2003 05-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 15,
2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, May 15, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, and Michael Rohm.
Members Absent: Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nicholas Wollen, Jessica Johnson,
Brady Hawkins-Clark, Anna Powell, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___O___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___ Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for May 15th
.
Start with roll call of the Commission.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of April 17, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of May 1, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting:
Borup: First item is minutes from April 17th
and May 1st
.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we approve the minutes of the meeting of April 17th
and the minutes
of the meeting of April -- sorry, of May 1, 2003, as stated.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 2 of 30
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: The other item that we may need to discuss would just be the order of the
agenda.
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I had that note also. I guess discussion. I had noted first
on mine that I would recommend moving Item 7 to Item 4, to do a flip flop there, but I
just wonder what the other Commissioners thought.
Zaremba: I have no opinion one way or the other.
Borup: Well, we had continued those first three items until we made a decision on
North Meridian Plan Area, which would -- both would require a Comp Plan change.
Centers: Right.
Borup: And so we could continue them both on together, so --
Centers: I guess it doesn't matter.
Borup: Yes, it does.
Centers: Well --
Borup: I believe and we finished our discussion on the Callister project last time, didn't
we?
Centers: Well, I guess it depends on the action that we take on the Comp Plan
Amendment.
Borup: Right.
Centers: That's what would matter to Item 4, 5, and 6.
Borup: So, do we have a suggestion to move that and do Item 7 first?
Centers: Yes. I would so move. I think it would do more help than harm.
Borup: I don't know if we -- well, yes, are you here for the Callister project. You
remember when we continued it that this needed to be settled first? I don't know if --
did we have anyone else on that project are you neighbors? You weren't here last time
I take it?
Reinhart: Yes.
Borup: Oh, okay. There is really not much -- we still wouldn't be able to move on it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 3 of 30
Zaremba: Can I propose some discussion on that topic?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: The changes cannot be made, except once every six months to the
Comprehensive Plan Map, but we had a discussion in an open meeting that we had
together with the City Council on the fifth Tuesday of last month where we discussed
among ourselves and the City Council that we could rule on things as they came to us
and, then, they would just be saved and given to the Council in two groups.
Borup: Well, I thought we still had to table them, don't we?
Zaremba: We can't make a ruling and have it just sit in a drawer until the six months
has passed?
Borup: We can make a decision.
Zaremba: I had the feeling that it was to just get it off our table if it was something we
were going to decide on, but, then, it had to sit in holding until --
Borup: I think we could do it -- make a decision and keep -- and continue it, close the
Public Hearing, and do everything but the final motion.
Zaremba: So, it still stays in our lap until the six months has elapsed and stays as
relatively an open issue.
Borup: Any further comment?
Wollen: And I believe -- and I can't recall exactly what it is, but the time limitation
between a recommendation and City Council review of an item and --
Centers: Forty-five days.
Wollen: It is 45 days. I guess that it can be tabled and the Commission could take all
testimony, close the Public Hearing, and await a decision on a recommendation until the
entire thing is ready, but that would be my course of action if I were to --
Centers: Well, in -- yes, in thinking about it, Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my
motion, because I think we need to act on these separately and don't be thinking about,
well, if I don't pass one, I can't pass the other or --
Borup: No, I don't think we were thinking that. We just didn't want to do them separate
from each other. I mean if we don't -- if didn't pass -- if we didn't do --
Centers: One without the other.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 4 of 30
Borup: Let's continue ahead --
Centers: Yes.
Borup: -- just like we -- all right. That was the long of saying we will continue as the
agenda is written.
Centers: Yes. So moved.
Item 4. Continued Public Hearing March 26, 2003: AZ 03-002 Request for
annexation and zoning or 19.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for
Callister Development by Dave Callister - Southwest corner of West
Overland Road and South Stoddard Road:
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing March 26, 2003: CUP 03-001 Request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard for an excavation company
and mini-storage facilities on 5.91 acres for Callister Development by
Dave Callister - Southwest corner of West Overland Road and South
Stoddard Road:
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing March 26, 2003: CPA 03-001 Request for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change approximately 12.25 acres of
the site from mixed-use-neighborhood to commercial for Callister
Development by Dave Callister - Southwest corner of West Overland
Road and South Stoddard Road:
Borup: Item 4, 5, and 6 are all three Continued Public Hearings, AZ 03-002, CUP 03-
001, and CPA 03-001. All are a Rezone, Conditional Use Permit, and a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for 12.25 acres for the Callister Development. Again, I'd like to open
the Public Hearing on these three items and is there anything -- additional comments
from staff on this?
Siddoway: Nothing particularly new, but if you'd like, I can go over my understanding of
where the recommendation was sitting at the end of last meeting.
Borup: I think that would help. It's been a month.
Siddoway: Yes. Just to refresh your memory, generally, the application is sited that the
intersection of Overland and Stoddard across from Bear Creek Subdivision and
Queenland Acres. There is an existing Idaho Power substation in the south portion of
that property. You can see the aerial photo there. There is the Hardin Drain that
courses across the property. They have submitted a request for annexation and
zoning, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order to
allow the uses that they are requesting. I have some site photos I can go through very
quickly. The existing residence to the south of the power substation, Bear Creek
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 5 of 30
Subdivision directly across, standing at the Hardin Drain looking north along Stoddard
into the main part of the site where the mini storage will sit in the foreground and in the
mid ground would be where the contractor's yard would be. Here is a photo of the
Hardin Drain as it exists, and portions of the site closer to Overland. Get back to the
Site Plan. If you have the staff report, dated March 26th
, I would just go through briefly
the additional considerations. There were four of them. One, the lot split. It was being
questioned or trying to determine if the lot split that would divide the property along the
Hardin Drain had been finalized and approved. We believe that it has been done. The
applicant submitted to me an exhibit showing two separate parcel numbers. We would
like to get a formal letter from Ada County stating that that has taken place and is
recognized legally. Item Number 2 is the substation landscaping. I do have a letter
here from Idaho Power. I guess at the last hearing they were talking about potentially
having the landscaping in on the Idaho Power substation site by May 15th
, which is
today. It's not in, but they apparently have recently secured the approvals to tap into
the adjacent pressurized irrigation system and bore the line underneath Stoddard and
begin that process. They are now anticipating that it will be done within the next month
and the application -- or the applicant has no problem with the condition of approval
currently -- the way it's currently written that says no COs will be given to the
contractor's yard until the landscaping is in place on the Idaho Power site. That should
be in, in time for that, but that gives us the ability to make sure it gets done. The Hardin
Drain, the applicant is currently proposing not to tile that. It will be ultimately up to
Council, as they will be requesting a waiver, and, then, Item Number 4 dealt with some
discrepancies in the project acreage. It's my understanding that they did clear that up
and noted that, for the record, the 19.79 acres is the actual parcel acreage per their --
an actual field survey and the 21.16 acres is the actual annexation acreage, because it
does include some right of way to the center line. Going through the site-specific
requirements of the Conditional Use Permit, beginning on Page 12, I believe Number 1
there were no changes to. Number 2 dealt with the proposed fences around the
perimeter. The staff report requests that they fence the entire perimeter of the project
with sight obscuring fencing, adding slats. It's my understanding that the discussion at
the last hearing was to slat the north, east, and west sides, but since the south was only
open to the substation, that that may not have to be slatted. That would be one thing
that needs some discussion and decision by the Commissioners. Skipping down to
Number 5 the second sentence says that the applicant shall propose a maximum height
for the monument sign for approval by the Commission. The applicant is proposing a
10-foot height, so the Commission will need to make a decision. That is, you know, half
of the freestanding height of the proposed C-G zone that they are requesting. It's still a
very tall monument sign, so you can weigh that and determine if that's appropriate.
Skipping down to Item Number 7, it's my understanding that the word looped, which is
in parenthesis in the middle of that paragraph, was to be struck. On the next page, Item
9 there has been discussion of the policy to pave the areas within the contractor's yard
that are used for vehicular access. They are showing some covered parking, as well as
access to the shop, that we know will be -- will be driven on. It's my understanding that
there was some discussion about recycled asphalt, potentially, or other things that will
need some decision. Right now as written this requires that it be paved. Number 10, I
guess, was one of the major sticking points, which is the proposed driveway off of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 6 of 30
Overland. It currently is an access used by Idaho Power or was initially, at any rate, to -
- during construction and there was some discussion among the Commission at the last
meeting that questioned if Idaho Power would be okay with that access not being there.
I do have a letter just sent today that I can add into the record from -- on Idaho Power
letterhead that says the Idaho Power Company substation people see no need to
maintain the existing road and it was built mainly for access to the substation site during
construction. However, we do have a power line adjacent to the subject road and the
access to the line property is being sold as 75-foot easement in this area. They need
access for potential maintenance, but do not intend to use it regularly as an access. I
believe that the condition as written on Number 10 should remain in effect. If the
applicant uses the access to access the property, that the drive should be paved, that
the area adjacent to it should be landscaped. If, however, the applicant decides not to
use that access and does not put in a gate, then, the condition would not kick in. I
believe that's it. Item 13 asks for a revised site and Landscape Plan. One has not been
submitted at this time, so the question will be any changes that are to be made, are you
comfortable sending this on to Council and having staff review those before the meeting
or would you like it to come back to this body first. With that, I will stand for any
questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I would comment first that I apologize for not being at the meeting on March
26th
, but I have read all the minutes and I think I'm up to date on what was there. One
question, though. On the access road -- and there was quite a bit of discussion about
that at the March 26th
meeting. If they choose not to use it, isn't the alternative that it
needs to be landscaped, that it can't just be abandoned, right?
Siddoway: The landscaping is required adjacent to any vehicular use areas so, the
road itself would certainly kick in the requirement --
Zaremba: But wouldn't there be a landscape -- if it's not a road, then, there is a
landscape buffer requirement between this and adjoining properties.
Siddoway: Yes. You're right. I don't believe I pointed that out, but that would be
correct.
Zaremba: So, it either needs to be a road with landscaping or landscaping without road
is that --
Siddoway: Yes but under the -- if they didn't use the road, the landscaping would not
necessarily have to be done adjacent to Phase 3, which is a future phase, which in the
annexation conditions we are proposing a Non-Development Agreement be required for
Phase 3. That the landscape improvements around the perimeter of that site be tied to
any development in any portion of Phase 3. It would affect a smaller segment adjacent
to just the contractor's yard.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 7 of 30
Zaremba: My only other comment was I did not notice being mentioned into the record
that there had been a letter received from a Dr. Robert F. Beede, possibly, Beede or
Beede, of Intermountain Pet Hospital, who is across Overland Road from this project
and wasn't apparently very thrilled about it. My guess is at the current design, the
nearest thing to his property is going to be the storage yard, but there will eventually be
something else between him and there that would totally block his view and I'm not sure
when that design comes up for review, it could be made attractive and in the style of his
building or something like that, is that --
Siddoway: Sure. Mr. Beede's property is across Overland Road to the northeast. The
portion of the subject property that's directly across the road is the future phase three,
which will remain undeveloped today. He would be looking across this undeveloped
portion at a six foot, slatted, chain link fence in this location.
Zaremba: But, eventually, whatever is built on the Overland side of what we are talking
today --
Siddoway: Will be between --
Zaremba: -- would block his view and it's more likely to be something like offices or
some commercial that would be more attractive to him.
Siddoway: That's correct.
Borup: Any other questions?
Rohm: Yes, Mr. Chairman, back to this road along the west line. Currently, is it a
dedicated road by description through Ada County or is it a right of way for maintenance
of the transmission line?
Siddoway: I'll give you my understanding and we do have Andrea Tuning in the
audience who wrote the ACHD staff report on this, so we may be able to get some
insight from her. It was initially granted as a temporary access for Idaho Power to
access their substation. Callister applicants, then, did go in and go through a variance
process with ACHD to get it dedicated as a permanent access, not just a temporary
one. That has been approved by Ada County Highway District, so it's currently a
permanently dedicated access point.
Centers: And Callister petitioned ACHD for that?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Thank you.
Rohm: Well, it seems to me, then, if it's a dedicated access, then, by definition, it's a
road and would need to be landscaped.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 8 of 30
Siddoway: If it's used for a road, it needs to be landscaped.
Rohm: Well, yes, and paved.
Siddoway: And paved. Yes.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Anything else, Commissioners? Mr. Boyle, do you have anything you'd like to
add?
