2009 06-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 4, 2009
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 4, 2009, was called
to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman David Moe.
Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay,
and Commissioner Joe Marshall.
Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien and Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Anna Canning, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons,
Scott Steckline, Terri Ricks and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien
Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshall
X David Moe -Chairman
Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for June 4th. At this time
I'd like to open the meeting and ask the clerk to call roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
There are a couple of items on there I want to go over. Items No. 4, 5 and 6 will be
continued to other hearings. Item No. 4, which is CUP 09-005 for Willow Creek
Elementary, will be continued to our meeting of July the 2nd. And five and six are for
Cavanaugh Ridge. Both those hearings will be continued to the meeting of August the
6th. We will continue those when we get into the order. Also on the agenda Item No. 8,
there will be an additional 8-A, which will be the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for approval of that CUP 09-006 and we will do that. Therefore, with all those
changes can I get a motion to accept the revised agenda.
Marshall: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 2 of 33
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of May 7, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
09-004 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center in
an R-4 zoning district for Pitter Patter Club by Pitter Patter Club,
LLC - 2371 N. Monaco Way:
Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have items -- the approval
of meeting minutes from our May 7th, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and,
then, Item No. B is the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, for approval of CUP 09-
004 for Pitter Patter Club. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 09-005 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Public Education Institution in an R-4 zoning district for Willowcreek
Elementary by Joint School District No. 2 - 2500 W. Tango Creek Drive:
Moe: Next item is -- I want to open the public hearing for CUP 09-005 for the Willow
Creek Elementary School for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for July 2nd. Can I get a motion to --
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue public hearing CUP 09-005 for Willow
Creek Elementary to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning for
July 2nd. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2008: RZ 08-005
Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for
Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian
Road and south of E. Victory Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 3 of 33
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2008: PP 08-010
Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots and
26 common area Tots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 and proposed R-8 zoning
district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S.
Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road:
Moe: I would now like to open the continued public hearings for RZ 08-005 and PP 08-
010 for Cavanaugh Ridge for the sole purpose of continuing those hearings to the
regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of August the 5th. Can I get a
motion?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for
Cavanaugh Ridge to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission for August the 6th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: Okay, everybody, now we are going to do something now we can do here. At this
time I'd like to open the -- well, before I open the public hearings, I pretty much think
everybody's been here before, but if you have not been here before I want to just kind of
go through a few things as far as the format for the Planning and Zoning. I will .open the
public hearing, at which time the planning staff will give an overview of the project. After
they are done the applicant will come forward and the applicant will have 15 minutes to
express their opinions and questions and whatnot in regards to the hearing. After that
period is up there are sign-up sheets in the back. If you have signed up you will be
given three minutes to ask your questions and comments in regards to the project.
After all the names have been read I will ask one more time if there is anyone else in
the audience that would like to speak on behalf of the project. If none, then, I will, then,
ask the applicant to come back up and spend some time rebutting any information that
was asked during the public hearing phase.
Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 09-002 Request for Rezone of 10.13 acres from R-8
(medium density residential) to TN-R (traditional neighborhood residential)
zone for Crossfield by Pride, LLC -south side of W. Ustick Road and
west of N. Blairmore Way:
Moe: So, having said that, I would now like to open the public hearing on RZ 09-002 for
Crossfield and start with the staff report, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 4 of 33
Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item before
you is a rezone request of 10.13 acres of land from R-8, medium density residential, to
TN-R, traditional neighborhood residential. The property is located on the southwest
corner of Ustick Road and Venable Lane. The map on the left there shows the zoning
and the location of the property. The one on the right shows an aerial view of the
property. This site consists of vacant platted land in Crossfield Subdivision.
Surrounding uses are platted undeveloped single family residential lots in Crossfield
Subdivision to the south and west. Rural residential property in Ada County to the east
and vacant undeveloped commercial property to the north and developed commercial
property to the northeast of the site. The applicant has submitted a conceptual
development plan showing how the site may develop in the future with five 16 unit multi-
family structures consisting of a total of 80 dwelling units, a pool, club house, common
area, 12 -- or, excuse me -- 20 alley-loaded single family residential lots, two attached
single family residential lots and three detached single family residential lots. The
overall gross density for this site is estimated at 10.37 dwelling units per acre and the
net density is 12.34 units per acre, which is consistent with the MUC land use
designation and TN-R zoning. Conceptual building elevations were also submitted for
the multi-family structures. Building materials consist of asphalt shingles, wood facia
and trim, and hard board siding with stone accents. The subject property is designated
as mixed use community within a neighborhood center on the Comprehensive Plan
future land use map. Staff believes the requested TN-R district is consistent with this
designation. The diagram on the right is included in the Comp Plan as the -- one
concept layout for a neighborhood center. This plan reflects an urban environment.
although the proposed concept plan includes a range of medium to high density
residential use as desired, a commercial component is not included on the site. There
are, however, commercial uses northeast of this site and undeveloped commercial
property directly across Ustick that contribute to the variety of uses within the
neighborhood center. There is also undeveloped property to the east across Venable
Lane that may include commercial uses upon development. Because the site lies within
a neighborhood center designated area, the design guidelines for residential and urban
developments apply to development of the multi-family portion of this site. The design
guidelines for residential developments apply to the single family portion of the site.
Staff has reviewed these guidelines and found the proposed concept plan is not
consistent with the majority of the criteria, mainly because the multi-family portion does
not have an urban character as desired for neighborhood centers. Therefore, staff is
recommended as a development agreement provision that future development of the
site comply with the aforementioned design guidelines in the city's design manual.
Staff is also recommending that a public stub street be provided to the east property
boundary for future connection to Venable Lane upon development of the Simunich
property, consistent with the block length requirement in UDC 11-6C-3F.2 and the
Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the DA provision requiring public or private streets to
be provided for addressing purposes within the multi-family portion of the site, planning
and fire department staff have agreed that these units can be addressed off of
Parkstone Street and private streets are not necessary. Therefore, staff is requesting
DA provision 1.2D and comment 3.12 be removed, provided that an address
identification is provided to each driveway entrance to the multi-family development. No
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 5 of 33
written testimony has been received on this application. Staff is recommending
approval of the rezone to TN-R with a development agreement, but is not supportive of
the proposed concept plan as stated in the staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions the Commission may have at this time.
Moe: Any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one. Sonya, can you -- I have 1.2D. I wanted to mark
the other one while it was fresh in mind.
Wafters: Yes. 3.12.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Please state your name and address for the record, please.
McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. We are
representing the applicant on this application. Just to kind of give you guys a little bit of
history of what transpired, the request for the TN-R rezone is part of the original
Crossfield project that we brought through the city for approval back in October of 2005.
Phase one has been constructed and recorded. Phrase two has been constructed, with
the exception of paving, and it's recorded. Phase three is constructed and we are on
the verge of recording our plat. Phase four is what you see -- the proposed apartment
complex and back in 2005 the Council had asked us to delay development on that 5.83
acres up there in the northeast corner of the Crossfield project for at least two years.
