2001 10-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting _____ _ October 4,
2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on October 4, 2001, by Chairman
Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton and Bill Nary
Members Absent: Keven Shreeve, Jerry Centers
Others Present: David McKinnon, Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Dean Willis
Tara Green and Will Berg.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
__X__ Sally Norton __O__ Jerry Centers
__X__ Bill Nary __O__ Keven Shreeve
__X__ Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Let's go ahead and begin our meeting this evening. This is the
October 18th
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission --
what did I just say? October 4th
. I'm looking ahead at the next agenda -- the
October 4th meeting. I'd like to begin with a roll call vote of attendance.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of August 30, 2001 Planning and Zoning
Commission Special Meeting for Comprehensive Plan:
B. Approve minutes of September 6, 2001 Planning and
Zoning Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item would be approval of minutes of the August 30th
and
September 6th
meeting. Do we have -- anyone have any comments or
changes from those minutes? If not, do we have a motion?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I move the approval of both Items A and B, the minutes of the August
30th
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting for the
Comprehensive Plan and the minutes of the September 6th
Planning and
Zoning Commission Regular Meeting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 2
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion second, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of
34.60 acres from RUT to I-L zones for proposed Utility
Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres in a proposed I-L
zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC –
3365 North Ten Mile Road:
Borup: Okay. Before we get into the other, I might mention we have -- there
are a couple of applications and we don't have a big crowd, so I don't know if
anyone is here for those, but Wendy's and the Utility Subdivision application
have asked for a later date, so were you folks here for either one of those?
You were? Okay. Utility Subdivision is waiting for the ACHD -- Ada County
Highway District report and -- Commission, maybe -- should we look at a date
right now, so we can tell these folks, so they don't have to wait until the end to
find out the new date?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think Utility Subdivision has requested the 18th
of
October to be set over. It doesn't appear that we have a very huge agenda
that night. We could probably do that.
McKinnon: That was the date that --
Nary: I think that was the one that requested the 18th
. The other one, the
Wendy's requested after the 24th
of October, because that's when their appeal
before the ACHD is.
Borup: And it may or may not have an answer by that date.
Nary: Right.
Borup: But we could still go ahead. Okay. Do you want to make a motion
now or wait until we get to that on the agenda?
Nary: We could probably take it out of order, since we do have folks here
and --
Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead and open -- we will go ahead and open the
Public Hearing on AZ 01-015, request for annexation and zoning of 34.60
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 3
acres from RUT to I-L for the proposed Utility Subdivision and also Public
Hearing PP 01-017, request for Preliminary Plat approval of seven building lots
and one other lot on the same project. Because of request from the applicant
we will open up Public Hearing and dispense with the staff report at this time. I
think, and --
Nary: I think, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would simply move that we continue
those hearings until -- both of those items until October 18th
for public
comment and the applicant can be here and hopefully we will have the ACHD
comments at that point.
Norton: I will second.
Borup: Motion second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 01-028 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a fast food restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for
proposed Wendy’s by Wenco, Inc. – northwest intersection of
Corporate Drive and East First Street:
Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2001: AZ 01-012
Request for annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres from RUT to R-8
zones for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt
Development – northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North
Meridian Road:
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2001: PP 01-015
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 single-family lots, 4
future office lots, 23 common lots and 3.43 other lots on 69.79
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance
Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner of East
Ustick Road and North Meridian Road:
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2001: CUP 01-026
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 214 single-family
dwellings, 4 future office lots and 23 common lots to include a
neighborhood park and pedestrian pathways in a proposed R-8
zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt –
northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road:
Borup: Okay. So that meeting will be continued to the 18th
of October.
The next item is a Continued Public Hearing for Sundance Subdivision, three --
McKinnon: Commissioner Borup?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 4
Borup: Yes.
McKinnon: Could we address the Wendy's?
Borup: Yes. Did we have anybody here on the Wendy's project? Maybe we
might wait until they -- someone could come in later, but we don't have anyone
here at this time. Sundance Subdivision request for annexation and zoning,
application AZ 01-012, and request for Preliminary Plat on PP 01-015, and
Conditional Use Permit, CUP 01-026. So we will continue these three Public
Hearings. I believe we continued it basically for two -- two items were
discussed. One, some concern on the Sewer Easement and that has been
worked out, and then the other was to address the entrance and how it
affected the neighbors and also the applicant was going to check with ACHD
to make sure it met with their requirements also. Do we have any other
comments from staff at this time?
McKinnon: Mr. Borup, no comments from staff, other than to -- if you have
any questions of Bruce concerning the Sewer Easements. He has been
updated on that. Steve Arnold is here tonight to present to you some
additional information concerning the driveway relocation and the approval of
ACHD of the change in the driveway relocation.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Arnold, would you like to address the Commission?
Arnold: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, for the record, again,
Steve Arnold, 1800 West Overland Road, Briggs Engineering. I'm here
representing Voigt Development. If I could, I believe the recommendation
from staff is to defer until such time that more easements are acquired?
Borup: Not at this point, but -- Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, just an update. As
of this afternoon there are 10 easements that need to be acquired to get the
sewer to this project, five of which have been obtained, the other five are
outstanding. Our City Engineer did tell me today that he's real close on one,
but that would leave us still with four outstanding. We are moving forward with
design.
Borup: Is there any concern with the location of those easements changing?
Freckleton: Changing?
Borup: Changing location. Not being granted. I mean it's not going to change
the design and layout of the trunk line, though.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 5
Freckleton: If we totally run up against loggerheads on an easement and can't
get one, yes, we will have to redesign.
Borup: Or --
Freckleton: Condemn.
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: Okay. On the Cedar Springs project, remember it was before you
-- was it last meeting?
Borup: Our last meeting, yes.
Freckleton: Yes basically the -- that one was continued -- or pushed on
with the developer assuming all risk and --
Borup: Actually, we have another hearing, but we got through --
Freckleton: We got through that issue with that, yes, so --
Borup: And a year ago that was a statement that was made on this project.
Freckleton: That's correct.
Borup: That you want to proceed ahead with signing a release of liability.
Arnold: Correct.
Borup: Is that still -- I'm a little confused on what you're saying. Are you -- is
your preference to wait for that -- wait for these easements to be in place or
are you going ahead?
Arnold: Chairman Borup, no, we are still -- we want to plow forward with
basically the same recommendation that Planning and Zoning recommended
to the City Council as they did almost a year ago. So I was getting a feel from
staff -- I wasn't sure what staff was recommending tonight. I was under the
impression that it was different.
Freckleton: Well, and that's probably because we left our comments verbatim
as they were last time we were back here.
Arnold: Oh right. Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 6
Borup: Yes. They didn't change it from -- so, Commissioner Norton, I think
that was one of the things that was -- you were the one that brought up the
question on that. Do you still have any concerns on that?
Norton: I think on my notes all I brought up was move the entrance so the
headlights don't go in the windows of the neighbors and we were just going to
have an update on the sewer line.
Borup: Right. Okay. So we have got the update on that.
Norton: So what are you asking me?
Borup: If you still had any concern on the sewer line.
Norton: No, I don't.
Borup: Okay. Yes. Your comment was I think the main thing is the sewer.
Okay. Then I guess we are just looking for some comments on your entrance.
Arnold: That being the case, if you want I can go through the photos or I can
show you how our photos are relating to the proposal that I have got before
you tonight. Looking southbound -- got to get my pen here. There is a private
road that's located on the south side of Ustick Road. It's located
approximately at this point. That's a little bit of a fuzzy picture, but there is one in
there. It's Mr. Couch's private lane that goes back into his open
space and I don't see him here tonight, but we met about two weeks -- maybe
three weeks ago today. We discussed several options. I think that Mr. Couch
-- I will let him, if he shows up tonight, address it. He's looking to locate it
further to the east of his house, which would be -- in this picture it would be
down in this area in the back of these houses, but I discussed with -- and I did
go through the minutes of the February 15th
Planning and Zoning Hearing.
