2010 11-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 4, 2010
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 4, 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 Tom O'Brien.
Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters,
Scott Steckline and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien
X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with roll
call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Rohm: Thank you very much. There is one change to the agenda tonight on Action
Item 4-A, B and C, for the Waverly Place. That will not be heard tonight. It will only be
opened to continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of the 18th. So, if there is any
anybody here to testify to that or hear testimony, none will be heard tonight. So, again,
the Waverly Place project will not be heard tonight. With that in mind there are no other
changes, so could I get a motion to accept the agenda?
Marshall: So moved.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carried..
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda.
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
10-009 for Verizon Wireless Meridian High School by Nefi
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 2 of 30
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
B. Approve Minutes of October 21, 2010 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Rohm: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there are two items on
that. The first item are the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of
CUP 10-009 for Verizon Wireless at the Meridian High School and the minutes from our
regularly scheduled meeting of October 21st. Any additions or corrections? Could I get
a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
O'Brien: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4: Action Item.
A. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2010: CPAM 10-001
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust
IRA/FBO Located at 2510 E. Magic View Drive: Request:
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
to Change the Land Use Designation on 4.9 Acres of Land
from Office to Medium Density Residential
B. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2010: RZ 10-004
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust
IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request:
Rezone of 5.17 Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) to R-8
(Medium Density Residential) Zone
C. Continued Public Hearing from October 21, 2010: PP 10-003
Waverly Place by Robert Mortensen, Mountain West Entrust
IRA/FBO Located at 2150 E. Magic View Drive: Request:
Preliminary Plat Approval of 24 Residential Building Lots and 4
Common Lots on 4.9 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning
District
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 3 of 30
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open CPAM 10-001 and RZ 10-004 and PP 10-003
for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of
November 18th.
O'Brien: So moved.
Freeman: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue the aforementioned three items. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Before we open this next hearing I'd like to just kind of go through some
of the procedures a little bit for those of you that aren't familiar and what we do is we will
open up a particular project and, then, we will ask staff to give their assessment of that
particular application and, basically, what they try to do is they try to point out the points
that are within the Comprehensive Plan or ordinance and things such as that and some
of the adjustments and changes and what have you as the project came before them.
After the staff has given their presentation, then, we will ask the applicant to come up
and give their assessment of the project as well. Once we have heard those two
presentations it will be opened up to the public to testify, either for or against the project
and each person testifying after the applicant is given three minutes to respond and
once all testimonies have been heard, then, the applicant will have an opportunity to
come back up and speak to any items brought up in that open testimony.
D. Public Hearing: RZ 10-006 Somerton Subdivision by Overland
16, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Overland Road and S.
Locust Grove Road Request: Rezone of 16.12 Acres from the
C-N (Neighborhood Business) to the C-C (Community
Business) Zoning District
E. Public Hearing: PP 10-006 Somerton Subdivision by Overland
16, LLC Located Southeast Corner of E. Overland Road and S.
Locust Grove Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 5
Building Lots on 13.19 Acres
F. Public Hearing: CUP 10-011 Fast Eddy's Chevron Convenience
Store by ST Investments Located Southeast Corner of E.
Overland Road and S. Locust Grove Road Request:
Conditional Use Permit Approval of a Convenience Store, Fuel
Sales Facility, Vehicle Washing Facility, Quick Lube and Drive
Thru in a Proposed C-C Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 4 of 30
Rohm: So, with that being said at this time I would like to open the public hearing on RZ
10-006, PP 10-006 and CUP 10-011 for Fast Eddy's Chevron convenience store. Begin
with the staff report.
Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Get my correct
slide up here. The applications before you are a rezone of 16.12 acres of land from the
C-N, Neighborhood Business, to the C-C, Community Business District. Preliminary
plat approval of six -- excuse me -- five building lots on 13.19 acres of land for Somerton
Subdivision, and Conditional Use Permit for a convenience store, fuel sales facility,
vehicle washing facility, quick tube, and drive-thru in a proposed C-C zoning district for
Fast Eddy's. And just to note, I did revise the staff report today to include revised
landscape plan for the Fast Eddy's site that coincides with the site plan and
modifications to the conditions based on the revised plan. Late last week we did get a
revised site plan based on some revisions for the locations of the access on Overland
Road by ACHD. So, that's the reason for the change. Additionally, there was a
misinterpretation of the traffic impact study pertaining to access to the site from Locust
Grove. The police department comments were modified accordingly. So, just to -- that
note. Again, this site consists of 13.19 acres. It's currently zoned C-N and is located on
the southeast corner of East Overland and South Locust Grove Road. Adjacent land
use and zoning. There is a Maverick C store and fuel facility kitty-corner to the site,
zoned C-C. There is vacant property zoned C-G directly across Overland Road to the
north. To the south there is a church across Puffin Street, zoned R-8. To the east are
offices and apartments and Sage Crest, zoned L-O. And to the west are residential
uses in the assisted living facility on the corner and in Sportsmans Point Subdivision,
zoned R-4. A CUP is requested. Let me back up a little bit here. Here is the plat that
the applicant is proposing. It shows five lots. It shows the access points proposed to
the subdivision. Here on the west boundary there is one full access proposed that
aligns with Peacock Street to the west of Overland. One right-in, right-out on -- off of
Overland approximately 250 feet east of the intersection and one full access
approximately 470 feet east of the intersection. The proposed access down here
across from Peacock is 545 feet south of the intersection. And, then, just on the
access, the UDC requires that access be taken from a local street when available.
Access to the arterials is prohibited in that case. So, staffs recommendation is based
on that section of code. The UDC does require Council to waive this requirement if they
deem it's appropriate. And the applicant is requesting a wavier to that portion of
ordinance. And the ACRD report does indicate approval of the access points as
proposed by the applicant. The landscape plan on the right there has not yet been
revised to reflect the access points that were revised by ACRD and the plat is correct.
The CUP is for the development of a 5,800 square foot convenience store located on
the right here. A 10,700 square foot vehicle washing facility. A 2,740 square tube and a
fuel sales facility here in the center of the site. A drive-thru is proposed in the proposed
C-C zoning district on the rear of the convenience store here. The Fast Eddy's site is
proposed on 3.83 acres of the parcel on two of the proposed building lots on north end
of the property on the corner. All of the proposed uses are principally permitted in the
C-C zoning district, except for the drive-thru, which requires Conditional Use Permit
approval. The current development agreement for the property requires Conditional
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 5 of 30
Use Permit approval for all future uses and development on the site. Therefore, the
conditional use is for approval of the entire Fast Eddy's development, not just the drive-
thru. And this is the landscape plan for the Fast Eddy's site. And these are the building
elevations for the convenience store. These have gone through administrative design
review and have been approved. Staff has included a condition in the development
agreement that the car wash match the building elevations so far as material and
appearance. And here is elevations of the fuel canopy. There are two elevations
included. The top one on the left is the main one that staff is requiring the developer to
build this as. It shows a 12 inch cornice on the top. The bottom one shows a three foot
cornice. Staff initially liked the three foot cornice better. However, there is some issues
with the design and construction and engineering of it, so -- and also probably the
appearance. We weren't sure if it would -- it looks great on paper, but we weren't sure if
it would look as great built. So, we were kind of hoping that the applicant could add a
little bit more to the cornice here on the top and kind of get somewhere in between this
elevation. The colors here on the Chevron canopy are the colors that will be on the
bottom of this. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is commercial
and the proposed use and zoning is consistent with that. And the application is in
compliance with the UDC. Staff has received written testimony from Becky McKay, the
applicant's representative on the plat. And that's all staff has, if Commission has
questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff?
