2010 05-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 6, 2010
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 6, 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 Wendy Newton-Huckabay and
Commissioner Scott Freeman.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Pete Friedman, Sonya Wafters, 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, gentlemen. At this time we'd like to convene the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and could I get roll
call, please.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. There are no changes to the agenda tonight, so our first item would be
the Consent Agenda and --
Baird: Mr. Chair, we need to adopt the agenda.
Rohm: Oh. Sorry about that. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of March 18, 2010 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 2 of 17
Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and the single item on that
is the approval of the March 18th, 2010, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any
additions or corrections? Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Freeman: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 10-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit
approval of a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru
establishment for Pioneer Federal Credit Union by Pioneer Federal
Credit Union - 850 E. Fairview Avenue:
Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 01-001 for
Pioneer Federal Credit Union and start with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The first
application up before you, the site is located on the northwest corner of East Fairview
Avenue and North Lakes Place. The subject property consists of 1.15 acres and is
zoned C-G. This site is surrounded by commercially developed property also zoned C-
G. The applications before you are a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru
establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment in a C-G district.
Design review is requested for the proposed structure and site and alternative
compliance to UDC 11-3A-19 is requested, which allows a maximum of one drive aisle
with associated parking to be located between the facade of ,the structure and the
adjacent street and that refers to this parking area right here on the corner of Lake and
Fairview. Typically only one drive aisle with parking on each side is allowed. This site
plan depicts two rows of parking with parking on each side. As conditions of approval of
the Conditional Use Permit staff is recommending that the existing sidewalk along
Fairview Avenue that was approved with the original subdivision and developed at that
time, be widened to ten foot in accord with the city's master pathways plan or that a new
ten foot wide multi-use pathway be constructed within the street buffer in accord with
UDC 11-3A-8 and the master pathways plan. And also as a condition that a total of four
trees be added at the south ends of rows of parking in accord with the UDC 11-3D-8C.D
and refers to the rows of parking, that's a tree being added here, here, here, and here.
If you can see my pointer here on the site plan. In addition to those conditions, staff is
also recommending the following conditions of approval be added. One of the required
street buffer trees along Fairview has been cut down. Staff is recommending the
Commission add a condition of approval that it be replaced with development of this
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 3 of 17
property. That tree was originally about right in this location. Still the stump of it is, but
it must have died and been chopped down. And the second condition that staff is
recommending the Commission add is this existing pathway that runs along the
frontage of the property on Fairview stops about 25 feet short of the west property
boundary. You can see there. Staff recommends that a condition be added that states
the applicant shall extend the detached pathway along Fairview Avenue to the west
property boundary in a location approved by the parks director. Staff believes that the
location will probably need to go through where the red lines are depicted, as there isn't
room to go around this way this. There is two irrigation boxes and, then, it looks like a
transformer box or something here and power poles and sign poles and -- it's kind of
crazy right there. So, those are the conditions that staff is recommending. There is no
written testimony on this application. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional
use permit and design review and alternative compliance applications for -- per the
conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report and the aforementioned recommended
additional conditions of approval. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission
may have.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Please state your name and
address for the record.
Knopp: Members of the Commission, Larry Knopp, 2200 Warm Springs Avenue, Boise.
I'm the architect representing the Pioneer Federal Credit Union on this application. I'd
like to -- I went out and took a couple of other pictures in regards to the existing
landscaping out on the 30 foot buffer and as you probably notice in your overhead
screen, the trees that staff is asking for at the planter beds on four parking lot areas, we
have two existing trees, one's an ash and I could look at the other plan, but what I would
like to do, if I could, is show you these pictures -- or this picture of -- that I took standing
in the driveway -- the middle drive aisle.
Rohm: You need to speak into the microphone to give testimony.
Knopp: This picture that I took is standing in the middle drive aisle looking south
towards the freeway.
Friedman: I can project that.