Based on those minutes what he was recommending at that time was that we
align up with his private road. I gave testimony that, one ACHD hadn't
approved it and two, that there could be greater traffic conflicts at that location. I
have since had a conversation with a colleague of mine, I was reminded that
the likelihood of that being a busy road with Couch's private -- Mr. Couch's
private lane, the likelihood of that being a busy road and having those conflict
points were minimal to say the least. The amount of development could
happen on the south side of Ustick where a road would come out there is very
little traffic, so the conflict points would not be that great. The other option
would -- you might want to move another frame. One of the options -- this is
where the existing road is located. It shines right down here, down in front of
a bush, and into the -- I believe it's Mr. Hansen's house and you can see that
right there. We can't see it very well, but there is a stake over here. But this is
where the outbound lane would be shining is what we came up with.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 7
Borup: On your current plan?
Arnold: In the current plan. But one of the options, what I brought up and
what I had indicated in the February 15th
Commission meeting, we could
tweak it a little bit, we could run it about 20 feet over to the east, break it right
on the property line where it goes kind in between these two properties. Not
speaking for Mr. Couch, I'm sure that's not one of the options that he would
like. The other options that I came up with, on this side we have got his
private lane here, we can line up the outbound lane to go down right on the
private lane.
Borup: You said that was his preference a year ago?
Arnold: That was his preference a year ago. I know that his testimony -- and I
went through the minutes -- his testimony was to move it further to the east of
his house at the last hearing.
Borup: Right.
Arnold: Having re-looked at it, I think that we would prefer lining it up with that
private lane, where in this aspect -- and it's -- you might want to -- yes. Go
back. The private lane -- well, this isn't as good of a picture, but it's right there.
You're essentially shining it down the road. There is group of trees here. This
house is not in the frame, but it's about right here when my pointer is at. That
would be our option -- our preferred option, is that we line it up with this private
road. It will have no impact of headlights onto any of the houses. The other
option that Mr. Couch and I spoke about was to line it up with the slough down
here in between these homes and this home. That, again, wasn't his preferred
option. He would like it further down the road against these homes here. The
problem here if we line this up, the outbound lane, people coming here to turn,
take the possibility of going -- there is not much pavement on the other side
where that slough goes in. You're taking a chance within the next five to ten
years and those widen out with curb, gutter and sidewalk, that a car could go
in there. So that's definitely not something that I would recommend. So
based on what we have discovered out in the field and looking around out
there, we would prefer to line it up with the private road. That is something
that we can accommodate and headlights will not affect houses.
Borup: Did you discuss any of these options with ACHD?
Arnold: Yes, I did. They agreed with our two options. The one would be right
here in between the two properties. The other was to line it up with the private
road and it did get an approval.
Borup: From them? They didn't have a preference?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 8
Arnold: They quoted me the policy and said that either one would work.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from any Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Arnold, on the other one it's just, obviously, a significant redesign to
want to move that entrance as far east as -- is that subdivision that's across
from where you were saying Mr. Couch would prefer the entrance, is that --
that's already fenced all the way down there right? There are no houses that
actually face the street?
Arnold: We have some pictures here. If you can flip forward, I believe. Get
my bearings here. This would be moving it down -- you can see there is a
fence there and you can see it down here, there is fence, but in the clarity --
that's not given very well. You can see that -- I mean you still have windows
and whatnot that you would be affecting in the homes. If we did that, not only
would we require a redesign, but I don't think that it's right not having at least a
neighborhood meeting with them before we go forward and design this, so that
we get their input, too.
Nary: Sure.
Borup: So it's a matter of shining in a little bit on someone's house no matter
where.
Arnold: Well, Commissioner Borup, that's where I think the private road might
be the best option.
Borup: Yes.
Arnold: It does move it closer to Ustick, Meridian, but it doesn't shine in
anyone's home.
Borup: Just one comment -- or another comment on that, moving it further
down it is going to shine in the back of those homes, which would be
bedrooms, where these others would be shining in the front, which I’m
assuming usually would be the living rooms. Maybe not completely, but --
Arnold: The option that I -- Commissioner Borup, the option that I gave on
February 15th
, if we left it in its location, was to tweak it slightly and then put
landscaping on the south side of the road.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 9
Borup: That's what I was going to ask. That was something we discussed a
little bit. Have you talked about that with Couch and Hansen?
Arnold: I don't think that it was with -- again, I think -- Dave Couch and I came
to an agreement to kind of disagree on the options, but I -- and he's not here
tonight. I know that he -- he gave testimony on February 15th
to line it up with
his private road. I don't know if he would still -- I believe his preference when I
met with him was to move it down the road to the back of these lots.
Landscaping is an option, but, again, I think that their preference would be to
either move it down the road or line it up with the private road.
Borup: Okay. It's probably going to be best to make a decision. Did you have
any comment or any questions, Commissioner Norton? Okay. So your first
preference is to line up with the private road?
Arnold: That would be --
Borup: That's the proposal that you would like to make? All right.
Nary: And that would be option one correct?
Arnold: That's option -- yes.
Borup: Yes. That would be option one that Steve handed us. Okay. Any
other --
Arnold: I guess one last comment. It was my impression that the -- at the last
hearing that the Planning and Zoning Commission was not going to be ready
to recommend approval of this project until we -- such time we had all the
easements acquired. What we would prefer is obviously get the same
recommendation that we had the first time around. We don't want to get a
denial. If it is the feel of the Commission tonight that you're not comfortable
recommending approval until those easements are here, we would request,
then, a deferral until such time. But, obviously, our preference is to move
forward tonight.
Borup: Okay. Let's see how the other Commissioners feel. My main concern
would be any liability to the City, you know, a hold harmless letter that -- you
know, that would be substantial to cover that. Beyond that, the applicant is the
one that's taking the risk. I don't know why -- as far as the Sewer Easement,
as long as everything else for the subdivision complies, we have already gone
through the rest of those items.
Arnold: Commissioner Borup --
Borup: So I feel comfortable with the recommendation on that basis.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 10
Arnold: We would be happy with the original recommendation, the hold
harmless against the city and we will take it upon ourselves that it is our risk, that
we know that sewer is not there now, but that is a risk that my client's ready to
take.
Borup: Okay. Let me ask you, either from attorney or staff, in the past who
has prepared that letter? The applicant and the city reviews it or the other way
around?
Swartley: Chairman Borup, I defer to Bruce on that, because I can't recall.
Would you know, Bruce?
Borup: I'm probably putting words in your mouth. My first impression would
be to have the applicant prepare it and the City review it.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that. I think they could propose
it and then we will have Bill Nichols look at it and give his thoughts. One thing
that I did want to interject is that there was discussion the first go around that
we would not consider any other methods of sewering this project. There was
talk of trying to -- you know, if the White Drain does not all come through, that
they would try and pump back to the South Slough sewer and that's just not an
option that's available.
Borup: Okay. So, actually, that probably would be something that would be
good to have included in the letter, that that would be understood that it
wouldn't need to be into the White Trunk Line.
Arnold: That's simply up to them.
Borup: Okay. So then you would be able prepare that letter and get it to the
city?
Arnold: Work with our clients and they can prepare something.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? The letter and
then the exit would line up with the private road to the south. Ustick. Okay. I
think that was the only two issues from the last meeting. That concludes it.
That would be all, Mr. Arnold, then.
Arnold: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners, are you ready for a motion or do you want some
discussion first?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 11
Nary: I'd at least move to close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Norton: Second.
Borup: Motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Okay. I believe that was the only -- those were the two issues from
our August 2nd
hearing.
Nary: It appears to me, like before, I didn't have a problem with it before, other
than the sewer issue and I think we have -- we have approved some of these
-- at least I can recall last year, that put the burden on the developer and put
the risk in the developer's hands and that if there is no sewer they've got really
good farm ground. So I mean I guess there doesn't appear to be a reason for
the Commission -- for us, at least, to hold this up. I mean Council may take
the same position they did the last time or they may do something different,
but at least for our purposes I don't see any reason to delay it and wait and
see. We were going to delay and wait and see for the White Trunk, we may all
be retired by then.
Borup: I'd just as soon get it off our agenda, too. Okay. Are you ready to
make a motion?
Nary: Sure. I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve Item 4, AZ
01-012, request for annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres from RUT to R-8
zones for the proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development -
northeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road and that -- I
don't know as the hold harmless needs to be part of this annexation. I think
the annexation itself is fine. I think it's part of the plat, would be my belief,
would that be correct?
Borup: I agree with that.
Nary: Yes. I don't think there is anything that's part of the annexation that
needs to be amended. To include all staff comments from the July 27th
memo. I think that's it for that part.
Borup: Motion. Waiting for a second.
Norton: I second.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 12
Freckleton: Just a thought. If everything were to go gunny bag on this,
wouldn't we want to have something in the Annexation Ordinance that talks
about the serviceability? I mean if we annex it does that imply that we are
going to service or can service?
Nary: Yes. I guess it probably does. The problem we have is that I don't
know if you can conditionally annex it. I mean you annex it or you don't, you
know. I mean there is no condition on the annexation. There are conditions on
plats. But, you're right, if we annex it I guess we are agreeing that we are
going to provide service to it and have a right to expect service to it.
Borup: Wouldn't the hold harmless letter apply there also?
Nary: I think that's what we're asking. Do we need to put that as part of this
motion, that it's contingent upon us being able to --
Borup: No. Again, I realize it's a separate -- it's a separate application, but it's
still the same project.
Nary: Right. I mean realistically, at least, it has not been the case recently of
the City Council to annex it without approving the plat and vice-versa. If they
are they going to approve this plat, they are not going to agree to annex it. So
it probably, in reality, doesn't matter, but I think you're right, Bruce, at least
from a legal standpoint it probably is making a commitment that we can
provide service and right now we know we really can't provide services. So
we --
Borup: Mr. Swartley, do you have a feeling on how to do that?
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary, I was going to agree with Bruce
on that one as well. I tend to do that. It is an annexation and zoning and we
can basically tell the applicant how we'd like to bring them in and I think that
the letter would be applicable to the annexation and zoning. I think it's more
appropriate there. But if the Commission feels better about making it a
condition of both the annexation and zoning and the Preliminary Plat, perhaps
they could do that. But I think the annexation and zoning would be
appropriate.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: Well, it's certainly clear from the comments by the applicant that they
understand that that's all -- it's all part of one package, it's not really three
pieces, justly three pieces in one thing. So, you know, I would certainly amend
my motion to include that there would be a Hold Harmless Agreement executed
by -- to the applicant and the City agreeing that they would -- the applicant
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 13
would hold the city harmless for sewer service until it was available through
the White Trunk only and that there would be no risk to the city in doing the
annexation at this time until the -- and the applicants are going to have to wait
until the Sewer Easements are all done and completed to the White Trunk. We
can certainly make that a part of the motion as well.
Borup: Okay. Second?
Norton: Sure.
Borup: All right any other discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and move that we further recommend
approval of PP 01-015, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214
single-family lots, four future office lots, 23 common lots and 3.43 other lots on
69.79 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance Subdivision, as
well to include all staff comments from July 27th
and, furthermore, to also add
to the staff comments for the plat, that there, again, be a hold -- as part of this
plat as well that there be a Hold Harmless Agreement included by the applicant,
again, for sewer ability to the White Trunk only, that they will hold the city
harmless for providing that service and they will patiently wait, as everyone
else as, for the White Drain to be available and all the easements to be in
place to do that and, secondarily, that there also be added that the exit for this
particular subdivision would be lined up with the private road that is directly to
the south on Ustick, as proposed as option one on this redesign plat map that
we have received tonight and -- was there something else? I think that was it.
Borup: No. I think that was it.
Nary: I think that was it.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: Second.
Borup: Motion and second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Nary: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval of CUP 01-026, the
request for a Conditional Use Permit for 214 single-family dwellings, four
future office lots and 23 common lots to include a neighborhood park and
pedestrian pathways in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 14
Subdivision, to include all staff comments from July 27th
and anything else
that we amended on these others would apply to this one as well.
Norton: I have a question regarding the amendment on number three on the
Conditional Use Permit. On the July 27th
staff -- we didn't think there was
enough open space they needed one more amenity. We were discussing a
picnic area or gazebo.
McKinnon: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Yes.
McKinnon: They have agreed to do a gazebo, in addition to the basketball
court.
Norton: A gazebo?
Borup: They had already planned on having a gazebo, is that what you're
saying?
McKinnon: That's what I just -- I just talked to the applicant and the applicant
said that's the intent.
Norton: And then my understanding was we were talking before that the
picnic area would have tables and benches?
McKinnon: And garbage receptacles.
Norton: And garbage receptacles.
Nary: So would we want to amend --
Norton: Yes.
Nary: -- Conditional Use requirement number three to include that a gazebo --
part of it would be to include a gazebo, picnic tables, trash receptacles, and
the like in the picnic area as shown on the -- as shown on the plat map that's
been provided and approved by the staff. Is that adequate?
Norton: How is that trash going to be collected? I don't recollect. Maybe
we could talk to staff.
Freckleton: Commissioner Norton, they are going to handle it through their
Homeowners Association and it's going to be written into their codes,
covenants and restrictions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 15
Norton: That the trash would be collected from that park.
Nary: The maintenance of that common area facility is going to be done by
the homeowners association.
Freckleton: The maintenance. Correct.
Borup: Yes. It would be part of the maintenance. I think they are doing that.
Nary: Yes. Did you get all that?
Norton: I second.
Borup: Okay. Motion second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 7. Public Hearing: PFP 01-005 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat
approval of 3 building lots on 5.21 acres in an L-O zone for
Mystery View Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 2930
East Magic View Drive:
Borup: Okay. The next item is Public Hearing PFP 01-005, request for
Preliminary/Final Plat approval of three building lots on 5.21 acres in an L-O
zone for Mystery View Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. We will open this
Public Hearing and start with the staff comment. I believe this project we have
had before us and I believe there are existing buildings on the lot or they are
under construction. So, Mr. McKinnon, staff --
McKinnon: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, I'll keep it brief. As
Chairman Borup had mentioned, you have seen this on a number of different
occasions. Right now currently there exists Lincoln Plaza and the building and
the Mountain West Bank. If you go further through here it's the hash marks.
Right here you can see Mountain West Bank on the left. From the southwest
corner there you can see that they have already installed the parking for
Lincoln Plaza. You will see Lincoln Plaza on the left and looking west coming
down Magic View Drive to St. Luke's you can that the Mountain West Bank
has already been constructed. Direct you back to the picture on the bottom
right-hand corner. They have already installed all the fencing along lot two, if
you notice in staff report comment number two in the conditions, says they
shall include additional fencing plans. There is no requirement -- there is no
need for that now that the fence has been installed. What we are essentially
doing is taking this piece of property that was approved to have multiple
buildings and multiple uses on this lot, we are now subdividing it, rather than
allowing it to stay in one lot. Mountain West Bank is in the top right-hand
corner. Lincoln Plaza is in the bottom and up in the left-hand corner -- that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 16
would be the northwest corner -- you can see that they are trying to create an
additional third lot there. This is very similar to the Treasure View Subdivision
where in the past at the last Public Hearing I attended when we went through
Treasure View, we talked about the need for landscaping prior to the building
permits coming in. Our ordinance hasn't changed and we do require that the
permanent landscaping be installed and the fencing be installed prior to the
building. Seeing that -- seeing that the ordinance hasn't changed, the staff
comments are similar as they were with Treasure View and, as you remember,
we went ahead and dispensed with those the last meeting, because there was
no need for that at that time, as there were no buildings in place. We currently
have no development applications for a building on lot two. However, we do
have landscape plans for both of the other lots and they are almost to
completion at this time. So with that I have no other comments and I would
turn it back over to the Commissioners.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from any of the Commission? If the
applicant representative would like to come forward.
Steel: Good evening, Jonathan Steel, W.H. Moore Company, 600 North
Steelhead, Boise, Idaho. I think Dave is correct. I think most of our concerns
-- I guess my primary one is -- that he alluded to is the fact that you have got
two buildings currently under construction, Landscape Plans have been
approved, the fence has been put in along the north boundary of this project,
really all you're faced with is the landscaping for lot two, which is currently the
vacant lot, and as before I think a couple weeks ago when I was in here my
suggestion was at that time when we build that then we come in with our
landscape plans for that particular lot, which would -- on the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance you could approve or disprove it. Obviously, we are going
to landscape the whole thing, but to landscape a portion of it right now with the
balance being simple a field I don't think makes a lot of sense, quite frankly.
So I take kind of a very simplistic approach, I think we would like to suggest for
item number two that that be -- that that be modified to make at that point.
A couple other items that I would just like to address also are item
number three. It talks about the detailed Irrigation Plan. Again, we have
submitted an Irrigation Plan to Bruce Freckleton. There is a well in place right
now. The irrigation lines, the stubs have been installed, he has reviewed that
already, so I'm not really sure that we need to have a letter of credit or
something in the amount 110 percent that, in fact, quite frankly, a month from
now the landscaping will all be in for those two buildings and it will actually be
functional. So I would suggest give the fact that the city has already reviewed
that, seeing what's in there, the well is in, they have approved that, that we
could eliminate this requirement for the bonding.
Borup: So you're saying the system will be installed and operational?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 17
Steel: Yes. Commissioner Borup, right now the system is in it's -- I'll call it
it's back bone, for lack of a better word, the well is in, we are installing the
actual pump right now, because we do finally have power we can run to that.
For example, the irrigation lines for the berm and everything is already in, the
stubs to the various lots are installed at this point, and we are going to be
connecting them as part of the process of installing the landscaping.
Borup: The reason for the letter of credit is that the system is installed. That's
just to insure that it's going to be installed. So if it's in there I would think, staff
-- I mean it's a mute point, isn't it, if the system is installed and approved?
Freckleton: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the surety is simply
to get your plat signed. If the improvements are not completed at the time you
want to get your plat signed, you post surety for those improvements. So as
Jonathan stated, he's pretty far along on his system and I would anticipate that
he probably will have it complete prior to signature on the Final Plat and,
you're right, it would be a moot point.
Steel: I guess I understand where you're going is if we need clarification we
are talking about the back bone system that I would call it, because, obviously,
lot two will not have irrigation lines to it, but we are talking, you know, kind of a
-- I don't know, for lack of a better word, the final portion of it and I'm assuming
we are not going to have to bond for that, because that would be part of the
construction plan, landscape plan.
Borup: For the next lot.
Steel: Yes.
Borup: Right. It sounds like you're in agreement with all staff comments. The
only thing was just the landscaping item number two that --
Steel: Well, item number two and I guess maybe just a little bit of clarification,
then, on item four.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, as long as the back bone of the system or the --
we are insured that when this subdivision goes forward that it does have a
system that will supply water to all three lots. That's our concern.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: So that clears it up?
Steel: That's fine. Something just to maybe clean up, because I don't want
the neighbors from the Greenhill Estates coming back and maybe getting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 18
anybody -- on item number four it talks about a new Conditional Use Permit, it
only allows for office, it is not restaurant. So you can simply delete that.
Borup: Number four?
Steel: Number eight.
Borup: Oh. I'm sorry.
Steel: I just don't want anybody from Greenhill coming in and saying, wait a
minute, you know, that's not the case. So the developer agreed to speak to
office only in the other Conditional Use Permit.
Borup: So you're saying the comment on the restaurant would not apply to
this lot?
Steel: Yes.
Borup: Would not apply to lot --
Steel: You just delete restaurant use. It's not an allowed use.
Borup: Okay.
Steel: I think the other one -- and I had understood that Dave was going to
speak about it, but I will bring it up. It's item number 14. I'm not sure what ten
point -- in front of it is, but it says only a single storage building would be built
on lot two. We don't anticipate anything other than a single story building.
The economics of a multi-story building won't justify itself, but I question the
precedence and I guess it's a legal standpoint of being able to put in a plat
conditions with respect to the kind of building, whether it could a two or three
story, how big it is, this does not seem to be the place that you do that, you do
that in a Conditional Use Permit, you could do that in a Development
Agreement, you could do it in maybe the planned development, but I don't
think you should put it in here. I think that sets a precedent and one that
makes me very uncomfortable. And I guess I would ask the attorney if I'm off
the mark on this one.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Dave, can you answer why you might have done
that?
McKinnon: Well, I can answer the fact that I didn't do that. Those are
comments that were made by Shari and if you would like me to give you a little
history on that, and apologize for that, I should have actually addressed this.
This was a surprise to me, too. This is something that in the editing process
this was put in after I had completed the staff report. Initially when we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 19
discussed the annexation of this property and the original Conditional Use
Permit was back in 1999 and there was a lot of discussion with Greenhill
Estates concerning having a two-story building. About month and a half ago
when this was noticed originally to all the neighbors, a couple neighbors
actually did come into the city and say now are they going to be allowed to
place a two-story building here if we create an additional lot? I went and
grabbed the actual Development Agreement from the annexation and the
Conditional Use Permit for that and there was a lot of discussion in the
minutes, however, there was no motion that was made that included any
wordings concerning a two-story building on that property. The idea was that
there were to be no two-story buildings adjacent to Greenhill. However, there
was -- that intent never made it into the motion. So it looks like what
happened is that even though it was not included in the original motion, this
was something that was added after the fact to try to limit them from doing
that. The legislative intent, I believe, of the original Development Agreement
and the Conditional Use Permit for this property was to limit the height of those
buildings, so that they would not heavily impact the neighbors in Greenhill to
the north. And I would agree with the applicant that this is something that
should be placed on a Conditional Use Permit or a Development Agreement
upon annexation and not on the plat at this time.
Steel: Again, we are not suggesting here we have any intention of it. I think
it's more just a precedence, because if it can be done here, then all of a
sudden another plat would say, you know, you can only go 35,000 square feet
or you can only go on this or that -- this not the place to do it, it should be
addressed in other documents, so --
Borup: So are you suggesting that any development on this lot be under
Conditional Use Permit?
Steel: No. No. What I'm simply saying here Commissioner, is that we have
already gone down that road, this is not the place to address it, it's already
been addressed.
Borup: Right. No but then where would it be addressed?
Steel: Well, it's either addressed in a Development Agreement or the
Conditional Use Permit; land development, things of that nature.
Borup: But you're not applying for any of those.
Steel: I'm sorry?
Borup: But you're not applying for any of those.
Steel: We already have those in place. We have a CUP, we have a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 20
Development Agreement and so they are both in place. We have gone through
this process already. And, again, I think it's just -- it's kind of slipping it in the
back door and I think it's more of a precedent than anything and it makes me
uncomfortable.
Borup: Did you agree with the statement that staff made that that was part of
the initial discussion and probably intended by all parties at that time to limit it
to a single story?
Steel: Well, I think we showed -- and I hate to go back, because I think we are
kind of resurrecting something that we spent a lot of time on, but we showed a
comprehensive plan at that time that showed a two-story building and a single
story was behind. We recognized at that time that, you know, the
neighborhood would, obviously, not be receptive to a multi-story building
backing on their lots -- on their backyards and we don't disagree with that. I
would say that -- and I don't think if we were going to realistically do a two-story
building we would have done it for Lincoln Plaza. I'm not suggesting
here that we are and, frankly, I'd rather stay away from it. I just think that this
is not the place to do this and if it should have been addressed, it would have
been addressed in the Development Agreement, the Conditional Use Permit,
or something like that and I'm just saying, again, if it can be done here, then
why can't it be done in other plats and I just don't think --
Borup: I agree with that. I think the concern was it was intended to be
addressed in one of them and somehow it got missed.
Steel: Well, I guess, you know, if you really want to go back, you can look at
the Development Agreement, you can make a determination based on the
development or the Conditional Use Permit and I would just as soon that it
happen right now.
Borup: But it was not mentioned in the Development Agreement?
Steel: No. All it is, is that it says that office is an allowed use, anything else is
a Conditional Use Permit. And I have mixed emotions about bringing this up,
because of just exactly what we are discussing right now. I don't -- I don't
want to go back through this and that's not -- I'm not suggesting it's our intent,
because from a pure economic standpoint it doesn't make sense. But, again,
this is not the place to do it. We have gone through the development
agreement and we have gone through the Conditional Use Permit on this
project and those are the documents that -- you know, that they provide to us,
so I think that's a fair way to do it.
Borup: Any other comments?
Nary: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman -- excuse me. I think what we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 21
have heard from both the staff and the applicant is that this is just a wrong
place to put this band-aid. I mean nobody -- nobody intended a two-story
building there, neither did the applicant, and that's not what they are asking
for, but I do think it's right, that the plat isn't really the appropriate place to do
that anyway. I don't know right now off the top of my head if they came in
tomorrow and asked to build a two-story building that the staff would feel that
either they need to come back before us, whether they would have to amend
the previous Conditional Use Permit, whether or not any of those
circumstances may happen, but I think the applicant's right, I just don't think
the plat is the right place to do it anyway. If there was a goof or an error or
omission or something in the Development Agreement or the Conditional Use
Permit, we will just deal with that when it's time to deal with that.
Borup: Well, but if they are applying for an allowed use, they wouldn't be
before us.
Nary: Well, that's what I'm saying --
Borup: Unless they are applying for a --
Nary: What I think I heard Mr. McKinnon say is that I don't believe that
planning staff thinks that that's an allowed use, that if an application came
forward for a two-story building on this lot two, that they probably aren't going
to think that's what was intended by the Development Agreement that's in
existence. If the applicant wanted to argue that it doesn't say we can't, I think
they are going to have to come back here to do that. So that's what I would --
if I had to guess where we would be down the road.
McKinnon: I'm kind of in between both you and Chairman Borup,
Commissioner Nary. If they came in today there is nothing in the
Development Agreement that we could use to stop them from developing a two-
story building at that location. We have a site plan that was included with the
Development Agreement that showed that that was to be two buildings on this
lot with a number of -- with a great deal of landscaping around the whole
perimeter, there is some interior parking with -- actually, it even says on that
site plan that the closest building would be a one story. It actually says that on
the site plan that was submitted. However, there is no text in the development
agreement that says no two-story buildings shall be allowed at this location.
Borup: Is the site plan a part of the Development Agreement?
McKinnon: The site plan was entered into as part of the Development
Agreement, but it was only to be a rough sketch, it was nothing that said this is
how we will develop it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 22
Borup: Well, I agree with Commissioner Nary, then. I think that's -- I think
that's enough to hang your hat on.
Nary: I mean I think we will see it again.
Borup: And, I agree, I don't think this is the place to have it, but I also think it
should have been somewhere.
Steel: Well -- and, again, that's why I have some reservations about bringing it
up now, because I think we all spent a lot of time in the past on these projects
and I don't welcome going back on it and -- but, yes, that's my point right
there. This is simply not the place. If we have to do battle, let's do battle at
the appropriate time with the appropriate documents.
Borup: Well, with the site plan showing a single story and it's incorporated
part of the Development Agreement, I feel real comfortable with that.
Steel: I'm just -- right now I think that would be --
Borup: So, really, then, are we -- everything except for the landscaping and
you're essentially saying the same as the project across street, you feel it's
more appropriate to do the landscaping at the time the property is developed?
Steel: Yes, Commissioner. I think that -- particularly the fact that we have got
an interior lot and we put --
Borup: You don't see it from the street.
Steel: You don't see it from the street, you know, the fence is in there, we put
a fence in before we started construction, which is what we wanted to do
because of the neighbors. So, yes, I just don't think these things need to be
included in this.
Borup: Okay any other comments from any other Commissioners?
Steel: Okay. Thank you very much.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify in this application? Okay. Seeing
none --
Nary: I move to close the Public Hearing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 23
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Okay. It looks like we have essentially talked about -- three items on
the staff comments that probably need to be addressed. The first one was
landscaping, the second one was just deleting restaurant, which is simple
enough, and then the -- well, that's -- oh, yes and the third is Item 14.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I'd like to move to recommend approval for PFP 01-005, request for
Preliminary/Final Plat approval of three building lots on 5.21 acres in an L-O
zone for Mystery View Subdivision at 2930 East Magic View Drive, to include
all staff comments with the following adjustments. Staff comments in the staff
letter dated October the 3rd
under site-specific number two, to modify that
paragraph to -- for the intent of the landscape to go in at the time of
development. On number three, to strike the following sentence with -- starts
the last sentence in number three, which is the letter of credit attached in the
amount of 110 percent will be required for these improvements prior to
signature on Final Plat. Number eight, to strike the words and restaurant
uses, and number 14, to strike where it says number ten, only a single story
building may be built on lot two. Strike that sentence out.
Borup: Is there anyone that -- yes.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say I guess what I was thinking,
Commissioner Norton, as told by the staff, was that letter of credit is probably
not going to be necessary, but not to strike it, because it's simply the
assurance that those get done. They will probably be done ahead of time. If it
isn't done, it's just an assurance to get the final plat signed that it is going to
get completed. If it is completed by the time it goes to the Council to give
approval, it won't matter it won't even be a requirement.
Borup: So could we add something saying the letter of credit would not be
necessary -- would not be required if the --
Nary: If it was completed. Well, I mean if --
Borup: If the irrigation system is completed.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I don't see anything wrong with the way
it's written. I don't know that we really need to add anything about conditions.
I think that's pretty evident that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 24
Nary: Because if the improvements are done, then we can submit the
conditions. If the improvements aren't done, then they will need a bond for it.
Norton: So are you proposing to leave number three in?
Nary: I'm just saying leave it as it is.
Borup: Well, the sentence --
Nary: It's just an assurance for the city that everything gets completed and I
think this is pretty boilerplate, standard stuff that we put in all of them, just to
make sure whatever needs to be done is completed. If it is, they don't have to
do anything.
Borup: But it doesn't say that. I mean I think everybody understands what it
means, but --
Nary: Well, just as a letter of credit will be required for these improvements, if
the improvements are already completed there is nothing to bond for. Do you
want it to say -- I guess I'm not sure.
Borup: Well, you're right. Yes. I mean the only clarification being required
to be improvements if not completed.
Nary: Right. And since we have changed the Landscaping Plan to a degree in
number two by this motion, that it's not lot two until --
Borup: So that probably would be 100 percent --
Nary: It should be all done.
Borup: I think we leave it up to staff also. Commissioner Norton, then are
you --
Norton: Just leave three?
Nary: I think if we just leave it I think it's okay.
Norton: Okay. That would be fine.
Nary: Second then.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 25
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 01-028 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a fast food restaurant with drive-thru in a C-G zone for
proposed Wendy’s by Wenco, Inc. – northwest intersection of
Corporate Drive and East First Street:
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item No. 8 was a Public Hearing for
Wendy's. And they have -- they have asked for the -- we have a letter from
the applicant's architect that they are appealing the ACHD decision scheduled
to be held on the 24th
and would ask to be placed on the first available
agenda following that meeting. So we probably ought to -- need to go ahead
and open --
McKinnon: Commissioner --
Borup: Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Excuse me. Chairman, Commissioners, the posting for this
property was not done correctly. We cannot open the Public Hearing tonight,
so if you could, we just need to re-notice this hearing, so we won't be able to
open it tonight due to the lack of notification.
Borup: Then that makes that easy for me. Has the applicant been notified?
McKinnon: Billy Ray Strite and I have talked today and on the -- it's in the
memo that I sent out to you that should have been in your packets, it talks
about the posting of those and it wasn't taken care of. In talking with Billy Ray
Strite today he wanted me to get back with him tomorrow concerning when
you would like to have it placed on your agenda, that way we can make sure
that the Clerk's Office knows when we will have to re-notice this property.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, it would appear right now that the earliest we would be
able to put on anyway is November 15th
, the second meeting in November,
so -- because that would be adequate time for posting, that would be
adequate for the ACHD comments, so that's the earliest we could do it
anyway.
Borup: Okay. We really don't need a motion on that item or --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would move that we set over the Public Hearing
-- or I guess reset the Public Hearing for CUP 01-028, request for a Conditional
Use Permit for Wendy's and we reset it to the November 15th
, second meeting
of the month, for the Commission.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Okay all in favor?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 26
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 01-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 1 building lot on 2.44 acres in a C-G zone for proposed
Commercial Tire Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – South
Meridian Road and south of the Eight Mile Lateral:
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 01-031 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a tire facility and retail store in a C-G zone for proposed
Commercial Tire Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – South
Meridian Road and south of the Eight Mile Lateral:
Borup: Okay. The next item is Public Hearing PP 01-018, request for
Preliminary Plat of one building lot on 2.44 acres in a C-G zone for proposed
Commercial Tire Subdivision. I'd like to open that Public Hearing and then
accompanying is CUP 01-031, request for Conditional Use Permit for a tire
facility and retail store in a C-G zone for proposed Commercial Tire
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - South Meridian Road. I'd like to
open both Public Hearings and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, as you can see on the overhead
that's above you right now -- excuse me?
Borup: I just noticed that Commissioner Nary stepped out.
McKinnon: Do you want to wait for a moment until he returns?
Borup: Yes. Let's take a short break just right here. We won't leave.
Okay. Go ahead and start the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Chairman Borup. As you can see on the overhead
that we have in front of you, this is the piece of property that's been
hash-marked that's before you tonight. The reason for the Preliminary Plat is
to combine all of the small parcels into one large parcel. The reason why we
are not doing the Preliminary and Final Plat tonight is because there is a
section of roadway that will be dedicated. As you can see Pennwood Street
dead ends into that at the far western corner of the hashed property. That
roadway will be continued through as part of this application. This application
sits right between an apartment complex, you can see on the -- looking north
at the apartment picture and on the southern side of this is John's Alignment,
another car facility, car care facility. On the far northern side of the property
there is a drain ditch right there that separates this property from the
apartment complex. You can see that there are two large evergreens that are
there right now. Those would be retained and held in place as part of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 27
application. As you can see from the site plan that's in front of you right now
and that's been in your packets, there are no direct openings towards the
apartment complex. At this time there are a number of overhead doors and
bays that front out onto Meridian Road. There are some additional overhead
doors that open into the interior of the lot, which would open to Pennwood and
towards John's Alignment. This helps you out with the Landscape Plan. There
is quite a bit of extensive landscaping along the side of the apartments. That
is to try to keep the apartments from having the noise impact that's
accompanied with this type of application. In the staff report just one highlight.
We've asked for an additional conifer tree to be placed in the northeast corner,
so that there is additional landscaping in that area to work as a sound buffer.
Some elevations in front of you showing the overhead doors and the man
doors. I'm sure you've got your staff reports and you have had an opportunity
look at that. We have received one letter. I think it was in your packets, that --
from Lee Centers that had asked for a six-foot wall along the entire length of
the building for soundproofing. As you know in our Landscape Ordinance we
are not -- we would rather see landscaping than the walls. Hopefully
landscaping to provide a buffer that's enough to satisfy those requirements.
However, should the Commission feel the need, fencing is available through
the Landscape Ordinance if the landscaping itself is not sufficient. With that I
turn it over to the Commission for discussion.
Borup: Okay any questions from any Commissioners? If the applicant would
like to come forward.
Boyle: Chairman Borup, fellow Commissioners, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle
Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, Idaho. Tonight I want to hit
on a couple of points related to the Preliminary Plat specifically and if you will
allow at that time I'd like to turn some time over to Dave Blodgett with Rudeen
Associates to address the Conditional Use Permit specifically.
Borup: Let me ask this first. Did you have any questions or concerns from
any of the staff comments?
Boyle: Yes. I wanted to run through a few of those just quickly.
Borup: Okay. It's just -- right now they have recommend approval.
Boyle: Right. I just had a couple of points and these are clarifications more
than anything and basically there are several site specific. First of all, I'm
going to start with item number -- this under the Preliminary Plat, item five, six
seven, and eight are all, I guess in my opinion, redundant with the conditions
of the Conditional Use Permit and they appear to me to be more appropriate
as conditions under the Conditional Use Permit. They are discussing parking
areas and whatnot and, again, as far as the Preliminary Plat itself we are
probably looking at one of Meridian's smallest subdivisions -- plats, I guess -- I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 28
don't know if I'd call it a subdivision or not. Single lot plat. And so with that I
mean just -- the drainage plan -- obviously, since this is a single lot, the
drainage is going to be dealt when the site develops. It's not something where
we are going to end up with multiple lots and whatnot. Parking, the same
thing there as far as off-street parking. A certificate of occupancy shall
not be issued for the building and the subdivision prior to the installation of the
required landscaping. Again, this is a single lot with a Conditional Use Permit
in front of you. That is also stated under the Conditional Use Permit, which it
just seems like there is some --
Borup: As I understand, you -- you feel like those comments ought to be
moved down under the Preliminary Plat, rather than the annexation?
Boyle: We are not requesting annexation we are just requesting a Preliminary
Plat --
Borup: I'm sorry. I mean should be down to the Conditional Use Permit,
rather than the Preliminary Plat is what I'm asking.
Boyle: Those comments, at least as far as I could tell, the majority of those
comments are under the Conditional Use Permit, so it's just kind of stated,
under Conditional Use Permit, as well as under the Preliminary Plat. It just
seemed to be more appropriate to have those under a Conditional Use Permit
and strike them from the Preliminary Plat requirements.
Borup: Okay.
Boyle: That's the only comments. I agree with the staff report otherwise. I
guess, you know, if the Commission sees fit to keep a comment that all
parking areas of circulation be paved, striped, meet minimum dimension
requirements and have that associated with the Preliminary Plat, I don't think
it's going to be necessarily a detriment, again, I just don't know that it's
appropriate comment for it, whereas it's covered under the Conditional Use
Permit, as well as all other ordinances in Meridian. And that's all the
comments I have regarding the Preliminary Plat. Like I said, Dave Blodgett is
here to represent any questions regarding the Conditional Use Permit
specifically and I'm willing to entertain any questions related to the Preliminary
Plat itself.
Borup: Of the 13 items that's listed under the Preliminary Plat were there any
of those that -- do you feel all of those need to move or –
Boyle: No. All I'm saying is I guess I would think that item five, which deals
with the certificate of occupancy and it talks about interior landscaping, which
typically isn't --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 29
Borup: Item five talks about interior landscaping?
Nary: Five and six on the comments on the Preliminary Plat, page six.
Boyle: Under the Preliminary Plat, unless I have the wrong staff report here.
Nary: September 13th
is the one you're looking at?
Boyle: September 13th
.
Norton: From page six?
Borup: Right.
Boyle: Right. Right. You know, it discusses interior landscaping, that same
comment is contained within the Conditional Use Permit site specific for the
interior landscaping. So, again, that is one. Item number one, again, talks
about the landscaping for the Conditional Use Permit. Item number nine
somewhat also addresses the landscaping per the Conditional Use Permit,
just -- anyway, my question would be that item five be struck, because it's
covered under the Conditional Use Permit. Number six and seven dealing
with the parking areas are also covered by site-specific requirements of the
Conditional Use Permit. And item number eight, which is the drainage, the
exact same note, is also under the Conditional Use Permit requirements.
Borup: Well, I'm looking at the staff report incorrectly I think.
Nary: So, Dave, where are those? It would seem similar to the comments
that --
McKinnon: They are similar. The actual Preliminary Plat and the Conditional
Use Permit don't run together. If the Conditional Use Permit is denied the
Preliminary Plat could still be approved and vice-versa. So we went ahead
and put those in both of them. As far as staff is concerned, if there is
duplication and the process does actually go through, I have no problem with
eliminating those, but the reason for this is that we are dealing with two Public
Hearings right now that you have open in front of you and if we adopt one and
denied the other, then it would still have the stand-alone conditions in each
one of those.
Nary: But would it make sense to have stand-alone conditions regarding
parking? If we denied the CUP, the parking would be completely different,
because it would be a different project that they would be putting on it.
McKinnon: I don't know if the comment -- I don't have it in front of me right
now. The comment says, shall be as on the site plan or just the fact that
parking shall be hard surfaced and shall meet ADA requirements.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 30
Nary: It says all parking shall be retained on site for all buildings and
businesses in the subdivision.
McKinnon: That's standard. If it were site specific it would say as submitted
on the site plan.
Nary: Okay. And on number five it says: The Certificate of Occupancy shall
not be issued for the buildings in the subdivision prior to the installation of the
required interior landscaping.
McKinnon: Strike that. That's fine.
Nary: Okay. And then the one that talks about all parking with it shall be
paved, striped, handicapped parking -- I mean that sounds pretty standard.
McKinnon: It is very standard.
Nary: The Drainage Plan the same?
McKinnon: The Drainage Plan, that's standard.
Nary: Okay. So I think -- Mr. Boyle, I think that -- I guess my view is what
they are saying is what Dave is saying, which I agree with, is no matter what
you choose to build there, those types of things are pretty generic, that we
would --
Boyle: And those are covered by your ordinances. I mean we know --
Nary: Yes. So leaving them in probably doesn't -- it doesn't have the same
impact that I think Mr. Steel had in his --
McKinnon: Right.
Nary: -- concern where really it doesn't go on a plat, where it's just -- it's pretty
generic to any other development that would happen there.
Boyle: Yes. Yes. It might come in as, you know, we are subdividing land,
we are not proposing -- I mean we have a Conditional Use Permit, but the
Conditional Use Permit aside, we are subdividing land, we are not proposing
any parking areas, yet we have comments related to paving, off street parking
and whatnot, which I realize this is standard comment, it just doesn't seem to
be applicable when you're platting a piece of land to throw comments in
related to off street parking, when they are already covered by ordinances
when that specific site develops, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 31
Borup: I mean they could have come in with a Preliminary Plat without a
project on.
Nary: Right.
Boyle: Right.
Borup: And it's already zoned. Already annexed.
Boyle: I don't want to get into extensive discussion. If you want to keep them
in there, that's fine. The point was just, you know, we are talking about
off-street parking area. Obviously, if this Preliminary Plat is approved and
somebody goes to construct a project, it's in the City's Ordinances that the
parking areas have to be paved, etc., so even if those requirements were not
placed on a Preliminary Plat you had still get paved parking areas was my only
comment. But we can leave them in if the Commission feels more
comfortable with that. We can leave those in.
Borup: In this situation the project's going through together anyway and
that's --
Boyle: Right.
Nary: I think what Mr. Boyle is saying, which also has some merit as well, is
that is it really necessary to somewhat -- it's a little sloppy to have something
in there tied to a project when, for plat purposes, it isn't necessary. Like you
said, if they just wanted a plat and they had no project to do on it, we would
still approve it and we wouldn't -- we may have no idea if it is going to parking
on it at all, because we don't even know what it would be. So there wouldn't
be a necessity to have that kind of language, because there is already an
ordinance that does.
Boyle: And maybe this is more for even clarification in future projects, but I
mean it's kind of like, you know, keep your dog on a leash within city limits
and placing that as a condition on the plat, you know, obviously, there is
ordinances related to that, it isn't really necessary for the plat. But, again, I
don't want to take a lot of your time discussing the matter, we can leave it on
there it just didn't seem real appropriate to the plat itself.
Borup: Okay any other clarification from the Commission. Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
Borup: And did you say you had someone else if we had questions or -- at
this point I don't know if we have any, do we, Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 32
Nary: On the site specific for the CUP?
Borup: Yes.
Nary: Just on the wall.
Borup: Oh.
Norton: I had a question about --
Borup: Why don't you come on up?
Blodgett: Mr. Chairman, my name is David Blodgett with Rudeen and
Associates, 199 North Capital Blvd., Boise, here representing the applicant
and owner of the project. The hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 o'clock
p.m.
Norton: Seven days a week?
Blodgett: Six days a week.
Norton: Monday through Saturday?
Blodgett: Monday through Saturday. That's correct. We are closed Sunday.
And we have reviewed the application -- or the staff recommendations and we
have no problem what they are saying.
Borup: Could you spell your last name for the record?
Blodgett: It's Blodgett.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes. Mr. Blodgett, still a couple more questions.
Nary: What about this -- the concern that's been addressed here by Mr.
Centers that there is going to be noise and light spillage and the like to those
apartments?
Blodgett: To the adjacent property?
Nary: Yes, sir.
Blodgett: As you see this one right here doesn't represent it as well. Our
basic building is kind of centered on the site. We have over 200 feet of
building along there. We have the basic at the front of the site. We have a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 33
small parking lot for retail customers. At the time of operation there will be --
during those hours there will be cars coming and going. We do have -- we do
have trees along that -- along that area, that first 65 feet or so back off
Meridian Road. The canal is somewhat within about same plane, but I believe
-- my belief would be with the conifer trees and the things that are there, that
that would cover any light spillage, so it isn't continuous throughout the back of
the project. At the back of the project we have a chain-linked area that has
slats on it and whatnot, so that pretty much covers the back and the side. But
we are currently not proposing a solid fence at that first 65 feet and we have
been asked by staff to provide at least one more evergreen at the front and
side and that was in my belief part of that concern, that we can add more
evergreens at the front side of the site.
Nary: What's the nearest apartment to the backside of the building?
Blodgett: What is the nearest apartment?
Nary: Yes.
Blodgett: I cannot answer that question.
Nary: Well, correct me if I'm wrong. Commercial Tire repairs, tire changing --
Blodgett: Right.
Nary: So we have got compressors and air tools and the like?
Blodgett: Correct.
Nary: Okay. So it's my -- my recollection is that those are kind of noisy. They
can be a little bit noisy. I recognize that it is contained in the building.
Blodgett: Yes. All changing of tires and whatnot and repairs will be within
the building, within that front part of the site.
Nary: And I think what I heard Mr. McKinnon say that generally the city favors
landscaping, rather than a concrete wall.
Blodgett: That's correct.
Nary: And I don't disagree with that either. But has there been any study or
attempt to determine how much noise is going to emanate from this business
and how far it's going to go? Because if the property -- if there -- I just don't
know how much distance is between your building, the landscape buffer
behind it, and how much --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 34
Blodgett: Basically the apartments actually occur back to the west part of their
parcel. There is a -- I believe a small house or a building towards the front or
the side.
Nary: Do you know if it's like 200 feet or --
McKinnon: It's not 200 feet.
Nary: Is it 100 --
Blodgett: We are set back about 25 and then we have the canal and then we
also have their driveway. There is the chain link fence that you see there and
their driveway is on the other side of that. So there is approximately I would
say 60 feet between the edge of our building to the nearest residence or
apartment.
Nary: Okay.
Borup: Don't they have a landscape and a driveway?
McKinnon: That is correct.
Blodgett: Right. We have landscaping and there is the canal. We have a
landscape buffer, then a driveway, and then miscellaneous landscape
adjacent to --
Borup: And then the office building for the apartments?
Blodgett: That is correct. That is a small building that is present on the site.
Borup: Do we anything that shows where the first apartment building would be
located in relation to your building?
Blodgett: We didn't provide anything --
Borup: And that appears that also you have no openings at the back of the
building to the north that would be facing the apartments?
Blodgett: We have a few windows that are non-operable for light but no
openings.
Borup: Like windows in a conference area or something.
Blodgett: Yes. That's correct.
Borup: But there is no overhead bays or anything that would be open --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 35
Blodgett: That is correct.
Borup: You need to come on up here to --
Kroll: I'm Kurt Kroll with DPI, I'm a Contractor of this particular project, and the
construction is actually going to be a metal building and what we are going to
have there is -- on the outside it's going to be a metal wall and there is going
to be a vinyl backed batt insulation on the inside and that's going to be open to
the inside of the building and that does a very effective job at sound
attenuation. Typically when you have got a problem with sound going through
a wall it's because the wall is dense and it's a very good conductor of sound.
In this particular instance you have got an open vinyl batt insulation that does
a real good job of capturing all the sounds, you know, that would come, you
know, within the building, like your air compressors, and your air tools. So I
thought I would mention that. Thank you.
Borup: And I don't know if we are done with Mr. Blodgett or not, but any
comments -- it appears to me that -- the concern would be -- if we are looking
at a noise concern, it's going to be coming out of those front bays facing east.
Nary: Right.
Borup: That appears to be the back -- 81 and 36. So, you know, we are 117
feet or so from the road, but we still don't know where that is in relation to the
apartments. The apartments are back quite far, but I don't know how far.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I travel that road twice a day and, if I recall, I think there is tennis
courts or something on that far side, maybe one apartment building, it seems
like. So we are talking about the --
Borup: They have got little water falls and fountains --
Norton: Yes. Hasn't worked since it was put in. Oh, I see what you're
talking about now.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess an important comment. The down side, I think,
to having big stone walls along there that is asked by Mr. Centers is it creates
little dead zones or pockets in there that really don't benefit a whole lot of
people and end up full of weeds or trash and stuff like that and I mean I'm not
sure that that's better than what's being proposed. It may have some
insulation of sound, but we don't have any -- Dave, I don't recall in the City
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 36
Ordinances there is anything dealing with sound decibels and any of that kind
of --
McKinnon: There is not.
Nary: Okay.
Norton: If they could get that water fountain working, then that would --
Borup: That would soften the noise.
Norton: -- soften the noise.
Borup: If anything, the staff has already recommended another tree in there
and beyond that maybe fill in with some smaller bushes in between could have
an effect.
Nary: I had one other question. Mr. Blodgett, you had mentioned there is a
chain link fence. Does that run from east to west along the --
Blodgett: It's not on our property it is on their property. The north side of the
canal.
Nary: So there won't be any fence for this property, it will just be landscaped
trees correct?
Blodgett: That is correct. Because we have -- we can't build anything within a
certain distance off the canal because of the Canal Easement, so we basically
are left with a zone that we are planting trees in, so we kind of kept that as
free and clear of anything as far as that needs maintenance that --
Borup: Is this photo facing west from Meridian Road then?
Blodgett: Yes.
Borup: And your property would be on the left?
Blodgett: The canal on the left. There is a canal access drive right there.
Borup: Okay. There are the two trees that are showing here.
Blodgett: The two existing conifers that are showing up on our plan. You can
kind of see the relation and how much farther -- a little bit north of --
Nary: So if I'm looking at this picture, Mr. Blodgett, those apartments are on
the left of that photograph?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 37
Blodgett: On the right.
Nary: On the other side of that chain link fence.
Blodgett: That's right.
Nary: All right.
Blodgett: There is the landscaping and then the drive and then the office and
then the apartments are to the back of the site.
Nary: Don't those apartments also have like carports or something in front of
them before you get to the building that the apartments are in?
Blodgett: I'm not sure about that.
Borup: The apartments are right here and I can't remember any -- maybe
Commissioner Norton could clarify, but is the first apartment the one way in
the back there? Would that be the closest one to your property?
Norton: I think so.
McKinnon: Chairman Borup that would be the closest one to the property.
However, there are apartment homes that are actually closer to the east. You
can't see it. Those are hidden behind the two large pine trees. If you will take
a look at the bottom right-hand picture you can see that there is some large
pine trees right there. Those are the same two pine trees right there.
Borup: They are across the parking lot.
McKinnon: They are across the parking lot.
Borup: The building would be -- both the one on the back and the one that's
actually closest to --
McKinnon: That is actually closest to the property. That's correct.
Borup: I'm remembering right now.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, we have received a letter from Mr. Centers, who I guess
-- about the apartment, but have those people that live in those apartments
received notice of this or just the property owner?
McKinnon: Just the property owner.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 38
Nary: Okay. As far as that -- I mean we don't know if Mr. Centers has called
his neighbors or anything?
Norton: I believe there was somebody else --
Nary: The property was posted, too right? Okay.
Borup: Did we have anyone else here to testify on this application? It seems
like -- I mean Mr. Centers' main concern was noise.
Nary: Correct.
Borup: So whether the block walls -- really, whether the block wall is going to
affect that or not, is that even a question for us?
Norton: Okay. Also it says that the hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday.
Borup: Okay. So they are closing an hour earlier than they are saying and
opening a half an hour earlier.
Nary: The only difference is 7:00 and 8:00 --
Borup: I would say that's close enough.
Norton: I do, too. Making the comment.
Borup: Any feeling on adding any additional landscape buffering there along
the front?
Blodgett: I think that would be the right thing to do in this instance. I think a
wall is really not the right thing to do. The wall is only going to be six feet high,
what is that going to do acoustic wise? I think a larger tree is going to provide
more acoustic treatment for that and distance. I mean, really, it's based on
distance. And we are working inside, that sound has now got to -- it's going to
come out of the building, now it's got to go 90 degrees to that, because Mr.
Kroll was right, our building will contain and hold some of that sound and keep
that from transmitting through our walls. We are just really now worried about
the openings at the overhead doors at the front that may be open and I would
think that those would really be, you know, minimal type of sounds coming out
of there. So if we added an additional every green type tree to that front side,
along with the existing trees that are on our site and the existing evergreens
that are on the adjacent site and distance, I just don't know what benefit a wall
is going to be, other than just a maintenance issue and it's not -- it doesn't
seem to me it's doing anything more than just giving somebody a comfort level
that is not going to do anything, in reality.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 39
Borup: I agree with that on the wall. I don't think that -- the size the trees are
going in are going to do an awful lot of buffering for a long time. That's why I
wonder about adding some type of shrubs.
Blodgett: Sure.
Borup: I mean between the trees. Fast growing shrubs that could get up and
fill that space between the trunks.
Blodgett: We could work with staff and come up with something. I don't think
there is any problem on our side.
Borup: I think we are just talking that section in the front.
Blodgett: Correct. And we can also go survey what's on the other side of the
site, too. I mean we felt we had adequately handled most of the issues, so we
didn't do a specific survey on where -- what was over there and what was on
our site.
Borup: All right. I guess I'm saying, you know, additional trees along the
building doesn't really serve a purpose as far as sound, so just the area up in
the front corner of the building and in there, is that --
Nary: Additional -- you're not saying eliminate the trees?
Borup: No. No. No. No. No.
Nary: Just not adding more to the side, just putting the additional --
Borup: Well, yes. I'm saying adding shrubs or other stuff along that side
wouldn't really accomplish anything, but on the front I think it would.
Nary: Sure.
Blodgett: Absolutely. Yes. I agree.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: And, Mr. Chairman, I'd also reiterate, I mean I just think having a big
stone wall there -- you will get just as many people coming in here and saying
I'm not in favor of the stone wall either, so -- you know, it certainly can help in
buffering sound, but I do think that adequate landscaping would probably do
the same or pretty close.
Borup: Especially a good size tree.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 40
Nary: Yes.
Borup: Okay any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you. I think I
already asked if we had anyone else and we did not. So Commission?
Nary: I would move to close the Public Hearing.
Norton: Second.
Borup: Motion second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: The applicant pointed out a clerical faux pas. It was a cut and
pasting error on item five -- or, excuse me, page five, site-specific item number
eleven refers to Butte Fence project.
Borup: Oh. That would be a little difficult, wouldn't it?
Freckleton: Yes. Basically if -- on the next page, page six, site specific item
number one, if that comment was verbatim what it says on page six that would
fix that problem. We were cutting and pasting and missed that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Is that under -- that would be probably -- okay.
Item number one just says from existing sewer lines adjacent to the property.
And that was the intention is that right?
Freckleton: Yes, sir.
Borup: Okay. Any other discussion, Commissioners? Are we ready for a
motion?
Nary: Sure. Mr. Chairman, I would move we recommend approval of the PP
01-018, request for Preliminary Plat approval of one building lot on 2.4 acres in
a C-G zone for the proposed Commercial Tire Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, to include all staff comments of the staff report of September 13,
2001, with the following amendments, that under site specific comments
number five be deleted for the Preliminary Plat and just leave it, it don't matter
anyway.
Borup: You're not going to take five through eight out then?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 41
Nary: No. I think five -- I mean five is probably not necessary, I mean it is too
site specific for a Preliminary Plat purpose. The other ones are probably
superfluous and not necessary, but they also don't detract from the plat and
does not limit anything that we are going to do, so I don't see any reason to
eliminate them, six, seven, or eight. I do think they are probably unnecessary,
but I don't think they hinder the applicant at all, so just simply leave them.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: Because I think we need more competition for tires in Meridian, I
second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'll move --
Borup: And that's for the Preliminary Plat.
Nary: Thank you. I will also move to recommend approval of CUP 01-031,
request for Conditional Use Permit for a tire facility and retail store in a C-G
zone for proposed Commercial Tire Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, to also
include all staff comments of September 13th
, with the following amendments,
that the site specific requirement number one include additional landscaping --
landscaping and/or trees to be added to the front -- I guess the westerly --
northwesterly -- northeasterly portion of the property away from the building, to
provide additional sound buffering to the adjacent property to be determined
between the applicant and the staff and that site specific requirement number
11 be amended to simply read sanitary sewer and water services to the site
will be provided by the existing sewer line adjacent to this property and I think
that's it.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Item number 11 and 12 -- oh, item number 11 and 12 we already
handled, so --
Nary: So 7:00 is the time --
Borup: Let's clarify that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting
October 4, 2001
Page 42
Norton: Our agenda listed it wrong. Our agenda listed it at 7:00. Are you
going to add another part -- special meeting?
Berg: The order say 7:00.
Nary: Move to adjourn. I mean the next meeting, October 18th
, starts at 6:00
for the Comprehensive Plan and the regular meeting starts at 7:00?
Borup: Yes.
Nary: Move to adjourn.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:36 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK