2010 09-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 16, 2010
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 16, 2010, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall,
Commissioner Scott Freeman and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Members Not Present: Commissioner Tom O'Brien.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Bill Nary, Pete Friedman, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien
X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regular
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with
roll call of attendance.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Rohm: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do have one
change tonight. Under item 4 -- 4-A, that item CUP for Verizon Wireless will be just
opened to continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 7th. So, if there is
anybody here in the audience tonight to speak to that, we will not be hearing it at all and
it will be continued to that October 7th meeting. Other than that there was no changes
to the agenda, so could I get a motion to accept the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda as amended. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda.
A. Approve Minutes of August 5, 2010 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
~.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 2 of 37
B. Approve Minutes of August 19, 2010 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Rohm: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there are two items on
that, the approval of the minutes from the August 5th Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting and the minutes from the August 19th Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. Any additions or corrections? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent
Agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Action Items.
A. Public Hearing: CUP 10-009 for Verizon Wireless Meridian High
School by Nefi Garcia, TAIC Located at 1900 W. Pine Avenue
Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval of a 100-Foot Tall
Wireless Communication Facility in an R-4 Zoning District
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 10-009 for Verizon
Wireless -Meridian High School, for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regular
scheduled meeting of October 7th.
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Before we open up this next hearing, basically, what we do with the
Commission is we will open a public hearing and we will ask the staff to give their
report. The staff gives their report based upon the application's adherence to the
Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and they, then, give us
recommendations to go forward with and once the staff has given their review of the
project, then, the applicant has an opportunity to speak as well. Once the applicant and
the staff have completed their testimony the public will, then, be opened to comment as
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 3 of 37
well and the applicant will have an opportunity following any discussion at that level to
respond to any questions brought up in the public testimony.
B. Public Hearing: AZ 10-002 for Barletta Subdivision by Russell
& Karen Hunemiler Request: Annexation and Zoning Approval
of 5.94 Acres with an R-2 Zoning District Located at 3299 W.
Davis Lane.
C. Public Hearing: PP 10-002 for Barletta Subdivision by Russell
and Karen Hunemiller Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 2
Building Lots and 2 Common /Other Lots on 5.94 Acres
Located at 3299 W. Davis Lane:
Rohm: So, with that being said, at this time I'd like to open the public hearing on AZ 10-
002 for Barletta Subdivision and PP 10-002 for the same subdivision and begin with the
staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject site is
located on the west side of Ten Mile Road, midway between West Tasa Drive and
Overland Road. The property is bordered on the west, south, and north with county
residences, zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada County and vacant properties across Ten Mile
Road to the east, zoned R-8. Currently, as you can see in this aerial, the site is
developed with an existing single family residential home and a detached accessory
structure. The applications before you tonight include the annexation of 5.94 acres from
R-1 in Ada County to an R-2 zoning district in the City of Meridian and preliminary plat
approval for two residential lots and two common lots in a proposed R-2 zoning district.
Lot sizes for the proposed plat range from 2.10 acres to 3.05 acres, with a gross density
of 0.34 dwelling units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site for low
density residential, which is consistent with the residential district. Although the zoning
and density is consistent with the land use map designation, the plan specifically states
single family homes on large lots are to develop where urban services are provided.
The UDC also requires the connection to city services for all residential districts to avoid
scattered development of land that results in a lack of water supply and sewer service.
Currently city services are not available to serve the proposed development and the
applicant does not intend to extend services to the site. City services are approximately
1,280 feet away and may not be extended for quite some time. Typically the extension
of city services is required with the development of the property. A note on the plat has
indicated the applicant is wanting to use the existing septic and well system that's
currently being used like for the existing home and, then, the -- the additional lot would
be constructed with the same type of services, septic and water. So, they are asking a
waiver from city engineer to deviate from extending services at this time. The existing
property currently takes access from. Davis Lane, which connects to South Ten Mile
Road, so if you can see the arrow here, currently this is the driveway for the existing lot
and, then, Davis Lane connects to Ten Mile currently in the southeast corner of the site.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages vehicular connectivity between planned and
existing subdivisions and the UDC provides provisions that specify requirements for the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 4 of 37
creation and improvement of roadways. The UDC requires all subdivisions to provide
local street access to any site that takes access from an arterial street. In order for local
street access to be provided to the site, the applicant would have to reconstruct a
portion of Davis Lane that abuts the east side of the property contingent upon approval
from ACRD. Even if Davis Lane was reconstructed to ACHD standards, the district has
indicated they would not accept it as a public roadway, because the roadway would
serve no public benefit. Since ACHD is not willing to accept Davis Lane as a public
street and single family homes are not intended to take access from public streets, the
plat does not comply with the access to streets standards and the street frontage
requirements of the UDC. Staff is of the opinion that approving this request may lead to
additional requests to subdivide similarly situated properties on Davis Lane. If I could
go back up to the aerial here, you can see where -- how far stretched Davis Lane does
run through the site and the adjacent properties to the north, so this is -- here is where
the proposed plat is located. Staff believes if this was to annex at this time it could
perpetuate other properties to ask for the same zoning designation to come in and
develop properties or single family developments without having access to a public
street system and so that was one of the staffs basis for recommendation of the plat.
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. Because a small portion of the site will
front on Ten Mile Road when the road widening project is completed, the applicant has
provided a 25 foot landscape buffer in accordance with the UDC. In addition, because
the site exceeds ten percent open space -- or five acres in size, the applicant has to
provide -- is required to provide a minimum of ten percent open space. This submitted
landscape plan shows that they have provided 11.1 percent of open space, which
complies with the current UDC requirements. In addition to asking for a waiver of city
services, the applicant is also asking for a waiver not to the the service ditch or the
Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff believes that that could be a benefit to leave the service ditch
open if the applicant would somehow create a usable water feature that would run
through Lot 3, Block 1, of the proposed plat. So, currently here the majority of the open
space planned within the subdivision, it is that 75 foot gas easement by the Williams
pipeline. They have indicated on their landscape plan that it will be landscaped with
grass and trees. The service line itself runs parallel to this easement, so staff felt, well,
if you wanted to leave it open, want to include it as an amenity in that open space.
have not received any comment from the applicant whether or not they like staffs
recommendation. To further clarify, also the applicant has not -- staff has not received
any written testimony on the subject application and staff is recommending denial based
on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in Exhibit D of the staff report.
This concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions
Commission may have.
Rohm: Any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Freeman: No.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 5 of 37
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay,
Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant,
who is Russ and Karen Hunemiler. This property is just a little under six acres. They
have a very nice luxury home on the property with a very nice accessory building. Their
driveway is paved. Their daughter moved in and they decided that they wanted to give
that home to their daughter. So, they came to me asking how could we possibly build a
second home on the western portion of the property that at this time is just kind of
unimproved. And initially we thought, well, we'd probably go to the county. The
property is already zoned R-1 in the county and the R-1 zone is a one acre minimum lot
size. But, then, it was brought to our attention that Meridian and the county -- when
Meridian went through with their last area of impact adjustment, that they changed the
agreement, and so now it reads the same as the city of Boise's agreement with Ada
County. If by chance your property is contiguous to the city limits, you cannot apply for
a plat or any development application to the county, you must first apply for an
annexation to the city. If you're denied at the city, then, you can turn around and go
back to the county. So, we are here tonight with the application. I -- every once in
awhile we get -- a situation arises with these developments where we kind of have what
I call a square peg and it's not fitting in the nice round holes of the Comprehensive Plan
or sometimes the ordinance. This is -- these are estate lots. The Comprehensive Plan
-- the ordinances really don't address estate lots. There is no comparable zone like the
county has for the R-1. So, the best that we could ask for was the R-2, because,
obviously, that is the lowest -- or the largest lot size and the lowest density. Davis Lane
has been out there since 1977 when George Davis Subdivision came in. Twenty-five
feet wide -- 24, 25. It varies a little bit. Paved. It serves -- I think I said in my narrative
ten homes, but I believe it serves 11. And there are 11 estate homes. Bill, can you pop
that disk in?
Parsons: Yeah. Which slide do you want first?
McKay: What comes up first?
Parsons: Number one. It's the plat. Zoning map. Expand it.
McKay: Yeah. The next one.. There we go. Can you zoom out a little bit?
Parsons: Yeah. I will rotate it.
McKay: There we go. This aerial kind of gives you a good idea. The -- if I touch this
will it change?
Parsons: No.
McKay: The Ridenbaugh Canal adjoins this property. It has frontage on Ten Mile. It
also has frontage on Davis Lane. We are not proposing to take access to Ten Mile, but
take access off Davis Lane, which would be no different than a shared driveway, which
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 6 of 37
is allowed under the ordinance for a single family dwelling. The large existing home you
can see is right in the middle of the property. It's extensively landscaped. All the green
areas are all manicured. So, the area that they want to build the home is back here on
the west side: It's bounded by the Ridenbaugh Canal. They intend to build a paved
driveway back to this home. The only person that showed up at our neighborhood
meeting was the home to the north, just curious what was transpiring. Their only desire
was give us a little bit of landscape buffer as far as the placement of the driveway. But
nobody was objecting to it. Can you go to the next one, Bill? All these technical
equipment things. So, as you can see, the subject property is located right here. This
Davis Lane comes in, comes up, terminates as a cul-de-sac. I did meet with Ada
County Highway District and they said it is their preference that Davis Lane remain
private for the reason is there is no possibility of any real interconnection throughout this
area, one, because it's developed with a large number of one acre and less lots. Two,
the Ridenbaugh Canal, as you can see, wraps all the way around the subject property.
They said it was their preference that it be private and remain private. The ordinance,
as Bill indicated, is correct, with single family dwellings it doesn't allow us to do private
roads. It does allow us to do private roads for multi-family. But this is an existing
approved private road in 1977 that went through approvals at the county, was designed
in accordance with their standards at the time. Bill, can you go to the next one? Here is
the site. Here you see that Ridenbaugh wrapping through. All this area throughout
here is R-1. The R-1 extends clear to the west. There is approximately 240 acres of R-
1 out there that's developed with lots in varying sizes, all the way down to one acres or
less. Bill, if you can do the next one. This particular map -- what you see in yellow are
the lot -- the existing lots and parcels out there in our vicinity that are less than five
acres and as you can see there is a whole bunch of them. In fact, the very first
subdivision I ever did is this one. I know, it's real imaginative, and it was a tough one,
you know, to start with, where we -- I learned along the way. We are not trying to skirt
our responsibility as far as the sewer and the water. The sewer and the water is located
about 13 -- approximately 1,300 feet south of us, 1,200 feet south of us, at the new
Overland -Ten Mile intersection. We have talked with the Public Works Department,
we are in agreement, condition of approval, part of development agreement when
simple services are available we'd have six months to make that connection and we are
not opposed to that. What we are talking about here is large estate type lots. These
estate type lots are already on septics and wells out here. I'm only doing one lot. There
is one septic, one well, that's it. That's all we are doing. That is allowable. We meet all
Central District Health requirements as far as setbacks from the canal and so forth. Bill
mentioned the Comprehensive Plan. I did go through and look at the sections that he
emphasized in his report and there is a little bit of confusion in here on the one -- as far
as urban service planning area. It states upon formal request of the city for
development that is on property not immediately serviceable with urban services, the
city may consider said application. It, then, says -- request for annexation to the city
requires city owned services. And, then, it says: Expansion of the sanitary sewer or
water system may be at the option of either the City of Meridian or the developer. So, it
does -- there is a sentence in that Comprehensive Plan that does talk about the ability
to be flexible. Mayor de Weerd said one time in a meeting: Why can't we do some
estate lots in Meridian like they have in Eagle, with the two acre, the three acre, the four
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 7 of 37
acre, five acre -- we'd like to see some of those. Well, one of the problems is what we
are dealing with right now, the difficulty as far as reasonably being able to develop a lot
of that size. We think what we are asking for is reasonable. It's R-1 out there. It's been
R-1 for years and years and years. I'm going to have a three acre and a two acre lot
and everything would continue the way it is. I'm not creating any hazards. I'm not
creating a nuisance. Bill talks about the -- the approach there to Davis Drive. ACRD --
they didn't have a problem with it in their staff report. They approved the application.
My client has given ACRD additional right of way; because they are going to rebuild the
entire bridge in that Ten Mile area, raise Ten Mile up so they can make the overpass
grade work. My clients have been cooperative with the district and all he wants to do is
build a new home for himself. I did look at cost. I, basically, went through, did a
quantity list of what it would cost us if we were to go down, pick that sewer and water
up, pull it to the property and based on current rates, my estimate was it would be
probably between 140 and 150 thousand dollars. For one lot that's pretty much cost
prohibitive. I would think annexing into the city -- the city gets the building permit fees,
the city gets all of their impact fees. The city controls, it makes sense to me, versus
going to the county. I don't think I'm asking for something that's out of the ordinary. As
you can see, I have got the lot sizes of those adjoining lots. We are talking a private
road with 11 single family homes. I'm putting one more on. My neighbors are not
opposed to me and I just think it makes sense. And, like I said in the beginning of my
testimony, this is a square peg. I got round holes. I can't fit it in. But I do think it would
be of benefit to the city with the proper conditions of approval to make that connection,
to pay those connection fees at such time as it's available I think makes sense. But I
don't know. I'm not on the Commission. So, I guess we'd ask the Commission to, you
know, look at the big picture and kind of try to grasp that this is not your standard
subdivision by a developer where they are selling lots for profit, this is just a guy who
wants to build a new home for himself, a luxury home. He talks about spending up to a
million dollars on his home. I mean it's not like he's going to put some little starter
house out there. He likes Meridian, he likes the area, and he'd like to remain there if at
all possible. So, I'd ask the Commission to kind of think outside the box and
recommend approval. Thank you.
Rohm: Mrs. McKay?
McKay: Oh. Getting excited here.
Rohm: Yeah.. I -- you know, I appreciate your testimony, but in my mind it seems to me
that if we were to go through our process tonight and ultimately do the denial based
upon staffs recommendation, then, your follow-up request would be for an application to
the county for a two lot subdivision, which there would be nothing that would stand in
the way of doing exactly what you want to do within the county, as opposed to going
outside of the ordinances with the city and it just seems to me that this makes much
more sense to be a county development, rather than a city development, unless you
wanted to take the steps to actually bring the city services within the' subdivision itself.
And so albeit that I do believe that you will have two beautiful homes on this five acre
parcel as a whole, I personally don't think that it fits for the city at this point in time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 8 of 37
That's kind of the way it looks to me, but that's just as one Commissioner's vantage
point.
McKay: Thank you, sir.
Rohm: You bet. Any --
Marshall: I was wondering if there was anymore testimony, because I'm kind of waiting
to hear other testimony or --
Rohm: Well, first of all, is there any additional questions of the applicant before we take
that step?
Marshall: I don't have any at this time.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. There was not anybody that has signed up for this project,
but if there is anyone that would like to testify now is that time. Seeing none --
Marshall: So, without any -- Mr. Chair, without any further public testimony, I wouldn't
mind giving my opinion here.
Rohm: Let's -- let's go ahead and close the public hearing.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 10-002 and PP 10-
002.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 10-002 and PP
10-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: My thoughts is I appreciate your comments, because I absolutely agree that
-- unfortunately, Idon't -- I think the city kind of takes on a liability in that when we
accept somebody into the city we need to provide them with services, fire, sewer, water,
you know, all those services that come with associating with the city we are not able to
provide those, at least not all of them, and I don't see a benefit to the applicants by
coming into the city if there are going to be city taxes, they are going to pay for those
utilities, they are going to pay for those things and, yet not receive them. Well, maybe
they won't pay the utility bills, but they definitely pay the city taxes and whatnot. I am
worried about that area, about what happens to that area with the new interchange
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 9 of 37
going 9n and the amount of stuff going on out there, I'm just totally curious as to what will
develop out there and how that's going to go. I kind of think that oftentimes you're going
to see a lot more commercial and things go in closer to an interchange, like we see at
most interchanges off the interstate, and I worry about what happens to the residents
here, are they going to continue enjoying this location if it develops in a way they don't
necessarily foresee. I mean the Comprehensive Plan does show just north of here, you
know, some mixed use stuff and some commercial and whatnot up by the interchange
and it may bring it a lot more traffic down there with that little private road taking access
directly -- the road itself, not the driveway, but the road, taking access to Overland there
-- or, excuse me, Ten Mile and the driveway's within a few feet of the entrance, that can
really be somewhat problematic. To be honest, I think it's better off in the county's
hands than the city's.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Any other discussion?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, a little bit. I think the arguments were well presented. However,
think the Comprehensive Plan, it addresses this very type of situation and because of
the concern stated in the staff report, I don't think it's in the city's best interest, nor could
we -- I don't see a compelling reason to make an exception to what the Comprehensive
Plan clearly lays out. That's all.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comment?
Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing of substance to add to the argument.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: In the process I would like to say I do feel for the plight of the homeowners
here and what they want to do, but, again, I don't think it's appropriate for the city to do
that.
Rohm: I think that they have opportunity to do just what they want to do just within the
confines of the county, rather than through the city, and it's just a process. So, with that
being said, Commissioner Marshall, would you like to make a motion?
Marshall: Oh, geez, it just jumped on me. Got it here. I do have it right here. Mr.
Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
denial to the City Council for file numbers AZ 10-002 and PP 10-002, as presented
during the hearing of September 16th, 2010, because -- for the reasons stated in the
staff report are all appropriate.
Rohm: Thank you.
Freeman: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 10 of 37
Rohm: We have a motion to deny CUP -- excuse me -- AZ 10-002 and PP 10-002. All
those in favor of the denial say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you for coming.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Public Hearing: ZOA 10-002 for Unified Development Code
Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Department
Request: Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment
to Modify and Clean Up Certain Sections of the UDC -See
Application for Details of all Sections Proposed for
Amendments
Rohm: Okay. At this time our next public hearing is ZOA 10-002 and we will take the
staff report.
Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. What we have
before you tonight are a series of text amendments to the Unified Development Code.
There is nothing terribly earth shattering or radical in what we are proposing. This is not
a major -- no major policy shifts or anything like that. Largely there is some clarification.