Their thought was since the property to the east, which is approximately 15 acres, was
undeveloped, the Ward property, that if it were to start developing, then, we could
coordinate with them and kind of integrate our plan with theirs and possibly get Venable
Lane constructed when that project to the east went through. We have waited three
and a half years. The Ward property never did come in for any applications or
development. Quite a few developers did approach the owners, but nothing ever
transpired. Since, then, our initial plan was that we would have some patio homes, alley
load, and so forth consistent with some of the other single family residential units that
we had within the other portion of Crossfield, .but with the changing market conditions,
this 5.83 acres was sold to another developer and in looking at that he believed that the
apartments made more sense. And so we went through the neighborhood center
section of the Comprehensive Plan, we looked at it, it promoted a diversity in residential
type development, promoted multi-family and it allowed up to 15 dwelling units per acre
within either like a TN-R or an R-15 zone. So, we thought that this made good sense
and I received a phone call from the developer on the north side of Ustick who had
Settlers Square, Mr. Runyan, and he indicated -- his first question was I hope you're not
doing commercial, because I have a commercial project to the north, we haven't
constructed it, we are waiting for the market conditions to change and there to be more
demand and more people within this area. He indicated that the Cedar Springs
commercial was struggling. The Fast Eddy's Chevron I guess does very well, because
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 6 of 33
it has a lot of capture of the traffic going up and down Ustick, but as far as ,the shells
that they have built out there, one is completely vacant and some of the others just have
one or two tenants. So, he was concerned that we didn't create anything that would
compete against his proposed project. At our neighborhood meeting one of the
comments we received from a resident within Crossfield was I hope you're not
proposing any commercial and I said, no, we are looking at doing some nice apartments
and she said she did not object to that. In order to meet the criteria of the TN-R it states
that you have to have at least two housing types. So, that is why the request before you
includes not only the 5.83 acres multi-family portion, but it lops into the Crossfield two
and that was in order to meet that criteria. So, technically the application before you is
ten -- a little over ten acres from R-8 to TN-R. We are proposing 80 apartment units in
five buildings. There is 20 alley load single family detached residential units, three
single family residential units, and two attached single family units within the TN-R
district. We believe that the higher densities in this area will help support future
development retail and, obviously, create the need for service-related industries across
the street, which is what has been established. It is our intent that the multi-family
development will have its own club house, it's own pool, and it will be constructing
pathways that intersect with the existing pathways, our own pocket park, large fountain,
park benches. We have got about 23 percent open space if you include everything. If
we exclude our buffers, we are looking at about 13.55 percent. The overall design of
the project was intended to meet that neighborhood center. We had shorter blocks,
interconnected open space, good street connectivity. We connected to the multi-use
pathway down at Five Mile. We also constructed a second multi-use pathway along the
Creason Lateral. We had traditional single family, alley load, attached, accessory
dwelling units and we also incorporated the radiating pattern of densities. As you recall
in the traditional -- or the neighborhood center, it says that -- that you had lower
densities within the interior and as we radiate towards the arterial that those densities
increase. So, obviously, our highest density would be the apartment complex and that
is adjacent to Ustick Road, which is an arterial. We think that multi-family dwellings will
create a nice buffer from the arterial with the commercial across the street. We also
intend to orient the buildings in a north-south direction within the interior and I toured
through a project that had done that very same design and they did an excellent job with
the site elevation and landscaping and you had to walk around to the front of the
building to see that they were multi-family. Going down the street, as you looked at just
-- it just looked like you had another single family type dwelling or an attached single
family unit, but as far as the bulk that we typically see, it kind of buffers that. We have
gone through the staff report -- oh. First I want to touch on traffic. We did have an
overall traffic study for this project. We did have the traffic engineer take a second look
at it, what will the impact be with the apartments. The original traffic generation was
about 1,828 vehicles per day at build out. The 80 unit apartments adds 162 vehicles
per day. So, 1,990 I think was what he estimated. Based on that analysis there would
be no new traffic impacts and we would not exceed, obviously, the capacity of the
roadways within the interior of this development. We have looked at the staff report.
think Sonya indicated that they were modifying the requirement under the DA. We met
with the fire and got the issue of the addressing worked out. 1 guess one thing -- we are
in agreement with 1.2 A, B, E and F. D has been eliminated by the staff. I'd like to talk
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 7 of 33
a little bit about C. I believe -- could you put up like the vicinity map, Sonya? That's not
it.
Wafters: Do you want yours or mine?
McKay: Yeah. Can you put up mine?
Wafters: The aerial or the --
McKay: Either one. I just want to show that stub street. Technical difficulties. Sorry.
When we -- when we initially platted the -- and designed the subdivision, this is a platted
street right here and one of the thoughts wasn't -- we worked with Anna and Ada County
Highway District was that we provide some type of a stub street connection to the east
in the event that Venable ever were to be constructed as a public street, because at this
time there is 20 feet right of way adjoining the Ward property. On the west side there is
20 feet of flag lot that goes down to Mr. Simunich's property here, which is
approximately seven acres, and he utilizes that as his private driveway. So, this point
was agreed upon, because it made the most sense. We have got a collector coming in
and, then, we had this east-west street come clear across. So, that would give the
interconnectivity. We also stubbed to Mr. Simunich here. We coordinated with him and
Mrs. Simunich, they constructed a new home, we wanted to make sure that that street
was in a proper location, so that if he chose to subdivide in the future that would work
for him, because it was for his benefit. Staff asked in -- in 1.2C that we provide another
stub street. There is no way for me to provide another public stub street. This is
already constructed. There is sewer, water, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage
facilities, and joint trench. The only thing we have remaining to do is pave and it's
already recorded. So, these lots already exist and they are platted. I have no ability to
create another stub. And the staff quoted a section in the ordinance talking about block
length not to exceed 500 feet. I did evaluate our block length and looked at them. This
block here is between 450 and 460 feet. And, then, I have got a nice grid pattern here.
It's 420 feet from here to here, 560 from here, so I'm trying to figure out what block
would it break up, what face of block. It can't be done and it doesn't make any sense.
was puzzled when I read it. So, I would ask that the Commission remove 1.2C. I also
went back through the Ada County Highway District comments and this stub street here
was the location that they had asked for. That was also the location that we -- was
agreed to by the staff in 2005. Any other stubs there would be redundant, in my
opinion. And I don't know where they are coming from. Do you have any questions?
Moe: Any questions of the applicant, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: I just have one.
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: You didn't comment on the design guidelines that the staff
discussed -- the design guidelines, not meeting them?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 8 of 33
McKay: Yes, Commissioner Huckaberry, we have been working with the staff. We
have had a couple of pre-application conferences. Sonya, could you put up the
elevation there? The architect -- that's still a work in progress as far as the building
exterior design. Staff has made some suggestions. I think we have met with them on at
least two different occasions. So, they are still trying to incorporate some of the ideas
that Will had as far as the new design review standards. As far as the site plan is
concerned, we got some suggestions on that. This was, basically, a concept an
architect came up with and, then, we kind of refined it and put it on CAD and we will be
working with the staff to try to get closer to what they think the design standards
request. We -- one of the things they talked about was, you know, rotating some of the
buildings, talking about the pedestrian interconnectivity, so those are -- those are things
that we will have to do when we go into that design review process. I guess if we can't
agree upon those things, then, we end up here on appeal. This design review process
is new here in Meridian, so I think we have all got to get our feet wet and figure out
exactly what -- you know, what direction that's going to take, you know, depending on
whether they look at it from a purest perspective or look at it as -- you know, it's an
evolutionary thing and a compromise and so forth, like we have at Boise city. But I
think, you know, we can get there. We wanted the Commission to see how this project
would integrate into the existing development and so that's why we came up with a site
plan. One of the things that staff -- Will indicated he wanted me to rotate the buildings
east-west, which to me, then, you have the bulk exposed to the subdivision and I like
the idea, I wanted to take some -- bring some pictures to him to look at as far as the
project I toured through where that works so slick, because I'm going to have alley
loaded, attached single family, with accessory dwelling units across the street, so I want
it all to mesh together.
Moe: Okay.
McKay: So, like I said, it's new ground that we are going through here.
Moe: Absolutely. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you
very much.
McKay: Thank you.
Moe: On the sign-up sheet the first one would be Joe Simunich. And I do note your
point that you may need more than three minutes. Come forward, let's get started. I will
give you a little bit of leeway there, but I'm not going to let you talk all night. I would
anticipate five minutes at the most. Name and address for the record, please.
Simunich: My name is Joe Simunich and I reside at 2715 Venable Lane, Meridian,
Idaho.
Moe: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 9 of 33
Simunich: We did own the Crossfield property and we sold the farm to the Crossfield
development in 2005 for residential. Basically residential. That's what we were told by
the buyers. This property was platted for 250 homes, plus or minus, at a Planning and
Zoning meeting. And Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission asked the developer
not to proceed with houses on this approximately five and a half acres that's in question
now for these apartments. And the developer agreed and now is determined it was not
needed for commercial, so a new developer wants to put apartments in this -- in this
area. So, apparently, the commercial is not needed in this area at this time. If this
would have been commercial where would the accesses to Ustick Road been if this had
been commercial? Just something to think about. Now, before this body there is a
request to rezone the area for apartments. I am concerned about this property,
because it is adjacent to our 20 foot private road, which is called Venable Lane. I
purchased it some years ago, because when Valen Court wanted to develop they
needed to cross Venable Lane and it was owned by people that held it as a spite strip.
So, then, apparently that didn't -- they couldn't get that road across to the property we
own now, so I purchased the property, that Venable Lane, the full length of it, about --
oh, Ithink it's 1,800 feet long and 20 feet wide. The county has 20 feet on the west side
-- on the east side of the property that we own -- or the Venable Lane that we own.
COMPASS states that they would like to see the south portion of Venable Lane become
a collector. Now, Becky has said we have a street there -- does this marker work on
this?
Canning: Yes, it does.
Simunich: Right here this -- this street here, Becky said that it's to be extended in the
future. I wondered by who and when and to where. Apparently there is no interest in
developing Venable Lane for an access from these apartments. So, all the traffic from
the apartments will have to rotate and come out through Blairmore Street. It would be
logical to put -- to develop Venable Lane to Ustick. There is Stanhope or even
Parkstone to relieve that -- to relieve that traffic to keep it from going through Blairmore.
So, I believe that this Venable Lane should be utilized as a collector street. Who would
build this -- Becky said that when the Ward property develops it may develop Venable
Lane into a collector. Why not do it now? Now is the time to do it. I have offered this
property to -- to the Ada County Highway District free of charge. We have access,
which Crossfield has provided for our seven acres, so we will not eventually need this
Venable Lane access. We have built a new house on this seven acres. We even faced
it so it would fit a new eventual street. So, we do not need Venable Lane as -- will not
need Venable Lane as an access. If it's not used or something done with it, it will
become a 20 foot weed strip, possibly a 40 foot weed strip that goes nowhere. Another
question I have is how long is it going to take to build these apartments? Are we going
to have another five year project and nothing gets done? Build one and leave it -- leave
it until somebody wants to build another one. I know the developer or Becky has
proposed a two rail fence between the property of the apartments and Venable Lane.
Right now we have all kinds of people coming from Crossfield, they cut across that open
ground now going to that convenience store. Put these apartments in there with 80
units and a two rail -- two rail plastic fence, it's not going to hold the kids out of there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 10 of 33
They go to the convenience store, by the time they get across the street and stuff they
have drank their Cokes or whatever and they pitch them into the ditch. So, I think if
Venable Lane is not used as a collector -- built as a collector or part of it, the west half,
then, I believe we should have a six foot plastic fence full length of the east side of the
Crossfield property, the Crossfield development, and this -- and this apartment complex.
So, does the Commission have any questions forme?
Moe: Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Thank you.
Marshall: I'm curious as to how far are you asking Venable Lane to be developed? Are
you talking down to an entrance into the apartments or down to the stub street or down
to your house or how far are you wanting Venable Lane to be developed?
Simunich: Logically at this time it would -- it should be, I think built to that stub street.
When Valen Court was being designed the Planning and Zoning Commission put an
approach into the Ward property and from that property there was discussion that we
would turn west and join Venable Lane and they would also come out at Venable Lane
and Ustick, which would work very good for the Ward property, the Jackson property,
and the Crossfield property. It would just be a hell of a good place for an access road. I
just don't understand everybody not wanting to do that. People keep telling me --
engineers -- I don't know where they get their information -- but they say that Venable
Lane to the north does not line up to Venable Lane at the south, it can't be built. Well, I
got maps right here that show the center lines are in perfect alignment. Right here is a
recording from Ada County Highway District that says they do line up. There is no
problem connecting South Venable Lane to North Venable Lane. So, it's kind of
frustrating when you come to these meetings and it seems like sometimes it falls on
deaf ears, but --
Moe: Well, Mr. Simunich, I'm kind of curious, you said that you have offered Venable
Lane to the county already?
Simunich: Oh, yes. In 2005.
Moe: And their decision was what?
Simunich: They say they can't accept undeveloped right of way.
Moe: Okay.
Simunich: All right. Now, if this 20 feet were owned by -- by Crossfield, they would
probably have to do it. They didn't buy it, now I'm giving it to them free and nobody
wants to improve the community in that area. Everybody wants save their own dollars
and they could care less about some community of the items.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 11 of 33
Moe: Thank you very much. Any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Marshall: One last question.
Moe: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: You're saying if Venable Lane is not developed you'd like to see a fence
along there?
Simunich: Pardon?
Marshall: If Venable Lane is not developed you'd like to see a fence along there?
Simunich: Well, if it's not developed we should have a six foot fence there. If you have
a two feet -- a two rail plastic fence you can imagine what traffic will go through there to
that convenience store across the street. Be much better if we had a road access there
and a sidewalk along that west property line to feed into Ustick Road.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you.
Simunich: Thank you.
Moe: Next on the sign-up sheet would be Lori -- Lori Luke and Carol's right next to it, so
I guess you're both coming up together.
Luke: We are kind of a package.
Moe: That will work and just both names and addresses, please, for the record.
Luke: I'm Lori Luke. I reside at 2934 Fairglen Avenue in Crossfield and when I
purchased the home in March of '08 it was presented to me that Crossfield had certain
structural guidelines that were to be adhered to, so one of -- one of our main concerns
here tonight is what the design is going to be on the single family dwellings, along with
the apartments. We came here to gather information and voice our concerns, but we
are protecting our property values and our quality of life in Crossfield.
Moe: Well, I'm going to make a statement here and the staff can correct me if I'm
wrong, but tonight's hearing is for a rezoning of the property and that is, basically, what
we are going to be acting on this evening. As far as design and whatnot, as per the
application and whatnot, there has already been notation that they are going to have to
come back before -- before the city showing, you know, the designs to, basically, meet
criteria that is with the city that they have not met yet, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 12 of 33
Luke: Okay. Any other questions that --
Devers: Can we ask some questions about this proposed plan?
Moe: Certainly.
Newton-Huckabay: Name and address.
Moe: For designwise you mean?
Devers: Well, I have some statements and some questions.
Moe: Please name and address for the record.
Devers: 2934 North Fairglen. Carol Devers. The first point was -- Lori already -- we
didn't buy there to have neighborhood diversity. We didn't buy there to have
neighborhood diversity. They are using that sort of as a selling point, but we don't feel
this plan is compatible with the existing development. I'm really concerned with where
the proposed inlets and outlets to the proposed high density neighborhood would be.
Blairmore is an unacceptable alternative. This man so generously offered Venable
Lane. That seems like win-win if this plan really goes forward. That would be amazing
and wonderful and it just seems like a real good plan there. So, again, is there any
proposed inlet and outlet at this time? Is it off Blairmore currently? That's
unacceptable. I mean that's -- anyway -- and she was mentioning that the pedestrian
connectivity would intersect with the existing walkways. Does that mean in the portion
of -- of Crossfield where we currently reside? Is this going to be partitioned off unto
itself or is this -- when we are talking pedestrian connectivity are we talking about right
into our pool area and our walkways?