O'Brien: None at this time.
Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward and, please, state
your name and address for the record.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay,
Engineer Solutions, 1029 North Rosario. I'm representing the applicant for the rezone
and the preliminary plat. We are going to do kind of a two pronged presentation tonight.
Mr. Eddy is here tonight to discuss his conditional use and his convenience store and
car wash facility. This particular piece of property was annexed and zoned ten years
ago into the city. At the time we were working on a planned development for Greg
Johnson and a couple other partners. It included the Mountain View High School, the
offices, and the multi-family that are just located to the east of this property. At that time
we had a conceptual plan, but we didn't have anything for this parcel, because it was
anticipated that it probably would not develop until such time as the Locust Grove
overpass was constructed and so it's kind of sat vacant and annexed and zoned. There
is sewer and water facilities stubbed to the property off of Locust Grove and Overland.
In 2002 after it was zoned C-N, Ada County Highway District decided to do a complete
rebuild of Overland Road and the Locust Grove intersection in advance of that
overpass, so they came to Mr. Johnson, he worked with them to establish these future
commercial access points. There were two that were constructed with the project on
Overland. There was another one that was constructed on Locust Grove. Those
locations and stationing points were included as part of the purchase agreement and
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 6 of 30
the documentation. We have been working with the highway district over the past
probably three months now, because with the prebuild of the intersection the
approaches were no longer in compliance with the ACHD policy manual, so we
submitted a traffic study, they asked for some additional information, accident rates,
then, and looking at turn lanes and delays and so forth. We came to a mutual
agreement that we will go in and relocate the right-in, right-out approach. The policy
manual says 220 from the edge of Locust Grove to the edge of our right-in, right-out on
Overland. We are going to be approximately 250 feet. For that particular approach the
highway district will have a right turn lane, so they will be able to come through the
intersection, slot right out of the Overland Road and go right into the site. We have got
about 220 feet of turn lane. We will have 170 feet of taper with 50 feet of stacking,
which is in compliance with ACHD's policy manual. The second easterly approach will
be relocated to the east 440. For a full access will be at 470. That will be a full
approach. A turn lane is not needed for that particular approach there. The other
access on Locust Grove, which was just I think about 150 feet north, approximately, of
the Overland intersection, we are removing that driveway, since it is no longer in
compliance with the policy manual. We -- we decided to put an approach into the
property right across from the existing public street Peacock and that would go into the
subject property. We also have Peacock on the southern boundary. I mean Puffin.
Sorry. Puffin was done initially when we did the high school. The thought with Ada
County Highway District and the school district was that they would want to concentrate
all that high school traffic on one signalized intersection and so that's how that was
designed. Well, after the school had been there for a few years they found that the
students were taking shortcuts and cutting through different residential neighborhoods,
they start getting a substantial number of complaints. So, the school district came to
Mr. Johnson, he cooperated with them financially and dedicating the right of way and
the Puffin Street was constructed from Locust Grove over to Mountain View High
School and provides another secondary outlet that relieves some of that pressure that
was going through the neighborhoods. With this particular site we are asking for the
rezone from the C-N or the neighborhood business to the C-C, the community business,
for the purpose of the times for the operational hours that are allowed under each zone.
Under the C-N zone we -- the hour limitation is not consistent with what Mr. Eddy's
needs are and he will probably go through that with you as far as his times of operation.
So, therefore, that's why you're seeing the C-C rezone. It's consistent with the Comp
Plan, it's designated commercial out there, and the C-C zone, you know, as far as the
particular uses there is not a lot of difference. We gave it a C-N at the time, because
that was the lowest commercial designation and that area was predominately residential
at the time, but, obviously, with the rebuild and the overpass you have seen that area
just sky rocker with commercial, office, and other types of multi-family development.
The plat before you is just five lots. The C store and the fuel facility will occupy the first
-- the northerly two lots adjacent to the Overland-Locust Grove intersection. We are
providing cross-access easements internally through all the lots. We are also providing
a cross-access easement to match up to the existing cross-access easement on our
eastern boundary with the adjacent offices. The Hunter Lateral traverses along that
eastern boundary, that is already currently piped, so we will not be piping any facilities
with this project. The two lots that straddle with Peacock entrance, those -- they could
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 7 of 30
end up office, daycare, retail -- I mean, you know, you don't know until somebody
knocks on the door and says, hey, I thinks that's a good location for my business. So,
we kind of wanted to leave a door open for those. The larger lot that you see to the
east, we anticipate that that will develop as multi-family, which would be consistent with
the adjoining multi-family on the eastern boundary. So, we were going to like match up
some of the pedestrian interconnectivity that you see there. Pressurized irrigation out
here is provided by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. We have been working with
them to hook onto their existing regional pump station that's located there at Overland
right at our northeast corner. We have reviewed the staff's conditions of approval.
Obviously, we -- we are in agreement with all those conditions, with the exception,
obviously, of no accesses to the arterial. We did with our application request a waiver
to the Council. We fully understand that it's outside the purview of the Commission to --
to grant those waivers and so we know we will need to deal with that at the Council, but
I wanted to make you aware of that. Do you have any questions?
Freeman: I have none. No.
O'Brien: I -- Mr. Chair. Yeah, Becky, I had a couple things. The gas pump -- could you
go to that -- showing the gas pumps from the aerial deal down? Yes. So, the -- I can't
quite read it. Does that show 18 pumps?
McKay: No. No. There is eight.
O'Brien: Eight? But there is -- but there is one on each side; right?
McKay: Yes. Yes, sir. There is four on each side under the canopy.
O'Brien: Okay. So, my concern in the way it's laid out there, to -- also if you want to go
around a vehicle that's say parked in the first stall and you want to -- and there is one
opening in the middle or down on the end. But four is sometimes kind of difficult to get
to. Now, I shop at Costco, get gas there where there is just a couple or three pumps
there, it's hard to -- it's difficult to get through and get your vehicle over there to be able
to position it such that you can refuel. But when there is four in a row like I have a
concern with that, okay? I don't know how you can --
McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, I think that's probably a question that
Mr. Eddy can answer. He's spent a considerable amount of time, obviously, finessing
this site and consulting his experts on how best to lay this out for internal circulation and
interconnectivity. So, I'll go ahead and pass the baton onto him, unless there is other
questions for me.
O'Brien: I have another --
McKay: Yes, sir.
O'Brien: The access to Peacock, that's going to be full access; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 8 of 30
McKay: Yes, sir.
O'Brien: Okay. Was there astudy -- I know there was a traffic study done on the
number of vehicle trips per day that will go through down Locust Grove, for instance, but
at peak hours between like 6:00 and 8:00 or 8:30 when I had the occasion to travel
down -- north on Locust Grove, the traffic at times is backed up a third of a mile or more
trying to get through that intersection. Well, they are not going to redo the intersection
anymore, but with having a full access to Overland Road to try to get out of that
business and make a turn south is going to be nearly impossible during those peak
traffic hours, because the traffic is such that it just -- it's quite a bottleneck.
McKay: Meaning making alert-hand turn out of --
O'Brien: Making alert-hand turn, yeah.
McKay: -- Peacock. They would have the option of going further south and exiting off
of Puffin next to the LDS church, which is right at the LDS church boundary.
O'Brien: Is that a full signal?
McKay: That's full access. There is no signal there, no.
O'Brien: But the same problem would exist there, too.
McKay: Yeah. We discussed signals with the highway district and those locations are
too close to Locust Grove --
O'Brien: Oh, yeah.