We are, actually, trying to incorporate some advances in technology, if you will, and
some thinking in that and just also address some areas that we found problematic
through our administration of the code. If you like I can go through them all individually
for you. If not, I can hit a few of the high points and leave it at that. You have a pretty
thorough staff report that Sonya prepared before she left on vacation and so whatever
the Commission's pleasure.
Rohm: Mr. Friedman, why --
Friedman: Yes, sir.
Rohm: Why don't you hit the high points and, then, if any of the Commissioners have
specific questions we will go from there.
Friedman: Okay. Be happy to do that, sir. A couple of things that we have done that
fall under that sort of rubric of the new technologies is one of the things we found is the
old code wouldn't allow utility meters to be placed inside of fenced areas and recently
we had a situation where somebody wanted to build a fence and they found that their
electric meter or gas meter was in there and we said, oh, my gosh, the code. is -- you
know, doesn't allow that and they said, well, why, because the guy just drives by and
shoots at it with a laser, right, or something like that. So, we are proposing to allow
utility meters within the confines of fenced areas. Another thing that we would like to
propose is that as amenities -- as you know when we have open space requirements for
subdivisions or amenities required for multi-family developments, they include plazas
and benches and play areas and open space areas, community centers and so forth,
but what we would like to also recommend is that within those list of amenities that we
add small community business centers, so that people who may telecommute from
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 11 of 37
home have a place just outside of the home, just down the street, they can go to if they
need to have a meeting or something like that or maybe avail themselves of video
conferencing facilities, the fairly small -- we are not looking at putting in a -- you know, a
business -- large business center, but just something that would be neighborhood based
or development based. We would also like to include the provision of fiber optic cable
as an amenity, if that's a way to get it to grow within the community. Another proposal is
for the actual codification of the requirements of utilizing the Meridian Development
Corporation's streetscape design guide -- streetscape standards for the Old Town area.
We have referenced it in our design guidelines currently, but we really haven't given it
the force of law and so what we would like to do is incorporate that into the UDC, so that
for new development when it occurs within the Old Town area that we can -- we can
actually point to the streetscape standards and say these are the standards for street
furniture and lighting and things like that that we -- we would expect to see with new
development in the Old Town area. We are recommending a modification to our private
street standards. You know, for a number of years staff has been very wary of gated
communities, if you will, and we still do not support gates on the public streets.
However, we were approached a couple of years ago -- the Council was approached by
some development interests and said, you know, we'd kind of like to have this option
and Council said, well, staff take a look at it. We met with the fire department, we talked
to them, we thought about the kinds of issues that might come up and so we do have
some limited provisions for gating developments with private roads. Of course, it can
serve no more than 50 residences, that's the magic cutoff point for the fire department in
terms of needing a secondary access. Of course, they would also need to have, you
know, 24 hour, seven day a week access to the gate, gate codes or a knox box or
something like that. The gates and -- could not, if we have a pathway running through
the development, could not be provided in such a manner to interfere with the public's
use of a -- of a public pathway or a public pathway with a public access easement.
What else? There is some more mundane things like right now some of our
development -- certain developments have different time limitations on them, like a
Conditional Use Permit has an 18 month time -- time life -- time if you will. Preliminary
plats have two years. You have certain extensions and we finally said, you know, given
that we have been processing one heck of a lot of extensions recently, it make sense to
just level the playing field and give everybody a flat two years to start with, rather than
18 months for your Conditional Use Permit or, for example, where you have a
preliminary plat and a Conditional Use Permit. The preliminary plat has two years for --
to obtain city engineer's signature on the final plat. But the Conditional Use Permit as
an 18 month life -- Life expectancy. So, we'd like to kind of level that playing field and
bring those together. There is a few others. Another one is what we have found in
development is oftentimes when a developer, particularly in a subdivision is doing the
earthwork and their grading and so forth that they find that they have excess material
and that excess material gets sold or transferred off. Well, technically, that qualifies as
surface mining and we don't particularly allow surface mining in the city. We got into a
situation with a developer who was doing some major excavation this year and we were
out there with the police department shutting them down and they came in and they
made a pretty compelling argument, says what are we going to do with this stuff? I
mean, you know, we can build the roads, we can put in the utilities, and, then, we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 12 of 37
all this material left. So, what we have done is added provisions where in certain
situations where you have construction activities that may result in excess material, that
they can obtain a Conditional Use Permit to actually process and mine, if you will, those
materials, but by obtaining a Conditional Use Permit it allows the city, then, to put
conditions of hours of operation, reclamation, dust control, things like that on that -- on
those limited operations. So, those are kind of the high points, if you will. Like I say,
there is some more that are fairly mundane, but that's really the highlights of the
proposed changes to you.
Rohm: Thanks, Mr. Friedman. Any questions of staff?
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. I have got a couple of issues, Pete. First, the new business
center, got a lot minimums on there and I kind of like that. We are trying to make sure
that it meets a certain standard, but there is no maximums and, in fact, it offers the fact
that a business center operator could come in and be hired to operate this and could
charge fees, even for members of the homeowners association, but they should be
given priority. Do we have any other amenities that we require in a -- in a subdivision
that can charge fees for its use by the homeowners?
Friedman: Not that I'm aware of, but we -- you know, I don't know --
Marshall: Part of my concern is back -- it's a way to back door a business. If somebody
wanted to start a new business center, I don't know, maybe in the future ten, 15 years
from now there is some kind of call from that and we get a two lot subdivision that
comes in with a business center amenity with no maximum, they simply appeal to the --
you know, they just got to get themselves priority and they have got a running business
that they can charge fees for in an area that's zoned residential. I don't -- I just think
there is kind of a kind loophole there that bothers me.
Friedman: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, Commissioner Marshall, I understand
that. I think -- my guess is if you're going to see a business center go into a subdivision,
it's probably going to be a fairly large subdivision. If it's not a large subdivision, if it's a
smaller subdivision, it's probably going to have more expensive homes, if you will, in
that. Again, also typically when the list of amenities is -- when the amenities are
required it's when you start getting into the larger subdivisions. The small two lot
subdivision wouldn't require any kind of -- kind of amenity.
Marshall: Just saying isn't it possible that that could be a useful loophole to somebody
wanting to the start a business in a residential area that we wouldn't otherwise want it?
Friedman: Well, it could be, but because of the size, I think, the thousand square
feet --
Marshall: Oh, is there a maximum?
Friedman: Yeah. The business center shall not exceed a thousand square feet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 13 of 37
Marshall: Oh, got you. I did not see that. You're right.. And I see it right now.
Friedman: And as you --
Marshall: There is a maximum.
Friedman: Yeah. And as you also indicated, I mean it's the association that's really
going to govern it, so if the association wants to have a business center and they want
to engage somebody to run it, I guess they are going to have to make a decision
whether or not they want to --
Marshall: Charge individual fees for everybody.
Friedman: -- charge individual fees or, you know, maybe what the person who runs it,
you know, subsidize the use for the community members through the income that they
generate.
Marshall: I guess my big point was I walked right over the top of that maximum. I was
looking for a maximum and there it is right in front of me.
Friedman: Well, there was way too much information in there anyway.
Marshall: Yeah. I tried to read it -- a second one. A second issue. And I thank you for
addressing that one. The adult entertainment. When we have an exclusion saying --
we are defining adult entertainment or adult stores; correct?
Friedman: Correct.
Marshall: And there is an exclusion to that that we are adding in, because of some
adult entertainment materials sold in an establishment that focuses in other areas.
Why, then, would we call it an adult store, because don't we refer to stores by their
major occupation or major source and we are referring to that excluding adult stores
only having a segment, so does that mean somebody that has a majority of adult things,
but has other things -- I just worry about that term.
Friedman: It's -- thank you, Commissioner. Yeah. It's -- this one's a pretty tough one,
pretty cloudy one to deal with and I'm -- if he's willing, I would like to kick this one over
to Mr. Nary.
Marshall: I guess we are waiting on that SOB, the sexually oriented business
ordinance. It says SOB right there. Excuse me. I didn't think it --
Nary: I know we know it when we see it.
Marshall: It didn't come to -- not the way my mind works.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 14 of 37
Friedman: We had a -- if I may, before Bill starts. We had a problem where we
categorized -- we fell into the category established by state law for adult businesses and
we have had businesses open up where portions of the wares that they had for sale fall
under adult content, but they carry other retail items that don't and this is really a stop
gap.
Marshall: So, maybe -- maybe we could -- instead what if we said excluding retail
establishments having only a segment of --
Friedman: Or businesses.
Marshall: Or businesses having a -- only a segment of -- as opposed to adult book
stores -- adult stores, because you're, then, referring to them as adult stores.
Friedman: Well, we do -- we do define them in our code as adult stores.
Nary: Right.
Friedman: We have a special definition --
Marshall: That's the exclusion. You're just -- you're defining the exclusion as an adult
store.
Friedman: But -- that's correct, Commissioner, but we have -- we do have specific
definitions for adult store in the city code and what we are doing is we are excluding
certain stores having only a segment or section devoted to sales of certain products.
Marshall: So, a retail establishment that has a small niche corner is now an adult store
by definition?
Friedman: No. At this point I'm going to punt to Mr. Nary.
