2010 01-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 21, 2010
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 21, 2010, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall,
Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Members absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd to call the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin
with the roll call of the Commissioners.
Rohm: Okay. Before we start tonight's meeting I'd like to take this opportunity to
welcome Scott Freeman to the Commission and if you have got a few words you'd like
to say, this is probably the opportunity.
Freeman: Oh, impromptu speech. No. I'm just happy to be here and to be able to
serve on this Commission, looking forward to working with all of you in the community.
Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to
open the Consent Agenda and there are two Items on this -
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Hill: Mr. Chair, we need to adopt the agenda.
Rohm: Oh. I guess we should do that. The adoption of the agenda. There will be one
change. On Item 4, it will be continued, but we will continue that at the time that it
comes up on the agenda. But other than that, everything else remains as is. So, could
I get a motion to accept the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 2 of 12
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed the same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 7, 2010 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
09-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit for aSelf-Service
Storage Facility consisting of 10 buildings on approximately 3.49
acres in an existing C-G zoning district for Linder Self-Service
Storage Facility by Chip Gallagher -east side of Linder Road,
approximately'/4 mile north of McMillan Road:
Rohm: All right. At this time the Consent Agenda has two items on it. Item A is the
approval of the minutes from the January 7, 2010, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting and the second item is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
approval of CUP 09-012. Are there any changes to the minutes?
Marshall: I have none.
Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
O'Brien: So moved.
Marshall: 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.
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 3, 2009: MCU 09-002
Request to modify the building elevations approved with the Conditional
Use Permit for Avendale (fka Silver Oaks) by Engineering Solutions -
north side of W. Franklin Road, approximately'/4 mile west of N. Ten Mile
Road:
Rohm: Okay. The next item on the agenda is a continued public hearing from
December 3rd, 2009, of MCU 09-002 for Avendale fka Silver Oaks. And there has been
a request to continue that to February 11th and at this time I am looking for a motion
from the Commission to either continue it to that date or another date.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 3 of 12
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we continue MCU 09-002, to the
regularly scheduled meeting of February 11th.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue public hearing from
December 3rd, 2009, MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 11th,
2010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 09-013 Request for a Coinditional Use Permit for a
Church on approximately 4.65 acres (proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of the Five
Twelve Subdivision) in an existing R-8 zoning diistrict for Five Twelve LDS
Church by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -west side of
Stoddard, midway between Overland Road and Victory Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 09-013 and begin
with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you this
evening is a conditional use permit for a church use in an R-.g zoning district. If you will
recall at your last meeting you -- the Commission acted on the preliminary plat on this
lot where the church is proposed to be located on was a lot that was in the process of
being created through the platting process. The property is situated between Overland
Road and Victory Road on the west side of Stoddard. Again, it's currently zoned R-8.
To the north is RUT property in Ada County. To the south is single family residential
property, zoned R-4. To the east -- excuse me -- to the west is also R-8 zoned property
and that was the previous platted property known as Bear Creek West. That plat has
expired. And, then, to the south you have Ada County residential -- or Ada County
property zoned RUT as well. The application before you tolnight, again, is a CUP and
also design review for the site improvements. This is pretty much what you saw with
the preliminary plat. You can see the church site, the improvements, the access points.
I believe at the last hearing Commissioner Newton-Huckabay made some reference to
the access to Stoddard. At the time you looked at that plat we did not have comments
from ACHD. When I was doing the staff report for this project I contacted ACHD and
asked them to submit comment to us. They did that in the form of draft comments.
They aren't official yet, but for the record their draft comments made mention to this
application and it was their recommendation that that accE:ss on Stoddard Road be
shifted and shared along the southern boundary. So, if you could see the arrow here,
ACRD is asking that that move to the south to provide Future connectivity for the
remaining parcel that will probably plat as single family residential. One thing -- I think
staff laid it out pretty well in the staff report, but one thing to just point out from our --
from our analysis and when we were looking at this, a couple things are in conflict with
what ACHD is proposing or recommending with that change. First requirement is if it's
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 4 of 12
shared -- typically when we require cross-access it's for property to share between
nonresidential uses. The church site is going to be nonresidential. However, the
property to the south is planned for residential. On the Corrrp Plan it's medium density
residential and the current zoning district is R-8. So, staff in our code would prohibit
access being shared for a commercial driveway for a residenltial subdivision. So, really,
in order to facilitate that access as ACHD has recommended, it would require the
applicant to submit a new preliminary plat and dedicate a public street or public right of
way to create a local street, so that those homes and the church could take access from
that. If that was the case I don't believe the UDC would allow that street to happen at
that location. We would want it to happen off of Kodia4c and we would want the
residential to take access from an internal street networN;. So, that's a couple of
complex -- like I said, so one would be the fact that the property to the south won't be
nonresidential uses, based on what we have in place. ACHD made some assumptions
that that could happen and at this date nothing's been planned for that. As I speak
tonight it is planned for residential. I also put in the concept plan that the applicant
submit it with the preliminary plat, just to kind of refresh your memory as well and you
can see how they have -- show the church site and show how at least that seven acres
could potentially develop. I mean staff, basically wanted -- with this concept plan staff
really wanted to see how it would lay out with residential lots adjacent to the church use
to see if it would be compatible. That was the basis for this concept plan. So, you can
see here that they aren't proposing access to Stoddard or a shared access with the
church and they are providing internal street network wii:h streets stubbing to the
western boundary and a possible street connection to Kodiak with phase two. So, in
this scenario there -- it could work without having a shared access to Stoddard. Here is
the landscape plan that staff evaluated. Again, the landscape buffers along streets
were evaluated with the plat. This site plan is still consistent with those street buffers.
All the internal landscaping is consistent with the UDC. The applicants also provided 20
buffers along the western boundary and southern boundaryry of their site. They are
currently zoned R-8. It doesn't require a 20 foot buffer, but the applicant anticipates
residential around them, so they have done a nice job of providing that additional
buffering, realizing that they are a nonresidential use next to future residential
properties. Here are the elevations, at least aconcept -- a colored elevation rendering
of what they are proposing. One thing speaking with the applicant tonight, I noticed in
looking at the elevations, this elevation doesn't show an attached seminary and that's
what they are proposing with the elevations that they submitted with this application.
Typically, when an LDS church develops on a site if they are close to a high school,
they will develop -- they will also add a seminary to their facility for those high school
students. The RUT property to the north will, eventually -- imay be planned for a high
school in the future, so I wanted to go on record to let you know that this is also a
church, plus a seminary addition to it, and that will be attached to the building. So, this
rendering doesn't quite show that, but it will be constructed of a similar material, the
brick, the stucco, and the architectural shingles. So, staff is supportive of those
elevations as I have noted in the staff report. I did receive comments from the
applicant. They are in agreement with the staff report. No issues. And the only
outstanding issue is what I mentioned is the access to Stoddard. With that I'll stand for
any questions Commission may have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 5 of 12
Rohm: Thank very much. Any questions of staff?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Bill, quick question. Just refresh my memory. The additional
phase two area is still zoned R-8 and all that Bear Creek I believe it's called to the left
there is still also R-8 there to the left?
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall --
Marshall: It's Bear Wood, but is that Bear Creek?
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, that is correct. The R-8 zoning that you see west of
this property, that's what was annexed and zoned with the Bear Creek West property.
What has happened is plans have changed, the economy has changed, and so the
applicant has someone that wants to develop the site.
Marshall: Right.
Parsons: Now, the applicant selling the property to the church and at this time they
don't have any plans of moving forward with the residential plat. So, it's really the
intention to get the church lot platted and at some point that seven acres would remain
under the current ownership that it is today and blend in back to the Bear Wood West
Subdivision that you see laid out with this R-8 zoning district. So, that will -- more than
likely that remaining parcel with phase two will go back to the original R-8 property that
was annexed and zoned back in 2005.
Marshall: Okay. Continuing along that line, looking at the future land use map -- this is
the zoning map; correct?
Parsons: That is correct.
Marshall: And so the future land use map shows this entire area to be typically
residential. Is there one of the community center areas anywhere close by? Is that -- it
should be about a mile away or somewhere? You know what I'm referring to is at every
half mile point we had those recommended community center areas that would be C-C
or something like that.
Parsons: I don't have -- I think Anna is going to go check the map for you,
Commissioner Marshall. I believe there is a lot of provisions along Overland that would
-- more along the lines of commercial, industrial uses along there. Even farther down, if
you look up in the left-hand corner you will see some property zoned TN-R and there is
also some TN-C up there along Linder and I think it's the southwest corner of Linder, but
I don't know if there is a node south of this property or not, but I will let Anna look at her
map over there and I'll get back to you on that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 6 of 12
Canning: Commissioner Marshall, there is a small neighborhood center -- or
neighborhood -- mixed use neighborhood designation where the Venga Works facility is,
but that's, really, the closest one along Stoddard, but as you go over to Meridian Road
there is one -- the one at Meridian and Victory.
Marshall: All right. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions?
Freeman: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Bill, you mentioned when you showed
the rendering that there was a seminary not indicated in the -- in the rendering. I just
want a clarification. Is that a future seminary and is it indicated in the site plan in the
elevations as part of the building -- part of the project.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, that is correct. The renderings that I
have in the file, the elevations do show the attached seminary to the building. So,
although this color rendering doesn't depict that, the elevations that I evaluated in the
staff report does reflect the seminary and I based my analysis on that.
Freeman: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I just have one quick question.
Rohm: Yeah. Go ahead.
O'Brien: Bill, regards to the access to Stoddard Road from the parking area that's the
church, so that's moved down and it's going to change the landscaping, of course, and
probably parking stalls. That's still designated as a full access; is that correct? To
Stoddard?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, that is correct. That would be a full
access to Stoddard.
O'Brien: I guess I still have a concern like I had before, that to have a full access, it still
seems like it's pretty close to the intersection just north of that. I just have a concern
about the traffic trying to get in and out of that access, especially if it's going to be
shared with residential and as well as the church and to make alert-hand turn going out
onto Stoddard is a concern of mine and I read some of the information from ACHD and
they didn't seem to have any concern with that, but I just wanted to voice my opinion
that I -- I'm not really for a full access. I think it would be better served with aright-in,
right-out and people who want to get into that facility could go down to the next
intersection where it's --alight is there and they can make a safe left-hand turn or
people coming from the north to the south can usually access the church parking lot and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 7 of 12
also the residential area of the future of that. So, I just wanted to get my comments to
that effect.
Parsons: And if I could elaborate a little bit more on that for you as well. Certainly when
we evaluated this, if you recall with the preliminary plat, the way that our access
provision in our ordinance reads, it says they should take access from a local street if
it's provided and I think I said they don't have that at this time. This is the first
development that's coming in. Both the streets adjacent to the site are collector streets.
Certainly the applicant could have designed the site and had two accesses off of
Kodiak, but it's still collector to collector. So, when I -- I guess when staff did their
analysis they looked at this and said, okay, it's a church use, one where most of their
trips happen and that would happen primarily on Sunday. Off peak hours. So, we
looked at it, saying, okay, we have two collector streets. At this point we didn't really
see where -- whether you had two off of one or one and one and split the difference
would affect the access at this point. Certainly if ACHD wants this to be a shared
access, then, it becomes a concern for staff as well and the city, because we certainly
don't want -- our analysis was based on the church use, not added residential homes
and the other thing I'd want to point out is when this was planned for residential back in
2005, those homes would probably generate more trips than this church use and so
that's why access wasn't evaluated, except for Kodiak, like they are showing here or at
least when that plat was evaluated the only access point they had to start it was Kodiak,
because the future homes or the future subdivision was laid out with an internal local
street network and that's what we think works best for this property and that's why we
wanted to make it clear to you that although we don't want you to think we don't
appreciate ACHD's comments, it's just the fact that in order for the applicant to get this
access point -- and I do want to point this out to the Commission -- one, either the plat
may have to change to get right of way or they are going to have to go before ACHD's
commission and get approval for that access point. So, I did write a condition in the
staff report with the CUP that if that access point isn't granted where it's proposed and it
does change the layout of this site, more than likely they may to come back to you with
a revised concept -- revised site plan for your approval, because it may change a lot of
things. If access doesn't happen to Stoddard, that influences fire department approval
as well, because now they don't -- they only have one access to the site, so they are
going to have to develop the site to have a second means of access or at least meet fire
department's turning radius requirements to provide that access to that church site. So,
there is a lot of things that could happen with this -- with this Stoddard Road access
changing or even being eliminated.
O'Brien: Thank you. I appreciate that -- those comments. I have one further question.
What is the speed limit right now on Stoddard and will it change; do you know?
Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know.
O'Brien: Okay. Just curious. I haven't been out there in quite some time, so I don't
know. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 8 of 12
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And,
please, state your name and address for the record.
Larsen: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jill Larsen, I'm with Lowland
Johanson & Zimmerman Architecture. We are at 400 South Main Street, Payette.
83661. I hope I get that right. I am pleased to be representing The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints in the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
new construction of a church building and attached seminary. Right now as we are
showing it that is with the assumption that there will be a high school. So, there isn't
really a concept plan that shows that and they do it two different ways. We can do it all
as one building or we can do it in two different submittals where you do the building and,
then, do the second permit for the attached seminary. This building would be used
primarily on Sundays to accommodate up to 300 occupants. It is the heritage classic
style and it is seen throughout the Treasure Valley. We have tried to contact ACHD
based on their comments and have not received a response back. As it was a draft
letter, I still see it as perhaps something we can work with them on. If that does not
occur, we plan on going before the commission. They are willing to allow a shared
access to Stoddard, which we believe would incur much more traffic than just having
access as shown and we also have a letter from the current property owner, Tuscany
Development, stating that they have no plans in the future to access Stoddard in any
way. I believe that the concept is to take the remainder of the seven acres and melt it
back into the residential and redevelop or I guess have a -- reapply for that. So, we
don't see the need or the use for the shared access. I have tried moving it down as well
to see how that would work. Right now we have some turn radiuses specifically for the
fire department and they were happy with the way that we had the two access points, so
that they would have the ease of going in and out on both sides. So, that would kind of
restrict us and safety and I believe it's 35 miles per hour, but I can't put any money on
that. And as far as if we do have to change the site plan, if they absolutely will not work
with us, we probably would be trying to access Kodiak as close to the corner as we
could get and, again, that -- that wouldn't serve us as well. Thanks. Do you have any
questions?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a couple questions. I was a little confused. So, if the
high school -- you're basing the seminar on the fact that the high school will be built.
Larsen: Correct.
Marshall: But if the high school's not built, you're not going to build the seminary?
Larsen: Correct. So, then, the western portion of the building basically would not be
there.
Marshall: So, you're putting everything on hold until the high school is built, you're not
building anything until after the high school is built?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 9 of 12
Larsen: We have another building in the Middleton right now that is right next to the
new high school and when we started the project it was just the building itself and they
decided in a little bit into the process that they did want to do a seminary, so it was kind
of the same situation where the site had been developed and it was ready to
accommodate it, but they hadn't made the decision whether or not to actually put it with
the building. So, it's kind of a separate set of drawings altogether. So, in addition, in a
sense. So, it's kind of planned for it, but if they don't use it, we just would -- we would
end the building in the typical style.
Marshall: So, I'm a little curious here. I was led to believe that the seminary is actually
a part of this building.
Larsen: It is.
Marshall: And that the plans actually have to be changed to remove it and, then, if later
the high school was say delayed and it's not built, you build the church, later the high
school is built and you want to go back in and put the seminary, is the seminary going to
go in the same location or is it going to become separate elsewhere on the property?
Larsen: I believe it would be in the same location, because we have nothing allocated
for a separate building.
Marshall: Okay.
Larsen: But it's -- the way that the plans are, they are designed to be a separate entity,
so that if you don't have a seminary building you can come in later and add it to the
building.
Marshall: Okay.
Larsen: But we are trying to propose it all as one, so if in the case that they do want to
do it all together -- some of the issues we have ran into are a separate building permit or
a separate bidding process and having two different contractors wanting to build on the
same building. So, we are trying to do it a different way this time.
Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Larsen: Sure.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, yes. Ms. Larsen, I -- it's the first time I have seen these draft
comments from ACHD and it's the first time I realized that they were requiring you to
build a portion of Kodiak, I believe, so that you can have that northern access. Is that
something that's been part of your talks with ACHD all along?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 10 of 12
Larsen: Yes.
Freeman: So, it's not a surprise?
Larsen: The only change was we originally were showing 12 feet north of the
landscape island and now they are requiring 24.
Freeman: Twenty-one. Okay.
Larsen: Or 21.
Freeman: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Anything else? Okay. Thank you very much.
Larsen: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. At this time it's open to other testimony and there is nobody else that has
signed up to offer testimony, but if anyone would like to come forward now is that time.
Okay. Good.
Marshall: Well, it appears no one else wants to offer testimony, so I would like to make
a few comments, sir. Mr. Chair.
Rohm: Yes. Please do.
Marshall: First off, I think this is of no surprise to us. It is pretty much what we saw a
couple weeks ago. Familiar plat coming through. It's exactly what we anticipated. I
think the only difference is the ACRD draft comments here. Again, I was for it last time.
I think it's very appropriate to have the two accesses -- two full accesses, even to
Stoddard, especially considering the vast majority of the traffic will be in the evenings
and on the weekends. I think that a church typically -- people come and go from a
church kind of all at once and one access is going to really back up and if you force both
accesses to that north road, you put one way too close to the intersection and too close
together. I do have a little bit of a concern in that I sure would not want to see phase
two area develop commercially and, then, require access to the Stoddard, because that
puts two accesses to Stoddard very close together and I think that's the basis of
ACHD's comments there, is that if it went commercial that does offer two accesses to
Stoddard very close together and that does concern me a bit. But also given the fact
that on the land use map we do not have that marked down to ever go -- we don't want
to see it go. As a city we have even made the recommendation we'd like to see that
stay residential. It's zoned residential and I think it will remain residential, and based on
that, seeing the conceptual plan, how it would feed into that Bear Creek on the west, I
think you get multiple accesses to that area without having to access Stoddard again
and so I'm in favor of it as it stands.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 11 of 12
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Other comments? Commissioner
O'Brien?
O'Brien: Nothing further. I think all of my questions have been answered. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. All right. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 09-013 and DES
09-034.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: Okay. We have a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 09-013. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Mr. Chair? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve file number CUP 09-013 and DES 09-034 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of January 21st, 2010, with no modifications. I will further move to
direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 11th, 2010.
Freeman: I second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 09-013 and -- is that
DES 09-034? Is that what you said? All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn.
Freeman: I'll second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: We are done.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:29 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
Meridian Planning & Zoning
January 21, 2010
Page 12 of 12
APPROVED
MICHAEL E. ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST: GL2~ ~YG :~~~\\\C~~~ ~ o~o'~"~'L~~~`~~
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLE ~'~' TFO 6;
s
_ SEAL
"9 7~GST ~ ~~~ ~
c~U~;~~rY ,~P