Moe: I will have to ask her when she comes up to do the rebuttals.
Devers: Okay. And, then, also she had referenced something about additional traffic
would only be a count of approximately -- if I got her numbers right -- 170 additional -- I
find that hard to believe, because there are going to be 105 residences, most
residences have at least two cars each. So, at least it would be another 210 cars on
Meridian, Ustick, and Linder on a daily basis in and out of there and that's a
conservative number. So, I find that of a lot of concern. Also I notice that on page two
of the written narrative to -- it says written narrative, Crossfield multi-family, request for
rezone. It stated here in the first paragraph on that page two: It is obvious that
additional commercial development in this area does not make good economic sense,
because it would compete with the existing empty retail. I think they are referring to Bob
Runyan's undeveloped Settlers Square and, then, by that reasoning why are more
residential units being added that will compete with existing empty housing all around
here? I don't understand a need for this development at all and especially a high
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 13 of 33
density apartment complex. And, lastly, I wanted to know what our available remedies
are if we find this proposed development unacceptable as presented. Thank you
Moe: Thank you. That was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else that would
like to come forward, you're more than welcome. Would the applicant like to come back
up, please.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this project, since Mr. Simunich sold the
property to my client when we did our initial master plan, we worked with Mr. Simunich
closely and at that particular time he had indicated that he purchased that 20 foot flag
with -- attached to the seven acres. He had no interest in providing it as any right of
way and he wanted a driveway. He did go on the record -- these are the Council
minutes -- saying that -- that he didn't want another stub street to his property, that they
have one here where we are building our residence. We put the street where it
accommodates this residence without any problem and Ada County says one access is
enough for our seven acres. And Mr. Rountree asked him at the build out of the
subdivision with all the surface streets that will provide, would you continue to access
your property on Venable Lane or through the paved streets in the sub. He said, no, we
will still plan to access through Venable Lane until we subdivide that piece of property.
Then, the road right in front of our residence is the one the street will be connected to.
So, you know, there was a lot of debate with the staff, with ACHD, and ACHD, you
know, came to the conclusion that it was going to have to take place, if Venable were to
happen, when the property -- the Ward property developed. I have a January 29th, '09,
letter from Ada County Highway District signed by Christy Little that she wrote to Mr.
Simunich when he asked her if they would accept his 20 feet for some right of way and
she said should you decide to develop your property in the future or should the Ward
property east of Venable Lane develop, ACHD will, again, examine the need for
Venable Lane to be dedicated and converted to a public street. However, because
ACHD required the adjacent development to construct stub streets to your parcel and
the Ward parcel, the need to construct Venable as a public street has diminished and
that is a benefit to the future development of these two parcels, meaning his and the
Ward property. Venable targeted to be a collector. There is only 20 feet of right of way
there. He only has 20 feet. typically the right of way for a collector is between 50 and
60 feet. Usually it's 60. It has to be a minimum of 36 back to back. Meridian requires
detached sidewalks. If a signal is ever installed along Ustick Road, it would most likely
be at the Venable location, because it is at the half mile. It would have to meet the
warrant. At this time it doesn't meet the warrant. You have to have at least 4,000
vehicle trips from either the north or the south leg to meet that warrant. This has been
debated and debated I don't know how many times and one of the problems was kind of
the sins of the past when Waterbury Park and those subdivisions south of us went in
years ago, Meridian did not plan for a continuouos collector to go through, which is what
use kind of the neighborhood centers intended, that you would have a continuous
collector running from one arterial to the next, carrying a substantial amount of traffic,
six, eight thousand vehicle trips a day, you'd have a nice signalized intersection and,
then, we'd have these neighborhood commercial centers serving the neighborhoods
that adjoined it and capturing that traffic without people going out on the arterials. That
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 14 of 33
was how it was intended, but, unfortunately, that's not how that area developed and it's
still in the Comprehensive Plan showing Venable as a future collector. But it is all keyed
on the Ward property. My clients never owned the 20 feet. The 20 feet -- Mr. Simunich
bought it from -- I think he told me Mr. Venable. It was a flag access down to his seven
acres. So, I think it's going to depend on when the Ward property develops and at that
time I think if he's willing to donate it to the highway district to give it to the Wards or the
developer of the Ward property, they will say yea, let's rock and roll and at that time it
will take place. As far as the fence, the only reason I went with like some type of a
shorter two rail fence was Mr. Simunich had made the comment to me when he was in
my office that he would prefer we not wall him -- his driveway in and create like this, you
know, wall effect and he said it would be nice if he had some landscaping -- you know,
I'd like to look at some landscaping. So, I thought that that got closer to what he
wanted, but, obviously, if he wants a six foot fence we do not object to that. You know,
it's up to him. I was just trying to accommodate him. As far as the pathway to Ustick
and the kids going across, you're, obviously, going to get some pedestrian -- people --
pedestrians walking across Ustick to the C store. There will be children. We have
included a pedestrian connection within the sidewalks in the interior and it runs west of
the landscaping, west of the fence to keep it -- I don't see any reason why they'd want to
walk over onto his driveway when we've got a nice pedestrian connection there. To
answer Lori and Carol's questions real quick, there are architectural guidelines for the
Crossfield Subdivision. It was intended to be like more of a neo-traditional type
development and we did under our original planned unit development submit colored
elevations of the homes and I have driven out there, looked at what's been constructed.
What's been constructed is consistent and looks almost identical to a lot of those
elevations that we have submitted. As far as trying to maintain that consistency, I would
except the staff, because it was approved initially, the project and annexed with -- this
was the style of the homes that would go in here and I think that -- you know, that style
has to also been looked at when designing these multi-family buildings. I think Carol
indicated that she doesn't want neighborhood diversity, but that's what this area is
designated for, a diverse residential development to provide different densities for
different lifestyles, different homes, and in order to support the commercial that's out
there you've got to have the higher densities and that's why there is a floor density for
neighborhood centers of eight dwelling units, so that that will take place. Blairmore,
there is concern about Blairmore. Blairmore is a collector roadway. There is no
parking. There is no access with the exception of a loop drive to the day care, which we
planned with our initial development that's right there at the corner and we ended up
doing a nice drive-thru, so that there wouldn't be any conflict with stacking. We will
create 162 additional trips above and beyond what was initially intended, which is very
few, and as far as how long will this take, our client intends to construct the whole
facility this year and he's not building it -- he's going to be building the apartment
buildings keeping them. That is the information that I have received. There is a
concern about competing with empty single family dwellings or the lots that are out
there. Apartments don't compete with single family dwellings, because these would be
rentals. So, as far as that impact on whatever inventory that's left in the development,
that would not take place. When I had -- had our neighborhood meeting I
recommended that some of the neighbors talk with Bill Parsons and get some copies of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 15 of 33
those elevations and, you know, get with the new developer. Some of these projects
are getting sold and, obviously, I do my best to make sure that the integrity of the
development continues on and that what was envisioned, you know, is what's built.
Everybody has their different opinions, but, like I said, I do my best. I gave as much
information to the neighbors as I could. They wanted to know who had purchased it and
I told them who to talk to at the city. I spent a lot of time answering questions and I'd be
glad to answer questions after this and get them with Mr. Campbell, who is working with
Mr. Honeymiller to hopefully maybe set something up and try to get everybody on the
same page. Or at least incorporate some of their thoughts and concerns. Thank you.
Moe: Any questions?
Marshall: Before you step down, I have got a real quick question for staff. Several
times in the staff report you mentioned that you'd like to see a more urban environment.
What specifically are we referring to when we ask for a more urban design or site?
Canning: The Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood centers gives a very specific
concept diagram that includes some core commercial and, then, like a transit stop and
some radiating densities as shown here on the right side of the page. We have had
difficulty communicating the vision behind those neighborhood centers and that was one
of the driving forces for the design guidelines. As we had the Ten Mile plan developed
where it came up with some very urban residential ideas, .similar to like the City Loft that
you see as you go into Boise, you know, not the Aspen condos, but, you know, the
lower scale City Loft type things and some of the other new residential developments
you see in Boise. Those are really kind of urban residential and that's -- when we did
the Ten Mile we said, yeah, we want these images, we want this to be the genesis of
our future design guidelines, so we can communicate that vision for the neighborhood
centers. So, we are talking, you know, walk-ups with individual entrances on the
streets, you know, kind of that Brownstone feel. And I think that those are a lot of the
provisions that Sonya actually pulled out and requested be included in the development
agreement.
Marshall: And that would specifically affect the layout of the lots and the buildings,
because they would be a completely different designed building; right?
Canning: Correct.
Marshall: So, what is your response to that as in -- does the developer just want to do
what we have typically seen in more of the suburban architectural design or is he open
to this more urban walk-up design that you would see in say the City Lofts or something
like that?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, the City Lofts, you know, that's more a
downtown Boise look. This -- I think the new City Hall is more of an urban look. If you
look at the homes that are built out there, the elevations submitted with the original
annexation and PUD, they are more what they call a neo-traditional kind of look, a lot of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 16 of 33
rock, they have got like little porches, they have a very distinct look. And so I think if
you took the City Lofts and stuck it in here it would look like a duck out of water. So, I
think that's why I talk about we need to find some middle -- middle ground and
incorporate some of those thoughts, but, yet, still make sure that this fits into this
neighborhood. As far as the site plan is concerned, you know, this is -- this is just a
representation of how it could develop. As far as, you know, some shifting, adjusting
the amenities or pathways, you know, that we have to work with staff. But I wanted the
Commission not just to look at a blank piece of paper and say, well, you know, you to
rezone this -- well, what do you have in mind? And, like I said, this design review
process is a whole new deal, you know, just passed in February, so we are all getting
our feet wet, we are all trying to figure out, okay, where are we going with this and it's
just going to take us awhile to get through that. But, like I said, we are open -- you
know, we are not just digging our heels in and say this is it, take it or leave it. No, sir.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Okay.
Canning: Chairman Moe, may I address a couple comments that were made?
Moe: Please.
Canning: I did want to first talk about the block length for the TN-R district as required
by city code. That diagram I showed you before, this one, it actually talked about 300
foot block lengths being the norm, very neo-traditional, very broken up block length.
When we went to codify it we did compromise and we said, okay, 500 streets, if you've
got to go a little over 500, that's okay, but if you get up to 600 you at least have to have
a pedestrian break, but, really, they didn't -- we didn't anticipate blocks greater than --
than 600 feet long. The question was raised during the testimony, well, what's the block
length. Well, obviously, the Venable length is -- the collector street is the block length
that we are concerned about. And this was raised when Crossfield went through the
first time, because this was kind of left blank for now, we -- as staff I guess we just kind
of resigned ourselves to we would be asking for it again later, but there was a lot of
discussion about extending this street as a stub street as well. That could still be done.
You would have to swag it up and over a little bit, but it's still a possibility. But this is
clearly the block length that we need another public street on. It's 770 feet long. So,
that's where we were talking about the -- the public street entrance or stub. There has
been discussion tonight about Venable Lane, the extra 20 feet that could be added onto
Venable not being available when Crossfield originally went through. That very well
may be the case, but you have a new application before you tonight and it is -- it is a
rezone. So, there you have the ability to ask for additional items if you so choose. With
regard to the 40 feet, typically what happens is one developer, if they are not building
the whole street, ACHD will ask for a half plus 12 and 40 feet is probably sufficient right
of way for a half plus 12 for a collector street in this area. I came up with 38 feet as
being necessary. So, it looks like you have the opportunity to look at that issue certainly
and, then, I -- with regard to the opportunities by the neighbors, if they want to contact
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 17 of 33
my office we can try and let them know when the project is going through design review
and let them know the results of that design review and there is -- because it's an
administrative approval, you will have the opportunity to ask for City Council review of
that, although it is a -- there is a process in the applications associated with that and we
may be going through that on both sides. Who knows, so -- but I wanted to address
those issues. I think those were the outstanding ones that I had heard.
Moe: You beat me to asking you for that, so thank you very much.
Canning: Thank you.
Moe: Any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time.
Moe: None. Okay. Yes. Go ahead.
McKay: Mr. Chairman, could I address that issue of the stub street? There is no way I
can make that jog. I either have to align with that street or we have got to have 125 foot
separation in order to meet ACHD policy and you can't jog -- just jog -- you just can't jog
over. Do you follow me?
Nary: Probably pull the mike down.
Canning: Don't lift it up, Becky, just keep it on the --
McKay: Oh. Keep in on there? That's what switches it?
Canning: Yeah.
McKay: I just kept it on there.
Canning: Wait. Wait. Wait. Hold on.
McKay: This technology. Oh, cool. This single family lot, which is constructed, is not --
we make them wider at the ends of blocks in order to accommodate the flanking
setback. So, one, it's not wide enough. So, that we'd have to widen that out and, then,
the street would have to be over here. I have got to have 125 foot center line to center
line offset, which, then, puts the street here. Then, this would have to be public and
coming back -- I mean it just -- it doesn't make any sense. You can't have a public
street with a backing motion from any type of a parking lot, except in a downtown
environment like with the diagonal parking or parallel parking. But they don't allow that.
I mean it just doesn't make any sense and what -- what is the benefit. This is the street
that goes clear to the west. So, the intent was it could capture traffic from the
subdivision that developed west, which there is one to the west of us and that traffic
could come this way and go up in that direction. This would be just redundant to break
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 18 of 33
the block length for -- I don't understand for what purpose within an apartment
development. That puzzles me. Secondly, I'd like to reaffirm this is not part of our
project. Never has been. It's not existing right of way. Has never been part of this
project. ACHD, they have said on the record that it will develop when the Ward property
develops, whenever that may be. All we have done is try to make sure that we provided
for the interconnection to the east and west, so that if it did develop and Venable were
to be constructed, that this development would have access to Venable Lane in the
future, if it were ever to develop and be signalized. We have already constructed
Blairmore as our collector right through here and that is built to handle 6,000 vehicle
trips a day, like any other non-continuous collector. And it comes clear down to here.
So, I guess -- I guess my point is that is offsite improvement, it's not right of way, never
was intended to. We have done our part out here I want to mention as far as right of
way. All the right of way on Ustick was donated by the previous applicant and this
applicant it's shown as a donation on the plat where we just reflect the additional right of
way and it's just -- when it's recorded it's given to ACHD at no charge to them.
Moe: Okay. Any questions, comments?
Marshall: How far down from Ustick could we come -- if there was a stub to the east, if
there was -- okay. I see what you're saying coming up 125 foot from intersection to
intersection. That's in code. But how far down from Ustick intersection could we come
for a stub? Could that 125 foot move up?
McKay: If you moved it -- you mean up to a location like here?
Marshall: Yes.
McKay: I -- I can't build a stub street that doesn't connect to anything. We would have
to -- you would have to build a public street that went like this.
Marshall: Yes, you would.
McKay: The linkage like that.
Marshall: Yes. That's correct.
McKay: But for what I guess I'm trying -- I'm trying to figure out the benefit of it. If you
look at the neighborhood center, that diagram, it said this is just conceptual and
representation. We -- with our original PUD we had approval for deviation in block
length and so forth to try to, you know, come up with this more unique design within this
neighborhood center.
Marshall: The original design for this called for public streets in that area anyway, didn't
it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 19 of 33
McKay: The original design had some public streets that looped through and an alley. I
think there was some alley load in there.
Marshall: Right.
McKay: But it looped -- it looped back this way.
Marshall: Right.
McKay: But it didn't go out this way. Now, as far as --
Marshall: I understand.
McKay: If this were to be signalized -- if you're going to make a free right you're
probably going to go this way. If you're going to do a left-hand turn, you may come this
way to get to the signal. I mean this is only one, two, three, four, five lots down. And
these lots are about 40 feet wide -- between 40 and 50 distance. We also have to be
concerned about the stacking, too. We have to allow enough stacking room. That's
why I like to have these nice collectors come in -- this one comes in about 460 feet,
then, we don't have conflict versus -- if you have ever been in a subdivision where the
first entrance or local street is right off the entrance, then, you get stacking --
Marshall: Stacking.
McKay: -- in front of it. So, we try to keep those back a ways.
Marshall: Right. And that's -- but looking at how much is actually seeing -- the Stanfield
could be significant if that -- if Venable is filled out, Stanfield goes clear across and the
intersection becomes signalized, I can see why you might want that down a bit, because
of stacking. But at the same time looking -- the idea is that interconnectivity, you're
getting a lot better flow -- many ways in and many ways out and that's part of the idea
behind these town centers or urban environment is to get a better traffic flow, especially
if people are wanting to turn left and on Ustick in the morning it's going to be tough
coming out of there going left.
McKay: In the morning most of the traffic is going to be eastbound.
Marshall: Right. Until you get that one or two in a row that have to turn left and backs
everybody up that's turning right. And those are the people that are going to want to go
out over there and back up to the signal. That backs everybody up when you got one or
two going left.
McKay: We have got alert-hand lane here. As they come in they slot into there. So,
you got a free right and, then, you've got a left hand. We also widen those -- those
entrances out to provide for that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 20 of 33
Marshall: Okay. Got you. But you don't have a lot of stacking for left. I mean when
you get two cars in there before you start backing up, too.
McKay: That's correct. Yes, sir.
Marshall: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you.
Simunich: Mr. Chairman, can I have one minute more?
Moe: No, sir. You have had your time. I'm sorry.
Simunich: Mr. Chairman, can I address you again with letters?
Moe: Do you have some in your possession you want to give is that what you're
saying?
Simunich: Pardon?
Moe: I'm sorry. What do you mean? Do you have a letter that you want to submit?
Simunich: To allow more testimony.
Moe: Oh. I'm sorry, you had your time in the public forum and I gave you extra time
already.
Nary: Sir, we can't continue to have an off-the-record discussion, Mr. Simunich. You
had your time. The Chairman has already ruled on that. We can't continue to have you
talking from the audience.
Moe: That is not going to happen. Commissioners, comments? Questions? Staff?
Where do we go from here?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would like more information and clarification for my benefit of
requiring the off-site improvement of Venable Lane, how that could be required by us at
this time.
Moe: Can staff give us some information?
Wafters: Sorry, can you, please, repeat that question?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 21 of 33
Newton-Huckabay: Anna had made the comment that the Venable Lane wasn't
necessarily -- that it -- this was a rezone application, so we could ask for various things,
which could include Venable Lane and I'm not really exactly clear on that. Off-site
improvements aren't something that come up very often and they are usually negotiated
prior to Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. I -- so, I just need to understand that
a little bit better. Can -- are you saying, Anna, that we could require the Crossfield
development to negotiate with Mr. Simunich to improve Venable Lane?
Canning: It's a good thing we have attorneys in the office. By my understanding is that
because it's a discretionary approval with annexations and rezones your ability to ask
for things is much broader than it is for things like just a subdivision. So, this is a
discretionary decision on the part of the city and you have -- I think you have the ability
to ask for some off-site improvements that are commensurate with the development if
they are -- if there is a nexus to the project.
Moe: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chair? And I would concur. I think the key issue in the finding that you would
need to make, if you're wanting an off-site improvement, is the last thing Mrs. Canning
said, the nexus between why that's necessary in relation to this rezone. In the -- very
briefly, in annexing any property into the city, the standard is best interest of -- what's in
the best interest of the city at that particular time. There is a great deal of flexibility as to
how that relates to the project. When the property is already annexed like this one, the
nexus has to be much more -- I guess must -- it has to be much more defined by you or
by this Commission or the Council ultimately as to why that -- this rezone would require
that additional type of improvement to make it necessary to, then, rezone it or allow the
rezone to happen. So, if -- I guess it's just a tighter standard that we have to make sure
it's clear what that relationship is.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make one comment to the
public. We are only recommending approval tonight, so there will be a second
opportunity to testify at City Council with additional information gathered tonight. So,
there will be opportunity to testify again, if we recommend approval. Or denial, I guess.
So, private streets like this are absolutely the biggest -- it never works out well. I keep
thinking of Wipswitch or whatever the one is that -- Wingate Lane and the mess that we
have over there with that one. I would like to take the opportunity, if we have it, to
request something with Venable Lane. Should have happened in the first place, based
on the testimony that Becky read to us of Mr. Simunich at that hearing, that apparently
wasn't on the table, for whatever reason there has been a change of heart. I think if we
have an opportunity it is in the best interest of the city to put it back on the table. Any
opportunity in my mind and my experience to reclaim some of these private roads for
public streets seems to make sense and we have spent many an hour -- I know
Commissioner Moe and Ihave -- listening to very passionate debate related to public
streets. I think that in this case this is an opportunity to hopefully resolve that in the best
interest of the city. I'd like to see another public stub street to Venable. Becky, I have to
say, I understand your challenges here, but I also know that you're probably one of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 22 of 33
most talented planners that comes before us and I don't think that it's something you
couldn't overcome. I also want to comment that I really do like the north-south facing
units as well. I would hope that in the design guidelines that would be considered. I
have also seen these type of developments that way and I do think for those who live
inside of the community where they are next to and from the street, they do look better
and you get -- I just -- I do like that look. I agree with you 110 percent there. I think if
Venable Lane were to come into the project I think that would mute the fence idea, so I
would leave that -- the fence at six foot if it didn't, but if it did -- and, then, Ijust -- beings
the design review is new, all design reviews happen at staff level; is that correct?
Canning: Yes, they do, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Canning: But there is a process to, basically, challenge the design review. If the
applicant is unsatisfied with the -- the staff decision, I convene a group of architects and
they review it and, then, they make a recommendation to me and I make a final decision
and, then, the applicant has the opportunity to ask for City Council review of that
decision.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And this is --
Canning: Or any other interested party.
Newton-Huckabay: This is based on that new matrix --
Canning: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: -- process.
Canning: Well, the process is in code. The context is in the matrix.
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I have nothing else to add.
Moe: Mr. Marshall, any further comments?
Marshall: I, too, am wanting to see Venable Lane finished out there. I don't -- I wish it
had been done originally and I don't like asking for it now, but I think it's necessary for
the connectivity, for -- and I do believe things are developing to the east and more and
more people will be turning east. Right now there is not a lot, but I can tell you I have
just started turning east recently, as have some of my neighbors, and I think more and
more people will be and I think eventually Venable Lane -- that will be a signalized
intersection eventually and that will be the opportunity to turn east and I think more
connectivity over to there and I think it needs to be developed out. Who knows when
the Ward property will be developed, I just don't know, but right now feeding a lot of cars
in there and Stanmore coming in from east-west there, has a considerable feed to it and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 23 of 33
if there were an intersection up there that will eventually be signalized, I can see a lot of
feed to that and I think that's in the city's best interest to ask for that. I guess that's
where I'm at.
Moe: Thank you very much. I guess I --
Newton-Huckabay: May I ask one question?
Moe: Yes, you may.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, do you mean Stanhope? Are you talking
about the collector that runs east-west?
Marshall: Stanhope. Yes. I'm trying to read it underneath the red ink.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Okay. Stanhope.
Marshall: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I was looking for Stanmore or Stan -- earlier. Thank you.
Moe: Okay. Well, Commissioners, now what?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on 09-002.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 09-002. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would just ask for a little bit of assistance from the
Commission and possibly staff on some wording related to asking for improvements of
Venable Lane at the maximum capacity possible, given -- or would that do it? As I see
it only the 20 feet is available if negotiation would have to take place with --
Marshall: ACHD I think.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, the property owner. The owner of the 20 foot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 24 of 33
Moe: I would anticipate it's just the 20 feet, you know, the boundaries of the project
itself.
Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Yes. I wouldn't go beyond that stub street at the -- on
Stanhope.
Moe: Uh-huh.
Canning: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, perhaps the language would be to the
effect of applicant shall work with staff and ACHD staff to develop acollector -- a partial
collector roadway that meets ACHD standards, utilizing the Simunich 20 feet as offered
during the hearing and the existing 20 feet of ACHD right of way.
Moe: That's noted as a donated street.
Canning: Yes.
Moe: Yes.
Canning: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: I have one other question of the Commissioners. Would you be
comfortable with the potential compromise of that developed to -- if a new stub street is
included farther north, only going to that stub street, or down to Stanhope -- so, the
whole 750 feet or let's say at 120 feet or 200 feet or whatever we'd put another stub
street. I mean is there room in your opinions for some compromise along those lines?
Marshall: Would that be included in the preliminary plat when it comes through?
Because right now there is a conceptual plan that -- are we in agreement with the
conceptual plan? Are we accepting that? I mean --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I don't believe we are accepting the conceptual plan in the --
Moe: No, we are not.
Newton-Huckabay: -- fact that we are asking for another stub street.
Marshall: Okay.
Moe: I don't know that we really need -- I don't know that we really need to designate it
as to length and whatnot, we just want to make sure that the stub street is provided out
to the east.
Marshall: Depending on how this is developed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 25 of 33
Newton-Huckabay: Yes. We want the stub street provided, but when we are talking
about work with staff and ACHD to develop partial collector roadway utilizing this --
Marshall: Venable Lane.
Newton-Huckabay: -- the Simunich 20 foot property as offered for donation in the
hearing, are we asking for Venable to be constructed to that additional stub street that
we are requesting or are we asking that Venable be constructed to Stanhope?
Marshall: Stanhope.
Moe: I'm going to be looking for it to be constructed to the property line.
Marshall: Goes down to this -- goes down to Stanhope.
Newton-Huckabay: To Stanhope.
Moe: Right.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just want to make sure that we all have that same
definition. Okay. And we had a couple of items to strike from the motion as well and I
just want to verify with Sonya that we are striking 1.2D, either public or private street
shall be provided for addressing purposes, we are striking that whole comment?
Wafters: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: And we are striking on Exhibit B, 3.12, the fire department has
concerns about the ability to address the project, we are striking that whole comment as
well?
Moe: Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: And those are the only staff requested changes?
Wafters: Yes.
Moe: Yes.
Wafters: Actually, may I interrupt you --
Newton-Huckabay: Yes.
Wafters: -- Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? I'm sorry. That was -- striking those two
items were contingent upon the applicant providing an address identification sign at
each entrance to the multi-family development. That would be beneficial to add that as
a DA provision.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 26 of 33
Newton-Huckabay: Sign at each --
Wafters: To replace the --
Newton-Huckaby: -- entrance?
Wafters: Yes, please. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I will replace 1.2D with that comment. After considering all
staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council
of file number RZ 09-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 4,
2009, with the following modifications: That comment 1.2D be removed from the staff
report and replaced that the applicant will provide address identification signage at each
-- at each entrance to the development and requirement 3.12 will be removed from the
staff report. In addition to that, the Commission would like for the applicant to work with
staff and ACHD to develop a partial collector road running from Ustick to Stanhope
along the -- utilizing the right of way offered by Mr. Simunich for donation in the public
hearing. Was I clear enough there? And that would be my -- end of motion.
Moe: I think that took care of it.
Newton-Huckabay: Do I need to add that the Commission feels that -- oh, the stub. Did
I forget the stub?
Marshall: An additional stub. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's in the staff report.
Marshall: Yes. You're right.
Newton-Huckabay: As a basis for requiring that development of Venable Lane, the
Commission feels that this is a good opportunity to improve on a situation that has
created a lack of connectivity that doesn't currently meet with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and would improve traffic flow in that area and in that
neighborhood center. End of motion again.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 09-002 --
Nary: Mr. Chairman?
Moe: -- with the aforementioned changes. All those in favor say aye.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 27 of 33
Nary: Mr. Chairman, before you vote, one of the things I noticed in Commissioner
Newton-Huckabay's motion -- and although Commissioner Marshall talked about it a
number of times, I didn't hear it in her motion, but in addition to the connectivity you
talked about, I think Commissioner Marshall talked about safety of the traffic and the
public in that particular area of why Venable Lane connection was important. If that's
something the Commission thinks is important, it should be part of your motion as well.
Moe: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I will make an addendum to my motion. Safety would be improved
in this area by, one, allowing potential access to a stoplight at the Venable intersection
and reducing traffic in the neighborhood. Any other --
Marshall: I will second the addendum.
Moe: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED; THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: Therefore -- now, I'm all screwed up here. It's been approved -- City Council
approving RZ 09-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 09-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit to
operate aDrive-thru establishment from an existing building within 300
feet of a residential zoning district for Mason Creek Pad ADrive-Thru by
BRS Architects - 2959 N. Eagle Road:
Item 8-A: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-006
Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate aDrive-thru establishment
from an existing building within 300 feet of a residential zoning district for
Mason Creek Pad ADrive-Thru by BRS Architects - 2959 N. Eagle
Road:
Moe: Okay. I would now like to open the public hearing on CUP 09-006, as well as A,
being the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 09-006 and
start with the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application
before you tonight is for a Conditional Use Permit approval to operate adrive-thru
facility within 300 feet of a residential zoning district. Here is the zoning map before
you. I have highlighted the site and with my arrow here you can see that it is, indeed, to
the west of this site is R-15 zoned property. Here is the aerial. Most of the property
around this site is either vacant or currently being developed, zoned C-G, to the south,
north, and across Eagle Road as well. All the site plan, the landscaping plan, and the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 28 of 33
elevations that will be before you tonight have already been approved at the staff level.
The use itself is just what's being proposed in front of you tonight. So, as you can see
here is the site plan that staff has approved. Access has been provided from Eagle
Road via approval of a variance from City Council. This is a private lane that has been
constructed that adds -- or also provides access to this site. There are two
entranceways into this lot. This is a one way access point here and further to the west
you have a two way access to have patrons come in and use the rear parking as well.
As you can see on the submitted site plan, the applicant has shown the stacking lanes
how for vehicles could possibly stack on this. A specific user has not been identified to
move into this tenant space. You can see here there is some potential for cars to block
the stacking lane at peak hours. Staff feels there is a -- because the applicant has
provided a 25 foot drive aisle adjacent to that stacking lane that there is sufficient lane
enough for these folks here to at least back out and go around the stacking -- the cars
that are stacking here and exit the site using the western drive aisle that access the
private street. Here is the submitted landscape plan before you. This for the internal
site development. One thing I would point out to the Commission tonight is this
developer or this development is apparently under economic distress and when this
landscape buffer wasn't installed, the irrigation system was not in place and because
the applicant had to move. and develop this site, a portion of the ten foot pathway was
removed from that landscape buffer adjacent to Eagle Road. A variance was also
granted to allow a reduction in width for that buffer from 35 feet, as required by code,
down to 20 feet. So, because this lot was created as an easement per the plat, the
applicant who currently owns the property is going to be responsible for reinstalling that
ten foot pathway and making sure that that landscape is maintained in accordance with
the UDC. One other issue that came up before we -- or to be heard, we were informed
by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District that a portion of the drive aisle, the seepage
bed and the trees and that pathway are located within their 30 foot easement. And if
you look at my arrow here, the easement runs approximately north and south along the
drive aisle here and it goes all the way to Eagle Road. So, what -- Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District has requested that the applicant enter into a license agreement to
allow for those improvements to happen. The other thing that has happened is the
required trees have to be removed, because of the the ditch there and so that they don't
allow trees within their easement, so the applicant will have to come back to staff,
amend that CZC and the alternative compliance that we approved already to make sure
that these improvements happen within that buffer and that we get a signed license
agreement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. Staff will not -- has conditioned the
project not to release C of O until those improvements and that signed license
agreement has been added to the file. Staff did receive comments from the applicant,
they are in agreement with those conditions of approval as stated in the staff report and
I'd be happy to answer any questions Commission has at this time.
Moe: Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Thompson: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Joe Thompson. I am with
BRS Architects. We are representing the client Sam Walker. Our address is 1010
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 29 of 33
South Allante Place, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. We -- as staff stated, we are in
agreement with the conditions of approval in the staff report and I'll stand for questions.
Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you very much.
Newton-Huckabay: And I don't have any.
Moe: You weren't responding, so I figured you must not have.
Newton-Huckabay: I was thinking.
Moe: On the sign-up sheet Walt Mott. From the audience he's -- he's fine. And that's
the audience, so, thereafter, Commissioners?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 09-
006.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 09-006. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: I did not see any real concerns with this one, but in your motion make sure that
you do understand that we are open with the -- 8A as well, so -- in regard to the
Findings. So, you would be responding to both.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, since putting the findings on the -- since it's not our normal course,
I'd recommend you do separate motions for -- if -- whatever your decision is on the CU
and, then, on the Findings.
Moe: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, in the spirit of sharing --
Marshall: Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
move to approve file number CUP 09-006 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of June 4th, 2009, with no modifications.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 09-006 for Mason Creek. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 30 of 33
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
approval for CUP 09-006.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law for approval of CUP 09-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 9: Public Hearing: Request for Street Name Change from East Addison
Drive to East Adelaide Drive located in Estancia Subdivision
Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for the request of street name
change from East Addison Drive to East Adelaide Drive, located in the Estancia
Subdivision.
Canning: Chairman Moe, before Ms. Ricks gets up, I wanted to explain why you're
hearing this item tonight. Some of you may recall when the UDC first came out how I --
Istripped you of all your authority, or so we thought at the time, and we had to cancel
one of the hearings and give those authorities back to you. Well, low and behold you
still had one authority hidden within the traffic issues and that is deciding on roadway --
changes to roadway names. So, it's not in the UDC, it's in other portions of the city
code, but it specifically calls -- gives this duty to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and that's why you're hearing this item tonight.
Moe: So, why are we not just calling it Moe Drive?
Nary: That's still an option.
Moe: I got a feeling I might be out voted there. Well, thank you for that information.
Ricks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. In early March we
were notified by the Meridian Police Department of a recent emergency call being
dispatched to an incorrect address. This was due to the sound alike street names of
East Addison Drive, spelled A-d-d-i-s-o-n, located in the Estancia Subdivision, and East
Addeson Street, spelled A-d-d-e-s-o-n, in the Bedford Place Subdivision phases one
and four. While in this particular instance a major delay was averted because the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 31 of 33
responding officer happened to live in one of those subdivisions and knew the
dispatched information to be incorrect, we are concerned that response time for future
emergency service calls to these areas could be delayed over the confusion
surrounding the similar street names. It is staffs recommendation that along with that
and along with that of Ada County street naming committee, that East Addison Drive
located in the Estancia Subdivision be changed to East Adelaide Drive. The
recommendations to change East Addison Drive, as opposed to East Addeson Street,
comes after taking into consideration how many residents would be affected by each
change, as well as when the particular subdivision was recorded. Twenty-eight existing
homes are located along East Addeson Street running through Bedford Place, phases
one and four of Bedford Place were recorded in 1995 and 1997 respectively. Nine
existing homes are located along East Addison Drive and Estancia was recorded in
2007. So, the staff recommendation, then, in order to create the least possible
inconvenience to the fewest number of residents and homeowners in the area, we
change East Addison Drive in Estancia. Earlier in March we contacted Estancia's
homeowners association and the developer Hubble Homes to let them know of the
situation and our intent to recommend the change. They, in turn, proposed the name of
East Adelaide Drive as replacement. To date we have received one objection from a
resident living in the affected area. Thank you for your time.
Moe: Thank you. Well, you know, for ease of not having any problems, I really do
believe Moe Drive would have been a fairly easy way to go, because there is just not a
lot of names out there like that. However, I think the reason for the change is definitely
warranted and so, Commissioners, any other comments?
Marshall: Because of public safety, I think it's absolutely necessary to change one of
them. I appreciate the forethought that went into the choosing, because, I'll tell you,
having in the not distant past having gone through a move and changing address and
checkbooks and magazine subscriptions and everything in my life and changing my
address, it's not an easy thing to do. There is a lot of work involved. And I feel for those
people that have to change their address, but I think it's absolutely in their best interest
to have this change.
Moe: Thank you.
Marshall: And Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's deep in thought right now.
Moe: Do you have any comments, ma'am?
Newton-Huckabay: I was just re-reading over the letter from Kathy Bonham in regards
to the distress that a street name change would cause.
Moe: I did not talk to her.
Marshall: Pretty significant work to change -- it is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 32 of 33
Moe: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: I have no -- no concerns with this, other than to people like the
Bonhams that will have to take the brunt of changing their address, but I do believe that
for safety sake that I agree that that was an oversight. Hopefully we won't have that
happen again, so --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Member of the Commission. Ms. Ricks, were you able to contact
the postmaster? Do they make any accommodation for the change or grant some time?
Ricks: I was. He e-mailed me. I was under the impression that there would be like a
seven to ten day delay in time. He e-mailed me and said that there would -- you know,
after -- after the change is made it would just be maybe a possible one to two day delay.
So, there really should be no problem with mail delivery.
Moe: Well, then, Commissioners, could I get a motion?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I propose we close the public hearing on the request for
street name change from East Addison Drive to East Adelaide Drive, located in
Estancia Subdivision.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on the street naming
change. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve
the request for a street name change from East Addison Drive to East Adelaide Drive
located in the Estancia Subdivision.
Marshall: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the name change. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: One more motion, folks.
Marshall: Chairman, I move that we adjourn.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
June 4, 2009
Page 33 of 33
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Moe: We adjourn at 8:47 p.m.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:47 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
ROVED:
~i~.~i~1
- CHAI AN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: ~V ~~'C'i~~
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY
~°!
~G,`~,p~ooaPORgr ~~
gp.~,o "°° Fp
G AL o ~.
ti
. ~ ~~~ \o~
Sr isti' ~