Nary: I think where the disconnect is, Commissioners, is -- and Commissioner Marshall,
is that we have -- if I understand Mr. -- and I'm trying to find the terms in here, but if we
-- we have a definition of-adult stores that's different than it is if it's adult entertainment
and so they were trying to separate those two.
Friedman: Correct.
Nary: So, this is just the adult entertainment definition and that's why it has an
exclusion for adult stores.
Marshall: Okay.
Nary: So, there is two different --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 15 of 37
Marshall: Then without that knowledge Iwas --
Nary: So, that's where I think that this -- this is just trying to separate the two, because
we have had issues where stores have large inventories of adult entertainment items
and other ones that have very small sections of the store that are prohibited by age
access and so I think we are trying to create definitions that separate those two types of
businesses.
Marshall: Thank you.
Nary: Is that correct, Mr. Friedman?
Friedman: Yes, that is. You know, this is one I did not focus on, but, again,
Commissioners, earlier in the year we had a situation arise where we really got into a
quandary over a particular establishment opening up. Well, if it fell under the definition
of adult entertainment because of restrictions on age and so forth, then, it wasn't
allowed, however, only a portion of the establishment was age restricted, so it really
wasn't adult entertainment, it was more an adult store, but the age restrictions -- I mean
the whole thing is --
Nary: Commissioner, I mean you get -- to give you maybe areal -- just kind of real
world example; you will have retail establishments that primarily cater to adults. They
are not restricted by age to the entire store, but most of the material that's for sale is
really for adult oriented versus a Hastings that has some adult oriented material that is
segregated in a section of the store and a majority of the store is not. So, we are trying
to -- we are trying to, I guess create definitions of things that we have seen in the
community that are not troubling, they just don't fit in the current definition we have and I
think that's the intent of this section.
Marshall: Okay. Well, it sure helps knowing that adult stores is actually defined in the
code. I thought we were just simply referring to adult stores.
Nary: I believe -- I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it's defined in the state
code --
Friedman: Yeah.
Marshall: Okay.
Nary: -- is where it is.
Marshall: Thank you. And again --
Rohm: Other questions, Commission Marshall?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 16 of 37
Marshall: That actually -- the rest of it looked pretty good to me.
Rohm: Thank you. Anyone else have any questions of Mr. Friedman?
Freeman: No.
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on ZOA 10-002?
Freeman: So moved.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 10-002. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, having been the one with all the questions, I guess I will move this
forward, if everybody is okay with it.
Freeman: Yes.
Marshall: All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number ZOA 10-002 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of September 16th, 2010, with no modifications.
Freeman: Second.
Marshall: It's been moved and seconded to forward on to City Council recommending
approval of ZOA 10-002 with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carried. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Oh, wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Did we need to add this. modification?
Can we reopen that? The sidewalks and parks modification.
Rohm: Let me reopen --
Marshall: Since submittal of this application staff has come across one additional
section of the Unified Development Code that should be modified and included in the
recommended revisions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 17 of 37
Friedman: Oh, sure.
Marshall: And I intended to include that.
Rohm: All right. Let me reopen the public hearing. At this time I'd like to reopen ZOA
10-002 to include the additional item --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'd like to modify my motion to include the -- the staffs
recommendation in modifying 11-3A-17, sidewalks and parks, to the UDC.
Freeman: I'll second that.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to move ZOA 10-002 onto City Council
recommending approval with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank you. Good catch, Commissioner Marshall.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Before we open up this last public hearing, one of our Commissioners
has something he would like to --
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I will need to recuse myself from the upcoming public hearing.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I exit now.
E. Public Hearing: RZ 10-002 for Raisin' Angels Subdivision by
Capital Hill Holdings, LLC Located at 1125 E. Pine Avenue
Request: Rezone Approval of 0.43 of an Acre with a C-N
Zoning District
F. Public Hearing: CUP 10-010 for Raisin' Angels Subdivision by
Capital Hill Holdings, LLC Located at 1125 E. Pine Avenue
Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Daycare
Center for up to 60 Children in a Proposed C-N Zoning District
G. Public Hearing: PFP 10-003 for Raisin' Angels Subdivision by
Capital Holdings, LLC. Located at 1125 E. Pine Avenue
Request: Combined Preliminary /Final Plat Approval of 2
Building Lots on 0.96 of an Acre
Rohm: Okay. Now, having that out of the way, before we open this public hearing, if, in
fact, there is public testimony after the staff report, once a specific point has been made,
there is no additional weight given that point by other people stating the same thing
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 18 of 37
over. So, if, in fact, anybody chooses to testify -- and we will listen to everybody that's
in the audience, if they choose, but it would only be to bring up additional points of
interest that were not previously discussed by testimony received. So, with that being
said, at this time I'd like to open public hearing RZ 10-002, CUP 10-010 and PFP 10-
003 and begin with the staff report.
Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As Chairman
indicated, the application before you tonight is for a rezone of about just under a half an
acre from I-L, which is light industrial, to C-N, neighborhood business, and the approval
of the Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center for up to 60 children within the
proposed C-N zone in an existing 2,100 square foot building and for a combined
preliminary plat, two lots on just shy of one acre, as you can see from the overhead, the
subject properties are located on the south side of Pine Street, just west of Locust
Grove. To orient you, here is Locust Grove right here. The Ada County weed control,
mosquito abatement property is just west of the subject site and, again, to give you a
better feel for it, here is the zoning map showing the current designation -- zoning
designation of I-L. The subject property is the one that is cross-hatched and outlined in
the dark line there. This is a -- kind of a conceptual layout. Building number one is the
proposed daycare center. Building number two is an existing multi-tenant industrial
building. Access into the site is from a single point on Pine Street and you have parking
provided approximately 24, 25 spaces, I believe, right in here and, then, this is merely a
floor plan of the existing building where the daycare center is proposed. And, then, this
would be a sketch of the preliminary plat. The intent is to create a lot upon which you
would have some parking and this existing industrial building and on the second lot you
would have the proposed daycare center, which is an existing building now, it was a
residence, it was, then, converted to an office and this just gives you a -- kind of a
schematic and the landscape plan of the site itself. So, by way of a little bit of
background on this, the Comprehensive Plan is designation for the subject is mixed
community and, as I said, the zoning on the property is I-L, which is consistent with
many of the existing uses surrounding the development. In reviewing the application for
the daycare -- both the daycare and the rezone and the preliminary plat, staff, through
our review of the Comp Plan and the UDC and through our analysis determined that we
were unable to support the daycare center in this site and, further, we were unable to
support the rezone primarily because to support a rezone for a specific use that would
be carving it out from an area that is already zoned for something else, really did smack
of spot zoning and it would be focusing in just on changing the rules and the
designations to accommodate a specific use. While the property is designated mixed
use commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and daycares one of the potential uses
within the designation, because the industrial -- surrounding area is industrial and the
zoning is industrial and the general character of the area is industrial, we felt that the
proposed day care center is not. an appropriate use for this property, nor would it be
compatible with the existing abutting industrial uses. Additionally, the mixed use
designation contemplates just that, a mixture of retail, office, professional and
residential, typically anchored by one principal use and at least one or more other uses,
as well as being directly accessible to surrounding neighbors and, essentially, was the
whole neighborhood center concept and because of the way that the property is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 19 of 37
situated and developed, we felt that that really does not comport with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan. Further, there were policies within the plan that say, gee, you
know, industrial uses should really be situated next to other industrial uses. We did
provide you with a fairly extensive analysis of the Comp Plan in your staff report, so I'm
not going to go through that in the interest of time, but we also went through our UDC,
our zoning code, and found that, again, going through the findings, which link back to
the Comprehensive Plan, we could not support the findings for a Conditional Use Permit
again, primarily based on the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. We do
acknowledge that if a daycare center were to locate within there, that it does meet the
dimensional standards, it has adequate parking and so forth. We do have a concern
that it may not have adequate outdoor play space. So, the city code does not mandate
that. We do have specific requirements if outdoor play space is provided, but that is not
a mandate, because it used to be that the state mandated that. Well, the state has
backed off of that now, so there is not necessarily a mandated outdoor play area
requirement. So, we went through the findings for both the rezone, the Conditional Use
Permit, and found that we really, unfortunately, could not support a daycare in this
location. We would support the preliminary plat regardless of how this application is
ultimately disposed of in terms of the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit, but we
could support the -- the preliminary plat, so -- the only -- so, the real issues the --
outstanding issue for the Council -- for the Commission is a daycare facility in this
location a compatible use in an industrial area and is creating a spot zoning to
accommodate a specific use an appropriate zoning action. And staffs opinion is that it
is not and, therefore, we recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit and
rezone. We did receive a letter in response to our staff report from Mr. Lindgren. We
received that today. You have copies of that. So, I note he's in the room, so he will
speak to that himself. And with that I will be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Rohm: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I have a question of Pete.
Rohm: Go ahead.
Marshall: Pete, so it sounds like to me the Conditional Use Permit -- the -- not
conditional use -- the future land use map, the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning are
actually two different things and it did not develop --did the future land use map come in
after or did the zoning come in after?