McKay: -- for a signal. They don't warrant the signal. We have tried to provide as
many exit points in this project as possible. If you have got considerable stacking --
typically what we are seeing is the highway district is going out and painting those thick
white lines signing that do not block intersection. We are seeing a lot of that throughout
the valley as the number of vehicles increases and the stacking goes beyond those
intersections up to where the public streets intersect.
O'Brien: I think that's a good solution. I don't think I have any others on that. I just
want to make a comment on the elevation. I really like those. They did a really good
job. I like the layout of that. And that's all I have for now. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I might. Can we go back to that preliminary plat. You mentioned
something here. Now, it's the rezone for all five lots, this entire piece of property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 9 of 30
McKay: Yes, sir.
Marshall: But you mentioned that you foresee the large lot in the back going multi-
family.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Marshall: Would we have to come back and rezone for that?
McKay: No. No.
Marshall: That's -- that's typical for C-C?
Wafters: I believe a Conditional Use Permit is required for it. I'd have to look, but --
McKay: Yes. I believe that when we pre-app'd a conditional use is required.
Marshall: I learned something new today. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Eddy: I'm Steve Eddy. 770 West Ustick, Meridian, and I guess I'll start with your
question first. I guess -- it's not on my screen, but the reason we laid this site out the
way we did was -- and, first of all, we had a neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood
seemed pretty well supportive of the way we laid it out and what I was trying to do with
the canopy was create the big box and the car wash on the corner to buffer the
neighborhood, buffer the retirement home with the canopy, with the canopy lights, so
that's why we placed it where we placed it. That canopy -- the thoroughfare through it is
wide enough for a car to go between two parked cars on each filling position and get
through and that's aggressively spaced, too. So, there should be plenty of room. The
other issue we are going to have is with the Chevron brand we won't sell like Costco
sells. We won't have the lines Costco has. I wish. But we can't do that with the brand
that we offer. So, what we are trying to do with eight -- there is not a lot of eight -- eight
dispenser locations in town, it's just during the peak hours be able to have room for that
person to get in and get fuel and not have to wait at all. On the nonpeak hours we will
probably only utilize 50 percent of that -- that whole fueling canopy most of the time, so
-- but with the site and with thinking of the neighbors and where we put it with the
canopy lighting and everything else, it -- with the spacing that's allowed I don't think we
will have an issue there at all with problem with traffic or anything, so -- and I think from
that I just led into that -- you know, we try to lay the site out thinking of the
neighborhood, thinking of what laid out best, what flowed best, what helped with -- you
know, we are going to have a problem with high school kids here, there is no doubt,
trying to lay the access points out where we can somewhat control the kids and taking
all those things into consideration when we did the site and, then, the Peacock access, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 10 of 30
mean I know during peak hours it's going to be tough to turn left out of here, but we are
545 feet to the Peacock access. We are I think a little over 700 feet to the Puffin
access, which, you know, if ACHD helps us and puts some of those signs up, you know,
we will be able to get people out, but during peak hours it's going to be a problem, there
is no doubt. And, then, as Becky said, you know, we do want to request a waiver for
access for both Locust Grove and Overland. ACHD now -- as of today we got the staff
report. I have approved the access as it's shown with the right-in, right-out on Overland
and a full access. And, then, the zone change, the C-C zone, I think the other zone only
allows us to be open until 10:00 o'clock at night and for our business 10:00 o'clock is
just too early. We will not be open 24 hours. The C store will close by midnight. The
car wash will be closed. The self serve side of the car wash or the express I would say
would be open until 9:00 in the summer. The full serve stuff will be closed by 7:00 at
the latest and that's in Sonya's staff report. So, with the neighbors that use that can be
shut down before your evening news is on. So, there shouldn't be a big noise problem
at all. And that's pretty much all I had, other than if you guys have any questions.
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant?
Freeman: Mr. Chair. Mr. Eddy, I do have one. Thank you for your explanation of the
width of the drive aisle there. Out of curiosity what is that width between pumps where
you can get two parked cars and, then, a drive aisle between them?
Eddy: Between the two -- this has been changing with ACHD taking and stuff. Our
original goal was 36 and I think right now we are at 34.
Freeman: Thirty-four between the pumps?
Eddy: Yes.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Eddy: Thank you.
Rohm: Would Greg Johnson like to come up? Go ahead and state your name and
address for the record.
Johnson: My name is Greg Johnson. I live at 2037 East Tursa in Meridian.
Rohm: Thank you.
Johnson: I am the landowner currently and am selling to Eddy for this development.
We have -- as Becky mentioned, we have worked hard on this site for about ten years.
Our original plan was to get an Albertson's or a local grocery -- a neighborhood grocery
on this site. A lot of things have changed in the grocery business, but the biggest
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 11 of 30
obstacle we have with this site is the proximity to the freeway. From a grocery store's
perspective the freeway becomes a barrier and instead of having a 360 degree service
area, you have a flat sided service area with people not being willing to come from the
north of the freeway to shop and so it realistically is probably never going to be used as
a grocery store site and we felt that this development satisfies some of those needs for
neighborhood facilities in this area. I live a mile and a half to the south in Tuscany
Subdivision and we lack services south of the freeway and we would really like to have
this type of a neighborhood service in this area with the type of C store Mr. Eddy runs a
lot of the things that we need on a quick basis will be there and, then, WinCo and Fred
Meyer and others that are within a couple miles -- three miles of those are adequate for
the larger shopping trips, but this would help to have something in this area to do that
with. And we fully support this use of the ground and I think it will be a great addition.
Steve has done a great job trying to design this so that it is attractive and a wonderful
addition in this part of the city. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Is it Tay Merrill?
Merrill; Taylor Merrill. I live at 488 S. Merlow in Meridian as well, the West Park
Development Company through Paula Greg's operation. I have been involved in the
real estate development for a number years and reflecting some of the ideas that Greg
mentioned about utilizing this site and having the Eddy -- Fast Eddy's operation in there
we feel very fortunate that we have the opportunity to work with him, his willingness to I
guess go the extra mile in the design concept of what this is I think is very rewarding to
work with and to see his interest in having a finished product that is exceptional. He
does have a facility here on Ustick that we visited on several occasions. The operations
itself is -- it stands above the rest and I would very much look forward to -- I also live in
the area, very much look forward to shopping there and utilizing this. Again, I think in
working with him a lot of times people try to -- or in designs we all try to take those
shortcuts and try to utilize -- you know, property is expensive. I just want to compliment
this design in what he's trying to do to utilize this property and go that extra effort and to
make this a first class operation. I think the accesses and whatnot will work. On a
separate note I wanted to compliment in working with Planning and Zoning for the
introduction to this project, they have been more than professional in their request and
requirements and it's been a real pleasure in working with them. I want to compliment
them as well in working through the issues that have -- you know, that we have all
addressed in here.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Merrill: Thank you.
Rohm: We do not have anybody else signed up for this project, but if there is anyone
else that would like to come up and offer testimony now is that time.