Knopp: Can you? Okay. Great. That would be fantastic. I'm afraid we'd have a
conflict trying to put a couple additional trees in there. Maybe we could modify it to
something that would allow the existing trees to have a --amore normal growth pattern
to them, rather than -- than trying to force a couple of other trees. Or I was talking to
some of you earlier that maybe some box woods at the end of the drive aisle would --
would work better. So, now this hooked up to this -- not seeing it up here. You can see
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 4 of 17
that -- where the blue car is, the tree that's in -- that's just to the right of the front of that,
that tree is existing in place and it's a little bit south of the -- of the area I think that
Sonya is talking about having a tree planted and, then, the one over by the sign, that
tree is existing. And the one that she's talking about, (guess -- I didn't know it until I
went out there also -- that died at some point time, that they cut down, is a little bit off to
the right of where that -- where the stones are right in there, but --
Rohm: Do you know the caliper of the tree that died? Do you know what the
diameter --
Knopp: I'm thinking it's like this.
Rohm: Microphone. You need to speak into the microphone.
Knopp: Probably a three, four inch caliper.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Knopp: It couldn't have been too big. I'm not sure when it died -- they planted it. This
was all put in when the development went in and I'm not sure of what -- at what year
that was. It wasn't that long ago.
Rohm: So, safe to say that it was of similar size to the two trees that are remaining?
Knopp: I would imagine.
Rohm: Yeah. Okay.
Knopp: I would imagine they would be.
Rohm: All right. Okay. Thank you.
Knopp: But I think what would -- instead of trying to get the trees too close, maybe we
could put some at the end of the drive aisle where you -- where the backup is, where
the turnaround is. Maybe a better solution would be to put some box wood in there that
that would -- you know, they grow three, four feet wide and high. They are evergreen all
year long, so they are screening all the time. That would help screen that drive aisle
and the parking area and it would do it all year long, so -- and, then, the -- I think the
other tree behind the waterfalls, I have got a parking lot light there, so I would like -- we
got some landscaping down there and that area is hidden by the waterfalls and some
existing evergreens. There is three or four evergreens that you can see that -- that are
in there. Pete, could you throw this up on the screen. It might give the commission a
little better idea of what the screening is there on the existing evergreens and also the
waterfall that's there. But I want to make sure that when we are putting in the street
lights and there is one at that double aisle parking for security that -- that's lighting that
parking lot area, that we don't -- we don't get it screened or the lighting for security
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 5 of 17
shadowed off of that. And then -- so, that's all the comments I had on the landscaping.
So, I would like -- you know, I would like to -- to see if we couldn't get some kind of a
variation on the landscaping that would allow those existing trees to be there and not
encroach as far as their growth pattern goes and, then, the solution that Sonya has
projected up there for the sidewalk at the end -- on the west end, it's a better solution.
Going out on the street, forcing the people out on the street, is not -- not a good solution
and there is multiple problems with that area as far as the -- the double collector for the
-- for that ditch and it's a pretty wide ditch. There is a 36 inch the ditch that runs through
there and I was out the other day and there is a lot of water running through it and they
also have a gate valve that they controlled water flow to the north and those items are
pretty much there in place and I'm not sure what a person can do to mitigate those.
This is another photo if you -- it's a manhole cleanout for the ditch that's located at the
east end of the property and we would have to modify the path somehow to try to
accommodate it, because this is just strictly a cleanout box for the head of that ditch --
tile ditch. There is not -- there is not adequate room -- we would have -- we will have to
modify that sidewalk somewhat to make that work and I wish there was a better solution
to the -- the pathway as far as having continuity and use of the pathways down there.
I'm not sure when this five foot walk was put in, but if the Commission has us widen that
pathway, then, I would suggest that the least impact would be like two and a half feet on
each site of the existing pathway that would minimize interference with existing
landscaping and also with the other problems that we run into as far as the the ditch, the
man holes, the irrigation boxes, that kind of thing. That's all I have.
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do.
Rohm: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Just to address, first, in a little order here -- going back to the missing tree,
the tree that's -- that's been cut down.
Knopp: Right.
Marshall: I'm trying to understand why there is not enough room to put that in. You're
suggesting that the trees are going to grow together and that would --
Knopp: No. I didn't say anything about that one. There is room for that one. I'm talking
about the other two existing trees that are in place that are just south of the parking
stalls where they are asking for new trees to be put in.
Marshall: Oh, in -- we are saying that there is supposed to be new trees at the very end
of the parking stalls --
Knopp: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 6 of 17
Marshall: But aren't those trees -- I'm sorry, I guess I'm trying to relate this to the plan.
So, again, could you use your pointer, please, and point out where the missing tree is?
It's right there. And, then, the new trees we are trying to locate are there? And where is
-- where is that in relation to the current green tree, then?
Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, the current trees are right here and
they are within the 25 foot wide street buffer. The trees that are required by ordinance
in the parking lot landscaping are required at the ends of rows of parking outside of the
street buffer and that would be one right here, one here, one here and one here.
Marshall: Right. And --
Wafters: And ordinance requires that. Alternative compliance is a means of proposing
the -- the applicant proposing an alternative that is at least as good as the ordinance
requirement, the intent of it. So, there is a means to get around that, so to speak, but
you do have to go through that application process.
Marshall: Right. And, in your opinion, asking you, Sonya, do you think two trees -- how
far apart would those trees be if we placed one right there? Ten foot?
Wafters: It looks like approximately ten, 12 feet, actually.
Rohm: I think that's close enough.
Marshall: And I think the other one would be about similar, wouldn't it? Looking at
about the same distance there.
Wafters: Yeah. It would be eight, ten feet, probably, on the --
Marshall: Uh-huh. All right. Thank you. Now, I guess for a little clarification here, if I
could. Staff is requesting that the five foot sidewalk be widened to ten foot; is that
correct?
Wafters: That is correct. In accord with the master pathways plan and city code.
Marshall: And so how -- how was it that we are recommending getting around that
irrigation box and works there on the west end? That's not ten foot between that
irrigation box and that power pole.
Wafters: Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, that is correct. It's approximately
five feet and it would just need to neck down in that area. There is no alternative, other
than moving the power pole there.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you know, this is one of the challenges that
the city faces when we have some of these developments occurring in already
developed areas and now we have overlaid it with our pathway plan. So, we have had
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 7 of 17
instances in the past -- in the past, excuse me, where we have actually gone out with
the parks director and looked at the situation on the ground and made adjustments as
necessary. In some cases, as I say, we have added -- well, we had one situation where
we already had a five foot sidewalk and we brought another meandering pathway back
through the property and connected it back. We had a situation recently where there
was ability to put in the ten foot for most of the property, but, then, we had a brand new
monument sign that was placed on the property, so he was amenable to narrowing it
down to about seven feet. So, in some of these situations it's just where we have to go
out and analyze it on the site. Secondly, in response to the question about maybe
doing two and a half feet and two and a half feet on either side of that, I think what -- if
it's the Commission's pleasure, since we are getting the parks director out there and
finding out what his preference might be, he may think that personally reasonable, you
know, so --
Marshall: Thank you.
Rohm: Before you continue I want to stay on this sidewalk deal for just a moment. Is it
a change in the ordinance from what was part of the UDC at the time that this was
initially developed to current UDC standards for parkways that -- that the path would go
from five feet to ten feet? Is that how that happened?
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the master pathways plan was
not adopted when the subdivision was approved and when the improvements were
installed. Since that time the pathways plan has been adopted and now all
development applications that come through that section of code, 11-3A -- excuse me --
11-3C, all provisions within that code apply to new development and pathways are part
of that.
Rohm: Well, this -- this seems to be a previously developed -- a previous development
to me and all we are doing is we are putting a building on a previously developed lot
and so from my perspective the -- the parkway is -- has already been developed to the
code that was in place at the time that it was installed and it doesn't seem to me that
there should be any adjustments to the sidewalk period.
Wafters: And I'm not sure if you're looking for a response, Chairman Rohm, but the
reason that it -- the new code applies is because the buffer that was already constructed
is actually within an easement on this property. It's not a common lot. If it were on a
common lot in the subdivision, then, you know, it wouldn't be part of this lot.
Rohm: That's the explanation I was looking for. Thank you.
Wafters: Okay.
Rohm: All right. That makes sense. If it's not a common lot within the subdivision,
then, it's -- it falls outside of the previous developed common area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 8 of 17
Wafters: Yes.
Rohm: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Marshall.
Marshall: Those are my questions.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have a question.
Rohm: Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: From staff. Regarding the trees. Initially we were requesting these four
trees placed at the end of the parking aisles and, then, it's come to our attention that
there is a tree to be replaced that was cut down. It looked to me when you pointed out
the location of the cut down tree that we would end up with two trees, actually, at the
same end of one aisle of parking; is that correct?
Wafters: Commissioner Freeman, Commissioners, the tree that was cut down is
approximately in this location.
Freeman: Oh. Okay. I misunderstood. I thought it was right next to that last parking
stall.
Wafters: No. No. This is outside of the buffer. There is only a 25 foot wide buffer.
This is within the site here.
Freeman: Okay.
Wafters: There is two separate things. Street buffer landscaping and parking lot
landscaping is different codes we are looking at on those.
Freeman: Thank you. That clarifies my misunderstanding.
Wafters: Uh-huh.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would like to see the applicant apply for alternative compliance
and bring forth your proposal for what that should look like. I agree with you that maybe
four trees in those locations isn't ideal. Once you decide to do that, do -- how do we
move forward on this application pending that? Because it's a whole other application,
is it not, or -- the alternative compliance?
Wafters: Yes. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, it was not included in
-- that request was not included in this application. It would require a new alternative
Meridian Planning and'Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 9 of 17
compliance application. And there are certain stipulations with the alternative
compliance that has to be met. It has to be a hardship, more or less, a reason why they
can't comply with the ordinance, among a list of other -- other provisions, they have to
be able to meet in order for the director to consider this request. So, I'm not sure that
the alternative compliance is really a feasible thing in this instance, but the director
would make that determination.
Newton-Huckabay: But we are only talking about planting full size trees eight to ten feet
north or south of each other and, then, we are talking about planting a tree in front of
what's already a 20 some odd foot evergreen tree, if I looked at that picture correctly.
Wafters: That is an ash tree and a plumb tree are the ones that are planted near that.
Newton-Huckabay: And, then, the one that would be on the shorter drive aisle, isn't
there -- didn't he show a picture with that big evergreen that's behind -- in essence,
behind the waterfall?
Wafters: Well, it's -- it's back in here. If you look at the site plan here.
Marshall: So, I would ask this -- Mr. Chair, if I may?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Marshall: Sonya, so if we approve this still requiring the trees as per UDC, they could
still file the alternative compliance and come back and request that; is that correct?
And, then, that would be a separate issue to be determined later.
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, if it's included as a
condition of approval it remains a condition of approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
He's applied for alternative compliance for one other item. I suppose you could come
back and modify the CU and do alternative compliance with a CU modification. I mean,
if I may, we are talking about, you know, replacing one tree that's required in the buffer
area. That doesn't have to be in a like location, as long as it goes somewhere in the
buffer area. So, he can cluster the trees, do something like that. So, really, what we
are talking about is a -- you know, it gets down to the four trees at the end of the drive
aisles and the alternative compliance, as Sonya had indicated, you know, has to be due
to unusual lot shape, something like that, and what's being proposed it gives you equal
or superior to what would normally be required through the landscaping standard.
Marshall: Right. My only concern is -- I don't know if this is the time to express it, but
I'm having difficulty making a decision about how close trees can be planted not
knowing what the species are, the umbrellas are, I would want some type of expert to
come in and say these trees can be planted that close together without a problem or
they can't and these trees are going to die, because if we plant certain trees that far
apart, five years from now you're going to have dead trees and they are going to be
replaced every few years and I would hate to see that. Instead, I would like to see
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 10 of 17
something in there -- if we can plant them and they live fine, great, but I would like to
hear that from an expert that could tell me they know the trees, here is the species of
tree we have got, here is how far apart they can be planted, things like that. You know,
I love a grove of tight knit trees. That's wonderful and if can -- I see no problem planting
another tree there if it's going to survive.
Friedman: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the city does have an arborist on staff in our
parks department and we could certainly rely on his knowledge to work with the
applicant and come up with a specie of trees that might address your concerns.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I might offer some information that could clarify that a little bit,
even though I'm not an arborist, nor an expert, but if you look at the landscape buffer as
it is, some of these trees are already clustered as close as 12 feet apart and, frankly,
the space given in the plan, Idon't -- I don't see that there is any driving reason not to
be able to plant trees in all four of these locations. Certainly -- certainly not enough to
overturn our existing code and staffs recommendation. So, if I was going to be making
a motion, I would recommend, as far as the trees go, that we should go with the -- the
requirements that staff has given us.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that input. Commission O'Brien?
O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So, given that we are going to be planting these
trees here, yes, I agree that species is very important, but what about the canopy
blocking signage to the credit union, I mean is there some consideration there? I don't
know what it's going to provide from the street view as far as what -- what it's going to to
do, what it's not going to do as far as being able to see the bank. I guess if it's
important to you or --
Knopp: Mr. Commissioner, it's very important to the bank, very important to any
business that pays top dollar for street frontage that's looking for exposure, that's
looking for signage, and so I'm assuming that we could work with the city's parks
department and make sure that we can do some adjusting there that will work for
everybody. And that's my concern on the trees. You know, I see trees all the time and
shrubbery that's kind of too close to each other and start to -- as they grow they
encroach on each other and they start to killing each other out. Either that or they start
growing in weird shapes, because they are trying to get their space. So, that was a
concern that I had when I went back out to the site, because I just got this staff -- the
report on like last Friday, so I went back out and did visit the site and that's when I
called Sonya again and said, well, there is trees in those areas, it's just like the
evergreens behind the falls, the falls and the evergreens are so big that a tree back
behind those, I don't know what kind of benefit you get from the streetscape. It might be
of benefit on the inside. But, there again, I would want to work with somebody to make
sure that we can position it in a position, because if you notice on the -- my landscape
plan or my site plan, we have got a parking lot light there that's lighting that parking lot
area for pedestrian safety and security at night. So, want to make sure that whatever is
planted there does not interfere with that -- with that parking lot light. We think it's very
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 11 of 17
important that we have the security of the lighting on some of these areas, so -- but I --
you know, I think that we working with the city's botanist or parks department or
whoever it might be, that we can get something worked out that would work for
everybody.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, may I --
Rohm: Absolutely.
Marshall: That light could be moved, couldn't it? I mean you could move it. Yeah, it
may cost a couple extra bucks, but you're going to -- if you could put it out in the middle
of the parking lot in between where a couple of those stalls come together you're going
to be in the middle of a parking lot and light the parking lot even better. Part of the idea
behind trees up next to the asphalt is -- is trees keep the asphalt cooler. If we can get
an umbrella over that asphalt it keeps things cooler. We have got an urban heat island
that we are trying to keep down. I'm absolutely -- in fact, I'd like to see more trees out in
the middle of a parking lot with islands, to be honest with you. I don't -- I have got no
problem with moving that light for a tree. I do worry -- and, again, I'm not an arborist,
but as Commissioner Freeman pointed out, it was, obviously, a landscaping company
came in and did this and he's pointing out that some of the trees are already closer than
the ten foot there. So, they have, obviously, chosen species that can live and those are
all alive but one. Why it died I don't know. But I understand that most businesses want
a big large sign in neon letters right out in front of the street, but at the same time the
rest of us would prefer to see a greenscape. That's what we want to see. I want to
know the bank's there, but I don't want to be hit upside the head with it and I want a
greenscape and that's -- that's the kind of world I want to live in and I think most of us
do and that's why we have these codes and that's why I think we live by these codes.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I think we are probably getting pretty close to a motion.
Rohm: I'm with you.
Newton-Huckabay: I'd move we close the public hearing.
O'Brien: I --
Marshall: Before we have anybody that wants to speak on this?
O'Brien: I would --
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 12 of 17
O'Brien: Thank you. Sonya, could you put up the pathways -- okay. So -- so, we have
an issue there with a pathway going down to approximately five or six feet. Does the
pathway have to be contiguous with itself? Can it be split?
Wafters: I'm not sure I understand.
O'Brien: Well, on the left side of the center pole can that grading -- whatever is being
used as part of a pathway, so maybe it would split off and you would, you know, end up
having ten feet, five on each side, or something to that effect, is that something that's
possible to achieve the --
Friedman: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, it is possible. Again, as
spoke earlier, the parks director really has -- is whom we rely on for his judgment on
how we locate these pathways. We did do it in one situation. My concern with splitting
this pathway here would be maybe you would be taking it farther up and then -- I don't
see what's on the other side of that pole. I'm guessing -- is that what you're saying is
going to the right?
O'Brien: Well, you could split if off. In other words, have it go part on the right side of
that gate and to the left side of the gate and continues from the west side of that grating
the -- to the parking lot and also to the right of that gate.
Friedman: I think it -- I say, we rely on the parks director. He may not want it out there.
There may be -- you know, you certainly don't want to put it into the utilities. If you go
around the pole, then, you would stick it out farther into the parking lot. It may be just a
waste of concrete. I think if you -- I mean, obviously, if that's -- if that's the -- the motion
and the decision of the Commission we would certainly work to make that work.
However, in situations like this, since the Planning Department is not responsible for the
actual upkeep and -- of the pathways, that we do rely on the Parks Department and the
parks director and his people for giving us the best guidance we can on location.
O'Brien: Just a thought.
Friedman: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Could I -- before we close the public hearing is there anyone else
that would like to testify to this application? Could I get a motion, please?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 10-
001, DES 10-016 and ALT 10-001 for Pioneer Federal Credit Union.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 13 of 17
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Discussion? Any final comments?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I have one. On the west side of the pathway, I agree that necking
it down, if that's something we can do, would be a good idea, but I would also propose
that the applicant be required to make that a more natural transition and what that might
entail is actually cut back some of the existing concrete walks, so that we can kind of
follow the natural contours that have already been established by pathway in place,
rather than almost a very hard right and a very hard left in order to make that transition.
Rohm: And I think the parks director is going to be able to come up with something that
will accommodate exactly your comment.
Marshall: In comments, if the rest of this pathway is made ten foot, you're doing say two
and a half, two and a half, when you get to this end you could go five foot on that other
side and it almost shoots off straight through there. So, it's five foot on the right side
there. Almost -- it may the natural -- I don't know, but --
Rohm: My suspicions are the parks director will take that into consideration when they
meet with the applicant, so -- but your comments are appreciated. Any other
discussion? My final comments on the trees is -- I didn't get the sense that the applicant
was necessarily against putting additional trees in, I think he just was trying to make
sure that we put the right trees at the right location and as long as the applicant has an
opportunity to work with the city arborist and he knows that there are trees to be placed
based upon the conditions of approval, they can put trees in that meet both their needs
and the city ordinance and -- and we move forward. So, that seems to be the answer
that will satisfy all parties. So, I would recommend that we not make any changes to the
staff report and move forward. So, if I could get a motion I would appreciate it.
Marshall: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I move that we recommend approval of CUP 10-001, DES 10 --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? We are actually approving the CUP, we are not
recommending approval.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you. We are approving the DES and ALT; is that correct?
Newton-Huckabay: As near as I can tell, yes.
Marshall: Okay. So, I recommend approval of CUP 10-001, DES 10-016 and ALT 10-
001, with the following modifications: To have the tree that has been torn down
replaced and to add the existing pathway along Fairview to be extended to the west
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 14 of 17
property line and that the applicant is to work with the parks director in designing that
extension. Other than that, it should be as the staff report reads.
Freeman: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 10-001 and associated
documents. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank
you, folks.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Public Hearing: PFP 10-002 Request for approval of a combined
Preliminary /Final Plat consisting of 3 building lots on 11.91 acres of land
in a C-G zoning district for Freedomworks Subdivision by Wally Morgas
- SWC of W. Overland Road and S. Stoddard Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on PFP 10-002, Freedom Works
Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application for
the Freedom Works Subdivision is a combination preliminary and final plat. The
applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.9 acres located on the southwest corner of
Overland and South Stoddard Road into three lots. The site currently is developed with
two of the lots -- the proposed lots are currently developed. One has a combination
office retail building on it. The other lot contains the -- a self storage facility and so the
proposed third lot would be the one located on the hard corner there of Overland and
Stoddard Road. There is currently access to the site from West Overland Road via a
shared driveway with the storage facility and cross-access would be granted to all lots
within the subdivision. All the landscape buffers are currently in place. The required
buffers that were required by the code have currently been installed both along
Overland Road and Stoddard Road. It is located in an area that is designated mixed
use neighborhood in the Comprehensive Plan. and the proposed plat complies with the
UDC subject to recommended conditions of approval. Just by way of history on this
application. The property was annexed to the city in 2004 and granted a Conditional
Use Permit for a planned development to allow the self storage facility and the office
building. That was subsequently modified back in 2007 to allow a different retail
building, but it had always been contemplated that this third lot would be created or this
third area would be created for future development and the development agreement
does require that if the final plat -- preliminary and final plat were approved, that under
the terms of the existing development agreement the new Lot 3 would, then, have to be
developed through a Conditional Use Permit, so you would actually end up seeing the
development on that lot, which you might not necessarily do in other circumstances
where we just plat the property and somebody comes through with a CZC. So, that --
for that reason there were no elevations included with the plat. We would get those
through the conditional use process. So, the staff has reviewed this and has
recommended approval of both the preliminary and final plat. The real comments we
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 15 of 17
received were, essentially, a form letter from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District talking
about protecting the irrigation facilities on the site. Essentially a no comment letter from
the health department and a no comment letter from ITD. So, in summary, again, this is
just a three lot preliminary/final plat. Staff is recommending approval of that DA with
conditions.
Rohm: Thank you, Pete. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Please
state your name and address for the record.
Bailey: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Laren Bailey, here representing
LEI Engineers and Surveyors. Our address is 2440 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho.
As staff indicated, I don't really think there is any major issues of concern on our end.
We agree with the staff report. I think everything Mr. Friedman covered was correct. I
don't see any issues as far that goes. We do have one minor -- maybe major, I don't
know, we will have to get there and see. We do have one issue. I think it's mainly a
City Council issue as far as access, but the original Conditional Use Permit we were
granted right-in, right-out access to what would be the slot number three off of Overland
and Stoddard. My understanding is that doesn't currently meet the code, so I think
there is -- there needs to be some discussion there on how -- how we can move forward
with that. My clients do see that there is definitely a monetary and functional value to
having those right-in, right-out access points and so we would like to keep those in
place if possible. With that I will stand for any questions.
Rohm: Well, maybe to start off with is comment. If -- if, in fact, the right-in, right-out is a
request that it is something that would have to go before Council and that isn't
something that we can address as part of this application. So, if --from my perspective,
I think that we will just address the lot split or whatever this is for this preliminary/final
plat and, then, you can take your issues up on the ingress-egress with -City Council.
Bailey: Mr. Chair that would be great.
Rohm: I think that's probably the appropriate way to go, because our input on that isn't
going to affect your application one way or other. So, thanks for your input. Any
questions of the applicant?
Freeman: No.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you very much.
Bailey: Thank you.
Rohm: And there are no other -- there is nobody else in the audience, so there are
won't be any additional testimony. So, could I get a motion to --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I got a question.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 16 of 17
Rohm: Okay.
Marshall: First off, I guess I'm just not understanding and I need some help probably
both from you and from staff as to why we are not addressing the ingress-egress when
we typically do. Maybe I'm not understanding why that is different.
Friedman: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, Commissioner Marshall, access
-- the reason we are not addressing that particular access -- access is provided to this
site currently through a shared access off Overland Road right up there. There is also
somewhere down here to the emergency access for the fire department off Stoddard.
The plan that Mr. Bailey was referencing was a conceptual site plan that was included
with the Conditional Use Permit, but was really never adopted and it wasn't adopted
with the development agreement and the fact the development -- or not the
development agreement, but the findings and order on the annexation and rezone had a
clause in there that the future development of the site would comply with all city
ordinances in effect at the time of application. The site was developed originally in 2004
pre UDC and so didn't have the access restrictions that we do today and so as Mr.
Bailey had indicated -- and we have had some discussions with him since the staff
report went out -- that -- and as the chairman indicated, that really -- if the only way,
really, to attain that waiver of the access restriction is through the City Council. So, in
staffs mind he still had adequate access to this site. You can get access to the
proposed third lot from the existing access off of Overland Road with across-access
agreement, so --
Marshall: So -- yeah. I'm a little confused here. So, we are talking the right-in, right-out
access that we are discussing used in addition to the current access that's there?
Friedman: There is one access into the site, which is correct, from Overland Road. The
one that Mr. Bailey referenced is not there. They have a desire to have aright-in, right-
out, as was shown on the concept plan with their Conditional Use Permit in 2004.
Marshall: Got you. All right. Thank you.
Rohm: Any additional questions from the Commission? Okay. Could I get a motion to
close the public hearing?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close -- or make a motion to close public hearing
PFP 10-002.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on PFP 10-002.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 17 of 17
Marshall: Mr. Chair, a couple comments. It all looks good to me. I am -- my one
concern is the future land use map to the west of this is also recommending medium
density residential. I think we are going to have to be cautious there in creating some
buffer between C-G, which is already there, it's already C-G zoned, but I'm not excited
to see residential up against C-G. Now, that's a situation that already exists and that
the property to the west is not zoned, but it is called out as medium density residential
and I think we are going to have to be careful when that comes in in the future to be
able to buffer residences against commercial properties. That's my only comment.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Could I get a motion on this hearing?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PFP 10-002 as presented
during the hearing on May 6th, 2010, with no modifications.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to move on to City Council recommending
approval of PFP 10-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Could I get one more motion, please?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I recommend we adjourn.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:53 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROV
~ ~ <7Z~ ~ /
MICHAE E. ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
Meridian Planning and Zoning
May 6, 2010
Page 18 of 17
ATTEST: I\,~~,~.(" k~(,Iru~ `f f1 i~ `
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
\\~~~~~uui~~~ir~~~
~,~~~ pF MFG '''%,
/p, ,
r~~ ,9
T ~ ~~';
REAL
9~ ~~
G ~ ~ \;
,;'.,90,9 ST ts't P \ \
,, / COUNTY \~ ,\\` ~~
.~