Friedman: Mr. Marshall -- Commissioner Marshall, Mr. Chairman, and Commission, this
is one of those situations where we have a disconnect between the planned. use map
designation and the zoning and as you know under Idaho State law the Comprehensive
Plan is a guideline and zoning controls. My understanding is when the land use map
was adopted with the Comprehensive Plan, essentially, it wasn't really clear how this
area was going to develop, but at some point the industrial zoning either was in place or
put in place and as you can see from the aerial by and large it is developing with
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 20 of 37
industrial uses, you know, to the east and to the south. Now, Ada County owns this
entire piece here and to date they have put in a fueling station and they have the
mosquito abatement and weed control office in there, but we don't know what their
plans are for this portion out here.
Marshall: Okay. So, do we intend to change the future land use map to reflect the
zoning or do we intend this to change to eventually what we have on the future land use
map?
Friedman: Members of the Commission, that's a good question at this point. It's
probably one of those things that we will put on the list to come back and look at. As
you know, we are involved in a reformatting of the Comprehensive Plan, primarily the
text. We hadn't anticipated any real significant map changes, if any, but as you know
it's applications like this and some of the other ones we have seen that, you know, raise
our consciousness, if you will, you know, we may have a disconnect between our
zoning and our -- and our land use designations.
Marshall: Now, on another vent here, in the presentation I believe one of the
neighboring buildings is a coatings -- as in doing some powder coating, things like that.
Friedman: Right.
Marshall: Now, do they have an emissions permit with the state? Has there been any
plume modeling done?
Friedman: I don't have an answer to that question. I can verify that there is a powder
coating business -- business building, but I cannot speak to what state approvals they
might have.
Marshall: I'm just wondering if they have a paint booth or anything like that, because I
know the powder coating is not going there, but if they are using any liquids or anything
that's aerosoled and if they have fans with emissions and emission permits, if there is
any -- they would have to do plume modeling for the state and, if so, that would be on
file with the state and I -- the concern is to -- what kind of plumes, if there is any, and
don't know what type of emissions they may or may not have.
Friedman: And, Commissioner Marshall, I cannot answer that question either.
Marshall: Okay. Mr. Chair, that's all my questions for now.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any questions of staff?
Newton-Huckabay: No.
Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 21 of 37
Lindgren: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Walter
Lindgren, I'm with Johnson Architects. here in Meridian, Idaho, address 440 East
Corporate Drive, Suite 102. I'm going to go old school on you. Is there by chance the
overhead projector, is it in this cabinet here or -- okay.
Rohm: One is available.
Lindgren: Okay. It just seemed to be easier to work with versus running through digital,
so if that's not going to be a problem I'd like to -- bring those over -- is Pete -- is he
going to run that or -- okay. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, can you see that
okay? Does that read okay for you? It's almost digital. Anyway, just want to kind of
give our -- the applicant's perspective in the architect's record in representing the
applicant in this case. Tom Hill from Capital Holdings could not be in attendance here
this evening. He had a previous engagement and was -- had to be out of town for
tonight. We do have in the audience Jayne Sackett, who is the proposed tenant for the
Raising Angels, so if there is any questions regarding specific use and specific tenant
information, she can -- she can address those at a given time. This graphic here
represents -- is the aerial shot and, hopefully, you can see just the color and color
coding of the -- what represents the different uses surrounding this particular property.
And, you know, we have -- we have met with staff at the pre-application and over the
phone and they have been great to work with and we have -- we just -- we just have I
would say maybe a different opinion about how to represent this site and kind of the
conditions that exist at this site. One in particular is staff has mentioned in their staff
report, as well as in their opening arguments, about this property being surrounded by
industrial uses and this is kind of a unique site in the sense that I would suggest that on
-- in many respects it's at the -- it's at the fringe of several uses. One in particular is this
light industrial area, which, in fact, it is currently zoned as -- and you can see by the
graphic there the red representing that office, warehouse, flex building space, light
industrial to the southeast, but as you get to the west, as Mr. Friedman had mentioned,
there is an undeveloped property, I understand that this is the county weed and feed --
weed control property and, then, as you get to -- farther to the west and to the north you
will see residential. So, the nature of the site really is in this transitional period -- area of
town, not to mention at the gateway -- along the gateway which is Pine Street into
downtown, which does connect Eagle Road into downtown Meridian. I guess one other
point, really, to make, too, is we are not proposing new construction in the sense we are
not proposing a new building per se to say that it's an office versus industrial, look
esthetic,. what have you. I mean the building exists and, clearly, what the tenant is
hoping to do, with minor modifications, is to, essentially, build a perimeter fence for the
outdoor play area, as well as just move into the space and do any tenant improvements
that may be required to get an occupancy for this -- for that particular use. One other
point to make -- and I think, Mr. Friedman, Pete, if you wouldn't mind just -- we will just
go through the photos, if that's okay. And we can come back to this if staff or -- staff
and/or if the Commission has any questions. Just to kind of give you a sense of the --
the site itself and the existing use and building there -- and we can go through these first
couple rather quick. This is just aview -- roughly this -- this -- these photographs I took
-- taken today, as a matter of fact. I just went out and took some fresh photos, but you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 22 of 37
can just proceed through one, two and three, Pete, if you don't mind. This is a view of
the -- of the adjacent office flex building and in the left-hand side you will see the -- the
building -- that's the building in question that the tenant is wishing to move her facility --
or her daycare center in. You might want to leave it there, if you don't mind. That's
good. Yeah. Perfect. One thing you may have noticed in those previous photos is the
-- the nature of this light industrial building. Given the nature of the site, the orientation,
and the size of the drive areas and the building itself, there is not only store fronts, but
there are sectional or overhead doors, but not only are the existing tenants fairly --
mean every time I have gone over there, which has been roughly anywhere from a half
dozen to a dozen times, there is so little activity over there and it's not only a reflection
would say -- I would say that reflects, basically, on the current tenants in that space, but
think even what that development is about, because, really, you have uses that --
tenant spaces that aren't -- aren't encouraging large truck access. I mean there is just --
it's just not one of these larger industrial sites and later we will go back to that aerial --
aerial map, because you will see in the surrounding areas you do have that in the
vicinity. This particular property is not really intended for that use. Pete, if you don't
mind, we will just kind of continue through these, then. So, just, actually, before you do
that, this -- this is the front entrance. One question is -- that came from staff, we met
with the police department, Chief Overton, and one of the questions came down to how
would kids be dropped off and picked up. There is an entrance access that is shared
with this adjacent building to the east. Intent is to -- certainly that serves off of Pine
Street. Families, parents would come into the parking lot, drop their kids off right at the
front location and, then, proceed out. At no time would they be cueing or dropping off
kids within that drive-in off of Pine Street. So, at no time will we have cueing of cars out
into the Pine Street right of way. You know, in addition, talking with the tenant Jayne,
one thing she will -- she will mention to you, too, is the number of kids that have been
proposed in this application is -- I think we said upwards of 60 or -- I can't recall what the
number was. That was purely based off of what -- what the IBC, as far as occupant
load factor would -- would allow for a building of this size. So, that would meet all the
IBC codes as far as occupancy is concerned. One thing that she noted to me is that it
is how these kids, when they are dropped off and needed picked up, it's at the cycle --
it's not -- we are not talking about kids being dropped off all at the same time, you know,
literally 40 to 50 kids or so at the same time, it's at most -- and I will let her testify to this
as well, is that we are talking anywhere from the neighborhood of four to five -- four to
five drop-offs, really, at one time is what she anticipates as a maximum for this size of
the facility. I asked in general what she thought her peak -- her peak time for this facility
would be, roughly in the afternoon about 4:30, because that's a lot of times when kids
are being picked up and so forth. Pete, do you mind if we cycle through here? So, for
those five and six, just show side yard area. I think just -- a photo is worth a thousand
words. I think, roughly, didn't take off that outside area, it think it's roughly somewhere
between 12 to 14 hundred square feet of open -- open yard area that's fenced in. Pete,
if you don't mind going to the next one, too. Really making him work over there. And,
again, a view from the west looking back at the building. You can go. Yeah. That's
fine. This is a view from the street side, Pine Street, looking at the yard, looking back
towards the southwest towards the Ada County weed -- to the near distance. You can -
- yeah. And, again, a view down Pine Street. This is a view back to the site from the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 23 of 37
west. You can proceed from there, Pete. And this is Stonehenge Way across that
undeveloped property to the west looking back at the property. And you can -- yeah. If
you could go on. In general I think the other thing to comment on about -- I know staff
had mentioned industrial uses next to industrial uses -- as I mentioned before, we kind
of view -- we view this property as one of a transition and so I can understand the idea
and the reasoning of having an industrial use is deep from Pine Street, because, really,
no other use in terms of retail or office, the visibility becomes less and less, but as you
come up to Pine Street, which is a gateway and will continue to be a gateway to the city,
you know, an industrial use in my mind doesn't make as much sense to abut that street.
At some point a zoning designation has to transition to another zoning designation and
so, you know, when you have an industrial use transitioning to whatever it may be to the
west, I think this is an opportunity and a situation where I think needs a closer look
where it's just saying that it's surrounded by industrial use and not compatible. This is a
photo -- ten, I believe it is. Yeah. This is -- we can go quickly through these, but I want
to also give you a sense of the nature of this street to -- when you -- this is looking
across the street on Pine, just a panoramic, I'm going from, basically, northwest, north
and -- yeah, you can pull that one as well to northeast. So, you can kind of see the
nature of that -- that property is still very much residential and, frankly, probably will be
for some time. Again, the view looking down towards the east down towards Eagle
Road. You can pull that as well. And -- that's fine. That's fine. And, then, a view back
-- back to the building again, given the nature of the building residential style, existing
building, no plans to renovate that at all. One thing we did is -- I took a couple photos,
thought this was an interesting study, too, is Franklin Road, this is right at Baltic, just to
the west of Locust Grove. In that area you have Basalite, you have some industrial, you
know, flex type spaces and, then, what was also proposed and built right off of Baltic --
this is just east of the cemetery, you have some nice Class A small residential type
office buildings, so -- and you -- I think this situation is very similar in nature to what you
have along Pine, because you will see as you go deeper to the south of these buildings,
you will see a lot of utility industrial type uses. So, hopefully, that kind of gives you a --
maybe too much. Gives you a sense of the site situation here, some of the things that
we are trying to achieve and, you know, frankly, Ihave -- if -- any questions for Jayne as
far as her operation, just from my perspective, you know, I realize there is some
challenges in terms of us being adjacent to what I'd call an office flex warehouse space,
but, frankly, if -- if she didn't feel comfortable and didn't put those safety measures in
place, her business isn't going to succeed very well and I don't want to make the claim
like let's just let the market decide and work itself out, I'm not suggesting that at all, but
here is somebody that is very passionate about this particular location, especially
considering the market that she's trying to capture folks from Scentsy, St. Luke's, Blue
Cross, there really isn't another day care as far as I'm understanding that within that
vicinity and not to mention not her, so I would stand for questions, probably, you know,
just as you have them and I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Rohm: Thank you for your testimony.
Lindgren: You bet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 24 of 37
Rohm: My first thought on this is we have industrial areas within the City of Meridian, as
does Boise, Nampa, Caldwell, and all the surrounding communities and those industrial
zones are specific to encourage industrial development and if, in fact, we eat away at
our zoned industrial development acreage, at some point in time we lose the ability to
draw in employment. Now, there is employment in this daycare for sure, but the
employment of an industrial plant, theoretically exceeds that on a square foot basis of a
daycare and that's the intent of each community to provide zoned areas that remain
industrial, just so that as over time we will be able to employ the people that live within
the community itself. That's my take on all this and I agree a hundred percent that this
daycare would work within the confines of this specific property, it would probably work
very well. But that's not what our intent was within the city at the time that that 1-L zone
was created and so from my perspective I think that it is in the city's best interest to
leave it as is and -- and move forward and hopefully your client will be able to find a
similar setting outside of that I-L zone that will accommodate every need, because
daycares are a necessary part of our community as well, but from my perspective I don't
think that that's the right place for it at this time, so --
Newton-Huckabay: Chairman Rohm, are you suggesting we close the public hearing
before we have public testimony?
Rohm: No. No. No. I'm just -- I'm trying to respond to his -- his argument that it is --
it's aviable location, so I'm just trying to give my rebut to his comment. But, absolutely,
we want to take testimony.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Rohm: So, at this time -- do you have any other questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Lindgren: Mr. Chair, I will have the opportunity to come back after --
Rohm: Absolutely.
Lindgren: Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Rohm: At this time we would like to open it up for public testimony and anyone that
would like to testify, please,. come forward at this time...
Newton-Huckabay: Do you have a list?
Rohm: No, there was nobody signed up. You don't have to sign up to testify.
Newton-Huckabay: But you still need to use the mike, please.
Rohm: And each individual has three minutes to testify.
Marshall: Could you state your name and address for the record, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 25 of 37
Sackett: Jayne Sackett and it's 1533 West Rainbow Trout, Meridian, Idaho.
understand where you're coming from as far as the industrial. Employee size, I did want
to point out we will be hiring six employees, so for a building of 2,200 square feet, that's
-- you're looking at six to seven employees -- six at least full time. Then, just the
amount a company needs for daycare -- Blue Cross I have an entire list of people from
Blue Cross signing saying, yes, we want a daycare right up the street. It would be
great. I have people from Scentsy that have signed and said that they'd like to come.
have people here that I know of, friends, family, neighbors. I have heard from
individuals in the subdivisions across the street and ask them and, basically, it's finding
a place in Meridian, it's somewhat challenging, and luckily Mr. Tom Hill of Capital Hill,
has been willing to look at this, because, obviously, it was -- it's a change, but even like
Walt was saying that anytime that I have gone to the building I have seen that there is
not much traffic, which is something that I would be concerned about, that any of the
cars that are parked for the businesses are -- there is, you know, four or five versus
when I have children coming and going I want to make sure that they are going to be
safe getting in and out of the building. The other thing I wanted to point out to address
the Planning and Zoning as far as outside area, we actually will have more than 12
children outside at a time, so that makes for plenty of room space for them to play. We
wanted to make sure they did have a good play yard. Other than that, yeah, that's it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: I have a question.
Rohm: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: So, you say you're planning on using the entire side yard area as your play
area, just out of curiosity?
Sackett: Uh-huh.
Marshall: Okay. Now, did you consider any other locations -- it sounded like you were
having a tough time finding locations to have this. Did you look at others?
Sackett: I have looked at other ones. I did. I looked one off of Meridian Road, but the
modifications that -- with the downtown area, getting a home up to standards, also trying
to apply for a loan to build a brand new center -- St. Luke's asked me -- they said,
please, would you put in a building over off of Eagle and Franklin -- and I can't think of
the name of the park right now, but you know where I'm talking about. Portico. They
asked me to put a building in there. But, unfortunately, starting off as a small business
right now you can't get a loan, unless you have been established or you have at least 40
percent down. So, that's where -- that's the biggest issue I have run into. With this
building I would be looking at a lease to buy, so I would be starting out and, then, be
able to show that I can do this and eventually I'd like to build a center, I would like to
build a center over by St. Luke's and, then, we can move it out or, you know, expand
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 26 of 37
from beyond this place. I know it's not the most ideal as far as zoning and what has
already been zoned, but when I was talking to Kristy over at Planning and Zoning, she
was actually the one that pointed out to me that, well, future use on it will be mixed use
in which we could have a daycare there and so that's when we pursued. Otherwise, we
were going to go over, oh, it's industrial, we cannot. So, it was after talking with her that
we sat down and, actually, decided, okay, let's go in and apply for the permits to rezone
it, to do the right thing.
Marshall: Thank you.
Sackett: Any other questions?
Rohm: Thank you very much. Anyone else like to testify? Please state your name and
address for the record.
Parker: Alicia Parker. 3595 North Chatterton Way, Boise, but we are looking to get into
Meridian. I'm testifying in support of the center for a handful of reasons. First and
foremost are my own selfish reasons. My husband and I have recently relocated to the
Boise area. He grew up here and Meridian is the city where we would like to live.
Primary reason is that, as you mentioned before, it's aplace -- it's kind of a one stop
place, you can live there, you can work there, you can shop there, it's got the
neighborhood feel and where my future office will be located, where we will be moving
eventually, is into the Portico development. I have a four year old and a three week old
baby and I am here to tell you that finding daycare is next to impossible on that side of
town -- a center anyway. There is plenty of in-home, but they have limits on what they
can take. In being in that area I want a center that I can take my children to that's close
to work. The development off Pine, it's close to a residential neighborhood, my husband
and I are looking to purchase a home in that area, so, like I said, for my own selfish
reasons it would be something close that I could drop my children off to on the way to
work. It's also close to my work, if something happened during the day I could pop on
over there. The unselfish reasons, I can tell you that many of the people that I work with
have the same issue that I have when it comes to finding daycare. It's next to
impossible to find something that's close and not only close, but affordable. There is
plenty of centers out there, but they are just not affordable right now and we all know
that times the way they are it's hard for a working family to make ends meet and still be
able to put their children in daycare. So, those are -- those are my primary reasons.
Any questions?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: No, but thank you, I appreciate your testimony.
Parker: Thank you.
Rohm: Anyone else like to come forward?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 27 of 37
Martin: My name is Matthew Martin. I live off of 1319 West Crestwood Drive in
Meridian. 83642. Earlier -- well, first of all, I'm a prospective child care -- I'm for Jayne
and the Raising Angels, and my four and a half month old is right over there and she
would be taking care of her. We are planning on actually trying to move somewhere
close to that location, though it's less than probably two miles away from where we are
right now. .But earlier -- my profession is I'm an automotive slash sign painter and
heard Mr. Marshall ask about -- what was the business, Hydro Dip.
Marshall: I don't know who it is. I just --
Martin: Yes. I know what coating business that is and they actually do powder coating
and it's electrostatic -- it's kind of -- it's a whole new thing, but it has no fumes, if that's
what you're worried about.
Marshall: I'm familiar with powder coating, but I assume maybe they had a paint booth
or something like that.
Martin: I had a friend that worked there when they first got in there. He worked there
for a couple of weeks. He didn't tell me anything about a paint booth, but from what he
did tell me -- what they do there is electrostatic plating to where they -- it's awater -- it's
a water tank and they put a layer of, you know, vinyl in there and it -- you dip whatever
you're painting and it just dips and it's no fumes from what I know. I don't know for sure,
but I just wanted to tell you that that's my knowledge of the business there. If you were
concerned about the fumes -- I wouldn't be giving my child to a place that would be
having paint fumes right around it in the first place anyways. So, I trust, you know, that.
And that's that.
Rohm: Thank you.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Johnson: Good evening. My name is Desiree Johnson. I live at 3087 Fox Trotter Drive
in Meridian. My children -- I actually have three children. Being a single mom for seven
years I'll tell you it's very challenging to find -- to kind of touch a little bit on her point --
affordable daycare, but also somebody that you truly depend on to care for your
children, because for me it's not necessarily what I'm putting out per month out of my
pocket book, but what my kids are doing when they are not in my care and who is taking
care of them and recently my fiance and I discussed home ownership. We are renting
right now, but we thought about maybe purchasing property in Kuna. He has family
there. It's a little bit cheaper to live and, really, the make it or break it -- or one of them
was not having access to Jayne, believe it or not, because we know that we can count
on her, even if it's a day that my kids aren't expected, she will take them if she has the
room, as long as there is not, you know, maximum capacity, you know, she is
dependable. So, just the feel of -- I mean I can take my kids anywhere, really, if I have
the money, but I don't want to take my kids anywhere and I think the opportunity for
more families to have that dependability, because this gives her more room and access
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 28 of 37
to more people in the area is very helpful. As well I'm a T-Mobile employee, I work in
the call center over on Goldstone, just south of Overland on Eagle. and with her having a
little more flexibility sometimes with -- you know, she might stay open another half an
hour and not charge you that late fee, because you have a later shift. So, she's a little
more flexible as other centers would be, too. So, I just wanted to -- you know, to make
sure that the full picture was being painted there, that it's not necessarily just a business
that we want to turn it into, but also that some of those employees that are working in
those industry areas -- industrial areas they also have children that need daycare, so
think that it would be a very good starter place for Jayne, so that she could eventually
develop into a larger place.
Rohm: Thank you.
Johnson: You're welcome.
Rohm: Would anybody else like to testify? Oh, we have got more. Good.
Joralemon: I'm sorry, I couldn't sit there without saying anything. Hi, my name is
Stephanie Joralemon, I live at 3968 West Park Creek Drive in Meridian. So, you have
heard how wonderful Jayne is, how convenient it would be for all of us to have her here,
so I'm not going to brush upon that. I actually wanted to address the issue of jobs. We
are transplants to this area and I know that it is zoned for industrial, but I would much
rather see a business filled and have employees hired in such a horrible time of need of
unemployment and Jayne can offer that to, like she said, six to seven employees in that
area, than see a building sit vacant, a very small space for industrial, that would
probably have to be rebuilt or redone and somebody coming in an industrial setting,
may be willing to do that and maybe choose to look someplace else. So, just as a
property owner in the area it would make me feel more comfortable to know that my city
is supporting the fact that we are going to have a new small business, rather than
turning this business down and possibly having another vacant lot.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Stone: Hi. My name is Shannon Stone and I'm at 941 North Stolley Place in Meridian.
The benefit for the new center for me is similar to the others, but also one added feature
to it is she is local to my children's school if she were to be in this location. So, that
gives -- you know, I have four children, very close to Lewis & Clark Middle School and
also Spaulding where I have two children attending. She hopefully -- or is proposing
that she can bus kids back and forth, which alleviates an issue for me working and
trying to get -- take care of four kids and get them into separate areas. So, with this
location being as close as it is, that saves a huge headache off of my life, so that's all I
have.
Newton-Huckabay: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 29 of 37
Rohm: Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else like to come forward? Okay. Thank
you very much for your testimony. Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Lindgren: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Walter Lindgren again for Johnson Architects. Just to
kind of follow up on a few items. The uses next to it have been talked about a little bit.
know that there is currently -- I think there is a security system in one of the tenant
spaces. One of the tenant spaces is vacant at the moment. There is the powder
coating shop, as well as a decorative coating shop, there is two different shops. I can
tell you every time I have been out there, just about every time, if not all the times, the
rolled doors are closed and it's probably the most peaceful area, because there is just
nothing happening. I mean there is -- what they are doing inside is -- is more of a
service type and I think that's what that particular building is really encouraging. It's not
for visitors and --although they do have store fronts out there, the times I have been out
there to observe there hasn't been traffic in and out -- in and out of that driveway, as
well as within the driveway, except for myself, so -- one other thing, too, Mr. Chair, I'd
like to just talk to you a little bit about the industrial properties and you had brought that
point up earlier. You know, I don't disagree with your comment on the face value.
would say that the difference between industrial property and industrial property on this
particular -- in this particular situation, because, first of all, it's an existing structure, so it
probably would be used as an office of some sort, given that it was conducive to that
particular zoning designation or in this case we are hoping to have a daycare center.
The fact that it is -- it abuts Pine Street and the fact that Pine Street being, you know,
this proposed gateway -- I mean it's an main entrance into the downtown area, to me
that's one area -- and especially the fact that given the fact that it's probably less than a
half acre of property we are talking about, that -- that seems to me not a bad exception
to that rule, because as traffic is coming in and access in and out of that, it is going to
be fairly simple and easily identifiable. I see that industrial zone much less like -- much
like that graphic -- or the photos I put up on Franklin, you know, you do have that --
you're putting your best face forward in terms of the uses and the esthetics to that Pine
Street, the reason why I think that industrial works so well back there is it gets so deep
off of Pine and it's just -- it's the best use back there. You know, retail certainly wouldn't
work. An office, the viability is marginal at best. So, I would just say in this particular
case I don't disagree with your statement, I just think in this case it is a unique set of
circumstances and I just ask that you consider the -- consider the difference between
that and any other given industrial property, so -- I'll still stand for questions, but I do
appreciate --
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Lindgren: -- appreciate your time.
Rohm: Any additional questions of the applicant?
Newton-Huckabay: I have none.
Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your testimony.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 30 of 37
Lindgren: Thank you.
Marshall: I do have a question for staff.
Rohm: Okay.
Marshall: Pete, looking at this, that -- that vacant piece of Ada County property --
Friedman: Uh-huh.
Marshall: -- now I note the lower -- the south end of that is -- you say weed abatement
and mosquito abatement, but is the north half of that being used at all?
Friedman: This area right in here?
Marshall: Correct.
Friedman: No. It's currently vacant.
Marshall: And it's owned by Ada County?
Friedman: It is owned by Ada County.
Marshall: Okay. And they are not using it at all for truck parking or --
Friedman: Not at this time, no.
Marshall: Okay. What does the Comprehensive Plan say about light industrial busting
residential?
Friedman: Well, it really -- as I say, the primary focus of the plan for residential -- for
industrial was to encourage industrial development to locate adjacent to existing
industrial development. I don't believe it said -- I don't believe it directly addresses
industrial abutting residential. It does say to encourage compatible uses and minimizing
conflicts between land uses.
Marshall: Thank you.
Friedman: You're welcome.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'm thinking maybe we close the public hearing and have a little
discussion.
Rohm: I think that's appropriate.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 31 of 37
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on RZ 10-002, CUP 10-
010and PFP 10-003.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved --
Newton-Huckabay: I would be the only one here.
Rohm: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 10-002,
CUP 10-010 and PFP 10-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I could, I have got some thoughts and I tell you I'm really torn in
two different directions, because I got two really good arguments that are tearing me
apart here. And I like both of them. I'm having a hard time here. And I'd like a little
discussion, so I need a little help in getting some other perspectives here. I don't like
spot zoning and -- but I also don't like industrial up against residential. This is light
industrial. I -- you know, really, that -- that business fits there well and I think it could
exist there well. I think that, you know -- and the preliminary plat, I mean staff has no
problem with that. The issue is the zoning and I have to agree, I don't like spot zoning
and we have -- when we do that we have to consider the fact these guys hopefully will
make lots of money and go build that great big daycare center right over by St. Luke's,
but that leaves this place zoned and what goes in after them and what else could be
there compatible and has to match and anything that can be within that zone has to be
compatible with that area and we have to consider that. So, I -- you know, again, that
area in Ada County over there eventually is going to come into the city, I assume, or it
will always be -- I don't know, a piece of property that the county will always pay taxes
on or --
Friedman: It's in the --
Marshall: It's in the city. It's actually --
Rohm: It's in the city, it's just owned by the county.
Marshall: And it's zoned --
Friedman: I-L.
Marshall: Unzoned?
Friedman: No. It's zoned I-L.
Marshall: Oh, it is zoned --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 32 of 37
Friedman: Light industrial.
Marshall: In the future land use -- see, gosh, darn it, because that ends up just spot
zoning. You know, looking at -- looking up and down there really isn't a lot of other
business locations or availability and it does sound like there is a huge need for this in
that area. I mean I can see that demand, having two kids myself I understand that
demand, being a single father, I know.
Newton-Huckabay: May I ask a question?
Rohm: You may.
Newton-Huckabay: Peter, in your summary page on the staff recommendation there is
a sentence that states: If Commission is in favor of the daycare use, but supportive of
the rezone application, staff recommends a C-C district with a development agreement
that restricts the building to specific uses, rather than a C-N district, as it will provide
more of a transition in zoning to the adjacent I-L zoned property. Is there a typo in that
or is that --
Friedman: You're right, there is -- there is a typo in that.
Newton-Huckabay: Where am I -- where is the negative --
Friedman: The Commission is not in favor of the daycare, but in favor of the rezone,
then --
Newton-Huckabay: And you're recommending a C-C?
Friedman: Right. With a very tight development agreement that would ratchet down the
number of uses in there.
Newton-Huckabay: Is daycare an allowed use in a C-C zone?
Friedman: If -- I believe it is. Yeah. That's -- let me get my memory out.
Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I have been through -- been looking on the -- online here
trying to -- defining industry and heavy industry and light industrial myself, so --
Marshall: Which would be more appropriate, C-C or C-N. Long term. I don't mean for
this specific thing, I mean long term.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, what's the difference between the two?
Marshall: C-C is much larger commercial. You're allowed much larger wider uses than
a C-N, aren't you?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 33 of 37
Friedman: Commissioners, the daycare -- a daycare center is actually a conditional
use, both in the C-N zone and the C-C zone.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Marshall: Pete, could you help -- help me here?
Friedman: Sure.
Marshall: I believe -- and, please, correct me if I'm wrong -- that C-C is actually
significantly more acceptable to larger scale retail and commercial than C-N and C-N is
more restrictive; am I right or wrong here?
Friedman: No, Commissioners, I would never tell you whether you're right or wrong.
However, however, what I will tell you is that the C-N zone is really the neighborhood
business zone, so it's --
Marshall: Right.
Friedman: -- more directed to the neighborhood service type of thing and one of the key
operational features of that is limitations on hours and so forth. Now, the C-C is more
the community commercial, which is going to have a wider variety of retail and
commercial uses, but more greater expanded business hours and if I might refresh you
on one of your hearings held last month for that establishment out there at Ten Mile and
Pine, the applicant had asked for -- I think the existing zoning was C-N, which would
have allowed him to do what he wanted to do, but because he wanted to have later
hours he requested and obtained the C-C zoning.
Marshall: Right. 11:00 to --
Friedman: Does that answer your question?
Marshall: Thank you, Pete. Appreciate that.
Friedman: Commissioner Huckabay, did I answer your question?
Newton-Huckabay: You did. Thank you.
Friedman: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I don't have a problem with putting a daycare in this area. I kind of
like the idea of a C-C zone on it. It does, in my mind, provide some longer -- longer
term opportunities, which you seem to be the most concerned about as far as other
types of things that could go into that building.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 34 of 37
Marshall: Actually, I thought C-N was more restrictive right next to all that residential.
Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and most of that residential is across the street -- across a
five lane street at that point as well and there is already businesses going on around
them. I don't think that -- I don't think limited it to a C-N zoning is getting -- I don't think
you are gaining anything you really need in the long term.
Marshall: Well, it allows this to operate and run, but the minute you put a C-C on there
after they get really rich and build that big building down by St. Luke's, you have got a
wide range of things that could go in here with a C-C.
Newton-Huckabay: Which is more compatible with light industrial.
Rohm: Well, I don't think we can change the application. The application is for a C-N
zoning and if -- if that's what their application is, I think that any motion that either of you
propose is going to have to say --
Newton-Huckabay: Well, then, why are they recommending it, that we change it?
Rohm: I don't think --
Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, to clarify it, again, our -- our initial
recommendation, which we still stand by, unfortunately, for them is not to approve any
commercial zoning in there and not to approve the CUP for the daycare center. Now, if
-- I just threw that note in there, albeit I left one key word out, was that if you were
inclined to approve the rezone for whatever reason and not approve the daycare, then,
we would recommend the C-C zone -- mainly what I did was I went through the design
review matrix and, then, I looked at what the Comprehensive Plan designations and the
zoning designations and the zoning designations come up with, but with the C-C
designation and, actually, with the C-N designation, if that's going to be the
Commission's pleasure, I would certainly recommend to you that we limit the range of
uses that could go in there, because your -- Commissioner Marshall is correct,
regardless of whether it's a C-N zoning designation or C-C designation, if they are
successful and, you knew, they sell the building and expand and move off to someplace
else, for example, there are other things -- you could -- somebody could apply for a
conditional use for a drinking establishment there. Somebody could apply for a use for
a retail establishment there. Now, we -- our thinking was -- if that was the pleasure of
the Commission, depending on what you do, we would -- with the findings bring back to
you suggested use limitations as part of a development agreement requirement.
Rohm: There is no reference to a development agreement in this application. Couldn't
we just say a development agreement would have to be -- include -- any future
development would require a CUP and, then, regardless of what goes in, if, in fact, this
changes, then, it would have to come before the Commission again anyway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 35 of 37
Friedman: That certainly, Mr. Chairman, is one option. The other option is we
absolutely would recommend a development agreement and you could either require a
CUP for any use in there, however, you know, conditional use is really kind of a
permitted use, only just with the ability to add more conditions, or you could ratchet
down the numbers or the type of uses that could go in there.
Rohm: I'm -- I don't think I'm inclined to try and determine tonight what uses after this
may or may not expire I'd want to limit it to. I think that let's just -- let's just deal with
what we got before us tonight and we will address any future development, if, in fact,
that future comes before us and just deal with what we got.
Marshall: What I think Pete's saying, though, that if once it's zoned there is permitted
uses, period, that don't have to come before us and they get to go right into there
without a -- without coming here.
Rohm: Not if we put a development agreement that any applicant has to have a CUP.
If you rezone with the stipula that any application has to include a CUP regardless of
what the zoning is, then, we would see it.
Marshall: Is that accurate?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would caution you on trying to,
essentially -- what you would be doing, Commissioner Rohm, is rewriting the code.
mean we had -- you can limit uses and the courts have supported that, but to say you're
going to change the zoning and the condition of changing the zoning is every single use
in that zone is going to require a conditional use is probably not going to be held up by a
court. So, I would caution you on that approach. Secondarily, I would caution you to
expand the zone to a C-C zone, only because what was noticed to the public was a C-N
zone, which has limited amounts of uses. I have no idea if anybody from the
neighborhood across the street would have an interest in this if it was a C-C zone, but
my concern would be is that we didn't notice that, so we noticed the C-N, so I would be
cautious on expanding it to something that has more uses. Courts have traditionally
held -- upheld development agreements that would allow a limited number of uses in the
zone and CUPs for others, but it hasn't been as favored to simply allow this one --
because, again, you get back to that same argument of spot zoning, you're only
allowing this one particular use and nothing else, everything else has to be a CU and I
think it might be a little bit more troubling to a court to address that.
Rohm: So, if we go with the C-N, then, how do we limit it --
Nary: Well, there is a variety -- excuse me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you,
Commissioner Rohm, but there are a variety of uses in a C-N zone and depending on
the locale and the closest to the residences, there is both residences to the -- to the
west, as well as to the north of this site. There may be some things that are more
appropriate in that location and some things that aren't and I think that's really all that
Mr. Friedman was saying is they would like the opportunity in preparing findings, to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 36 of 37
make recommendations to the Commission as to what's appropriate based on these
-other uses and the location and such. A C-N is probably your most limited one, so
that's probably the better place to start. But there are things in that that may or may not
be appropriate and, again, I don't think the staff went through that analysis. There may
be none of them that they may feel is necessary, but because the staff recommendation
was a denial, they didn't really do that analysis of what should be in and what should be
out.
Rohm: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, comment. I'm really having trouble with this, because I don't like
changing that zone, it is spot zoning without limitations, but I don't like you having
limitations without talking to the owner and everybody else. I mean the owner of the
building is not even here to address the fact that, oh, geez, now you're going to limit
what I can do with it? I mean he may not be quite in favor of it. I know he wants to fill it
with a tenant and make some money, but -- I mean we got a lot of issues here and I'm --
geez. It's -- if there was just a spot down the road.
Rohm: We are going to have to move this forward here, so I need a motion from one of
the two of you to either a recommendation of approval or denial and we will move
forward.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, if I made a motion it would be in approval and I have not
the confidence that it would be a carried motion.
Rohm: Well, let's find out.
Marshall: Give it a try.
Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
approve file numbers RZ 10-002, CUP 10-010 and PFP 10-003 as presented during the
hearing on September 16th, 2010, with no modifications.
Rohm: Second. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Marshall: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES: ONE NAY.
Rohm: It passed. Ma'am, it still has to go before City Council and City Council -- we
are a recommending body and City Council can change all of that. So, you're only
halfway there.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair --
Nary: Wasn't that only the rezone that you moved? You have to do that other two.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
September 16, 2010
Page 37 of 37
Newton-Huckabay: I did all three of them.
Nary: Oh, you did all three.
Rohm: We did all three.
Nary: Okay. Sorry.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Marshall: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:53 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROV
~ ~ I~I ~ ~
MICH EL ROHM - HAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
I~ F I kE
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK
~Y ~~
-9 '~,
C~' ~q ti ~.
rF
- ~ o
SEAL _=
9 ~~
ya ~~r 1ST ~ Z~~:~
"'~~ ~ovNTY . ,,,,..