Wells: My name is Michael Wells. My address is 1597 East Mastiff in Meridian. That's
just one block from this project that's going on. I don't have any opposition one way or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 12 of 30
the other about building this. My biggest problem is the -- with the traffic. I live right
there at that light that they just put in for the school that goes across and there is times
of the day that I can't get out. I have to drive all the way around and even sometimes
get out. My question is -- it's probably for Ada County Highway District is whether or not
they are going to plan on putting in a turn lane coming from the north south so that that
traffic that wants to turn into the -- doesn't back up right there, because that's -- where
the -- across the street where that nursing home -- it's not nursing, but assisted living is,
there is certain times of the day that traffic is very very heavy, as someone already
mentioned, between about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon about 6:00 o'clock at night the
traffic filters in from three roads that come from the east, the west, and the north down
Locust Grove right now. If they -- people are trying to stop there and that's going to stop
that traffic right behind them in trying to turn left into the Fast Eddy's, either at the Puffin
entrance or at that school entrance -- or the other entrance, it's really going to cause a
problem, so I don't know if they are having a plan to get a turn lane so that people can
actually come around that corner, get over and out of the traffic so that traffic can keep
flowing down Locust Grove. That's my biggest concern with the project right now,
because I see the project every single day, so -- thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this
application?
Canning: Chairman Rohm? I just wanted to -- if I might just explain briefly about the
access provisions that were mentioned and the waiver by Council. The reason they are
in there is for when we need to do approval at a staff level, say like on Fairview where
you have an access like every 50 feet. It was a mechanism to allow staff to say, no, you
have to combine access and take it from a local street or share access. We knew at the
time that a parcel of this size -- that it would be appropriate for them to gain access from
an arterial. That's why it's waived by Council, because we figured anytime a plat went
through or an annexation or a rezone that they would have an opportunity to go to
Council and say these are the access points we want, would you approve them. And
that's why it's awaiver -- a very simple waiver, rather than a variance finding or anything
like that. So, that tool was put in place mostly for those staff level applications for
situations such as Fairview Avenue where you have multiple driveway cuts. So, it is not
consistent with the UDC, but it's not unexpected nor inappropriate perhaps. So, I just
wanted to explain that kind of provision of code.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, Ihave afollow-up question for Mrs. Canning. I notice in the report
that you had mentioned that there is a street, Puffin, off of Locust Grove and I
understand what the issue is there, but I have also heard during the testimonies that
there are issues with accesses off of Overland Road and I'm confused about that,
because I don't see a street access that they would otherwise use off of Overland Road.
So, is that an issue, the accesses off of Overland Road per the UDC?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 13 of 30
Canning: Yes, because theoretically the parcel is whole right now and they have
access to Puffin through cross-access agreements. There is not a street, necessarily,
but there is cross-access, I believe, shown on the plat.
Freeman: Okay. So, Puffin would qualify under the --
Canning: Yes.
Freeman: Okay. Thank you. That's helps clarify.
Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? I suppose technically with Greg and Taylor
testifying as others, the applicant can come up and continue or have some final words,
but it's not necessary, so -- because there wasn't any opposition in any of the testimony,
so with that being said could I get a motion to close the public hearing?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I move to close the public hearing RZ dash 10-006 and PP 10-006
and CUP 10-011.
Freeman: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 10-006, PP 10-
006 and CUP 10-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien?
O'Brien: Yeah. I -- I don't know what the solution is going to be. I really like this -- the
plan with all the things that are going to be placed in there and down in the future. The
car wash is certainly going to be a boon for that area. We needed something in that
area for quite some time, as well as a convenience store, instead of having to go across
to -- from people coming from the south that's going to be really nice. Too bad we didn't
have a grocery store, but some day there will be one near by it. Anyway, so I like the
elevations. The only concerns I have again is the access to -- to Locust Grove from the
convenience store area and, yeah, they could put in painted lettering saying do not
block intersection, blah, blah, blah, but -- so if that's a solution, fine. The other thing that
I forget the gentlemen's name that brought up the fact that he can't turn -- it's very
difficult to turn left -- southbound traffic turning left into that driveway, that full access.
So, I don't know how we can take care of that whether it be through Ada County
Highway District or something else, I don't know, but I think there is valid issues with
that. That's the only concerns I have.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: Yeah. I -- I like this development. I agree with some of the testimony of Mr.
Wells that as a developer you have -- you could have done so much less and didn't.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 14 of 30
You did some very nice things with the buildings as far as the way you orient -- arrange
the site so that the pump station is actually screened. You had mentioned that. I see
that as a positive. There is a lot of thought that went into this and I think it's going to be
a nice addition. These kinds of services can end up so shoddy and end up being eye
sores and we are sorry to be their neighbors, but this won't be one of them. So, you did
really well there. I think that Mr. Wells also had a good point that Tom brought up. That
left-hand turn lane, I agree that could be an issue. Unfortunately, I have no idea what
ACHD's long range plans are there. I would assume that eventually they are going to
have a turn lane there, but I don't know that. I wonder -- staff, do you have any idea?
Canning: Chairman Rohm, Mr. Freeman, you did have one other person testify with
questions and the applicant does have a response to that, if you might open up the
public hearing again just for a moment to allow or to provide comment on the ACRD
requirements and the extra turn lane -- extra right of way for a turn lane that they are
requiring.
Rohm: Well, let's go ahead and do that and then --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we reopen the public hearing of RZ 10-006, PP 10-
006, 10 -- CUP 10-011 to allow for the applicant's rebuttal.
Freeman: I'll second and thank you for cleaning up my can of worms there.
Rohm: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing to give
the applicant an opportunity to respond. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Please come forward.
McKay: Chairman, just to answer that specific question, ACHD is asking for some
additional right of way from us to add some additional turn lanes in the future to
Overland and Locust Grove and some additional right of way, so that Locust Grove,
where it necks down there at Peacock can be expanded in the future. I couldn't quickly
find that there was a time line in here when that would take place. I think Steve was
thinking it was 2015. But, anyway, they are, obviously, looking at those issues and
planning additional right of way, so that they can install that in the future.
Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions?
Marshall: Yes, Mr. Chair. So, Becky, any of those additional takings shown on this plat
-- or preliminary plat or anything anywhere?
McKay: We got their staff report today, just this afternoon, and they just want -- they
gave us the option the sidewalk could be an easement, add additional 12 feet of right of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 15 of 30
way, so what we will do is we -- we just shift -- we just shift everything down a little bit to
accommodate it. It's not problematic. It happens intermittently when ACHD hasn't
made up their minds how much right of way they want.
Marshall: But you have seen 12 foot -- starting probably at the beginning of that neck
up there where it starts necking down.
McKay: Yes.
Marshall: You're talking all the way to Puffin?
McKay: Yes.
Marshall: Wow.
McKay: I think that's what they were talking about.
Marshall: That would definitely give an extra lane in there. Awesome.
McKay: Yeah. Our project doesn't warrant the addition of the lanes. So, they can't
place the burden upon us unless we warrant -- you know, we are creating the situation.
Marshall: I do have one last question. I can't remember -- is there any center islands in
Overland at that location to block -- as in curb raised island for alert-hand turn at
Overland to Locust Grove that would block left-hand turns into the right-in, right-out?
You know what I'm referring to?
McKay: Yes, I do, and I'm trying to picture it. I don't -- there is some down there by the
Maverick, because they have got the right-in, right-out onto Overland. But I don't
believe there is one located there. But, typically, when we do our stripping plans and
our decel lane, that's one of the items that they add, because we are not doing a
porkchop, so if you don't do that porkchop that restricts that right-in, right-out, then,
typically ACHD has you add that vertical extruded curb, so you can't cheat and make a
left in.
Marshall: But that's at your entrance, not in the middle of the street.
McKay: Yes. No. A lot of times they will put it -- it's between the lanes. So, you can't
cut over.
Marshall: At the center of the street.
McKay: Correct.
Marshall: And you would be placing that in the center of the street.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 16 of 30
McKay: If ACRD requires it, then, that would be our burden, yes, sir.
Marshall: Okay. Thank you.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, a little comment on Commissioner Marshall. Right now there is two
left-hand turn lanes going from Overland south to Locust Grove and there is no island
there currently. It's either across -- across Locust Grove or on the east side and the
west, so -- anyway, I just thought I would give you that input.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Eddy: I guess I can come back up and answer the question. ACHD in their plan that
we got today basically stated they have a year 2015 plan they call it and what they put
in the staff review that we got today, it says on widening Locust Grove south, it says this
project is identified in ACHD capital improvements list, but is not identified for
construction. So, they don't know when. And, then, the median issue, I'm certain they
will put a medium on Overland past our right-in, right-out on Overland. Locust Grove,
since we are outside their rules of the 440 feet, I don't think they will put anything on
Locust Grove. I mean all we could possibly do with this development is get them to
widen Locust Grove faster.
Marshall: And you wouldn't want those in front of a full access anyway.
Eddy: What's that?
Marshall: A raised median.
Eddy: On Locust Grove, no.
Marshall: No.
Eddy: No, we don't want that. I mean the road needs widened and they have it in their
vision, it's in site, you know, we are at their mercy of when you are going to do it. Like
Becky said, they are taking the additional right of way off of Locust Grove so they can
do that. But, you know, we are at their mercy on that.
Marshall: As are we.
Eddy: Yeah. And, then, the other question was the only other median that's there today
is there is one on Locust Grove north of Overland is the only median at that intersection
today. Raised median in the center of the street.
Marshall: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 17 of 30
O'Brien: So, Mr. Chair, just a comment, Commissioner Marshall. On Locust Grove
Road south of Overland where those two left-hand turn lanes that go south from
Overland, the right lane ends at the end of the property, the assisted living property
before you get to Peacock and so that there is a bottleneck. Whether they are going to
change that or not I'm not sure if that's in that plan either, but that just adds to the issue
we are talking about.
Marshall: But I believe the applicant's addressed that with -- ACHD came back today
asking for an additional 12 foot of right of way to address that in the future.
Eddy: As they saw a need.
O'Brien: On the east side of Locust Grove?
Eddy: They are taking it off the west side of Locust Grove.
O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Okay.
Eddy: To accommodate widening Locust Grove south.
O'Brien: To the south. Okay.
Eddy: Correct.
Marshall: But to do that they are going to have to address that with the owners on the
other side of the street.
O'Brien: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Let's try this again. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move to close the public hearing on RZ 10-006, PP 10-006 and
CUP 10-011.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 10-006, PP 10-
006 and CUP 10-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freeman: Mr. Chair, I'm done with my comments, too.
Rohm: All right. Cool. Good. All right. Any Commissioner Marshall, do you have any
closing thoughts on this or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 18 of 30
Marshall: My closing thoughts are I'm all for this. I think this is a great project. I really
appreciate all of the work and effort that's gone into it on everyone's part. I appreciate
past willingness to work with the school district to add access across there to help their
needs. I have seen Mr. Eddy's stores before and I am impressed and I appreciate the
architectural efforts that go into that to be able to fit into neighborhoods and to meet the
needs of the -- of the city and to try to give a more livable environment and I think this
really kind of steps things up and I appreciate that. My one and only concern is the
right-in, right-out. I don't -- I think it's there and it need to be there, but at the same time
I don't like the left-ins, because I see it up and down Eagle I see people taking alert-in
on a right-in only and that's why typically when I see right-ins I really want to see some
type of median or concrete curb out there. That would be my only comment on the
access points. Other than that I appreciate the fact that they are closing off the -- the
Locust Grove access that's close to Overland and moving that down to Peacock and I
appreciate that much, so that's it.
Rohm: Thank you. I'm not sure -- Commissioner O'Brien, are you finished, too? Okay.
I'm in support of the project. I think everybody's done a good job putting this together
and appreciate your willingness to work with staff and I'm -- I like the project. So, with
that being said, could I get a motion to move this project forward?
Freeman: Sure. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
move to recommend approval of file numbers RZ 10-006, PP 10-006, and CUP 10-011,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 4th, 2010.
O'Brien: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of RZ 10-006, PP 10-006 and CUP 10-011. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Unanimous vote. Congratulations. Thank you. Thanks for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
G. Public Hearing: RZ 10-005 Volterra Subdivision (North and
South) by Primeland Investment Group, LLC Located North
Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. Black Cat Road and N.
Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 58.33 Acres from R-4 (Low
Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-8 (Medium
Density Residential) Zoning District for Volterra Subdivision
South
H. Public Hearing: PP 10-004 Volterra Subidivision (North and
South) by Primeland Investment Group, LLC Located North
Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. Black Cat Road and N.
Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 301
Residential Lots, 1 School Lot and 38 Common Lots on
Approximately 120.6 Acres in an R-4 Zone for Volterra
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 19 of 30
Subdivision North
I. Public Hearing: PP 10-005 Volterra Subdivisions (North and
South) by Primeland Investment Group, LLC Located North
Side of W. McMillan Road Between N. Black Cat Road and N.
Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of 194
Residential Lots, 10 Commercial Lots and 22 Common Lots on
Approximately 80.4 Acres in a Proposed C-G, L-O and
Proposed R-8 Zones for Volterra Subdivision South
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on RZ 10-005, PP 10-004 and
PP 10-005 and begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property
before you tonight is, actually, bisected by McMillan Road. Volterra North Subdivision is
on the north side McMillan Road between Black Cat and North Ten Mile Road. Volterra
South is located on the southwest corner of the McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. For
tonight's presentation I'll try to segregate the two projects, even though we are
reviewing them as one. They really are two separate projects. One is -- there is two
separate plats for you, so one is the north portion, one is the south portion. Current
zoning for the property, Volterra North is R-4. That property consists of 120.6 acres and
Volterra South is approximately 80.4 acres and that also includes a commercial portion
to that as well. History on this site -- excuse me. History on this site, back in 2005 this
project came before you. It's also called Volterra North, Volterra South, but under that
approval they came through under the planned unit development process, had
assortment of uses planned for the site, including a mix of residential, detached and
attached products. Total buildable lots with combined included roughly 728 residential
lots. And these two plats combined before you this evening, roughly 494 residential
lots. So, those numbers having -- have decreased. The bigger -- the biggest reason for
the decrease was the northern portion along both the east boundary of Volterra North
Subdivision was removed and was replat -- or rezoned and incorporated a new
business park and I will explain that more as I move into the Volterra North portion, but I
just wanted to get that history out before you, because this is such a large plat and there
is a lot of history on this property. So, here -- as I move to the Volterra North project, try
to highlight the stub streets for you to provide that future connectivity and
interconnectivity and also if you notice along the eastern boundary you do see that
concept plan that was approved for that portion that was removed back in 2008. So, to
go into this plat, again, the applicant for this portion of Volterra North plat they are
proposing approximately -- or, excuse me, proposed improvement at one residential lot.
Those lots all comply with the R-4 zoning standards. The comp plan designates for this
property is currently medium density residential. The gross density for this project is
approximately 2.8 acres, which is slightly lower than what's required in the Comp Plan,
but given the fact that there is a large business park campus approximately -- that area
to the east is approximately 111 acres, you can see that there will definitely be need for
some roof tops out there in north Meridian. So, staff was supportive of the density that
the applicant proposed. As you can see here, the red circles indicated the stub streets.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 20 of 30
I did have an error in the staff report, I called out they had six stub streets. There are, in
fact, seven stub streets, which I have highlighted. The majority of those stub streets,
the two to the north, the two to the south, and the one to the west were all reviewed
under the old plat. They are primarily the same location proposed back in 2005. The
two stub streets to the north align with a planned subdivision known as Bainbridge. The
stub street to the west aligns with the stub street that is planned with the subdivision
there. I don't remember the name off the top of my head, but it was a small five acre or
ten acre plat there and, then, also this stub street along the western most southern stub
street also stubs to a project known as Bell Haven Subdivision. That plat has expired,
but there is a DA on the property that's tied to that piece of property, so we can
anticipate that connectivity at some point when things turn around. One other item I'd
like to point out for you is the applicant is also platting a portion of the school lot along
the northern boundary just east of Black Cat. The school district has acquired the five
acres property just to the north of that, so that should give them ample -- an ample
school site to construct an elementary school in the future. The applicant has a
separate agreement with the school district for deeding over that property to them, but it
certainly -- in 2005 that was a discussion in the staff report that's come to fruition and it
looks like the school distinct is meeting that property. So, the applicant is providing that
for the school district. One other thing, a lot of pedestrian connectivity with this plat.
The reason for that is can the layout of the land in giving the -- they wanted to keep with
the original approval under the CUP, give the current climate of the ordinance it wasn't
allow for some of the things that were allowed back under the PD process. So, some of
these block lengths do exceed the 750 foot maximum requirement in the UDC, but the
code does allow for pedestrian connections in lieu of those street connections. So,
based on staff analysis, given the fact that this spine right here will be a residential
collector street, and the UDC does encourage limiting access to those type of streets. It
made sense to limit -- one, limit vehicular connectivity, but the plan also prescribes a ten
foot multi-pathway along that northern -- excuse me -- along that spine road or collector
street. That would terminate here on the eastern boundary. Staff has recommended --
or encouraged the applicant to continue that pathway network to the community park
and tie into the pathway that was approved and planned for the mixed use portion up
here. We thought that made for good connectivity. You can see there is a potential for
a road connectivity here, so why not just run it up along that street and tie in and, then,
that would, again, tie into Ten Mile to the east and, then, the pathway would continue
through Volterra Subdivision and we would have that connectivity. So, right now we did
-- as of the print date of the staff report we did not have comments from ACRD. I have
received draft comments from them regarding both plats. For this portion they did not
really have any issues with the circulation or the stub streets that were proposed. Here
is the landscape plan that the applicant is proposing. Amenities and open space
required for this portion, the code requires a minimum of ten percent open space. The
applicant is proposing approximately 21 acres, which exceeds that ten percent
requirement and based on the fact that there is 10 acres, they need to provide one
amenity for every 20 acres of development. The applicant is providing six amenities in
compliance with the ordinance. That would include a clubhouse, tot lot, extension of the
pathway, additional five percent open space, public art, a clubhouse, swimming pool.
So, those things count as amenities in the UDC and they are in compliance with that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 21 of 30
Now, moving on to the Volterra South Subdivision, again, they are proposing two stub
streets. Again, these were reviewed during the previous plat, the same location. That
has not changed. The lots -- the number of lots have increased as far as the residential
portion. In the previous plat they proposed 188 lots. This portion -- this new plat is
contemplating 194 lots with only single family residential. They had also proposed
single family attached with this portion of the plat and this time they have reviewed that
-- again, they have a collector street that comes up at McMillan here that will provide
some enhancements to the community park here and, then, of course, they will create a
collector street here to kind of buffer the commercial in the L-O -- L-O lots from the
residential to the west. With the commercial portion they are also proposing two access
points. These access points align with access points that were approved with that
mixed use to the north and also with the commercial to the east. I did ask -- ACHD did
not comment on these access points in the staff report. Staff has conditioned them to
be right-in, right-out only in the staff report. ACHD's take on the access points were
they were approved with the reconstruction of that intersection, so they really had no
comment on that, but they do -- they don't have any issues regarding access to that
commercial development. One other -- one other change or -- it wasn't really a change,
but one other consistency with this plat and the prior plat was the fact that there is a
subdivision to the south of this property know as Drawbridge. That does have a stub
street that abuts -- abuts this southern boundary. When the applicant went before City
Council in that day staff had recommended that that stub street connect through and
provide connection to the collector street system. Well, when they got to Commission,
neighbors came out, testified on that behalf. Council made -- approved the project with
that -- removal of that stub street, but they would have to provide a pedestrian
connection and that was in the findings of the previous plat. We felt that was
appropriate. The -- as soon as the neighbors got wind of this project coming back
before you they certainly called the planning department, informed me that they wanted
that pedestrian connection. I informed them that the applicant was providing that
connection as previously approved and staff was supportive of that and that gave some
assurances to the neighbor that their concerns were met. One other thing I'd like to
point out to Commission is -- like I mentioned to you earlier, we are reviewing this as
one overall plat -- or, excuse me, as two separate plats. However, as far as a phasing
process, they do show 16 phases. What had happened is because the staff reviewed
these plats at the same time last time, the applicant was --didn't realize that they had to
submit separate time extensions for both plats and so what happened was as one
expired, since they were both tied together or reviewed during the same time, their time
frames were the same and both plats expired and that's why we are here before you.
So, they wanted to make sure -- worked with staff, asked staff is there any way we
could tie the two projects together. We informed the applicant we couldn't tie the plats
together, because they are not contiguous, they are separated by an arterial street, but
for phasing purposes we could honor that and so if I could just step back a moment, the
first -- due to the -- the construction or the amount of city service -- or where the location
of city services are, they would have to come from Black Cat to serve this property. So,
the applicant would have to-- basically, the phasing plan starts at Black Cat, works their
way eastward, turns south to McMillan Road, crosses the street, and provides additional
phasing within Volterra South and, then, goes to phase 16, which is in the southeast
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 22 of 30
corner here. So, that's why they were concerned. If they started here they wanted to
make sure their phasing would be consistent with 16 here, so they -- if they platted a
phase here it would still keep both plats alive without having -- without having to submit
subsequent time extensions. We were in agreement with that. However, we -- because
they are rezoning a portion of the property we have encouraged them to submit a
development agreement modification, which I have conditioned in the staff report and
we will have that provision in the DA once we have that scheduled for City Council. The
applicant has provided that application to staff. We are waiting for Commission to make
their recommendation onto City Council before we process the application, so that we
could get a DA mod caught up to the preliminary plat and the rezone application, so
they could be heard concurrently with City Council. So, really, the rezone -- the reason
for the rezone and the boundary of the rezone is approximately 58.33 acres and that's
only for the residential portion. The C-G in the L-O zoned properties, that's what was
originally zoned -- annexed and zoned with the CUP process back in 2005. Those lots
-- back in the day there was ten C-G zoned lots and four L-O lots and now the
applicant's proposing seven C-G lots and three L-O lots. Some of the lots don't have
access to a local street or a street network, so staff has conditioned them to provide
cross-access for future final plats. One other issue that I would like to point out -- the
reason for the rezone, if I could step back for a moment, is the fact that the property is
currently zoned R-4. Based on the approvals with that PD they were allowed to have
reduced lot frontages and -- reduced street frontages and reduced lot sizes. Well, those
lot sizes aren't as -- to approve them with a PD would not comply with the R-4
dimensional standards under today's ordinance. Staff had met with them and
encouraged -- if they wanted to keep, essentially, the same lot count and the same lot
layout, we encouraged the applicant to just process a rezone application and go to the
R-8 zone, which could allow them to process the plat similar to what was proposed in
2005. I would point out to Commission that staff is not recommending a development
agreement --anew development agreement with the rezone, as I have mentioned to
you earlier, we just processed the DA mod, which will incorporate some of the
conditions regarding the plat and, then, also conditions for examples of -- for example,
we would ask them to -- their residential elevations to comply with the Meridian design
manual architectural standards, CZC design review for the commercial portion. Right
now the recorded DA -- the DA provisions in that DA really are held to the previous
approval, so they don't really mesh well with the timing for these amenities and also the
C-G and L-O zoned properties are required to go through the conditional use process.
Keep in mind we did not have design review at the time that they came forward and
staff feels we have better tools to address the commercial and the L-O zoned properties
now, so anticipates that position being removed from the DA and, then, just being
subject to administrative design review and CZC approval or subject to the C-G and L-O
zoning standards. So, whatever use they propose, depending on what is classified in
the ordinance, will dictate what process they go through. Thought that was the best
way to handle that. That green oval that I presented to you on this plat tonight has to do
with the requirement that came from fire department and a recommendation from staff.
I won't try to explain the fire department's requirements, but it has to do with their road
separation and entrances and clearances between these roadways, but I will tell you the
reason why staff recommended this change. If you notice -- and I will go to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 23 of 30
landscape plan, because it really highlights it better. As you come off McMillan Road
and you enter this subdivision, you can see the applicant's done a nice job to highlight
this roadway and create a boulevard type appearance and, then, you enter into this nice
open space. Well, staff thought this is a long block here, it's definitely -- I believe it's
roughly 950 feet, so -- I mean we appreciate the pedestrian connectivity, but given the
esthetics of it, just having micropaths, it looked like they just plopped in micropaths
without really any thought to it. So, staff thought, well, if they comply to here, why not
combine the two and widen it to 40 feet, provide a pathway and get that same look of
having that grand greenbelt hook into that central park area. The applicant has
complied with this requirement. They have amended the plat to incorporate that and
incorporate fire department's comments as well. So, basically, what you will get is a 40
foot open space lot between both plots a ten foot pathway, five feet of gravel on each
side of that to handle the fire department's requirements for load capacity and, then,
landscaping outside of that. So, you should get a nice greenbelt to link that
neighborhood -- those neighborhood pods to the 2.9 acre part provided within the
subdivision. One other substantial change that I'd like to point out to you. The previous
plat contemplated this river walk or greenbelt between the residential subdivision -- this
block here and that's, really, one of the major changes between this plat and the
previous plat. The applicant has redesigned the plat and provided an 80 foot wide
greenbelt here that goes from the commercial to the residential and Ithink -- I mean
staff believes that's a good amenity to do that. One, it provides a nice connectivity, it
separates commercial from the residential and, then, also it ties into the Meridian
pathways plan. So, again, the pathway for this portion of the project for Volterra South,
the pathways plan prescribed a ten foot multi-use pathway that goes along the south
side of McMillan Road, would cross the center section here, connecting to a 12 foot
pathway that they are proposing along the western boundary within that 85 foot
greenbelt easement, run along the south boundary of the L-O lots, run east and connect
in to Ten Mile Road and, then, from there there is some additional pathways that are
built within Bridgetower that this will provide future connectivity for. Staff thought that
was a good use of the property. Ithink it sets a nice tone for the development out there.
Again, they don't have any -- the applicant does not have any plans for the C-G or L-O
zoned lots and that's why their phasing plan has changed from the previous approval,
so we could see probably those lots or that portion of the phase -- that portion of the
development come in at a later date. And, again due to where services are planned for
this subdivision it would probably happen at a later phase. In the staff report staff had
called -- or had encouraged the applicant to coordinate with Settlers. I mean this
property here is encumbered with quite a few irrigation easements, one of them being
along Meridian Road, which is a 50 foot Lemp Canal easement and an 80 foot wide
easement. The applicant is asking for those drains to remain open. The code does
allaw for it where these large facilities will take a larger pipe -- larger pipe than a 48 inch
diameter. I would anticipate that these facilities will probably take a larger pipe than a
48 inch. The previous approvals staff had recommended or -- was supportive of the
applicant's request to leave those ditches open -- or those canals open. Again, staff
recommended the same recommendation this time to leave those canals open. Ithink if
you notice along Bridgetower just to the east the canal is open and you can see they
provided a nice greenbelt and some nice fencing there and enhanced that. They are
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 24 of 30
also proposing that with this subdivision, so I think it certainly would make a nice
greenbelt along those canals and also improve the subdivision. The residential portion
is approximately 58 acres or so. They are proposing 8.83 acres of open space. Based
on the size of their residential set they will have to provide three amenities. The
applicant has done that, they had a tot lot, a sitting area, and, again, they are providing
five percent open space -- additional open space and also they are extending the
pathway network. So, those meet the open space requirements, so the applicant's in
compliance with that. I did receive comments from the applicant. They are in
agreement with the staff report. Staff has not received any other written testimony on
the application. Again, staff is recommending approval with conditions in the staff report
and I would be happy to answer any questions Commission has.
Rohm: Thank you very much and that was a very prepared presentation. Thanks. I
appreciate that. Any questions of staff?
O'Brien: Yes, sir.
Rohm: Go ahead.
O'Brien: Mr. Chair. Mr. Parsons, could you go back to the view that shows the north
section? Yes. That one. I can't read the -- what it says on there, but that open space,
is that a pond?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, correct,
that is a water -- pond. That would be their irrigation pond or a water feature within that
ten acre part that could be used for --
O'Brien: Does the fire department use those for -- for their trucks? No? Okay.
Parsons: To my knowledge, no.
O'Brien: Thank you. That's all.
Rohm: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill, can we go back to the south. All right. Thank
you. I believe I heard you say that C-G corner there was zoned C-G in 2005; is that
correct? Now, looking at all the other corners and the additional business park, that
additional business park was all zoned C-C; is that correct?
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, it had a plethora of zoning designations. So, the
hard corner was zoned C-G and, then, to the east -- let me shoot up to that -- to the
concept plan here. So, here is that 111 acre business park.
Marshall: Correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 25 of 30
Parsons: If you can see my arrow here along the south, the C-G portion comes and
heads north and go up to the road. So, this portion will be zoned C-G. This was zoned
R-15 adjacent to the R-4 lots here. Up north this portion -- and some portion of this is
zoned C-C and, then, on the north side of this collector street here is zoned L-O to
buffer against the residential planned to the north of it.
Marshall: Right. Okay. And kind just for the record, because I think I know the answer.
What's the maximum building size in C-G?
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, there really is no maximum building size in that
zoning district. Maximum height is 65 feet.
Marshall: Right. I believe it takes a conditional use over 200,000 square foot or
something like that?
Parsons: No.
Marshall: Not even that.
Parsons: It used to be a requirement for design review if you were a certain square
footage. Since we have adopted the Meridian design manual there is no requirements
based on that.
Marshall: All right. And what size are- those lots, approximately, in the C-G area?
Parsons: I apologize, I can't read that, but let me grab the plat here and let you know.
Marshall: Just approximate square footage is what I'm looking for.
Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, it looks like the range from 49,000 square feet up to
120,000, approximately, square feet.
Marshall: Thank you.
Parsons: You're welcome.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come
forward, please.
Christensen: I'm not sure which microphone I'm supposed to be talking into here.
Rohm: Any one of them.
Christensen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Chuck
Christensen. I work for Quadrant Consulting and our address is 1904 West Overland in
Boise. I'm here representing the property owner. We have reviewed the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 26 of 30
appreciate Bill's presentation. It's addressed all of the issues. We are ready to comply
with the conditions that have been outlined in the staff report. I would just like to
emphasize that our intent with this preliminary plat that you are reviewing today was to,
essentially, replicate what was approved in 2005. As Bill mentioned, the biggest
change was the realignment of the White Drain in Volterra South. Most of the other
changes were intended to meet the city's current code as compared to the codes and
the ordinances that were in effect when it was approved. So, that's also the primary for
the rezone. The intent is to simply replicate what we approved on the south side of
McMillan Road and in order to do that we had to rezone the property to maintain those
same lot sizes. So, unless there are any questions, I will sit down.
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. There was not
one else signed up, but at this time you're welcome to come forward and offer
testimony.
Poorman: Good evening. Paul Poorman. 5230 North Black Cat Road, Meridian,
Idaho. And, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, the only question I had for
the applicant was -- and, let's see, can you show the north plat? I don't know if I can
steer around on here?
Parsons: You can.
Poorman: Does this work or -- yeah. So, the only question I had was on the -- oops.
Canning: It works, but if you pick it up it will think you're clicking it, so you just need to --
Poorman: Oh. Okay. Along this south boundary here, that's a drainage ditch and
water flows into it from our property. It keeps moving on me. It flows off from our
property here and the only question I have if that's going to remain open so that the
irrigation water -- the draining water can flow into it. So, that's the only question I had.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Wasnea: My name is Michael Wasnea. I live 3356 West Grand Rapids Drive in the
Drawbridge Subdivision and I just wanted to say I have talked with Mr. Parsons and Mr.
Christensen and the neighbors really don't have any objection to this project. We think
that Drawbridge -- or the Bridgetower group is first class and if we can't have it remain
open land forever, which, you know, we can't, obviously, then, we'd like to see
Drawbridge in there. So, we had some initial concerns in '95 -- or 2005 having to do
with the connecting streets and those were resolved, then, and they have been carried
forward to this time and so we have no objections to it as currently presented.
Rohm: Good. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else who would
like to testify to this application? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come
back up and respond to the question about the irrigation drainage?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 27 of 30
Christensen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Chuck Christensen again.
Yes, we would -- we would do whatever we need to do to maintain the existing drainage
patterns. That's standard state code requirement, so we would make whatever
arrangements need to be made to accommodate that drainage.
Rohm: Thank you. Thought that would be the answer. Thanks very much.
Parsons: Chairman, if I could just elaborate. It will be tiled.
Marshall: Oh, it will be tiled.
Parsons: That was my understanding that that facility -- the plat shows a 20 foot
easement for that facility. Based on that lateral I would think maybe the applicant would
be tiling that.
Rohm: Well, if the applicant tiles it, then, where does adjacent property's water drain
to?
Christensen: Can I butt in here?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Christensen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Chuck Christensen again.
What we would do if we are going to the the ditch, then, we would provide some catch
basins or catch points in order to collect the drainage that's coming off of the neighbor's
property. We can provide whatever needs to be provided to make sure that that
drainage is accommodated, even if we the the ditch. We can put in some catch basins
or something like that.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Marshall: Thank you.
Rohm: Any additional questions of staff or the applicant or could I get a motion to close
the public hearing?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I move to close the public hearing RZ 10-005 and PP 10-004 and
PP 10-005.
Freeman: I will second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on RZ 10-005, PP 10-
004 and PP 10-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 28 of 30
Rohm: Any discussion?
Marshall: I do.
Rohm: Commissioner Marshall.
Marshall: I will start it off and hand her down. Okay. Looking at the north subdivision, I
like how there is buffering with the C-C and the L-O more closely and the multi-family as
well, more closely situated to the residential. I think that's appropriate. I believe --
remember seeing some of that come through here and the C-C is up on the corner
there, but there is lesser intensities as we get closer and closer to the residence. If we
could take a look at the south. And I understand that this was approved in 2005 and
whatnot, but I wasn't here, I'll tell you and my opinion is, wow, if that was ever intended
to be residential up against C-G, I couldn't have gone for it. I don't like C-G anywhere
near -- it needs to be buffered, there needs to lessening intensities in between the
residential and the C-G. I could almost go for it if we rezone the C-G to a C-C. I worry
about how C-G can develop. You know, I understand this developer may -- he wants to
protect his property and he's not going to develop in a way that -- but things happen and
property gets sold and whoever gets it develops it any way they want and I -- you know,
once it's zoned C-G there is accepted uses that I would not want to see that close to
residences without some type of buffering. That's my biggest concern with this. Other
than that I really don't have a lot of concerns. That's my biggest, though, by far. There
are a lot of things I like about it. Those are my thoughts right now.
Freeman: Passing the baton?
Marshall: Yeah.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Freeman.
Freeman: I don't have much to comment on. I think it's a nicely subdivided property. I
like the street patterns. I think the change to that 40 foot path on the southern part was
a good choice. I like that that was put on access with the park, so I appreciate the
thought that brought that to our attention. I can see some of the patterns that I see in
Bridgetower and I like Bridgetower. That's a very nice residential development. I like
the way that they have done what they can to buffer against the C-G zone with the
additional landscaping and width. Yeah, that will help. So, I'm for the project.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien?
O'Brien: Don't have a lot to add. I guess if I had any concerns that's an awful lot of
homes being put in that area, you know, within that mile stretch between McMillan and
Ten Mile and Black Cat. So, that -- that many residences when it builds out and the rest
of the area of Ten Mile, that's a lot of traffic. I hope they are going to be able to handle
all that. So, that's -- if that was a concern that would be the only one I have. Just
wanted to make a comment on that. Other than I think it's a great project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 29 of 30
Rohm: Thank you very much. Commissioner Marshall, do you have --
Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'd like to address that a little bit on the traffic issue is that as part of
the traffic force I know that we are trying to target that Ten Mile as a corridor and trying
very hard to press forth with intersection rebuilds and signalization and the like,
especially with the Ten Mile interchange and we expect that that corridor will be
improved sooner than others and that maybe this is a better location than other
opportunities might be and, really, Ithink -- you know. And I also like tighter and tighter
subdivisions in that we don't get quite as much urban sprawl and the closer you have
houses the few feet shorter people have to drive to work and I really like having the
businesses close to these residences. So, that, hopefully, some of the people working
in those businesses will live there close by and that's my comment.
O'Brien: Appreciate it.
Rohm: Thanks very much. Yeah. I like the project and the thing that I like about larger
projects is they have an opportunity to include amenities that just make it a nice place to
live and I think the developers here have done a good job putting their amenities
together with the development and with that being said I'm in support. So, with that
being said could I get a motion, please?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien.
O'Brien: I move to -- well, let's back up here. After considering all staff and applicant
and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to file numbers RZ 10-006 -- am
on the right one? No. RZ 10-005, PP 10-004, and PP 10-005 with no modifications and
per the staff and further testimony.
Freeman: I second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward on to City Council
recommending approval of RZ 10-055, PP 10-004, PP 10-005 to include the staff report
with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. Thank
you all for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Could I get one more motion?
O'Brien: Mr. Chair, move to adjourn.
Freeman: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 4, 2010
Page 30 of 30
Rohm: Moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROV
/I ~ ~~~ ~~
MICHAEL ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
1,
ATTEST: ~ ~~
JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY' CLE ~,,~~~""""~~~,,,
\~GpRP~JggT~ 9.Z ';
O
~~~~ _
EGG' 1~0~
%~~ G`ST 1S1 • ~~