2005 05-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 5,
2005.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of
May 5, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba.
Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup,
Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy
Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Craig Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Joe Guenther,
Josh Wilson, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
___X___ Keith Borup ___X___ David Moe
___X___ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X__Chairman David Zaremba
Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting
of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the 5th day of the 5th month of
'05, otherwise, known as Cinco De Mayo. We will begin with a roll call of attendance.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Zaremba: The first item on the agenda is adoption of the agenda and for the benefit of
those here, I will mention we will take them in order, but just so you know, Item 6, 7 and
8, which apply to Bellingham Park, there has been a request to continue that to the May
19th meeting. That meeting is very full, so we are very likely to actually to continue that
to June 2nd instead, but we will not discuss it tonight. Also Item 10, 11, and 12 relating
to Pinebridge, there is also a request to continue those to get the ACHD results and,
again, we will continue that one until June 2nd. Unless I hear otherwise, we will adopt
the agenda and take those in order.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of April 7, 2005 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Zaremba: Okay. The next item is the Consent Agenda, which consists of the minutes
of meeting of April 7th, 2005. Does anybody have any comments on those?
Rohm: I do not.
Moe: I have no comment.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 2 of 32
Zaremba: Okay. I, actually, have one. Admittedly, I was not here that night, but in
reading through them, on page 23, motion was taken on a vote regarding AZ 05-008
and the results are stated as being four ayes. Actually, Commissioner Moe had
recused himself from the subject and I wasn't here, so the vote, actually, I would
assume, should have been three ayes, one recused, and one absent. That's page 23.
I have no other comment.
Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we approve the minutes as amended. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second and let the record show, please, that
Commissioner Borup has joined us. We are all here. We have a motion and a second.
Those in favor may signify by saying aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Recommendation: VAC 05-004 Request for a Vacation of platted
easements for Krispy Kreme Subdivision by Eagle-Fairview Investment
Co., LLC – Lot 1 of the Krispy Kreme Subdivision:
Zaremba: Okay. The next item on the agenda is a recommendation. That, actually, is
not a Public Hearing, and we will discuss it, but we will not take comment from the
general public. This is a recommendation to the City Council on VAC 05-004, request
for a vacation of platted easements for Krispy Kreme Subdivision by Eagle-Fairview
Investment Company, LLC, Lot 1 of the Krispy Kreme Subdivision. And we will begin
with the staff report.
Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. The vacation
before you is Krispy Kreme Subdivision at the southwest corner of Eagle and Fairview
and zoned light industrial. The applicant has requested vacation of utility easements
along the former boundary that would have been between Lots 1 and 3, as indicated by
the dashed line there, and also along the former boundary of Lots 3 and 4. We do have
notarized consent on file from all parties, all beneficiaries of the easements and other
than that I don't have any staff comments.
Zaremba: Okay. We have reviewed the packets. I can't remember on
recommendations whether the applicant making remarks is in order or not. I believe we
-- the applicant's made their case already and staff has presented it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 3 of 32
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean unless he has anything else
to add, yeah, you certainly can take action or make a recommendation based on that.
Zaremba: Okay. Is the applicant here and care to say anything? Apparently not.
Okay. Commissioners?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we forward to City Council approving VAC 05-004, with all staff comments
of the hearing date of May 5th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May 2nd, 2005.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Recommendation: VAC 05-005 Request for a Vacation of a portion of a
20-foot utility easement between Lots 20 & 21, Block 1, Stokesberry
Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Inc. – west of North Eagle Road
and north of River Valley Street:
Zaremba: Next is another recommendation. This is VAC 05-005, request for a vacation
of a portion of a 20-foot utility easement that's between Lots 20 and 21, Block 1, of
Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Inc., west of North Eagle Road and
north of River Valley Street and, again, this is not a Public Hearing, but we will begin
with staff comments.
Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. The subject
vacation is in Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 and is zoned light office, located generally
on the west side of Eagle Road south of Ustick. The subject vacation is between Lots
20 and 21. The face of the plat did identify easements of -- they are ten feet on each
side of the lot line, utility easements, and also an irrigation easement to benefit the
business owners association. On this vacation we do have consent -- notarized
consent on record from all beneficiaries of the easements, except for the business
owners association and staff did include the condition in the report that notarized
consent of relinquishment of that easement should be received before the City Council
hearing. I do believe we have a slide here of the exact portion of the easement that is
being vacated. That would be the shaded area there between Lots 20 and 21. And
with that I'll end staff's comments.
Zaremba: Okay. Any questions? Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 4 of 32
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Zaremba: Does the applicant care to add anything? Okay.
Moe: I would -- question. Is there going to be any problem getting the business owners
association to relinquish? Just taking a little longer than you anticipated? Okay.
Zaremba: The applicant is shaking his head, indicating no. Okay. No problem I mean.
Okay. Gentlemen?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of VAC 05-005,
with all staff comments of the hearing date May 5th, 2005, received by the city clerk's
office May 2nd, 2005.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: We are now coming to items that are public hearings in this portion of our
meeting and I will discuss a little bit our procedure for anybody that doesn't attend these
meetings very often. Our professional staff and the applicant have, of course, spent a
great deal of time together on each of these applications, so we begin our presentation
with a presentation from our staff, indicating where the project is and what the project is
and any issues that remain to be resolved. We follow that with a presentation from the
applicant, who is free to respond to items the staff has brought up, make their own
points, tell us anything we need to know. The applicant and any supporting members,
like engineers, architects, et cetera, that join them have combined 15 minutes to make
their presentation. After that we take testimony from the general public and each
person has three minutes to speak and tell us how they feel about the project and
things they think we ought to know. Then, at the end of that period, the applicant will
again have another period of time, ten minutes, to respond to things that have been
brought up during the Public Hearing, anything that further needs to clarify us -- be
clarified for us. We do have a handy light system that we will keep you apprised of your
time. When the green is on you have plenty of time. When it goes to yellow you should
begin wrapping up, and when the red comes on that is the end of your allotted time and
we appreciate people sticking to that, so that our meetings don't go to 1:00 o'clock in
the morning. We do ask everybody, so that we can hear you, it's important enough that
you came that we want to make sure that we hear you and that it gets on the record for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 5 of 32
our recorder. So, please, only speak when you're at the microphone and when you
begin start with your name and address for the record, please.
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: AZ 05-007 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for
Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC – north of
Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road:
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: PP 05-009 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 166 building lots and 37 common lots on
43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision by
Gemstar Development, LLC – north of Amity Road and east of South
Locust Grove Road:
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from March 17, 2005: CUP 05-008 Request
for a Planned Development consisting of 166 residential units with
reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and
yard setbacks for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar
Development, LLC – north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove
Road:
Zaremba: And with that I will open public hearings for AZ 05-007, PP 05-009, and CUP
05-008 and mention again that we have a request to continue these to May 19th and
I'm suggesting that we, actually, continue them to June 2nd.