Boyle: Commissioners, Clint Boyle, Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in
Boise. I just have to say Steve did a great job summarizing. I think the points pretty
much followed the notes that I had on that, so I appreciate that, and, hopefully, I can
clarify just a couple of factors tonight, because I believe we are in agreement with the
majority of the staff comments and Andrea Tuning from the Highway District is here and
can come up and answer questions as well. What I wanted to hit on, first of all, is with
regards to this driveway I think is how I'd rather phrase this existing access drive that
extends along the west boundary back to the Idaho Power site. That is not a dedicated
right-of-way -- public right-of-way or even a private roadway. Essentially, what that is, is
an existing driveway that was granted by ACHD to Idaho Power to assist in the initial
construction of the actual substation and getting equipment in and out of there and
installing the transmission lines and whatnot that they needed to get extended out to
Overland Road.
Borup: Mr. Boyle, are you saying, then, what was really granted was access to
Overland?
Boyle: Correct. What we approached ACHD on was to change -- this is with the
Callister development -- to change the temporary restriction, because ACHD's report
specifically states that at a point in time when any other development occurs on the
property, they lose that access to Overland. We petitioned ACHD to keep that access
in place with the impression that we would be able to utilize that as a secondary access
into the contractor's yard. Now, that was prior to our knowledge that the developer
would be required to pave that road, install landscaping, and trees along the road. At
this point in time we -- after the last Commission Meeting, we went back to Idaho Power
and that's where this new letter that Steve submitted into the record tonight came from,
was specific conversations that I had them determining whether or not they still needed
to utilize that driveway. The response -- and my understanding from them is that they
do not need to utilize that driveway for any sort of access to the substation site. They
are comfortable with the access off of Stoddard Road. The only reason that they would
be driving through that area -- and they will maintain a power easement through that
area -- would just surely be for the maintenance of the transmission line, if and when
they ever needed to do any sort of maintenance function on the transmission line that
runs along that west property line. It would be no different than any other public utility
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 9 of 30
easement where they want to be able to get in there and maintain those lines. As far as
it functioning as any sort of access way for them for the substation, they do not need it.
With respect to the staff report, the option that I discussed with Steve and that we would
present to this Commission is just leaving potentially some language within that site-
specific item that allowed the developer the option, if he were to utilize the roadway as
an access, he would -- the roadway -- the driveway is what I'd call it.
Centers: Yes, I'd call it a driveway.
Boyle: We will call it a driveway.
Centers: What's the width of that driveway, Mr. Boyle? I can't find the scale.
Boyle: I'd have to scale it off.
Centers: I can't -- oh, here we go. Go ahead.
Boyle: If we were to utilize the driveway, then, the developer would be required, as the
staff indicates, to pave and landscape along it. However, the other option that he would
like in there is if he does not utilize that driveway. In other words, he does not install a
gate for that driveway he does not utilize it in any manner or fashion, that he would
have the option of basically leaving the site without doing the paving improvements and
the landscaping improvements. It would be an either/or. If he utilizes the drive and
leaves the gate into the contractor's yard, then, he would be required to do the
improvements. If he's not using it and has no intention of using it, that there would not
be that requirement for the paving and landscaping and that would be something that
staff can verify through the permitting process. Obviously, come in and have the gate
removed and just the fencing in, if he were not going to utilize that.
Zaremba: One thing I didn't have from the previous discussion was all the visuals so let
me clarify for me.
Boyle: Sure.
Zaremba: The gate you're talking about is on the back and the west end of the
contractor's yard?
Boyle: Correct.
Zaremba: And you want to figure out some way to make that optional?
Boyle: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 10 of 30
Borup: The gate seems to be the key feature. I mean is the gate either in or not. If it's
a solid fence, then, he's not going to be using the access.
Boyle: Right.
Borup: If the gate's in, we can assume that he is.
Boyle: Right.
Borup: You looked confused, Commissioner.
Rohm: Well, if the road is there -- if the driveway is there and --
Boyle: Which it already is.
Rohm: Which it already is.
Boyle: Right.
Rohm: What's to prevent the use of that driveway, whether it's called a driveway, a
roadway, or any other thing, whether there is a gate in fence or not?
Borup: Because he wouldn't be able to get to his property. His property is fenced all
around the perimeter.
Rohm: I think the concern is that the driveway will be utilized to ingress this whole
parcel of ground, whether it's to the area to be developed or not. I kind of get that
sense and that's the concern that --
Borup: Okay. I guess I didn't have any concern with that. When that phase three is
ready to be developed, they are going to petition for some kind of Overland access
point at that time and I assume ACHD will determine whether that one goes or stays
and whether the new one can -- would be granted.
Rohm: Well, it just seems to me that if, in fact, it's not going to be used, then, let's
vacate it and do away with the temporary access and, then, it's not an issue. The utility
company has ingress-egress to their transmission line via the description of the line
itself and so they don't need a temporary designation to get in and out and, then, it's a
non-issue.
Borup: What Mr. Boyle is saying is that the applicant may want to use that and, if he
does, then, he'll pave the road and pave the driveway and have a gate to access the
back part his yard, otherwise, it will, essentially, be abandoned.
Zaremba: It seems to me the only thing that's really flexible here is whether it's paved
or not, because there is going to need to be landscaping under either scenario.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 11 of 30
Borup: Well --
Zaremba: Am I understanding that correctly?
Borup: Not necessarily on Phase 3.
Zaremba: Phase 3 landscaping doesn't need to be done right now, but eventually it will.
Boyle: Commissioners, if I might try to shed some light on that. My understanding from
the staff report was that if the roadway was paved, the landscaping would be required
from Overland Road all the way back to the contractor's site. If the roadway is not
paved and it's just left as is, we are just installing landscaping right adjacent to the little
tip of the contractor's yard. There is a difference in landscaping, a pretty substantial
amount. Phase 3 is going to come in and landscaping is going to go in and access
points, like Commissioner Borup indicated, obviously, there is probably going to be
some petitions for some accesses onto Overland Road for that phase three. Phase 3
right now is tied up with the sewer extension, the Black Cat sewer extension, so that's
going to be a parcel that's, essentially, in holding until the sewer gets there.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boyle, on your Site Plan that we have, you do call it an
existing access road. There is no reference to driveway.
Boyle: Right.
Centers: And the way I scale it, it's a scale one inch equals 600 feet. That so-called
driveway is about 200 feet. Why? If your scale is correct.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the one-inch equals 200 -- or 600 feet is for the vicinity map
in the corner.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: The actual Site Plan is one inch equals 60 feet.
Centers: It's 60 feet?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Per inch?
Siddoway: Right.
Centers: Okay. I get that road to be about 30 feet, then 25 feet. That's a wide
driveway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 12 of 30
Siddoway: That is a driveway. That's a two-way driveway in our ordinance.
Centers: Okay.
Boyle: And, I apologize, that is a driveway, a matter of semantics there. Shouldn't be
labeled a road, because it is not dedicated as such.
Borup: A designated road would need a 50-foot right of way, wouldn't it?
Boyle: Yes.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if it simplifies things at all, staff is not trying to push the issue
that it's a road. We would agree that it's a driveway access and I, actually, think the
option makes some sense that, you know, if they choose to use that access, then, it has
to be paved and landscaped and everything and if they do not, if they simply fence it off
and there is no access, then, it wouldn't need to be paved, it would just stay as an
access for Idaho Power only at that point through their easement.
Centers: My personal opinion there, Mr. Siddoway, is that you're looking at
enforcement problems, if they choose -- I mean either/or, could there be a gate put
there with a padlock lock on it held by Idaho Power?
Rohm: On Overland you're saying?
Centers: Is that possible? Yes, on Overland, and then if they come back and they
decide they want to use that --
Borup: Well, there is no fence on Overland. You'd have a gate with no fence.
Centers: There is no fence?
Siddoway: No. There is no fence.
Centers: Right. That wouldn't work.
Boyle: There is an irrigation -- or some sort of lateral along Overland, so I guess you
could have a gate that ran to the -- where the lateral was open and --
Centers: I guess my question is -- my question is why hasn't the applicant decided
whether they are going to use that or not? Yes or no.
Boyle: Okay. If that's what it comes down to with the Commission, no, he is not going
to use it. He is not going to use it.
Centers: Because you don't want to do the landscaping.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 13 of 30
Boyle: Because -- well, paving and the landscaping along the entire length.
Centers: And I think that's a decision you should come to, because you have the
Stoddard access, as the Chairman stated earlier, when you develop Phase 3 you're
going to need different access, so let's just -- are there any other parts of the report that
you want to talk about, Mr. Boyle?
Zaremba: On that subject, I would say we should state it that there will be no opening
or gate in that west fence.
Boyle: Fair enough.
Centers: Good point along the -- right next to the Hardin Drain.
Zaremba: Right.
Borup: So, the rest of the staff report today you're in agreement with?
Boyle: The only other item was there was some discussion from the Commission about
the type of service within the contractor's yard itself and, from what I recall,
Commissioner, Chairman Borup, there was some discussion about being able to utilize
recycled asphalt within those vehicular use areas.
Centers: Those were my notes, too.
Borup: I had that written down. We did discuss that. I don't know -- did we reach a
final decision?
Rohm: I think that was the consensus.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I'd agree to that.
Borup: Now, one of the items on here was that the revised plans would be submitted
10 days prior to the next Public Hearing.
Boyle: Right.
Borup: Which would have been 10 days ago.
Boyle: Right. That specific -- and I don't remember. I believe we had some discussion
on that, but maybe we did. That specific item, one of the main reasons that we haven't
done that is because, obviously, we are still in the discussion on paving the road,
landscaping adjacent to that roadway, and there was some issues as to requirements
within the contractor's yard. We certainly are willing to submit a revised plan, we just
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 14 of 30
didn't want to be going back and forth with a bunch of changes and we will
accommodate that before City Council.
Borup: I guess that's true. Steve, was that -- the revisions were mainly pertaining to
the required landscaping if the driveway went in?
Siddoway: That and there is going to be a minor shift in order to accommodate the
ACHD right of way -- or future right of way, there is going to be a two foot shift to the
west. We also needed to verify that the actual width of the street buffer along there was
20 feet, because I was scaling it at 18, but in talking with Clint, I understand that's
probably just a copying error and they had drawn it at 20. Nonetheless, it will be a
minor shift. That will create some minor shifts, you know, ripple effects down with the
buildings and it's showing in the storage facility, to maintain the 20 free and clear
access around the buildings, et cetera, that are talked about in the report. There were
some minor -- minor site tweaks. Plus, showing the -- you know, any areas to be paved
within the contractor's yard or recycled asphalt or whatever this Commission requires.
The screened fencing should be noted in the locations that it would be noted, but things
like that.
Zaremba: Not to be picky on semantics, but this, actually, is the same hearing it's not
the next hearing yet? It was just continued. Let me ask two things that I don't think
have been discussed. In the contractor's yard is there likely to be storage of flammable
liquids, tanks, anything like that? Are they planning any gasoline supplies or tanks of oil
or --
Boyle: That I do not know the answer to. Commissioner Borup may know more about
the functions in a contractor's yard. I know that, mainly, it's primarily for equipment type
storage.
Borup: What type of contractor?
Boyle: Excavation.
Zaremba: Storage and maintenance, I think.
Boyle: Yes. They will do some maintenance in the shop that's on the backside of the
office there. I don't know what extent.
Zaremba: And I'm not absolutely certain that makes any difference. I guess my
question for staff is, is there any special requirement if there is going to be flammable
tanks and --
Siddoway: They are performance standards in zoning ordinance that address storage -
- bulk storage or flammable materials. Certainly, the Fire Department would have
specific regulations related to that as well.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 15 of 30
Zaremba: So, we don't need to reference them, necessarily, in what we do?
Borup: The only thing I can see is maybe some diesel, which is not real flammable.
Zaremba: New subject discussing the 10-foot monument sign. You're aware of sight
triangles and the safe distance from the driveway and stuff and where that would be
located?
Boyle: Yes.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I had a question for staff. Would you okay with the Item
Number 13, you know, the revised Site Plan and Landscaping Plan being submitted
prior to Council?
Siddoway: Yes. I hate making a call on that, because I know that Council really likes
the Commission to sign off on them, but they are fairly minor shifts, you know, separate
from the landscape issue, depending on how that's resolved. We could review it before
Council.
Borup: I would be comfortable with -- I mean it's just -- it's pretty minor. At the most you
may lose a foot or two on a building. I don't know.
Boyle: Commissioners, the layout is primarily what -- what you see here is what you're
going to have, other than some call-outs within the storage area. Like Steve
mentioned, a two-foot shift to accommodate the required landscaping along Stoddard,
with ACHD's right-of-way requirements. The buildings may shift by a couple of feet to
the west from what you see there. They may have some minor adjustments, but --
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Commission may want to hear from Andrea on
the status of that driveway access if it is not used by this applicant. It sounds like it may
go away if it's not used by this applicant.
Borup: Anything else you want to --
Boyle: I believe that covered it all. Just, again, request your approval of the item and
move us forward onto Council. Thank you.
Borup: And maybe just to -- maybe while you're up here, summarize -- talking about
screening on three sides, a 10-foot monument sign, that there would not be a certificate
of occupancy until landscaping was done on Idaho Power. Then, it sounds like we are
in consensus on the recycled asphalt. Was there anything else that was missed? Does
that sound like that covers it?
Boyle: That covers it, other than just moving us forward.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 16 of 30
Boyle: The Site Plan.
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Requiring no gate in the west fence.
Boyle: Right.
Zaremba: Opening or gates in the west fence. Well, that doesn't preclude someday
when they develop the third phase, they could make an opening in that fence.
Centers: Well, yes, but they have to come back at that time, anyway.
Zaremba: Right.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did you have something you'd like to add, Andrea?
Tuning: Good evening, Commissioners Andrea Tuning, for the record, Ada County
Highway District, planning and development staff. I do have a little bit of historical
perspective. I have seen this as a county application, as well as a City of Meridian
application. When I originally reviewed the application as part of the county for the
Idaho Power substation, we did approve an access that was temporary on Overland
Road, which is labeled on your Site Plan as the access roadway. Now, that temporary
access roadway was approved on a temporary basis and it was specifically noted by
our ACHD commission that that roadway would be eliminated with the development of
any -- of the additional parcel as it came in for development. When Clint Boyle did bring
the Callister property forward for the contractor's yard, we did evaluate that and the
commission determined because they were proposing an access, we would require the
access to meet our district policy, which would require that roadway to shift a little bit to
the east, which would align with the driveway that's located across the street. If the
Callister property is not going to take access via that driveway, then, that driveway will
be eliminated and no access will be taken, whether it be from the Callister property or
Idaho Power and Clint Boyle should submit a revised Site Plan to ACHD, so that that
can be noted in the ACHD staff report.
Borup: Thank you.
Rohm: There you have it. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this
application?
Reinhart: My name is Jackie Reinhart I live at 1055 West Overland Road. I have the
property adjacent to the west of the proposed site. I guess as a -- you know, a farm --
we are that little red square right there. Yes, and all the land down. We are concerned
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 17 of 30
as far noise and fencing. We have got horses, children, worried about the dust with the
road issue and so on and the landscaping, just kind of as homeowners, kind of
concerned as to what it's going to do to our property and the noise and so on.
Borup: So, you like the idea of that road being eliminated, then?
Reinhart: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: I suspected that. Just curious. During construction of the substation when
Idaho Power Company used the road, was that a big issue at that time? Was there a
lot of dust and --
Reinhart: When they put equipment on the site -- or on all the acres, they didn't move it
very far. It was there, it was worked, the substation is at the far end of the property, you
get dust in the road as they go up and down, but most of the equipment actually stayed
on this 19 acres, where people would come and go to the site, but the equipment never
left the site until it was all done, so that was not a real big --
Rohm: It wasn't a huge issue?
Reinhart: No, it wasn't.
Rohm: Thank you.
Reinhart: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on these three items be continued
until the end of this meeting.
Borup: Are we still keeping the hearing open?
Zaremba: I was.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Until we decide whether we need to -- it depends on what we do with Item 7,
I believe.
Centers: It has no bearing on it, in my opinion.
Borup: No, it doesn't. That's why I asked. We can close the Public Hearing and move
on.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 18 of 30
Centers: They are both separate issues.
Zaremba: Well, they are totally separate, except that we can't pass one onto the City
Council --
Centers: Sure, you can.
Zaremba: If we pass it on to City Council, then, the other one has to happen.
Borup: Right. I don't think we want to make a motion on a recommendation, but we
can close the Public Hearing, I believe.
Centers: Yes. I think you're -- excuse me, but --
Zaremba: I withdraw my motion.
Borup: Well, no, I was going to say that we could go ahead and let's vote on the
motion. Well, we don't have a second, do we?
Zaremba: It dies for lack of a second.
Centers: I think -- of course, we are able to discuss here. I think you're thinking that if
we don't pass one, we can't pass the other, you must pass them both, or something like
that. They are two separate issues totally.
Borup: No, we just can't pass this month and another the next month.
Centers: Totally. I understand that. If one is passed and one is denied, the one that is
denied has to wait six months before it can come back. You know, I'd like to proceed
and -- yes, I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Well, unless we continue one.
Zaremba: Well, I agree that --
Borup: That's really the only issue.
Zaremba: I don't see any purpose in continuing this one. The only reason I would
continue this one is to keep the two Comprehensive Plan changes running in sync, but
I'd also agree with the argument that there is, really, no relation between these two and
one shouldn't hold the other one up.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: I can go either way.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 19 of 30
Centers: I think that thinking there is too much inference on what we might do on the
next issue, which is totally separate. I'm in favor of acting on this and moving forward.
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on all three
items, 4, 5, and 6.
Centers: I second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: So, do you want to make a motion right now?
Centers: Yes. I would like to, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering, really, if we shouldn't --
both -- all three items are open. Shouldn't we act on Item 6 first or does it matter?
Siddoway: I believe it would be prudent to. That's the Comp Plan amendment and the
zone that's requested would not be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan without
the amendment being made.
Centers: Thank you for your agreement. Then, I would make the motion that we
recommend approval on Item 6, which is a request for a Comp Plan Amendment to
change approximately 12.25 acres of the site from mixed-use neighborhood to
commercial for Callister Development by Dave Callister at the southwest corner of West
Overland Road and South Stoddard Road, including all staff comments. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: And, then, Item 4, I would recommend that we recommend approval to the
City Council -- or make the motion for Item 4, which is AZ 03-002. A request for
annexation and zoning of 19.79 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Callister
Development by Dave Callister, southwest corner of West Overland Road and South
Stoddard Road, including all staff comments from the memo dated March 26th
. End of
motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 20 of 30
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: I would make the motion that we recommend approval for Item 5, which is
CUP 03-001, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard for an
excavation company and mini storage facilities on 5.91 acres for Callister Development
by Dave Callister at the southwest corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard
Road. Including all staff comments, and as amended from their memo dated March
26th
, Item 2, Page 13, the proposed fences around the entire perimeter of the
contractor's yard shall have no entrances other than the one on Stoddard Road. It shall
be of a sight obscuring nature, other than the fence along the Hardin Drain. Wasn't that
our -- yes? Item 3 -- and maybe the staff can help me here. We had -- at our last
hearing we had crossed out: This will require a license agreement with ACHD and I
had noted: Or otherwise required by the ACHD -- or as otherwise required and I think
that would still be applicable, wouldn't it?
Siddoway: That would be just fine. The landscape ordinance does require that and we
have been requiring the 10-foot gravel shoulder without any problems for the last
couple of years.
Centers: So, that would be part of it. Item Number 5, the sign, 10-foot maximum. Item
Number 7 we have crossed out the word looped in that paragraph. Item Number 9 on
Page 14, we would cross out or line out beginning with the sentence. This will require
the access road off of Overland and all areas within the contractor -- just cross out the
words up to Overland, which would be eight words. The contractor's yard, recycled
asphalt would be acceptable. Item Number 10, replace that whole paragraph, applicant
has stated they will not use, and insert that verbiage regarding the access off Overland
Road and is -- shall be abandoned by application from the applicant to ACHD correct?
End of motion.
Zaremba: I will second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Steve, did something need to be added
at this point about the C of O prior to landscaping or would that automatically be
entered -- handled by the building department?
Siddoway: Let me check just a second. I believe that's already been in the -- the
annexation conditions. Just a second I guess go ahead and add it. I'm not finding it, so
-- I know it's in here somewhere, but I would just go ahead and add it into the site-
specific conditions for the Conditional Use Permit.
Centers: So included.
Zaremba: Second accepts.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 21 of 30
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from March 26, 2003: CPA 03-002 Request
for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to include the Land Use Map
and a Text Amendment to include Mixed Use Village standards as
proposed by the North Meridian Area planning effort and adoption of a
new Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning designation,
development of a Capital Improvement Program and adoption of a Park
Plan - by Wardle & Associates.
Borup: Okay. That concludes -- okay. Next, Item Number 7 is a Continued Public
Hearing, CPA 03-002, request for Comprehensive Plan Map amendment pertaining to
the North Meridian Area Land Used Map and Text Amendment in the proposed North
Meridian Planning Area. Open this continued hearing and start with the staff report.
Powell: Gentlemen of the Commission tonight and Chair, we have a couple different
tactics we can take tonight and just trying to get a feel for you before we go into a
lengthy discussion of the updated staff report. We did add some information in your
staff report and, hopefully, you had a chance to read that update. Basically, once I got a
chance to review just Section B of the North Meridian Area Plan, which is the section
we were -- had kind of whittled down as to what we were looking at, at this point, I had
some concerns about how that would be implemented with the existing Comprehensive
Plan and our Zoning Ordinance. In talking with the applicant, if the Commission is
willing to, he is willing to withdraw the application, if the Commission would, then, direct
staff to include components of that within the existing Comprehensive Plan. The
options tonight are: I can go through, in detail, Section B and explain why we have the
concerns about it or I can go through Section B in detail and explain how we could
incorporated that into the Comprehensive Plan, or we can do both if you'd like. Or you
can withdraw the application and we can come back at another time to discuss which
option you want to do as far as what components of that you want to take forward.
Now, the applicant is, obviously, probably not too comfortable withdrawing it until he is
fairly certain that some components of that may go forward. I guess at this point I need
a little direction from you on what you would like for me to present and I'm sorry if this is
a bit confused.
Borup: Oh, I understand and one direction may be -- and this is maybe a little bit
backwards, but I'm thinking in the interest of time, would it perhaps save some time if
we had Mr. Wardle express his --
Powell: That would be fine with --
Borup: How he felt first and, then -- you say he has had a chance to talk with staff?
Powell: Yes and he's --
Borup: So, that may -- Commissioners, does that sound all right?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 22 of 30
Zaremba: Well, I would only comment to both that -- the director and Mr. Wardle, that at
some point, ultimately, I would like to see some sort of matrix of what needs to change,
both in the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances. I think that would smooth our way
quite a bit. I know I have said before that I like this plan, you know, maybe a few details
here and there, but I would hate to see it totally withdrawn, but I do think there are some
more things we'd like to see, so that being said --
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mike Wardle, 4940 East Mill
Station Drive in Boise. I did spend a fairly lengthy session with staff, Mrs. Powell, Mr.
Siddoway, and Mr. Hawkins-Clark, to talk about these issues. Essentially, the questions
you're asking, Commissioner, about, you know, a matrix of at least the mixed-use
components that have been proposed. In talking with Mrs. Powell today, in looking at --
basically it's on Page 10 of your staff report, the very last paragraph, says that, you
know, the first would be to table the items to allow the applicant to address the
implementation concerns noted in this report. The second possible action would be to
ask the applicant to withdraw and, then, direct staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan
amendment to incorporate the desired portions of the applicant's proposal. The third
would be to deny outright. In fact, I talked with Mr. Turnbull today, who was the co-chair
representing the development community that sat as co-chair with the elected officials
for the stake holder sponsor group and he concurred that, frankly, it was probably the
more appropriate action for the withdrawal, so that the staff could bring it forward and
put it into the context that would fit more directly. Frankly, we didn't even approach it
that way, we brought forward thoughts, recommendations, and concepts that we knew
somehow had to be codified and incorporated. From our perspective, we support the
idea of withdrawing. Staff, I'm confident, is not going to drop this ball and ignore it,
because there are some issues that even Mrs. Powell indicated she believes need to be
considered on the citywide perspective, not just North Meridian. I, frankly, would like to
go home this evening and not spent a lot of time, but withdraw the application, let staff
sit down and commence a process where we work with them and make certain that the
issues of concern to the developers and those expressed by the elected officials
previously do get addressed. It comes forward in a form that makes it cohesive and
coherent with the Comprehensive Plan format that you already have and, then, it
becomes a much easier thing for you to deal with. I would --
Borup: You're saying Item Number -- Option Number 2?
Wardle: Option Number 2 and would be more than willing to take that course of action.
If you wanted to allow us to withdraw, we would just go forward and I have had several
long days that I don't need to spend the night and I'm sure you wouldn't mind getting
out and watching a total eclipse of the sun. Moon.
Centers: Mr. Wardle, I am excited to hear you talk about that, because I had highlighted
that option on my staff report that I read and, you know, the time and effort you have put
into this is just -- you know, many, many hours and that's the way I looked at it, that,
hopefully, the staff will take this and take all of your good ideas and suggestions from
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 23 of 30
the developers and the community and move forward and come back with a total
package that incorporates all of your hard work and good ideas and get it done with,
because I think item one -- or option one, we would just be continuing and, you know --
so, I applaud you and I thank you very much for that, because that was an option that I
wanted the staff to pursue and -- because I think staff has to be happy. That's what
they are hired for and --
Wardle: Mr. Chair, I want to object. I have never seen a Commission that wants to
make staff happy.
Zaremba: We like our staff.
Wardle: Well, I like your staff as well. Frankly, this is all new ground for us. I mean this
is a very unique process and we weren't exactly certain how to approach it, so we filed
an application to at least get something started, but I do have confidence in your staff.
Your staff has developed over the years and has a lot of talent and I think insight and so
we are not at all uncomfortable in going that direction and would just sit down and let
you --
Centers: Good.
Zaremba: I would like to comment that I attended what were probably some of the first
meetings of the Meridian area plan planning meetings and I know the Wardle’s and Mr.
Wardle, in particular, have been involved a long time. I learned from reading the
minutes of the last meeting that you're being paid for this as much as we are being paid
for this, pro bono, and I would like to add my thanks for all your time and good thought
that has gone into this. I think there are some very good ideas in here that do need to
be incorporated into Meridian's plan and I would very happy if they don't get dropped,
even if that means withdrawing in its present form the current application. I do think it
presents some things we need to move forward with, some of which are very important.
It's clear that the North Meridian area is going to grow and maybe grow quicker than
some of the projections that are being made by the official groups. We need to get on
the map the input into what makes those projections, some of that input comes from our
Comprehensive Plan. If we make these changes to our Comprehensive Plan, then,
some of the growth projections will change, the growth projections that Compass makes
would change as a result of that and I think we do need to make that happen as well. I
thank you for your time and hope it doesn't stop.
Borup: Any other comments by any Commissioners? I -- and that was -- frankly, that's
why I asked Mr. Wardle to maybe speak first, anticipating that it may affect our time.
Rohm: Considerably, I believe.
Zaremba: The eclipse hasn't even started yet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 24 of 30
Borup: And I don't mind that. Is there anyone else who -- I mean we still do have a
Public Hearing open, anyone else have any input they'd like to put forth on this?
Powell: So, I'm gathering and just want to make sure you'd rather leave the discussion
on how to implement for another day for staff to fold in it and come back to you with
specific --
Borup: Unless you have some specifics tonight. I mean there is a lot of work -- I mean
this isn't just a last minute thing, this discussion started back when we were first holding
the Comp Plan Hearings, whatever year that was.
Powell: That's fine.
Borup: So, a lot -- and it's been going on since then. We definitely would not like to see
this just disappear.
Powell: And there is a brief section in the sheet I handed out today, Chair, that just talks
about how we are going to, you know, as a real rough cut, integrate them in. If there is
something, in there that you object to, you might just let me know over the next --
Borup: On the adoption page?
Powell: On the -- yes, sir, under the proposed integration of documents, the second
heading down there. The key emphasis would be the land use goals and strategies
and policies and, then, some of the transportation standards, as well as schools.
Borup: Well, it might be useful if -- would you like to just -- maybe you have already
done that in what you just said, but outline a little bit how you would propose to be
presenting that to us. I mean or -- what you have in mind there and what we can expect
coming in the future, maybe what items, and maybe what type of time frame.
Powell: Sure. I would be happy to. That's why I just -- before you close the hearing
and went your separate ways I didn't if you just wanted to spend a little time.
Borup: Right. Yes.
Powell: If you look at the Section B, what I have tried to do -- and I'm not sure if you all
have copies of your plans tonight, but I tried to go through each of the categories that
are listed there and talk about how I would propose to integrate them into the larger
document. Just as a general note, any of the preface language wouldn't be carried
over, because it's really just kind of supporting this language and wouldn't be necessary
in the overall context. It was more in support of the change. The preface language
would not be included. As you go down to goals and strategies, because our Comp
Plan is set up differently, it has goals and objectives, instead of goals and strategies,
and those -- there is a distinct difference between strategies and objectives, so we
would look at those goals and strategies and incorporate those into the goal one, four,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 25 of 30
and five of the Comprehensive Plan. Again, the two documents are set up very
differently. Ours has just a number of kind all of encompass goals with objectives and,
then, action items under this. This plan -- and this is not an uncommon format at all in
the North Meridian Area Plan, it goes by topic. It goes by land use, by urban services,
community facilities, and transportation and it's a very common layout. I don't -- I'm not
trying to say it's bad or anything, it's just very different from the one that we happen to
have right now. The two don't -- they are not going to be -- we can't just lift sections of
one and put it in another, because they are just organized the same way. We propose
to take those goals and strategies and incorporate them into those three goals that I
point out there and, then, we will need to perhaps tweak those goals and objectives
and, then, add more action items to include those. The urban services is -- section is --
of course, we will need to make changes to the land use map, too, to accommodate
this. The urban services section, that discussion regarding the provision of urban
services was covered by a separate resolution that the city recently approved. The real
need for the -- and that was done as city wide and, again, one of these principles that
Mr. Wardle raised and others that really was a benefit to the whole city. The real need
for that urban services discussion is perhaps not there anymore -- or is not really there
anymore. The community facilities, I think we could -- for the goals and strategies we
could look at modifying goal three and, specifically, objective B under goal three of our
existing Comp Plan. The existing Comprehensive Plan doesn't speak much to the
issues of schools and coordination and I talked this week with Wendell Bigham and he
was interested in change -- in keeping that language. I expressed my concern with
having the shall in all of those school policies. He felt that -- that perhaps that language
-- that strong of language was no longer necessary, given the working relationship that
staff now has with him. He felt comfortable moving that to a little less mandatory
language. Right now it says the school district has to give us stuff and my concern was,
well, I can't make the school district do it and if they don't do it, what kind of position
does that put us in as far as applying our Comp Plan or abiding by our Comp Plan, so
he was in favor of kind of loosening up that language and just talking more about
coordinating and communicating with one another regarding these topics. The parks,
we need to consider all those items in the development of the parks comprehensive
plan, but I think you will see that come through as a separate document and a separate
discussion and hearings, perhaps, on that. We will take those ideas and the new parks
director will work with those. That goes for the pathway policies as well also. Public
safety. This was -- we probably should add those potential fire stations in the land use
map and put some -- an objective in the existing Comprehensive Plan related to public
safety. There is not one now and that would be a nice addition to the Comprehensive
Plan. We will transfer some of that language to perhaps a separate goal or incorporate
it into goal three. Transportation is probably the most difficult issue for staff to get a
hold of -- get their arms around right now. It's -- there is a lot of information in here
about transportation and more than in just Section B, there is a whole other section,
Section C, that discusses nothing but transportation. Staff did feel comfortable at this
point considering those design standards related to roadways and arterials and, then,
beyond that there is a lot of discussion that still needs to go on between staff and ACHD
and your group and the City Council regarding what -- where do we want to go with
those roads and, then, figuring out what to do with that. So, that's my greatest area right
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 26 of 30
now is transportation, trying to figure out what to do with that. I think the first thing we
really need to do is sit down with ACHD staff, because we haven't talked to them much
directly. They have been responding to the North Meridian Area Plan, which is a little
different than responding to the city from a response that, well, we want to modify our --
they should be the same, but they are different. When the Comprehensive Plan
amendment comes from outside the staff, it tends to be a little different. It's just the way
it works, so -- but it won't be a specific development application at that point, it will just
be discussion, so -- and, then, of course, we still want to work on traditional
neighborhood development standards and we have been talking about those as staff
and that's another undertaking that, you know, it was appropriate that the applicant not
undertake that or have to undertake that until there was some decisions made on this.
The strongest point I see in the land use policies is all of that thought that went into the
mixed commercial and really taking advantage of that and incorporating it into our
Comprehensive Plan as well. That's my brief summary at this point.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have any idea what type of time frame we may be looking
at?
Powell: By virtue of your last application, everybody behind me is whispering six
months. I'm hoping it won't be that long, but right now I'm still at the, you know, head
above my water, but I truly hope to get something back to you long before that, but --
Borup: We are not necessarily looking at trying to do it all at once either, are you, or --
Centers: Well, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but the applicant has withdrawn his
application and I think the city needs to start all over, personally.
Powell: Yes, sir.
Centers: Using the applicant's ideas and thoughts and incorporating them and I was
looking at six months, you know.
Powell: We will have to do a public participation process.
Centers: Right.
Powell: And we will have to come to you to work sessions. It won't be six weeks -- or
six months before we come to you with a work session, that's -- I'll promise you that. As
far as when we are actually ready to make application, it may be a little longer, but you
will hear it, hopefully, at a work session within a couple months.
Centers: Well, that's the way I looked at it, six months to finalize it and get it through us
and Council, because you can't do another one for six months anyway right?
Borup: Right. Well -- and the reason I brought it up is I -- you know, you have got to
have -- need a little bit of a goal or --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 27 of 30
Centers: I agree. I agree.
Borup: -- Something to shoot for or it will be six years.
Zaremba: The thought is that the end of the process would be six months from now
and somewhere before that we would be talking. I, for one, would be happy to
volunteer for work sessions.
Powell: Okay.
Borup: Okay. I guess we need to make a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 7 be closed.
Rohm: Second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if it's necessary, but I would move we accept the
applicant's request for withdrawal of Item 7.
Centers: Second.
Borup: And according to that, are we going to make any other recommendation?
Zaremba: I'm not sure we have got to make a motion to direct staff. They have already
expressed their willingness to --
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: -- carry it on. Do you need a motion from us?
Borup: That's what they put in their -- one of their recommendations was --
Powell: I'm comfortable with that.
Borup: It says and, then, direct staff to initiate -- look at item -- the second option.
Zaremba: I would be happy to direct staff to initiate it. That justifies your spending time
on it. That's my motion.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 28 of 30
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Before we adjourn, which I assume is next, I received a letter and I'm sure
everybody else received a letter on a subject that we handled -- this would be the
property where Carl's Junior was asking --
Borup: Oh, yes.
Zaremba: We received a letter from either the owner or --
Borup: That's the owner of the property, I believe.
Zaremba: -- of the property, believing that they still have the right to operate a drive-
thru window in the old building. My understanding was that one of the conditions of the
CUP to build the new Kentucky Fried Chicken was that they abandon the old -- and is
that in writing, so that this -- that Mr. Gibbs can be answered that they have a choice of
one of the drive-thrus cannot be operated, they either have to close --
Borup: That was my understanding, too. Nick, did you have a comment on that?
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Bill Nichols and I are currently
looking into this situation. I have reviewed the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law from the City Council's decision on the KFC application originally and it is -- it does
appear to be pretty clear to me that they agreed to abandon the original -- the drive-thru
in the old building when the new building came in, but I will be able to get you a more
formal answer on that, to indicate that the owner of the property --
Zaremba: I'm not sure I need the answer, but is it in the works to send him an answer?
Wollen: It is in the works.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: I believe -- and that's my recommendation -- or recollection is when it left this
Commission that was our recommendation, that it be abandoned.
Zaremba: In order to use the drive-thru on the new building, they had to abandon the
old building.
Wollen: And that appears to be pretty clear from the writing.
Borup: Well, that's the way it left this Commission.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 29 of 30
Rohm: Well -- and no additional Conditional Use Permit including the drive-thru on
that?
Borup: No, I don't think it prohibits them from using the building it was just the drive-
thru.
Wollen: No. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did not find any other
restrictions on the use of the old building, other than the drive-thru, in the Findings and
Conclusions, so --
Borup: And that's what I'm remembering, too.
Centers: Regardless, it's out of our hands totally. It's in the hands of the City Council
and our legal staff.
Borup: I don't know if this is a little early. I am going to be out of town for both meetings
in July.
Centers: The second meeting -- no, that's the second meeting in June we don't have
anything yet.
Borup: That may be nice. One item.
Centers: I think you deserve to be gone once in awhile. I think, if I recall the last time
you were gone, Mr. Chairman was, I don't know, September of last year or before that.
Borup: May of 2001.
Centers: No. I sub'd for you once.
Zaremba: In the year, almost year and a half I have been here, I don't believe you have
ever been absent, so it had to be before that.
Centers: Yes. He has been gone once. He has been gone once, because I sub'd for
him once.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Anything else?
Zaremba: Is a motion in order to adjourn?
Borup: It is as far as I'm concerned.
Zaremba: So moved.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 15, 2003
Page 30 of 30
Centers: Second.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:29 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK