -- the potential cost by today's dollars. Land cost, as well as equipment cost. The
only thing that the statute allows is that you have to look at when you look at equipment,
for example, you have to look at a ten year minimum lifespan. So, if you noticed in the
data and the material that is provided in regards to equipment, for example, for the fire
department vehicle trucks, fire engines are included, some of the radios have been
included, because those have ten year life spans. But, for example, police cars are not,
because they do not have a ten year lifespan. The land, of course, can be -- can be
included differently, but they are not allowed to look at an inflationary factor, so --
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: You're welcome.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 50 of 52
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would comment that I don't think we are being asked to validate the data,
since we are probably not qualified to do that, but I would say that we, in my opinion,
could validate both the methodology that the committee and the consultant came up
with and the format or presentation. City Council will consider the data. But it seems to
me that this is a reasonable -- they explained how they went through their methodology
and they had I think reasonable explanation. I have only one difficulty with this. To me,
it's a glaring error to leave out the city hall. That is a public facility that is needs to grow.
It's every bit as important to the citizens and to the functioning of the city as a city park
is and to me that's an important capital improvement that is only required because we
have grown. This building when it was built was certainly adequate for the population at
that time. The reason we have outgrown it and we are having departments all over the
city is because of the growth. So, I would think that there should be a fourth item in
here and that is the city hall.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, I totally
agree with you, unfortunately, the statute doesn't allow it. So, it isn't -- it isn't for all
facilities that may last for ten years, it is only for specific types of facilities and park
facilities is one of them that the legislature has allowed it for. City halls in general,
general public facilities, municipal building, is not included. So, although I agree with
you that it makes perfectly rational sense to want to include it for the very reasons you
stated, we aren't allowed to do that. I was also remiss and I didn't notice him chime in,
but Commissioner Borup is a member of the impact fee committee, so he could also
add any other information you may want, but, again, we would agree with you it's just
not -- it's not allowed by our statute or we would.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup, do you have any --
Borup: No. I was going to say the same thing Mr. Nary was, only a lot less eloquently.
Rohm: Okay. Well, with that, then, maybe we could get a motion to forward onto City
Council our support.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Maybe the only other thing I'd comment on is that --
Rohm: We need to close the Public Hearing before we do that, though. So, at this time
I'd like to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-001.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
August 17, 2006
Page 51 of 52
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CPA 06-001. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? There you go.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: The only other comment I had is just -- well, just to comment on the consulting
group. I was very impressed with them. They are highly professional, answered every -
- he can answer every question on anything and I just thought the city did a fine job on
the consultant that they picked. I don't know what that -- how that process happened,
but very knowledgeable, very professional group.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: That was all I had.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Borup.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, CPA 06-001. There were no staff comments, so as
presented this evening.
Borup: Second.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council our support of
CPA 06-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries. Thank
you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: One more motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
L
b .k"
rxx"
5tfS
.?4
r
�
gg"
Meridian Planning & Zoning
;.
August 17, 2006
Page 52 of 52
r
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: We are adjourned.
�� �� •s k � � Y � t:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M.
t
t
t
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
1� CAN
�� d ?`1 ..t s,� Y;t ,.; 3Y � Hk. �+!. L.� .'°f y
— •,:1 -.'�"r a
An'�
r.
APPROVE
cl
MICHAEL E. ROHM - CHAIRMAN
DATE APPROVED
\ of
$v
ATTESTED:
m
WILLIAM
G. BERG JR., (QTY L
It
F e ,
#
r"
L
b .k"
rxx"
5tfS
.?4
r
�
gg"
1
�� �� •s k � � Y � t:
t
t
t
1� CAN
�� d ?`1 ..t s,� Y;t ,.; 3Y � Hk. �+!. L.� .'°f y
— •,:1 -.'�"r a
b .k"
rxx"
5tfS
.?4
r
�
I_ 1
LJ
•
August 17, 2006 CUP 06-027
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT Winston Moore ITEM NO. 9-A
REQUEST Findings for Approval --- CUP for the construction of a 52,000 s.f. retail
building for G.I. Joe's - NWC of Eagle Rd. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Sub)
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Findings Added to Agenda as 9-A
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
f
�i
ea S t � i..� :gNX i'"EN Id" T .
3' wr
44.
y
Y
V
g�1
S e
f
}
Ya
k
4
fk
+:I
f"
2£
I_ 1
LJ
•
August 17, 2006 CUP 06-027
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT Winston Moore ITEM NO. 9-A
REQUEST Findings for Approval --- CUP for the construction of a 52,000 s.f. retail
building for G.I. Joe's - NWC of Eagle Rd. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Sub)
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Findings Added to Agenda as 9-A
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
f
�i
ea S t � i..� :gNX i'"EN Id" T .
3' wr
." t i'. �-'���,�'•F `"�.y t ., h l't'
y
;5
V
g�1
T f
f
}
f
�i
ea S t � i..� :gNX i'"EN Id" T .
3' wr
." t i'. �-'���,�'•F `"�.y t ., h l't'
y
;5
* T h #
XIA
}
+:I
f"
w ma
" e5
r
r:
&.illj�i:
y
;5
* T h #
XIA
}
C�
cxr>a41
�:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request for a 52,000 square foot retail building
in the C -G Zone, by W.H. Moore, Co.
Case No. CUP -06-027
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: August 17, 2006
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006,
incorporated by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006,
incorporated by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of August
17, 2006, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified
Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps
thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the
Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6,
2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO. CUP -06-027 - PAGE 1 of 4
0
E
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the
Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and
any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the
attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006 incorporated by reference.
The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such
requirements as a condition of approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City
Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein
adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan and Landscape Plan, dated July 11, 2006, and
Elevations, dated July 12, 2006, is/are hereby conditionally approved; and,
2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff
Report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, incorporated by reference.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a
maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval,
and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or
structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the
final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with
multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the
event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple
phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year
from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the
one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and
void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the
period in accord with 11-513-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the
time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional
time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the
Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO. CUP -06-027 - PAGE 2 of 4
x
r
d
x ..
require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code
Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat
or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis.
Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than
twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request
for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for
'.
Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
T ;
the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of
this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
h
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of August 18, 2006
_y «
;.
R 5
A}�
Yt
c<P
{
4d 7
{ F Ss <
±1
k � �
fY"
'� 4r
?S
i $
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO. CUP-06-027 - PAGE 3 of 4
<N
a
2 d
,
�
2 Y ,� i+A-'
p
yy f J
«
u
�
Z
S
PS-T
+
;
+.
M>,
*t
R rY i l
5 a tH
t i �
c;
r
i
"1
RU111,1-
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 12
day of ^ .{ < , 2006.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED
(Chair)
COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED
COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED��`�`t�
COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED
COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED�r
CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM
\\\\\yyyririiiirrr;t;;
OF krxzpz
Attest: o
shl-,11
Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk,®
Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning I7epartl�ient, Public Works Department and City
Attorney.
LVz
r -1-t
rty Clerk f A
s✓ � -y �� �{-ray'
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO. CUP -06-027 - PAGE 4 of 4
-bpi ff
w
{ E 4
Y 1 ``tar Pyr''a d
i
Fd.
,3 p
s
n
�
9
,:sui3 '�. i
4"u fm'?3r•<,L1: ).. rai. �,
-bpi ff
w
{ E 4
Y 1 ``tar Pyr''a d
i
Fd.
''+ry Lr'i,
�
9
0
August 14, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
0
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A
REQUEST Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular
Meeting:
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See Minutes Previously Distributed
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
NOR
4
TIF
jZ
�r
r}
y
a
s � _
r a
°°
Y.
t'k„S $3i' 3
. . . . . . . . . .
3
sir
vn`}'a. T4'n
w�.z
Mw Mx
0
August 14, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
0
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A
REQUEST Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular
Meeting:
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See Minutes Previously Distributed
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
4
TIF
jZ
�r
r}
y
a
s � _
°°
0
August 14, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
0
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A
REQUEST Approve Minutes of July 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular
Meeting:
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See Minutes Previously Distributed
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
g
jZ
a
x a
x^
t'k„S $3i' 3
3
vn`}'a. T4'n
}
August 14, 2006 AZ 06-029
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT Reed Kofoed ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of 10.39
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Silver -springs Subdivision - south side of McMillan Road
& west of Locust Grove Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
See Previous Item Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
See Attached Comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
August 14, 2006 PP 06-029
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT Reed Kofoed ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 20, 2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of 29
single-family residential lots and 4 common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4
zone for Silversprings Subdivision - south of E. McMillan Rd, west of Locust Grove Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
See Previous Item Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See AZ Packet
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
See AZ Packet
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Emailed:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
'Ak��T��''f�4�*
R V1
`r
T �d
i3
'fid
144,
'{kY
August 14, 2006 AZ 06-037
$
Nv
-
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT Ronald Van Auker ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation & Zoning of 4.85 acres from R-1 to C -G zone for
Cope Subdivision - east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road
F
'> Y
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
;
`=
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
W
g
CITY POLICE DEPT:
�V
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
. z
CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
f
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
'3
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
,4
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
�t6
'Ak��T��''f�4�*
R V1
E
t 5i yE k 'kzZ $ i
gt2k"�#y4
i2±�i .;y 5�"• £ "Or;,
Y,St!
,41
R
ri
T �d
i3
'fid
144,
'{kY
$
•.
xY
E
t 5i yE k 'kzZ $ i
gt2k"�#y4
i2±�i .;y 5�"• £ "Or;,
Y,St!
,41
R
r
Y
;#3 ..nS`
i3
'fid
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
See Report In AZ Packet
No Comment
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: Affidavit of Posting In AZ Packet
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
dt
rq=
Y
s
i fir
e e
I:
A,Y �
. F
August 14, 2006 PP 06-035
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
x
APPLICANT Ronald Van Auker ITEM NO.
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 4.31 acres
in a proposed C -G zone for Cope Subdivision - east of Meridian Road and north of
Overland Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
hG y
X !_
'
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
See Report In AZ Packet
No Comment
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: Affidavit of Posting In AZ Packet
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
dt
rq=
s
i fir
Q{uw� ss;
I:
A,Y �
. F
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
See Report In AZ Packet
No Comment
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: Affidavit of Posting In AZ Packet
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
i
rq=
s
i fir
Q{uw� ss;
I:
A,Y �
. F
i
i y-4 :`� � i4 cHcd�%✓.i 5: R . i Y t ,
€x` �
I:
A,Y �
x
0 0
August 14, 2006 CUP 06-023
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
8
APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO.
z s.
'
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315
square foot multi -tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview
_
..
Marketplace, Retail Building #1 - NWC of Overland Road & Eagle Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
s* ^;
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
g
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
^
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
l'
CITY WATER DEPT:
r _ate
CITY SEWER DEPT:
.
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
,.<
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments
Q
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
�t
IDAHO POWER:
3
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
<u
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting
�.
Contacted: Date: Phone:
k
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
k,y
5 3 ,
4yi��
x
Y
}
x�5 S
e
4
S: 't
n, p.
i e
�
{
�4^i44Fi t:
-•. .,'z,} arc '.
VIA
k
-
w
r
tiW''}'} ft L
jl
.r,
h!�? vet¢
F F.J 1 }r >`tt. '}Ye,a�fi�IIt k 3 j •yam.
n.+
0
August 14, 2006 CUP 06-027
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT Winston Moore ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 52,000
sq. ft. retail building for G.I. Joe's - NWC of Eagle Rd. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Sub)
AGENCY
CITY CLERK,
CITY ENGINEER:
COMMENTS
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
3
r
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
a
CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments
i
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
5
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the city of Meridian.
k
�Y
August 17, 2006
CUP 06-027
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT Winston Moore ITEM NO.
9-A
REQUEST Findings for Approval — CUP for the construction of a 52,000 s.f, retail
a
r.
building for G.I. Joe's - NWC of Eagle Rd. and Ustick Rd. (Centre Pointe Sub)
i
ry
AGENCY COMMENTS
ti
?
CITY CLERK: Findings Added to Agenda as 9-A
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
s""
o
CITY ATTORNEY
t <
o
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
t
'
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
.,
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
n
CITY PARKS DEPT:
� k
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
� � 5
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
�a
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
& ""^
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
}
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
me
T''J a?SF53fh5€g� s w .f E{i ,. �i`�N�''at
ix
;
p i
.}.i3OX""
`1
}
i
���qqq
j_Wii rc �P % w' 7y'ta Zfs
F
gym$
}
.
�Iin/.�.
vpi
{-
R
.�, 4'8*2£i`h
0 0
77
August 15, 2006 CUP 06-025
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO. 10
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a 24,835 square foot Retail
Building on 1.76 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail 1 -
3445 N. Eagle Road
fr
AGENCY COMMENTS
µ
.r .!
Y
fAw
."sfir2
Yy i
s,*
y'")
CITY CLERK:
t`��*
��# ! '� „. ,�` �.i5i:`i��.•� d'� FY { �'xx{h '��T �! �����d'if ��"x?' ��
CITY ENGINEER:
&R -hi x ` k z 4 #:`�
V`� "Aft�
h §
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
Xk
a
CITY POLICE DEPT:
35 iP
4'
CITY FIRE DEPT:
C f
2ff,-v
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
t`,=diS'" i :"k ,'. R' "aboE°X��te"'Sp+ .
S
�
r .
CITY WATER DEPT:
j
ry
z
CITY SEWER DEPT:
.
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
a,
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
"z
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
`
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
eft + p
Ro
'
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting
�
xk
Contacted: Date: Phone:
r
Emailed: Staff Initials:
S
z
x
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
s
.r .!
Y
fAw
."sfir2
Yy i
s,*
y'")
t`��*
��# ! '� „. ,�` �.i5i:`i��.•� d'� FY { �'xx{h '��T �! �����d'if ��"x?' ��
&R -hi x ` k z 4 #:`�
V`� "Aft�
h §
,J
ix V
Xk
a
35 iP
4'
C f
2ff,-v
t`,=diS'" i :"k ,'. R' "aboE°X��te"'Sp+ .
S
i a:: R ;' 4�;{3MN'd� 't'!
r .
j
Twl"fiwww
o 0
��x }F
August 14, 2006 CUP 06-026
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
"n
APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO.
..................
..........
REQUEST Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 13,635
square foot Retail Building on 2.03 acres in the C -G zone for Centre Pointe Retail "B"
3445 N. Eagle Road (Lot 10, Block 2, Centre Point Subdivision)
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
-G,
CITY ATTORNEY
'51
CITY POLICE DEPT:
z
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
U, Nill
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
`4
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
l
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Objections
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
?'V,
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
-
IDAHO POWER:
R
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
N-1
AM,
w 4 v� A
M ,tf-7
4"
P
X�
2�
7
"Al Fr
'�7
A, Sys
M 4 �� " � ` � � ,
wn
r g
qiz4,
vt"Y"
t
W
01,1`011 It t
4
4
S�
z
777
q:
a
ift it
N,
54"
"
s '
e e
August 14, 2006 MI 06-004
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
by
'
APPLICANT Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd Creek LLC ITEM NO. 12
REQUEST Public Hearing - Mofidication to the DA between City of Meridian & Valley Shepherd
Church of the Nazarene to allow a residential subdivision & a church on 32.45 acres for Shepherd
Creek Subdivision - 2475 S. Meridian Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
� ^r=
k
CITY CLERK: See PP Packet / Numerous Comments
.;x
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
.s
CITY ATTORNEY
{�
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
Az
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
t{
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
. -
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
'uf k3 r
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
=
OTHER: Affidavit of Posting in PP Packet
fi
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
i
Y
V*
4ra�nM",(:�'*c 4",
3, 9 F Y ,
1
rte` vta
4
r�2
S shy rd v #t*
k
T '3
'f K'
Fa
Y,'cw�� ; x 3
'i't�b Y�
t
r
CJS.
...-n. R ea'xAh i(a. tF-,?i:#a 7Eri�, ��S``Yv
_
.,
..
3
3 - -L"��
£ j •�, A5�A.''+
<�
S.�
Tf'%g
! t
.r
August 14, 2006
PP 06-040
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd Creek LLC ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots &
1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision -
2475 S. Meridian Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting / Numerous Citizens Comments
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
� ,..,
'.
6 5
f"
k
S -t
:: ., , i' ♦ Eby„ 5 g qq yy 5
'' ff .. - yu � k ,Y 1 '��"S�-iA^V a?� @ xt �� 'l 5, Sw �+'fi'i>Yji.•
K
S �k
C Vr aK rx yah
m-
a1'.i�'$'wC'j$'gkt sti"
�
4
'y$z
a
4t i�
F �
ass. s
August 14, 2006
PP 06-040
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd Creek LLC ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots &
1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision -
2475 S. Meridian Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting / Numerous Citizens Comments
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
� ,..,
6 5
f"
k
S -t
:: ., , i' ♦ Eby„ 5 g qq yy 5
'' ff .. - yu � k ,Y 1 '��"S�-iA^V a?� @ xt �� 'l 5, Sw �+'fi'i>Yji.•
C Vr aK rx yah
m-
a1'.i�'$'wC'j$'gkt sti"
�
4
'y$z
a
ti
August 14, 2006
PP 06-040
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
APPLICANT valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene & Shepherd Creek LLC ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 55 residential, 7 common lots &
1 other lot on 32.45 acres in an R-8 zone for Shepherd Creek Subdivision -
2475 S. Meridian Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting / Numerous Citizens Comments
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
tpa
� ,..,
6 5
m
k
S -t
:: ., , i' ♦ Eby„ 5 g qq yy 5
'' ff .. - yu � k ,Y 1 '��"S�-iA^V a?� @ xt �� 'l 5, Sw �+'fi'i>Yji.•
C Vr aK rx yah
m-
a1'.i�'$'wC'j$'gkt sti"
tpa
k
x
( i_
m-
a1'.i�'$'wC'j$'gkt sti"
�
4
tpa
O
.y
d
4�
�r{
August 14, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 17, 2006
>fl
yY
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 14
REQUEST Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the text of the
Comprehensive Plan to update the Ten Year Capital Improvements Plan for Parks, Police, and Fire Capital
improvement projects. This public hearing regarding the Capital Improvments Plan is required by the Local Lan
4 b cy l
g"
AGENCY COMMENTS
4;.
i
. ..
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY See Attached Staff Report
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
14 w
s g
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
V0111
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
k .e
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
;.
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
3.`
MW„�.'c'
C � y
" `. •` 'i' TICS �r,7'yal��
0 �' gig y
{' ✓ ... 1 d a';=, X
yf , .Sy°'^ tF-
r++.(Trl
¢.
k
"w+RO
zg4
=f
t:
r Ok
{ z S `
.'
3y
N
i.
3,
"r� fz
i t •'a� 34 i �+` 'S �'� � 'd� ���
. � A .,<.. S '��r�"`a{i
ig ..
1 c
?k.