Guenther: Chairman Zaremba?
Zaremba: Yes.
Guenther: I'd like to make note to this file that Bellingham Park is one of the items that
we have anticipated hearing on the 19th, which has made that hearing more full than it
normally would be. We also have been discussing this matter with the applicant and we
believe that tailing it out even further is just going to drag it out even farther. This will,
on the May 19th hearing, have been exactly three months from the first original
scheduling of this item and staff would like to definitely hear this on the 19th.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Reading through this a few times, I'm kind of curious. What has changed?
Guenther: Everything.
Moe: Okay. Are they doing the micro-path?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 6 of 32
Guenther: They have submitted a proposal last Friday in order to give their best
estimate of where the micro-path should lie. It does not follow staff's recommendation.
And at this -- I think that this is something that we should have an applicant present
before we actually hear anymore. I have not had the opportunity to make a full review
of the file at this time and all I know that there is just outstanding issues that still need to
be addressed. I anticipate getting you the complete staff report as soon as possible.
Moe: And so you're confident that those issues can be taken care of for the hearing for
the 19th?
Guenther: Well, the applicant's main issues were the staff conditions of approval, which
have partially been addressed, which I have to go through and redo conditions of
approval, and so I'm not sure if they will be addressed before the 19th or not. I guess
that's --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Excuse me one second. Technically, they would have to all be addressed,
really, by the 9th, so that you have ten days to prepare everything, so --
Guenther: That is correct.
Zaremba: Are you anticipating that you will have everything you need to have?
Guenther: I don't know. We have made several requests to the applicant for
information and I have received partial information to the file.
Zaremba: I have 19 items already listed for May 19th and those are not among them.
Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: That was my question is how many items and what are the nature
for the meeting on the 19th. And, then, my second question is if they are not ready, are
you going to -- are we going to continue it again?
Rohm: I kind of think --
Guenther: At this point it's to the -- it's almost to the point where on the 19th I am
preparing to either make findings for approval with the conditions as stated by staff in
order to -- our best estimate of what it's going to take in order to give this site an
approval and I'm toying with the idea of bringing in recommendation for denial and
findings for the same and letting this board choose as -- at your direction. But it's all
going to depend on if I get more information before the 9th or not. So, I guess I don't
have a really good -- the longer you table it out, the more they are going to trickle
information in is what I guess I can say.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 7 of 32
Zaremba: I know you're trying to move it along. My suggestion would be for us to
continue it to the 2nd and with the comment to you that if you don't have all the
materials ten days before that, you only prepare recommendation for denial.
Guenther: We can do that, too.
Moe: I would agree with that.
Newton-Huckabay: I think that's fair.
Zaremba: Do we have a consensus among Commissioners, that being the suggestion?
Rohm: It works for me.
Moe: Yes.
Rohm: My personal feeling is whatever information he has as of that date prior to, he
make his recommendation one way or the other. It doesn't -- it doesn't have to be an
address of each and every issue, just where ever staff falls at the end of the
disclosures, you make your recommendation based on that and, then, we will act on it,
but to conclude, I think that it's safe to say that we are not going to continue this
indefinitely and if, in fact, all conditions aren't addressed, more than likely we will move
to deny. And that being said, I think we should continue it to the 2nd of June and we
will give them that time and if it's not done, then, at that time we will conclude with a
recommendation.
Newton-Huckabay: Is that a motion?
Moe: Is that a motion?
Rohm: That's a motion.
Zaremba: Is there a second?
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. It's moved and seconded to continue this until June 2nd, these three
items. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 05-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
construct 7 office buildings in a previously approved Planned Unit
Development of Lot 6, Block 1 of Resolution Subdivision No. 1 for
Sagecrest Subdivision by Larry Sundell – south of East Overland Road
and east of South Locust Grove Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 8 of 32
Zaremba: Next on the agenda, Item 9. I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05-017,
request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct seven office buildings in a previously
approved planned unit development of Lot 6, Block 1, of Resolution Subdivision No. 1
for Sagecrest Subdivision by Larry Sundell, south of East Overland Road and east of
South Locust Grove Road, and we will begin with the staff comments.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The applicant is requesting
detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for seven office buildings in the L-O zone.
The site is designated high density residential in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. It is
currently vacant. However, the parking lot has been improved on the site. This is an
older aerial and you don't see the parking lot or the apartments that are just to the south
of this site. This site is located on the south side of Overland Road, approximately 800
feet to the east of Locust Grove. To the north is the new movie theater and some other
commercial businesses. To the south, again, there is the multi-family Sagecrest
Apartments and Mountain View High School. To the east are some professional offices,
also zoned L-O, and to the west on the corner of Overland and Locust Grove is
currently vacant. This site includes Lots 1 through 9 and Lots 54 through 59 of Block 1
of Sagecrest Subdivision, which was recorded in 2004. With that approval five building
lots were platted on the west side of the access drive here. The applicant is proposing
three buildings. On the east side of that drive two buildings are platted -- or, excuse
me, two lots are platted and the applicant is proposing one building. These buildings do
not meet the setback requirements of the L-O zone and, therefore, the applicants -- I
noted in the staff report -- either needs to re-subdivide, re-plat the property, excuse me,
because the buildings do span across the property lines or show buildings -- additional
buildings that meet those setback requirements of the zone. I would like to make note
that I did not, in the staff report, include this building with that requirement. I did catch
these three buildings that span across these five lot lines. We do need to modify that
site specific condition or staff would request that you modify site specific condition
number three to add a second sentence requiring the same for the building or buildings
on Lots 54 and 55, that they either need to reduce the number of build-able lots or
propose buildings that meet setbacks. So, basically --
Zaremba: Page six? Excuse me. Page six of your site-specific number there?
Hood: I have it on page seven, Commissioner. I'm sorry. Page six. Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hood: Number three. It might be worded the same as the first sentence, just changing
the lots to read 54 and 55 and, then, the three before the or to a one -- or proposed
buildings meet the same -- so that sentence is the same. I'm sorry I didn't scan in a
picture of that -- the subdivision Sagecrest, but there are lot lines that run right through
the middle of those buildings, so that's the request there of staff. The applicant has
submitted detailed elevations for those and they are quite attractive buildings. There
are four different -- four different types of buildings, some two story, and, then, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 9 of 32
single story here, an A, a B, a C, and a D on the seven lots. Combined a total of 20,566
square feet. I did talk with the applicant this week and we did discuss the buildings
spanning across those lot lines and trying find some way to fix that problem, as well as
asking him to get with SSC. I haven't followed up with them about SSC or where they
stand. There were some dumpster issues there and I may ask him to address that
before you tonight. But I think those were the two main things with this application.
With that I will stand for any questions you may have.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant
care to come forward?
Sundell: My name is Larry Sundell, I'm the architect for the owner of the property Edge,
LLC, and I have received the staff's report and I agree with all of the findings of fact.
The first item that I would like to address, though, is the waste enclosure. We have
located two dumpsters on the site. I was unable to locate Bill Gregory or his assistant
Steve. Bill Gregory is currently on vacation, I believe, in Hawaii and won't be back for
awhile and Steve was gone until Friday. I do not believe that to be an issue, in that we
have located dumpsters at each end of the project and I just could not currently get
them to sign off on it, so we would do that for the meeting of the Commissioners. The
second issue, which is the property lines, we choose to do the development as it's
presented here and would go through the process of changing those property lines and
will do whatever is necessary to go in that direction. Though, it is very timely -- or time
consuming, we would go in that direction. There are no easements in any of these
areas and the owner had purchased a property that was currently rezoned to do office
buildings, but in each of these areas they became very small office buildings, in the
neighborhood of 1,000 to 1,200 square feet each and it just was not economical to build
seven little tiny office buildings and so he wished to consolidate those into larger
buildings. So, we are in the agreement with the staff findings.
Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? We have been given a note
from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District responding that they want you to apply to them
for a land use change application, since they think that's going to change the Cook's
Lateral or something. Are you aware of that note?
Sundell: I am not, but could you repeat that? That they -- a land use change?
Zaremba: I can give you a copy of it. Land use change application. It was sent to the
city clerk and received on May 2nd.
Sundell: This project is a development of a previously approved larger conceptual
Conditional Use Permit, so at that point, which was approximately -- I'm not sure of the
time, but let's say two years ago, that was approved to be offices, as a larger total
development of a very large area. It had two sections of commercial offices and, then,
an apartment complex. So, I find this surprising, but we will answer that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 10 of 32
Zaremba: The city would be in agreement with you. The city agrees that that has
happened.
Sundell: Okay.
Zaremba: I think Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is just coming up to speed on it, so -
-
Sundell: I got you. Okay.
Zaremba: -- they are asking you to let them know that it's not farmland anymore.
Sundell: We will do that.
Zaremba: I think. And a question for staff. Do we need to make that one of our
conditions or is that entirely a separate operation?
Hood: Mr. Chairman, this is their standard letter for all development applications they
send. They have added that last -- second to the last sentence specific to this project,
the Cook Lateral, but they do just send this out and say if you are changing land use,
you need to apply through the district. So, pretty standard.
Zaremba: And while you're here, one other question and I will kind of toss this back
and forth between you and staff as well. On the east end of the project is there any
thought of making that a cross-access into what will be the project east of it? We try
and make things that connect, so that we don't actually --
Sundell: Actually, we would like to do that, because the current owner of this is also the
owner of the adjacent property.
Zaremba: Would that be acceptable to staff?
Hood: Mr. Chair, that would be acceptable on -- I was just going to point out that that
has been developed already and there is an existing sales office for Corey Barton
Homes right there, but we would have no problem with that, just it had already been
developed and getting the cross-access from that parcel to this one -- we will probably
never see another development application there and so it could be -- but, no, no
problems with doing that. No. That's encouraged.
Sundell: It would simply eliminate two or three parking places, but in all reality, it would
-- for this particular owner, it would make the total larger project flow and would be of
benefit to him.
Zaremba: Do we need to do something to enable that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 11 of 32
Hood: Mr. Chair, if that came in within their building -- first building permit out there, I'll
be reviewing that certificate of zoning compliance and I have no problem with them
improving that drive aisle all the way over to the property line with that plan of extending
that, so I don't think any motion needs to be made on this. We can allow them to do
that, pave it right to the property line.
Zaremba: Sounds good to me. Commissioners, any other questions?
Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, on the lot line, does the applicant need to file a new
subdivision plat or lot line adjustments or --
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the -- I did briefly touch on that in
the staff report. Currently it is a new subdivision application. We are, however,
proposing in the new UDC to have a lot line adjustment application for a -- to reduce the
number of build-able lots. We just don't have that mechanism today. The only
mechanism is a plat. So, I would encourage the applicant just to wait a couple three
months, hopefully, and we will have that staff level ability to actually remove lot lines.
But right now we don't, so --
Borup: I take it that's what your preference is, is wait and --
Sundell: Well, I would like to not impact the project negatively, okay? But there is a
time line that I was prepared to go through to show you what we have gone through to
get to this far and what we have to go through in order to achieve the results in the end.
I wouldn't mind.
Borup: I think what Mr. Hood was alluding to is that the city recognizes on these type of
commercial and office projects that when it comes in you don't know what's going to
necessarily going to be built and developed.
Sundell: That's right.
Borup: So, the new ordinance he's talking about would enable staff to do those lot line
adjustments, eliminate a public hearing, and -- but that's not in effect yet, is the
problem.
Sundell: I have been in contact with staff about that.
Borup: So, the question is, then, are you preferable to wait until that passes or proceed
ahead with a new plat? Isn't that the two choices?
Sundell: Those are the two choices. Currently in time we would be wise to wait for the
lot line adjustment law or mechanism to be passed and if we were to plat it, it would be
an additional three months beyond that, so in time line that's our shortest avenue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 12 of 32
Borup: Okay. Well, I think that's what the city's trying to do is make things like this
where it makes sense, just to make it easier. You will probably be the first one to use
that. I don't know.
Sundell: I would like to go through my time line, if you wouldn't mind.
Zaremba: Sure. Thank you.
Sundell: We raced to get the project completed and into -- for a hearing on February
15th and we did achieve that goal and all of the drawings and requirements were met at
that time. It's now May 5th that we are being heard. So, it's a little frustrating on the
side of the developer just to be heard and I understand Meridian is growing and there is
six hearings per time, but it seems like an exaggerated time line on our side. So, now
it's May 5th and this goes, then, to the county commissioners that would be on June 6th
-- 7th. And, then, they have a ten day appeal and, then, if we do -- redo our platting, it's
approximately five to six months and if we do the lot line adjustment wait, that's three
months. So, we have, essentially, drug what was a project that was part of a larger
conceptual conditional use plan, that was planned for offices to be here and it's now in
the nine -- approximately nine month time line on the developed side. It's frustrating
and I just wanted to express that. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: And I think we empathize with that, but the fact is this was a platted subdivision
with platted lots and you chose to develop it such that you had buildings crossing those
lot lines and so that was a conscious choice --
Sundell: That's correct. And you are right in that. The owner purchased it and you just
get what you get. I understand that, so take it into account. Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. Let me ask staff a question that displays my
ignorance if I can. At what point is the certificate of zoning compliance important? Is
that before anything breaks ground or is it before occupancy?
Hood: No. It's before anything breaks ground. It's actually number two, I believe, on
the building department's requirement for me to stamp the plan from the Planning and
Zoning Department, saying that the buildings comply with setbacks and that they are
proposing landing, parking, and those things, so --
Zaremba: So, this does have to be done first.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 13 of 32
Hood: Yeah. And those two little buildings -- now, the three on the north side of this
could be -- there could -- after four weeks with or whenever the City Council gets to this,
the applicant could turn around and submit a certificate of zoning compliance for the
northerly three buildings as shown, so --
Zaremba: Thank you. Thank you.
Sundell: There is a small error in that small, but because on lot -- Building A also is
divided in half. It doesn't matter.
Zaremba: We will assume you understand the process of needing to fix them all.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the applicant. Why would it take an
extended period of time to do a re-plat? I'm a little curious.
Sundell: I would have to defer to staff for that, because that's what I was told and I went
to the engineers about that and they said it's a very complicated process. I don't know
that process, so I would have to ask staff that question.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: I assuming that you're talking about the time line. They submitted this February
15th and it's going to be, what, June before it hits City Council already?
Hood: Yeah. Average -- I'm sorry. Machelle may be able to help me out, but turn
around from Planning and Zoning to City Council is about four weeks, so before it gets
to the City Council -- and I believe that's maybe what Mr. Sundell was referring to, not
the county commissioners, but the City Council action on this being approximately four
more weeks.
Rohm: Well, four weeks is better than three months.
Borup: No. But he's got to resubmit a new application, so it would be like going clear
back to February.
Sundell: Correct.
Rohm: Yeah. I think that, really, the ball's in your court to decide which way you want
to go. If you want to take the --
Sundell: We have to take the -- it's our choice to take the shortest time line process and
that would be, my understanding, to wait for the lot line adjustment law to be passed.
Rohm: And that's --
Sundell: And that's not a guarantee.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 14 of 32
Rohm: That is not a known date certain and -- I don't believe it's a known date certain,
anyway. Maybe it is.
Zaremba: If it's not, it will go before the City Council and assuming how many --
whether or not they have to continue their hearings to get all the public testimony or not,
I -- the City Council is as interested as we are on having some of these changes. I
mean this is one of the examples of why the ordinance needs to be changed. What
you're asking for is something that we desire to have happen also --
Sundell: I was aware of that.
Zaremba: -- to make that process easier and, unfortunately, you're caught right in the
shift between ordinances here, but I would assume the City Council has no reason to
prolong it, assuming they don't get heavy objections from the general public and based
on the response that we got, which was mostly positive, I would expect it to go through
fairly quickly.
Borup: I agree.
Zaremba: That's just a personal opinion.
Sundell: I'm not sure if that question was answered, but --
Rohm: Yeah. I'm satisfied. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Sundell: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: I was just thinking that we were debating something that we really
didn't need to debate that point. I think Mr. Sundell's made a decision.
Zaremba: Okay. Works for me. Let's see. Nobody else was signed up to speak on
this issue, but here is an opportunity, if anybody wishes to. Okay. Apparently we have
heard from all the public, in which case Mr. Sundell doesn't need a rebuttal to having
had no comments. Commissioners, further questions, discussions, motions? Close the
Public Hearing?
Borup: I did have a question. Or we could close the Public Hearing also.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: That's just clarification on -- on that change. Mr. Hood said Lot 54 and 55. I
didn't hear the block number. And does that also affect -- does that take care of the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 15 of 32
northern -- and we don't have an overlay, so on my plat is doesn't look like it affects
Building A-1, but --
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I did miss that side. Everything on the east side
of that drive aisle -- there are four platted lots there. The two buildings that are shown,
those are Lots 57 and 58, all of Block 1. So, 54, 55, 57 and 58 of Block 1:
Borup: Okay. The little plat you gave us does not show that many lots. Okay. That's
good enough. I just saw it.
Hood: I'm sorry, I missed that and I apologize to the applicant as well for missing those
four platted and the two buildings.
Borup: Okay. So, the one that's in the application, that lot to the south, is also divided
in half?
Hood: Correct.
Borup: And those are 54 and 55?
Hood: Yes.
Borup: And 57 and 58?
Hood: And 57 and 58. Yes.
Borup: Block 1. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The
Public Hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you appear to be prepared to --
Borup: Oh, I was just prepared to close.
Zaremba: -- make the motion.
Borup: Okay. I don't have this rewritten, but I'll try. Mr. Chairman, I move that we
forward to City Council recommending approval of -- maybe I'm not ready. Of CUP 05-
017, which is a Conditional Use Permit for development of Sagecrest Subdivision, to
include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated April 28th for the May
5th hearing, with the addition of paragraph three on page six, to add to the first
sentence, after -- I think that's a question, Mr. Hood. Your staff report says -- your
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 16 of 32
comments say five, six, seven and eight of Block 1, and, then, you said 56 -- or 54 and
55 of also Block 1?
Hood: Correct.
Borup: With a -- okay. That's a private street.
Hood: There is a drive aisle and all of this was a larger subdivision of those --
Borup: It's a drive aisle, then, for --
Hood: Correct. It's a private drive.
Borup: Okay. To add to that -- to also add that Lots 54, 55 -- I can't read my own
writing now -- 58, 59 -- Lot 54, 55 and Lots 57 and 58 on Block 1. Did I get the right
numbers there?
Moe: Yes.
Zaremba: May I ask our attorney a question. Since everybody understands what we
are trying to do and the applicant, essentially, has agreed to move forward in some
fashion to solve this problem, do we need to get all of these numbers down or can we
simply say the requirement is to make the lots conform to the buildings, so that no
building is across a lot line?
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the staff is going to prepare the draft
findings for the Council. You probably want to -- if Mr. Hood feels he has enough
information to prepare the findings, that the Commission is in agreement with the staff's
recommendation and the comments that have been made by the applicant, if he feels
there is enough information and there is transcribe-able record from it, I think that,
certainly, you don't have to make sure you don't miss a number here, I think you will be
fine. But at least make sure Mr. Hood's comfortable with that.
Borup: I think the numbers were down and the motion was over.
Zaremba: Okay.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 05-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
120.15 acres from R1, RUT, C-G and I-L zones to C-G, I-L and L-O zones
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 17 of 32
for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – east of North
Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue:
Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 05-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55
building lots and 7 other lots on 120.15 acres in proposed C-G, I-L and L-
O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – east
of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue:
Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 05-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for commercial / office / industrial and multi-family
uses in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by
Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – east of North Locust Grove Road and south of
East Fairview Avenue:
Zaremba: Okay. At this time I will open the Public Hearing for Items 10, 11 and 12.
This is AZ 05-013, PP 05-015, and CUP 05-020, all relating to Pinebridge Subdivision
and, again, we have a request from the applicant to delay this to either our meeting of
May 19th or June 2nd and I'm proposing that we chose the June 2nd date. Comments
from the Commissioners?
Rohm: June 2nd sounds good to me.
Borup: I'm assuming that's based on the 19th is full.
Zaremba: The 19th is pretty full and part of the reason for delaying this one is that
ACHD has not acted yet and both the applicant and I'm sure staff and Commissioners
would like to see the results of the ACHD.
Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm.
Rohm: I move that we continue Items 10, 11 and 12 of our agenda to the regularly
scheduled P&Z meeting of June 2nd, 2005. End of motion.
Moe: Do you not need to call off --
Rohm: I just said Items 10, 11 and 12, but I can read the items. AZ 05-013, PP 05-15,
and CUP 05-020.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 18 of 32
Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 05-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit /
Planned Development for two buildings on one lot in an I-L zone for
Ferguson Enterprises by Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. – north of East
Franklin Road and west of Nola Road:
Zaremba: Moving right along. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for Item 13. This is
CUP 05-016, request for a Conditional Use Permit planned development for two
buildings on one lot in an I-L zone for Ferguson Enterprises by Ferguson Enterprises,
Inc., north of East Franklin Road and west of Nola Road and we will begin with the staff
report.
Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. Ferguson
Enterprises has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a planned
development for two buildings on one lot. It began with staff comments when a
certificate of zoning compliance application was submitted that showed two lots -- or
two buildings on one lot and, unfortunately, we had to make the applicant aware that
Meridian City Code only allows one principal building per lot, except in the case of a
planned development. So, the subject Conditional Use Permit is before you. The
property is located directly to the south of the recent Nola Subdivision, on the west side
of Nola Road, just south of the Pine Avenue and north of Franklin. Also bounded on the
east by the future Locust Grove extension. Our department did issue a certificate of
zoning compliance for the northernmost -- for the top building on the plan here, the
northernmost building, and, then, did inform them that they needed to get their planned
development for their southern most building on the lower portion of the lot there. The
applicant has proposed a ten-foot landscape buffer on Nola Road, which complies with
the Meridian City Code and a 25-foot landscape buffer on the future Locust Grove
extension, which also complies with Meridian City Code. The planned development
section of Meridian City Code does require that the applicant provide two amenities.
The applicant has provided ten percent landscaped open space. Meridian Code does
require that that is above and beyond the required street buffers or land use buffers and
it is, so that qualifies as the first amenity. The applicant did not propose a second
amenity. Staff recommended -- staff -- staff has recommended condition of approval
number one that the applicant provide a second amenity in accordance with the code
and that's on -- that's on page five of the staff report. Staff does recommend that a
seating area or -- in past cases the Commission and Council have approved a simple
bench or, you know, small seating area for customers or employees to use, that that
would be an appropriate second amenity. Other outstanding issues. The
Comprehensive Plan does -- and if you will recall this issue from Nola Subdivision that
was heard a couple months ago, the Comprehensive Plan does designate a multi-use
pathway along the west side of this property, because the Nola Road crossing of the
railroad tracks is going away, staff has, effectively, made a decision to move that multi-
use pathway to Locust Grove where a new railroad crossing will be gained. In the Nola
Subdivision, it was determined that the seven foot sidewalk provided in ACHD's design
plans is sufficient to serve as a de facto multi-use pathway and we would feel the same
way about this application. In discussions with Director Canning, ACHD is not really
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 19 of 32
open to the widening of that sidewalk at this point, to meet the ten-foot that we would
like to see, because the design of that -- of that road extension is so far along. So, we
do feel that the seven-foot will function as a connection to the multi-use pathway
system. Another outstanding issue. The fire department in our department -- in our
department comments meeting did have a strong desire that this property be addressed
off of Locust Grove once the Locust Grove extension is completed. In discussions with
the applicant's representative on the phone, I believe that's the applicant's preference
as well. The applicant did mention that they would like to initially address it off of Locust
Grove to eliminate the changing of the address from Nola Road to Locust Grove. In
discussions with Public Works Department that isn't possible. The road has to exist in
order for this property to be addressed off of it. So, at the time of construction, if it
proceeds, that Locust Grove extension, it will have to address off of Nola and, then, it
would be the applicant's decision to change to Locust Grove at their cost and,
obviously, considerable difficulty of changing the address of a business. The staff
would like the applicant to address the number of vehicles that will be used in the
conduct of the business. They have provided parking that would be sufficient for the
required parking per square footage of the buildings and, then, 15 vehicles to be used
in the business and we don't anticipate that the business would exceed 15 vehicles, so
we feel that parking is more than likely adequate, but we would just like some
confirmation on that tonight. With that, I will end staff's comments and accept any
questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, questions?
Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious, is there a time line on the Locust Grove
extension as to when they are going to start?
Newton-Huckabay: 2006, isn't it?
Zaremba: I know the answer to that and I'm trying to think of it. It's within two years, a
year and a half, perhaps.
Newton-Huckabay: 2006.
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, I'm hearing confirmation from this side of the table that
2006 would be beginning of construction.
Moe: Okay. Thank you. That's all I had.
Zaremba: Has ACHD looked at this plan, do we know?
Wilson: I did not receive a staff report from ACHD yet.
Zaremba: What occurs to me -- and I know we talk about this on residential properties
and I don't know -- I do know we do on residential. I don't know if we do on commercial
properties, but we discuss through properties and not having access on two opposing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 20 of 32
streets and the reason I noticed it on this one is since their driveways align with
Commercial Avenue on one side and Commercial Street on the other side, I am
concerned that when Nola becomes the cul-de-sac that it will, that it's going to be very
tempting for people using Commercial Street to cut through this property to access the
new Locust Grove without having to go up to top Pine Street and I wonder if any
thought has been given to maybe not aligning their driveway and having it come off the
cul-de-sac or -- do we care about that?
Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, the applicant has proposed gates on the Nola Road side
there and on the Locust Grove side. That would -- that large interior asphalt area is for
storage of inventory. This is an HVAC and it sounds like pipe supply company. There
would be inventory of large product out in that area and it would be for access by the
business. So, it would be gated, actually, on both sides. I don't --
Zaremba: I think that answers my question. I looked for a fence plan and I didn't notice
one, but if that's the plan, that answers my question. Any other questions,
Commissioners?
Moe: Well, we are already behind schedule, then. April was the start of the planning
building.
Zaremba: Last month. Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward?
Kinghorn: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Mark
Kinghorn with Kinghorn Architecture, Incorporated. I'm the representative for Ferguson
Enterprises, Incorporated, and we agree with all the Findings of Fact by Planning and
Zoning on this and I have just a couple of questions for clarification. The only item that
seems to be unresolved that I did not get a chance to fully resolve with Josh would be
the addressing issue, in the sense -- I guess is what the client would prefer to do would
be -- I guess advertise, market their business as being a Locust Grove address and in
that sense we would like Planning and Zoning to be able to give -- the City of Meridian
to give us a Locust Grove address that will exist once the extension is completed. As
far as addressing currently right now, I mean we are happy to put the address numbers
on the building on the Nola Road side and we are -- as far as permitting and whatnot,
we are happy to use the Nola Road address, but it's quite a hardship for the client in
order to change their address after they have already opened up business for a year or
so to the Locust Grove address. I don't know if the city's capable of just telling us what
that address is going to be once Locust Grove is completed. I guess that's the
question.
Zaremba: I'm not sure I know the answer to that. Isn't it the post office that makes the
addresses?
Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I may defer to Mr. Freckleton on this, but in discussions with
Vickie in the Public Works Department, she did indicate that it isn't possible to address
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 21 of 32
off of Locust Grove, because it doesn't exist. I'm not familiar with the exact process and
I'll let Bruce take over.
Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the addressing is, actually, done
through my department. It's a committee decision. The committee consists of
emergency services, county officials, fire -- you know, fire department, police, and it's
the policy that the road needs to exist prior to the address being issued on it -- on a
street frontage. Postal Service also has input into that.
Borup: That makes sense to me. A road has to be in existence. But would it also be
logical that the same numbers could apply whether it was Nola or Locust Grove?
Zaremba: It would be an even number on Locust Grove and an odd number on Nola,
though, because of the side of the street they are on.
Borup: You're right. You're right. You're right.
Kinghorn: Just as an example, in a recent project that I had last year over in Pocatello,
Idaho, we had a similar situation where we kind of made up a number by looking at the
streets and the existing numbers from the other streets coming from the other directions
and realized that once this street is complete, that that particular address number,
fictitious number, would fit, you know, and we just kind of put that on the file, that when
that street was completed, that that was the number that that building would receive,
even though at the immediate time the number was fictitious, it was easy to implement
at a later date. Is that a possibility?
Borup: Are you asking for the --
Kinghorn: The reason I'm asking for this is just for their marketing and sales that they
can advertise themselves as being a Locust Grove address, because, eventually, they
will be. That eliminates the requirement that they will have to change their address at a
later date.
Borup: I think staff has already answered that. They can't really do an address on a
road that doesn't exist. My question would be if you could get the number, if you could
have this same number, maybe, and they could advertise for -- how can you advertise
and be off Locust Grove if the road isn't built yet?
Kinghorn: Well, it's just, you know, you put a big sign over there where Locust Grove
ends and it says, you know, Ferguson entrance over here.
Nary: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Nary.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 22 of 32
Nary: I think part of the problem is -- and I don't -- I don't know that the Commission or
the Council could solve it, but from what I heard -- from what I heard them say, they
were going to be operating this business for a year or more before the road was
actually in. From a safety -- from the safety services standpoint, for fire and police and
EMS, there is no way in this -- in this area that they are going to be able to address it off
a street that doesn't exist and everybody is going to know that this business is the one
that's got the wrong address on it and if there is a person there injured, if there is a fire,
if there is a break in, there is just no way to be able to make that happen in this size of
county that we have here. I don't know the circumstances in Pocatello, but I mean I
think the staff -- you know, it's following a consistent policy and I don't know that the
Commission or the Council can really change that and provide, again, adequate public
safety service to this facility. Once they have people there, they want to make sure the
fire truck can find it.
Kinghorn: Correct.
Zaremba: Thank you. If -- you can tell we certainly sympathize with the issue and the
desire, but as has been said by other members, I support the reasoning behind not
allowing addresses on not yet existing streets. I'm not sure we can help you with that
one.
Kinghorn: In answer to Josh's other comments, the number of actual company vehicles
on the lot would be four. Typically, they would be located on the east side of the HVAC
building, outside of the designated parking areas, and would not affect the 72 spaces. I
don't know if he's referring to those specifically or employee vehicles.
Wilson: Any vehicle, actually, in the conduct of the business. That wouldn't include
employee vehicles.
Kinghorn: And may as well designate it on the side there, the HVAC building in the
lower left corner and outside of the designated spaces.
Wilson: Okay. And from those comments -- and this is what I anticipated -- staff
recommends that parking is vastly sufficient such for the site, so --
Kinghorn: And in the last matter, we would be happy to create an outdoor amenity for
public and employee seating as well. I guess I still struggle with the address issue. I
guess even if Ferguson Enterprises were to advertise and market a Nola and Locust
Street address, it doesn't seem to me that it would be terrible to create a fictitious
address that would be implemented at a later time, but I guess if that's impossible,
that's impossible.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? You're just asking the city to agree on a
building number and a street address when Locust Grove --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 23 of 32
Kinghorn: Correct.
Newton-Huckabay: -- when they start assigning addresses just for everybody. Is that
what you did in Pocatello, everybody agreed it's going to be --
Kinghorn: Yeah. We had two streets that came together in a similar situation like this
and, for example, the one street stopped at 1500 and the next street picked up at 1700
and so we knew that that building was going to be somewhere in the 1600 block and
so, you know, we just kind of evaluated where it was and we decided to assign it the
number 1634, because we knew that it was before the halfway point of the -- you know,
the second area, and so we just knew in the future that that street was -- that address
was going to be 1634 and at the time that the street was built, the city officially logged
that 1634 address number.
Newton-Huckabay: And what benefit did you get from that on your business in
Pocatello?
Kinghorn: This same situation, actually. The city -- that building did not have to use the
back street address and for the first six months they were able to -- their clientele was
able to access that facility off of the other street, in which they normally would have
facing, but it's not that that particular street was going to be closed in the future, that
particular street was a secondary street and the future street was going -- is, with a
continuation of a primary street, and it behooved the public traffic and the city and the
business as well to have that primary street as their address. And so it was just
something we kind of did. Put a little note on a yellow folder going when this street gets
built this will be the number for that building and even though it had to -- still had to go
through its legal process. We just kind of fictitiously pre-assigned that number to it. I
understand the concerns as far as the emergency access. I guess -- I would think that
Nola -- Ferguson Enterprises would probably be willing to utilize both addresses on their
marketing, I guess, that they are off of Nola -- listed first and Locust Grove listed
second. Their clients would be able to find their facility from both addresses. But I
certainly am willing to go along with whatever this Commission decides.
Rohm: And I think that from the Commission's perspective, we can't dictate to you how
you market your property and if you want to market it as a Locust Grove property, that's
your prerogative, but we can't -- it doesn't look like there is a vehicle to give you that
Locust Grove address and that's the best that we can do for you, just empathize with
your position, but we have got to move forward based upon its current street
configuration and if you want to market it as a Locust -- I don't think there is any
objection by this body, for sure, however you want to market it.
Kinghorn: Even though they can't get there.
Rohm: Even though -- but the point is we can't -- we can't do that.
Kinghorn: Well, I understand. I appreciate your consideration.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 24 of 32
Rohm: Thank you.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions?
Moe: No.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: I think that covers it.
Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. On this item we don't have anybody else signed up,
but, again, this is the opportunity for anybody that wishes to. Okay. Hearing no
comments from the general public, Mr. Kinghorn does not need to provide a rebuttal
again, so --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing for CUP 05-016.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-016, to
include all staff comments of the hearing date May 5th, 2005, received by the city
clerk's office May 2nd, 2005.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe, did you want to add the second amenity?
Moe: Well, it's already in the site specific --
Zaremba: It's asked for in the --
Moe: It's asked for on their -- on page five, item number one. It's in there already. It's
already there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 25 of 32
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's there, but the applicant actually has to agree to it and that part of it wasn't.
That's all right. Good enough.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
The motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 05-018 Request to amend the existing Conditional
Use Permit / Planned Development to allow for a maximum building height
of 58-feet in a C-C zone for Lots 1 & 2 and the southern portion of Lot 9,
Block 5 for Marriott Courtyard at El Dorado by BRS Architects – NWC of
East Tarpon Drive and South Eagle Road:
Zaremba: Okay. Moving ahead. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for Item 14 and this
is CUP 05-018, request to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit slash planned
development to allow for a maximum building height of 58 feet in a C-C zone for Lots 1
and 2 and the southern portion of Lot 9, Block 5, for Marriott Courtyard at El Dorado by
BRS Architects, northwest corner of East Tarpin Drive and South Eagle Road, and we
will begin with staff comments.
Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is -- I'll start by showing this in El Dorado.
The two lots are immediately west of Eagle and north of Tarpin in this location as
shown. The applicant's request is to increase the height requirement or height limitation
and this is from ground to the highest point of the building. I detailed that in the staff
report, so there is no confusion that -- if we are talking about building height versus any
type of architectural features on the top. This is from ground to the highest point of the
building. This is -- the use as a hotel on this site has already been approved under an
existing Conditional Use Permit. The request is right now to make the allowance for the
height of 58 feet. This is not going to impact any of the height restrictions of the existing
El Dorado Conditional Use Permit, which was -- I'll go back one slide -- in what they call
the Ridenbaugh section, which is these lots in here. Just a point of clarification, that it
has no impact on that. They will be providing a cross-access agreement to the north,
which is the -- there is a convenience store, as well as, I believe, a Jack-in-the-Box
restaurant in that location and their other access will be to Tarpin to the south and the
already pre-approved designated location for the access. Their only major requirement
was to upgrade the classification for fire from an R-3 -- it's in the Meridian fire
department comments and that was the only change that would need to be done to the
building through construction in order make allowances for the height increase. And I
will stand for questions.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 26 of 32
Borup: None.
Moe: None.
Zaremba: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward?
Strite: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Billy Ray Strite, 1010
Allante in Boise. I'm here on behalf of the hotel partners and, obviously, we are pleased
with the staff report. I do have one question, if I might, and it pertains to page five,
items number seven and items number eight. Maybe Bruce can help me with this.
Those two lots -- the parcel is made up of two lots, as the previous slide would show
you there, and each one has its individual sewer and water tap to the lot specifically.
So, we, in effect, have two services provided to this site. However, if I'm reading item
number seven, item number 8, second sentence, it says we will be responsible to
construct sewer mains to and through this proposed development. I guess I need a
point of clarification.
Freckleton: Certainly.
Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Benito Subdivision, when it was constructed, eight inch mains were
stubbed into each lot. We didn't know how services or how the lots were going to
develop, so they were actually main lines. It's our intention to, whenever possible, to be
able to loop water mains through and tie them back in, just for hydraulic balance and
better fire flows. So, if -- it's a little bit of a boilerplate comment. If we have the
opportunity to run it through and tie it back into another main on the other side or
something we would desire to do that. Does that answer the question at all or --
Strite: Mr. Chair. Bruce would -- does that also include the sewer extension? I mean
the sewer is --
Freckleton: Well, it's considered a main, because it's an eight-inch -- it's eight inch
diameter.
Strite: But we, basically, have two sewer services, each of which is eight inch.
Freckleton: Right.
Strite: To that site. Let me ask you this: Having spoken to Joe Silva probably a year
ago when we started this process, we talked about the potential for extending the water
main anyway, because we had to provide additional fire hydrants, which you will note in
the fire department comments. So, is that construed to mean that once we get to the
north end of this property, are we going to be responsible to try to get Farmers and
Merchants to allow us to go through their property in order to get back to that other
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 27 of 32
eight inch main? I guess -- all I need is a point of clarification and -- I have no problem
with the concept, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in this case.
Freckleton: Right. Point of clarification would be that services or the mains that are
necessary for this project are existing and you would just need to extend them to
whatever point you would need to to access the building at the point you need. Now,
the only qualification I'll add to that would be if there is deficiency in the pressure flow,
we may be looking for another main to tie into to balance out hydraulic -- hydraulically
or increase the fire flow. So, it's something that we would have to go through and add
to our water model to analyze that once we get a little further into the process.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's certainly acceptable to us.
And reasonable.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Strite: That's the only question I have. If you have any questions, I would be happy to
answer them. If you want to take a moment, I can show you some photographs of the
one we just finished in Boise, if there is any desire to do so. Other than that, if you're
ready to go home, I'd like to go home as well.
Zaremba: Run through them quickly and we will be glad to see them.
Strite: Well, I have them in a packet here.
Zaremba: Oh, I thought they were up on the screen.
Strite: No. I have them here and you're welcome to take a look. Again, I'm not sure
that -- some of you, I know, have already seen these, but I brought them just to -- just in
case. I, actually, expected to see some people from Thousand Springs and I went and
checked out the -- I kind of expected to see some people from Thousand Springs, so I
did a little bit of homework. I checked the grade basin -- finish floor elevation of the
ridge line at Thousand Springs and the finish floor of the hotel and we are 18 feet below
finish floor of the houses on the bench there, so, in essence, our highest point of 58 feet
is, really, 30 feet from that particular elevation, which, in fact, is below what's allowed by
ordinance. So, I just thought I would throw that out. I find that there are no opposing
neighbors, so --
Zaremba: If they had been here, they probably would have raised that issue, but --
Strite: I would have thought so. That's very -- other than that, I have nothing else. But
ask for your permission and we will move forward.
Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 28 of 32
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only question I have to ask Mr. Strite is are you glad you
didn't, being last on the schedule, anticipate a 9:30 hearing and wait until then to show
up?
Zaremba: We can always talk until 2:00 o'clock in the morning if you want us to.
Borup: And we wouldn't have waited for you.
Strite: Thank you very much.
Zaremba: Thank you. And we have opportunity for everybody else in the audience to
speak, but there is nobody else in the audience, so that opportunity has been granted
and nobody was here take it, so Commissioners?
Guenther: I was going to say, if he really wants to be here that late, he can either be on
19th or the 2nd.
Zaremba: We could continue it until, then.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-018.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we forward on to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-018, to
include all staff comments of the hearing date May 5th, 2005, received by the city clerk
April 29th, 2005.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That
motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 29 of 32
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: We have -- staff has a comment.
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. I know you're really anxious to get out, but if I could just --
two quick things. One is there is an open house that we are hosting -- we being the
City of Meridian and planning staff, for the north Meridian area. It's going to be the 16th
-- Monday night the 16th, May 16th, at Sawtooth Middle School, and there will be
notices going out and put in your boxes, but I just wanted to give you a heads up. It's
going to be open house format. The focus of the meeting is going to be a -- solicit input
from property owners and the public on the north Meridian area.
Zaremba: Say again where that meeting is? Where is that meeting?
Hawkins-Clark: At Sawtooth Middle School.
Zaremba: And what time?
Hawkins-Clark: 6:00 to 8:00.
Zaremba: 6:00 to 8:00?
Borup: That's Sawtooth on Linder?
Hawkins-Clark: Sawtooth on Linder. Right.
Zaremba: All right. Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: You don't want to walk or ride your bike, because there is no
sidewalk.
Hawkins-Clark: It could be a test case. You could walk there. And the second thing, I
just, for the fun of it, was just estimating -- which I usually don't do, but estimating the
time frames for the 19th and the 2nd and I thought I was being conservative and I
couldn't come up with less than a seven hour meeting on either one. To be honest with
you, I mean there was a withdrawal of the Reserve Subdivision from the May 19th and I
factored that withdrawal into -- into that, but I know that you probably don't have a way
to solve this tonight, because you have already -- you know, you have already set these
agendas, but I just thought maybe one idea might be if you're willing, that, you know,
you could have sort of a pre -- is this right, Mr. Attorney, that -- as long as we announce
that they are going to have a quorum, it's not a hearing, it's a workshop where staff
could give an overview of some of the details that we anticipate being presented at that
hearing. It is -- I mean you have had many meetings lately, but it's just one thought,
that if you want to -- because our fear, of course, is that, you know, you won't get to the
last four items on both of these meetings, I really don't think. So, you may get to their --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 30 of 32
you know, you get through -- and through it and, then, if you don't finish those meetings,
then, we have this ripple effect, you know, through -- through the people that are
already now anticipating to go onto our July meetings and I'm just trying to think of a
way to help these two meetings ease up a little bit.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it may be problematic in trying to do
a workshop, which, essentially, is really trying to give the staff an extra opportunity to --
to give the staff report or the troublesome areas and, then, there is not an opportunity
for a response or public participation. One thing you might consider -- I mean certainly I
know there are times when I agree with Hawkins-Clark that, you know, we have
announced on a number of occasions that we won't take anymore hearings after a set
time and we will stop -- we will stop at a certain point and determine how many more
hearings we will continue on and, then, setting those. You probably would be better off
if you wanted to, setting a special meeting in the future that can be noticed and that way
it can be determined -- just to give you an example, if you decide at 10:00 o'clock on the
19th that you're going to gauge where you're at and there is three projects left and
you're going to set those two to your second meeting in June or you're going to set it to
a special meeting in June, just to make sure you have that spill over capability, that
would probably be better from a public records standpoint, as well as the record going
forward to the Council and, you know, always there is the potential of district court. The
other option is that it is a national day of prayer and you could certainly use that as a
method to determine maybe on May 19th things will work themselves out.
Zaremba: We can pray that I ask fewer questions.
Moe: I do it all the time.
Nary: I just would be hesitant to recommend a workshop. It would be better just a
special meeting setting those items on a meeting agenda and just hearing them in that
fashion, than, trying to get a hearing early and, then, hear it again and have it appear to
at least an applicant that maybe there is an opportunity -- they didn't get a fair
opportunity to really rebut that or there is a lag in time between those. I think it just
makes it a little more problematic.
Hawkins-Clark: And Joe pointed out to me that we may shuffle the agenda for those
that are anticipated to be no opposition, to help -- try to determine -- you know, from the
standpoint of public relations, if you will, to get them done first, but --
Zaremba: Well, we discussed at one point having a -- the no brainers might be on a
Consent Agenda and move them off. If somebody objects -- can we do that? There
was a few -- I mean there were two or three tonight that probably could have been --
Borup: If the applicant has no objection to any of the staff comments, if they are in a
hundred percent agreement with all staff comments, that those could go on. Didn't we
get that in --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 31 of 32
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a -- there is a Public Hearing
ordinance that's been worked on to death and it's kind of in the pending stage, but you
could certainly, as the chair's prerogative, certainly request that any of the items that
have no objections to the staff, that they are in agreement, you could have the
application state that on the record, that they are in complete agreement with the staff
comments and they are ready to move forward, you can group those together and
approve those all in one motion and that's certainly not going to violate any --
Rohm: How can it be done without taking public testimony? If there is someone from
the public just because --
Nary: If there was someone from the public that's here to provide any testimony, then,
you could take it off the Consent Agenda. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
I mean Commissioner Rohm is right, I mean as long as a member of the public has an
opportunity to speak, if there is no opposition by the applicant or there is no opposition
from the public, you can certainly group all of those projects together and you kind of
approve them in one motion recommending to staff the findings for approval based on
the staff's recommendation.
Borup: I'd recommend we do that. We have been wanting to try that anyway.
Zaremba: Yes. This would be a good meeting to experiment with that.
Moe: That's what Boise does. I have been there a few times in the last month and a
half going through that process.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion on the floor that I don't believe has been seconded
and has not been voted on.
Rohm: To adjourn?
Zaremba: Yes.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Did Mr. -- did we get through all --
Zaremba: I'm sorry. We are done.
Hawkins-Clark: I'm done. I just wanted to give you that forewarning.
Borup: What was the estimate on tonight's meeting?
Hawkins-Clark: No estimate.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
May 5, 2005
Page 32 of 32
Zaremba: There wasn't time to make an estimate.
Rohm: Second.
Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Thank you. We are adjourned at 8:24.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:24 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK