Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 20, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 16 of 70 expense. My concern is that the underground work be done, probably, and get the sprinkler in where ever it's going to be. Is bonding to have the rest of the work done satisfactory? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can just throw one quick item in. I was pretty tardy getting my portion of the staff report done, so in your motion if you would, please, just refer to the supplement staff report as well. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 04-012, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots and one common lot on 2.82 acres in a C-G zone for Initial Point Subdivision by Robnett Construction, one half mile east of North Meridian Road and south of East Fairview Avenue as presented in the staff reports dated -- to the Public Hearing date of May 20th, 2004, received by the city clerk May 16th, 2004, and supplement of the transmittal date -- excuse me -- received by the clerk May 18th as well, the supplemental staff report. End of motion. Excuse me. I'm sorry. No, I'm not. Along with the following changes to the special conditions on item number three, the landscape plan land use buffer, put that we will bond the landscaping to complete as buildings are constructed and, then, item number five in regards to the clarification that their will be -- the land will be maintained by the building owners association in regards to maintenance. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 04-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 36.93 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton - northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-009, request for annexation and zoning of 36.93 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton, northwest corner of Eagle Road and Ustick. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this application is just an annexation and zoning. There are no -- there are no other variances, plats, conditional Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 17 of 70 use permits before the Commission at this time. The property that is described in the legal description is located here at the northeast corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. There are, actually, two county parcels today, but they are both proposed to be annexed at this time and are both described in the legal description. So, the 36.93 acres is incorporating both of those. As this Commission well knows, the other three corners of this intersection have had recent annexations by the City of Meridian. They have been completed through the Public Hearing process, mostly just some legal documentation that is finishing up, such as publishing the ordinances. But. the Kissler -- what was called the Kissler annexation was on the south side of Ustick and involved about 24 acres in this area and also involved about 23, 24 acres over here, with the exception of this middle piece that was removed. W.H. Moore Company also was approved by City Council a couple of months ago for their 58 acres on the northwest corner. There was a development agreement that was required that, essentially, required that they come back to the city with a Conditional Use Permit in the future on -- with a concept plan. The property is also bounded on the north by -- Boise Church of the Nazarene has the property that you can just see a portion of here and to the east is Providence Place Subdivision, which is in Boise city, as is the church. So, this, actually, is the only property that is in Meridian's area of city impact that is in this entire square mile that is bounded by Eagle and Ustick. The Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as mixed use regional, as it did for the other three corners, so all four corners did have the same designation in the long range plan. They are proposing the general commercial zone for the entire 36.93 acres. The aerial shows you a little bit better the surrounding uses and structures, et cetera. You can see the church and the parking lot here. What's not reflected too well on either of these are the existing public streets that are affected. Obviously, you have Ustick Road and Eagle Road, which is under ITD's jurisdiction, but you also have a stub street coming out of Providence Place Subdivision here in this location and there is also a stub street coming out along the north -- the north boundary. The applicant did submit this concept plan with their annexation packet and the way that the staff report was set up is we kind of have two items to talk about on this concept plan. One of them is a more detailed review of this area that I'm outlining with the cursor here, which includes a super store that is probably about 168,000 square feet and the associated parking. They also are showing other out buildings -- out -- or out pads, I'm sorry, for future development here and, then, a conceptual commercial on the north side here that is about 15 acres in this area on the north. It shows Bald Cyprus Road, which is the road that's -- if you have been out there, it's probably about 80 percent complete. It's not constructed with all of its asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk at this point. My understanding from the Boise city and Idaho Transportation Department, there was -- the reason for that is the access to State Highway 55, Eagle Road, was in question, not approved, and so the street was not finished. So, as far as the concept plan, on the bottom of it you can see across-section of a new public street that they are proposing as part of the concept. It's a little bit difficult to read on this, obviously, but it is across-section for the street, which would go along this east boundary is what they are proposing. The first --.from the property line moving to the east would be 20 feet of landscape buffer, which under Meridian's ordinance does require that to be planted pretty densely if it's a buffer between land uses. Single family residential and commercial requires 25 feet of buffer between land Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 18 of 70 use and that has to be planted with evergreens and other deciduous -- a mix of things that provide fairly dense screen within three years is what the ordinance requires, so that they have to pick species, et cetera, that grow quickly and provide that buffer. That would be what the city would require within that 20 feet. And, then, you have a five foot sidewalk, curb, gutter, five foot bike lane, and, then, the through lanes here and, then, it repeats on this side, bike lane, curb, gutter, five foot sidewalk and, then, ten feet of landscaping. So, that's kind of how that cross-section moves through there. As noted in Ada County Highway District report, they are proposing a new signal to be installed at that new street, which would at this point, obviously, just service to the north, but could potentially service to the south in the future. They are showing -- besides that new street, they are showing curb cuts off of Ustick Road, which would provide commercial driveway access, one here in the middle of the site and, then, a third one located closer to Eagle Road. On Eagle Road the proposed access points are a -- here on the -- in the -- generally the middle portion of the project and, then, Bald Cyprus is proposed to be a second access onto Eagle Road. The way that staff has recommended that the Commission -- one option for you to consider in terms of how to look and how to incorporate this concept plan into the annexation would be to require a development agreement between the City of Meridian and developers and property owners and within that development agreement there would be a couple of exhibits and this would be one of those. What we have recommended is that at this point just the southern half be what they have in terms of, essentially, a detailed layout approval. And, then, the northern half, which is strictly conceptual with no layout shown to us at this point, would -- would come back in the future, so that you could see more detail on that before any buildings would be constructed. Just a couple of other things to point out. On page ten of the staff report, the first bullet there is the ITD Eagle Road corridor study. Mainly, just a point of information that Idaho Transportation Department is in the final stages of a corridor study that goes from I-84 all the way up to the city of Eagle and that corridor study involves, obviously, a lot of different things, but part of that is how accesses, especially in this area, would -- this is the most undeveloped portion of that whole ten mile stretch, is, essentially, in this mile in terms of the size of the parcels and they have not published the study at this point, but we just wanted you to know that it is underway, they are looking at some design issues in terms of maybe detached sidewalks, other things that could influence how this site develops and I really have no other information, since nothing's been published, other than that that is underway. We have suggested in that last sentence that, if possible, staff recommends that this property attempt to incorporate those new standards, so that they have conversations with ITD, so that they don't build something, ITD, then, comes back and says, well, we want to change it and they have to modify things. So, that's mainly, I guess, a point of discussion tonight. And, then, the second bullet on page ten deals with the proposed uses that they have here. In terms of the use -- the main use that's shown on the site plan is the elevation that was submitted with the application. What you see on the top here is what would face Eagle Road. The second one down is the rear elevation. The third one down would face the north and, then, the bottom one here would be the south elevation that you would see from Ustick Road. The other uses that they have proposed are -- would incorporate, essentially, obviously, the rest of the site from this quarter -- a quarter of the way through their site up and, then, this northern 15 acres and what's proposed is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 19 of 70 that some uses be allowed outright, others be conditional, and, then, some be prohibited. The use largely matches the city's zoning ordinances that a lot of the things that would be prohibited anyway are prohibited. Some of them would be allowed without a conditional use permit and that's something you can do through the development agreement. We have suggested that five items be required to come back as conditional uses, not be just allowed, and that's bottling and distribution plant, hospitals, molded plastic products, utility facilities, and warehouse storage, and that those be shifted from permitted uses to conditional uses. We have also recommended that there be a definition put in of what a standby generator is. They have proposed that that be incorporated, but there is no definition in our code, nor in the application, so we wanted to clean that up. We have recommended that any. structure over 50,000 square feet be a Conditional Use Permit. This would be in addition to the one that they have already proposed with this application. It wouldn't affect this one, obviously. And, then, the final change that we are recommending is to add a footnote that just states that it's not an exhaustive list and, essentially, the planning director or zoning administrator would be granted the authority to make those determinations on future uses if they are not listed. So, there will be two exhibits to the development agreement and I guess those are kind of what we are -- the meat of what you would be talking about tonight, then. One would be this layout, talking about the physical layout, and, then, the other exhibit would be the use list, which was submitted with the application with the proposed changes that we have listed in our staff report. We have recommended that the -- that the vehicular access points that are shown, obviously, have to be approved through right agencies, Ada County Highway District and ITD. Ada County Highway District has submitted a detailed report to the city, which states that, essentially, if they come in with this type plan to the highway district, they would be favorable. The one that's closest to Eagle Road entering Ustick would be right in, right out, as shown here and as Ada County Highway District had in their staff report. The middle one would be full access right in or left in, left out, and, then, of course, the signal would be a full intersection. I think some of the other issues that we have recommended for the development agreement are fairly clear there. If the questions come up during the Public Hearing, staffs happy to go through them. I don't know as part of this initial staff report if I need to do that, but are there any other questions at this point? Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? The applicant has the opportunity to make their presentation first. Turnbull: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. My name is David Turnbull. Address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I appreciate, as usual, the fine job Brad's done presenting this application. I'd like to note for the record that I left my son at the Pinewood Derby, my daughter with her keys locked in her car out at the soccer practice picking up my other son and I hope my wife's coping pretty well at this point, so -- this particular property has been a topic of considerable discussion over the years, whether it should be in Boise city, whether it should be in Meridian city. We are pleased to bring this application forward into Meridian city. And this is, as Brad mentioned, the final Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 20 of 70 application to come through on this corner. The other three corners have been through the Public Hearing process, through the annexation process, and are pending final publication. As usual -- and particularly on a project of this size and this magnitude, Brad has done a very fine job. We are in almost completed agreement. There are just a couple of items that we need to discuss. One of those issues that's vital to this project, is access to Eagle Road and staff states -- oh, by the way, I do have a copy of the final report you were referencing, Brad. It has been published now. And we have been working closely with ITD to deal with the access issues on Eagle Road. The new study, which is dated April 2004, does, in fact, recommend access points -- an access point at the quarter mile section, which would be the extension of what Brad referenced, this section road here that was constructed about 80 percent of the way. The reason it wasn't completed is because there was a disagreement between the property owners and it requires a decel lane to make it a -- the application valid. We would propose, through going through this process, to work with the property owners to the north, which is the church people, to accommodate that license agreement they already have, provide for the decel lane, and make that access come to fruition. I would note that when I was driving by here this afternoon right now what they have done is they have connected through this partially constructed road and, then, they go to the north and they go through the church parking lot to get to Eagle Road. I think what we are proposing to do would, actually, make that a safer more viable solution for access to that area. So, we are working with ITD. Brad correctly stated that that's part of their jurisdiction and we will work -- continue to work with them on the access to Eagle Road. And I should note that part of our submission when we went through the process with ACHD, they requested and we have agreed on this roadway section right here; which we think will give even further mitigation to the Eagle Road access situation. In fact, they would like to connect it further to the south and create aconnection -- I think it's to Records Drive that will connect on that half section there, all the way up through this intersection, give more or less another avenue almost like frontage road type situation, that should provide relief to Eagle Road. This solution comes at a pretty big price. This section of roadway right there is a million dollar price tag and that's something that we would be funding ourselves. So, I do want to point that out, because I think it does deserve some special consideration that we are going the extra mile. The other area that we need to discuss is the staff recommendation that the Commission requires a minimum of 12 acres be dedicated to professional office or other non-retail uses. I think this is an unprecedented requirement, given the other applications that have gone through on this corner. Staff noted that the southeast corner or the Kissler parcel was approved at a hundred percent commercial retail uses and the northwest corner, which is the Blue Marlin or the Winston Moore property, was approved without any requiring -- requiring any kind of residential uses and we certainly would expect to be treated no worse than those other applications were. Our company -- Smith Brighton is a sister company to Brighton corporation. We have probably developed as much professional office space as anybody else in this valley. If I thought it were feasible or desirable to build professional office space on this property, I wouldn't hesitated to do it, that's one of my main lines of business, and I feel like we know that market and we do it pretty well. But given the cost of the land and the cost of the traffic mitigation we are going to have to provide, I don't think it's going to be feasible and I'm not sure that it's necessarily Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 21 of 70 desire. There are some inherent conflicts between office and retail uses and, typically, if you were asking for a mixed use type of environment where you're mixing retail and office, office would be the predominate component, with very limited retail -- service retail as being the mix in the mixed use. This is the prime retail corner in this location. It's the so-called going home side in both directions. That's why this is the prime retail location. In fact, it will be anchored by Lowe's, who is a world-class retailer, and Lowe's has -- I would really have to commend them. We have worked with them on another project and on this project we said, you know, the City of Meridian and we, ourselves, are going to want to really step up the esthetics and we want to do this in a first class manner and they have come in and submitted some site plan elevations that go above and beyond their normal store format. They have submitted some more pleasing architectural designs that I think will be of benefit to this area. So, I think that this whole intersection needs to be viewed as a whole. I'm quite certain that there will be a substantial amount of professional office constructed in this area. I think that probably a lot of that will go in the Blue Marlin project, where he has 58 acres and, quite frankly, he acquired the property at a very substantially lower price and can afford to do more of that kind of product. I just don't know that it's feasible -- if it is feasible, we will certainly take a look at it and we will certainly do it, but to require 12 acres, which is a large area of office space next to retail, to be required to be some kind of professional office, I think is not reasonable and we are asking for that condition to be deleted. So, in summary, we are in agreement with the staff findings and recommendations, with the following exceptions -- and maybe Brad can help me out a little bit here. There is special consideration proposed use list item C, which states that -- delete the -- states that any structure over 50,000 square feet would require a Conditional Use Permit. I believe we submitted with this application a list of approved uses and so I guess, I need to ask a question of Brad, why that would require a Conditional Use Permit, if it were on the approved use list? Hawkins-Clark: The reason that staff recommended it was mainly for the visual impact that it would have at a premier intersection for the City of Meridian and that the Commission and City Council, since the City of Meridian does not have design review on buildings, on a building of that size we felt that it would be reasonable to have some dialogue between the Commission and the Council on the design of that building that would be at such a high visible intersection. Turnbull: Okay. Well, let me state for the record, if that's the intent, that it's not to determine the types of uses that would be allowed, but more or less to provide a -- sort of a design review hook, we are comfortable with going through that process, so that we can discuss site issues, screening, you know, the issues that you bring up, like loading docks and things like that. We did the property at the corner of Eagle and Chinden, which is the Target store, and I know that there are -- and there are probably some neighbors here that are going to express some concerns, but, quite frankly, I have driven behind that store between the Hobble Creek Subdivision and the Target store, there are no loading docks, there are no waste receptacles, there are no, you know, really uses that would be obnoxious to the neighbors. And., in fact, it creates a substantial and I think, actually, an attractive buffer to the traffic on the -- on Eagle Road Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 22 of 70 and Chinden Boulevard. So, if the purpose of the conditional use is to go through those site-specific requirements, we are comfortable with that. The other special -- the other condition under the annexation and zoning facts and conclusions, item 3-A-II, I would ask that you delete the requirement for 12 acres shown as commercial on the north end of the site be required to incorporate professional office or other non-retail use. As I mentioned before, that hasn't been a requirement of the other corners that have been annexed in this area and we certainly feel like we should be treated at least on an equal footing with them, particularly given the fact that we are creating some mitigation -- traffic mitigation at our own expense. We would ask for your considerable -- your consideration and favorable treatment there. The other two items, I think, are just mostly I want to have a statement on the record and I think Brad pretty well made that statement. There was a condition under the annexation and zoning facts and conclusions, item number 3-D, that refers to loading docks and those kind of uses. I believe we have already worked with Brad and gone over the loading site on the Lowe's facility and he's comfortable with that and I just wanted an affirmative statement on the record that we have worked through that issue. And, then, finally, we are -- there is an item under the transportation policies, as I noted before. We are working with ITD. There are some proposals being put forth for ITD that would limit the access. Right now we -- this property has three deeded accesses. When the property was purchased for the expansion of Eagle Road, three deeded accesses were given to this property. ITD is making some proposals to reduce that number, but we will work with them and complete that application. So, with that I will stand for questions. Oh. And I do have a list for each of you of the four items I just referenced. Zaremba: Brad, could you go to the view that shows the proposed building? Mr. Turnbull, would you walk us around the large building and indicate loading docks and trash enclosures and stuff like that, please? Turnbull: There is a side loading dock right here that will be screened with landscaping. And this -- the trash enclosure -- okay. Jim Manion from Lowe's is here, he might be able to answer that question better than I. Manion: I'm Jim Manion, senior site development manager for Lowe's Home Improvement. I'm at 1530 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, California. It's a pleasure to be with you tonight and you wanted to walk around the building, right? Zaremba: Please. Manion: See if I can -- nobody told me how to work this. Zaremba: There may be another one tied to the counter there. Manion: Okay. As Dave pointed out, this is a three dock loading dock and the -- it's not an open dock, it's -- when you look at the elevations, there are dock seals where the -- Borup: Could you pull the mike just a little bit closer? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 23 of 70 Manion: Thank you. Yes. It's a three bay loading dock and it has dock seals, so the trailer directly communicates with the building, so it reduces noise and the trash enclosure -- right next -- I'm trying to see it, but right here is a compactor where all -- it directly communicates with the back room there. This is a receiving area and all the cardboard and trash go into this crusher, then, this is the receptacle that is used to transport the trash away. Towards the back here is a staging area. There is a receiving dock here for a flatbed activity -- well, the flatbeds would, actually, unload here and, then, they would spin off the drywall or redwood or cement bags, more the rough products, into the store this way, but this is the transformer -- I'm having trouble seeing, but I believe this is the transformer and generator that was spoken by -- or about earlier. And, then, there is a canopy here for the lumber loading and contractors. We have, effectively, three entrances that run during the store operating hours. Contractors usually park in this area and collect their goods here and are loaded here. We have our main entrance, offices, bathrooms, and just about all the store personnel and check out occurs in this area here. And, then, we have our garden center, which is right here, and we operate that as an entrance and checkout area also, so the parking throughout the day can be kind of level and the intensity would probably be mostly through here. This would be the less intense area of the stare. And, then, there is just one other cantilever or 16-foot gate here that receives most of the garden center product and, of course, this is the garden center here. I hope I have answered your questions. Zaremba: That was a very fine answer. I would only see one thing missing. Is there an outgoing loading dock for your deliveries? Manion: Pardon? Zaremba: Is there an outgoing loading dock for the deliveries that you make? Somebody buys ten sheets of plywood and wants them delivered. Manion: Generally, what we have is a company truck and -- Zaremba: It loads where the contractors load? Manion: A lot of times I have found that there used to be an activity that occurred here and it's traditionally on the large orders carried out here and here now. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: One question I would have also would be as far as deliveries coming in, are they going to came in off the new road into the property? Would that be the access to that point? Okay. Turnbull: Mostly likely, yes. You need to understand that this is a collector standard road where -- with landscaping on both sides that meets your landscaping ordinance. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 24 of 70 Borup: Mr. Turnbull, clarification on access on Eagle Road. Did you say ITD had approved one access point on Bald Cyprus? That was the one they have approved at this point? Turnbull: I believe the church has a permit in hand. The only reason it wasn't perfected, from my understanding, is they needed a deceleration lane on the property that's subject to the application. Borup: So, is that the one that you were referring to or are you referring to the mid property access point? Turnbull: Well, that's the one -- there has been some proposals going back and forth to have the connection at Bald Cyprus completed and understand that Eagle. Road, under the plan, is going to a median controlled access system. I, actually, about the time they were doing this study, had the opportunity to go Tucson where they have several major five and seven lane roads that are meeting controlled access and they work very well. But, then, the second access would be mid point into this property and be a right in, right out only. Borup: Okay. That would be a right in, right out? Turnbull: Right. Borup: Okay. Rohm, you were going to ask a question? Rohm: I was just curious about this generator and I don't know if you have any specifics on the generator itself, but generators have a tendency to have a lot of noise associated with them and can you speak to at all? Do you have any idea the capacity and -- Borup: Maybe just a clarification. Is that for emergency -- emergency generator, I'm assuming? Turnbull: That's correct. Borup: For power failure situations? Turnbull: That's correct. I'll bring Mr. Manion up to answer that. Rohm: Even those types of generators require exercise. Manion: That is correct. Rohm: Yeah. Manion: It's a standby generator and I forget the key right now, but it is a standby generator that has acapacity -- it's for life safety reasons. It also runs our smoke Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 25 of 70 exhaust systems in case of an emergency and it may have to operate a jockey pump if the water pressure isn't sufficient to aid the sprinklers and there is a once a week exercise of the generator that can be determined -- it's about a half hour and if the Commission so desires to specify when that happens, we would be happy to accommodate you there. Rohm: Well, that's kind of the direction I was going on that and I suppose there is probably some standards on noise levels associated with generators. Brad, could you - - do you know whether we have some noise levels? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Rohm, the city's noise ordinance is 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., which is administered by the police department and between those hours, obviously, I think it -- it's just a standard wording of a noise ordinance that say you cannot disturb. Rohm: So, it's not adecibel -- Hawkins-Clark: But it's not -- no. The code is not a decibel level. That would - if, that was desired by the Commission that would have to be set as a part of this. Rohm: Yeah. And I don't think so much on the nighttime, but the exercise, I would be curious how much noise is associated with that generator, because if it's like a mag generator, they can put out -- they can make quite a bit of noise. And I was just curious on that. Manion: I will be happy to provide the staff with the decibel level. It's kind of a -- there is adecibel level at point of the engine and, then -- that's where it's taken and, then, how it falls off is quite a science. But I think what would help everybody on this is, I think if there is a concern about the noise level, a half hour in a seven day period, again, the Commission can dictate when that generator is exercised in a seven day period for a half hour. Rohm: I think just normal working hours would probably be sufficient on that, but you wouldn't want to exercise it at 11:00 o'clock at night. Manion: That's correct. And we would be happy to accommodate, again, the city, the residents, if they prescribe a certain time or a certain day, a certain time on a certain day, to keep that at a minimum. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I think we should move on with the Public Hearing. A lot of people want to testify. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 26 of 70 Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Okay. This is a time that we give opportunity for any of the public to -- any testimony on this application, so now is the time to come forward, any of those that would like to. Yes, sir. Jamison: My name is Allen Jamison and I live on the border -- the east border of that -- right on the border where the street is going to be put in, on the east border, and there is a buffer zone put in there and I want to know whether the buffer is going to be between the road and our houses or is the road going to be next to our houses? Where is the buffer going? Rohm: The buffer is adjacent to your property and then; the road is, actually, west of the buffer. Jamison: West of the buffer? Rohm: Yes. Jamison: Okay. How about those stub streets going out of our housing, are they going to go into this property? Are they going to be traffic going in there all the time? I mean have access off of those stub streets? Borup: We can clarify that at this point. They do not show access to those stub streets, so they would stay as they are now. Jamison: He showed us some a while ago. There are two of them. Borup: Right. Right. But they don't go into this site. Jamison: They wouldn't -- Borup: No. Hawkins-Clark: Actually, they do propose that. Borup: They do propose -- okay. The plat doesn't show it, does it? Hawkins-Clark: Well, correct. I mean it's not a plat, but, yes, the site plan does not actually show, but -- Jamison: That's going to put a lot of traffic in our area if they do go through and it won't be necessary, because there is three other accesses to get into that property. More than that, there would be about four. There are two stub streets that will make it terrible for us in that housing, because it will be an easy way to get in and not much traffic and people use that to get in. And there is a lot of other accesses into that property, without using those stub streets. I know where they are, because I live right behind there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 27 of 70 Borup: Right. Again, Brad, the site plan doesn't show -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, it's listed in the Ada County Highway District staff report. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: You know these public street issues are largely Ada County Highway District. Obviously, this Commission can discuss them and make -- make those comments, but largely this is a high district system and they are recommending that in their staff report, so -- Borup: And normally -- normally what ACHD's rationale is to allow the residents access to here, so they would not have to go onto Ustick and -- I mean that's -- Jamison: Well, I object to that very generously and that compactor, when does it operate? Borup: Okay. We can get an answer on that. I would assume it's' as necessary. Jamison: Well, that should be -- that shouldn't be at night either, like the generator. Borup: And I think that could be a condition that complies with those. Jamison: I think that's all I have. Borup: So, you're saying you'd like it before -- when you say at night, what hours are you talking about? Jamison: Yeah. Borup: Which hours? Jamison: Oh, well, it would be 11:00 -- like he said about the generator would be about the same thing. Borup: Okay. So, before 6:00 or something like that? Jamison: Yeah. That's all I have. Borup: Thank you, sir. Yes. Come on forward. Bowhecker: David Bowhecker, 334 South Bitterroot, Boise. I am on the board of the church to the north and our comment is that the access point that is shown in the center of the property has been discussed. The developer has not approached the church Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 28 of 70 regarding that access point and it was -- information given to me was that the church owns the property to the south of that road one foot. Borup: So, there has been no contact at all? Bowhecker: No. Borup: Is that your understanding that that is a -- you say the church still owns the property or is it deeded right of way? It's not a highway district right of way? Bowhecker: We are talking about the center point -- Borup: Right. Bowhecker: Right there. Yeah. Right at the point -- right there. Correct. The access into the road -- is it Bald Cyprus? That we own the property to the south of that, one foot. Bald Cyprus. Borup: So, at this point it's private property, it's not -- it is not a road right of way or -- Bowhecker: That's my understanding. Borup: Okay. And they have not contacted you at all you're saying? Bowhecker: The developers have not contacted the church. Borup: I assume you would like them to do that. Bowhecker: We would like them to do that. Any questions? Borup: Any questions? Thank you, sir. Bowhecker: Thank you. Borup: Yes. Come forward. Gilbert: Thank you. My name is Carl Gilbert. I live at 3475 East Ustick Road. My wife and own a ten acre parcel right directly to the south of the east part of this complex and from what we are seeing here the proposed signal light on Ustick Road is going to be right smack in the middle of our driveway and that's not acceptable. I mean I don't think that would be much fun. Do I need to point out to you what parcel I'm talking about? Borup: And where is your driveway? On which side of your property? Right there. Gilbert: The property to the west of us, all of this here, is the Kessler property that has just been annexed. As a matter of fact, it's my understanding that the Meridian city is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 29 of 70 now right down the middle of his driveway, right here, which we have a shared driveway. So, the way that I'm seeing this, if I'm understanding correctly, the signal light here is going to be right either in my front room window or right in my driveway, but I'm on the south side of the road. Borup: Okay. I think you're off a little bit, sir. The signal light should be on the east end of the property. About right there. Gilbert: Well, it's not going to be -- well, this -- oh, completely over here? Borup: Right there. Gilbert: I thought it was right here Rohm: No. Right there. Gilbert: Well, that's still going to back up traffic. We have got traffic on Ustick Road right now -- the traffic on Eagle Road and Ustick Road right now is just -- the subdivision that this gentleman was just talking about has dumped so much traffic on Ustick Road that the people that live there, like us, we have been there 12 years, we used to watch where there was -- you count the cars by the day. Now, there is a three lane road that goes clear over into the -- they make an eastbound turn lane, so the westbound traffic -- or, excuse me, the eastbound traffic comes right down off the gutters right into our fence line, because the traffic has forced them over and there is no traffic enforcement there. So, a signal light right at that area looks to me like it would really cause some problems. Borup: Okay. The center of that road should be about 55 feet from their east property line. Gilbert: It's going to be right at the -- what you're saying it would be right at -- Borup: About 55 feet. Gilbert: Right at my east most property line. Borup: No. No. I assume that other lot is more than 55 wide, isn't it? Gilbert: The other lot next to me -- there is the Summers Funeral Home and, then, the lot next to me is probably 156 feet. Borup: Okay. So, that signal light should be about a hundred feet from your property line. Gilbert: But that signal light is -- if the signal light was there, that is past -- there is two houses right there where you're suggesting and one of them is supposedly on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 30 of 70 historic register and states that they would never tear it down, because it was built in 18 something, a big rock, sandstone house. Borup: Okay. I think it could be on the register. I'm not sure if it is. Gilbert: I was told. I don't know that for a fact. But, anyway, it was told it was never going to be torn down and that was a condition on the sales, but, then, I'm not a Philadelphia lawyer, so I don't know. I'm just saying that that signal light is going to be - - I'm going to be looking right out the front of my place one way or another, whether it's in my driveway or to the -- on the east side. Borup: Well, you will be able to see it, but it looks like it's from your property -- Gilbert: You'll have to E-mail groceries to us. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Yes. Come on up. Harnden: Hi. I'm Scott Harnden. I live in the east -- Heather Meadow Subdivision there, so thank you for the opportunity to discuss a few things. My main issues involve safety, specifically the safety of the children in that neighborhood. One issue -- if you could point to the elementary school that's right by that new proposed Lowe's? Moe: There is a pointer right there. Harnden: Well, it would have to be a smaller shot, I believe. Could you get asmaller -- Borup: No. That's what they -- Harnden: I believe it's right there; am I correct? Borup: No. Harnden: Ustick Elementary? Borup: No. It's down another half a mile. Yeah. Harnden: Okay. So, often when I go to work the traffic is backed up from Ustick all the way almost to Cloverdale or coming home from work, which is right by that elementary school. So, one question is what will we do with the traffic -- extra traffic from Lowe's? And what about possible safety hazards with the children in front of that elementary school, which is very close? Another issue is something the applicant said. One, he addressed the trash compactor, yet gave no specifications. The applicant said that the trash compactor and loading into the building would not interfere with our subdivision, but yet they are both facing our subdivision. The applicant stated -- the applicant did not state anything about the stub streets, but, yet, they would go right into our subdivision. The applicant did not bring up many of these safety issues and I question Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 31 of 70 whether the applicant has kept in mind the safety of the children in that neighborhood. It seems that many of the things were not brought up tonight and I hope that this proposal will not result in injury or death of a child in that neighborhood or in front of that elementary school. I hope that you will keep that on your conscious as you vote tonight and I appreciate this opportunity from all of you and, hopefully, I'm not appearing too angry, because I'm not angry at you, I'm angry at the applicant for the lack of details and lack of concern with our safety of our children. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Holland: My name is Steve Holland; I live in the Heather Meadows Subdivision. My main concern is with the sound pollution. I know those loading trucks are very noisy and I'd like to ask you to please impose some kind of restriction on when deliveries of those rough parts, like concrete and wood, et cetera, can be made. Preferably, I'd like to, you know, not have that occur during night, during the typical sleeping hours. I would think that, you know, like from about 10:00 o'clock to about 7:00 o'clock, maybe even 8:00 o'clock in the morning, if we could restrict that, that would be great. Thanks. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Beck: Good evening. My name is Richard Beck, I live at 3723 Bottlebrush Avenue and I represent the Heather Meadows Homeowners Association and we are, I guess, disappointed with legal description on tonight's hearing. It basically states that it is an annexation and rezone application. But, in fact, in addition to those applications, it is also adetailed -- you know, approving a detailed site plan. However, we have had the opportunity to -- Borup: Maybe I can get a clarification on that. And Brad might clarify that. The other -- the site plan is additional information that was provided. It was not -- it is not part of the application, but we like to have some information on what the use is going to be. So, this was provided so we could have additional information for the city and the public. Anything to add to that, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I don't think so. You're correct; normally the annexation applications do not require submittal of a development plan or elevations. Staff did recommend that more detail be included in this one, since they wanted to proceed with it with a building, so -- Borup: Okay. So, essentially, that's why this was provided, so there would be more information for you as the neighborhood and us as a city. Beck: Okay. I just -- you know, approval of a detailed site plan -- I read the staff report and it, you know, mentioned -- you know, wanted you to be aware of the fact that you were also approving a specific detailed site plan, so I wanted to mention that. We did have the opportunity to review the application and we, as a neighborhood, find that it does not substantially comply with the Meridian City Comprehensive Plan. The subject Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 32 of 70 parcels envisioned a mixed use regional, envisioned a combination of compatible land uses, possibly developed under a concept or master plan. It may be possible to approve just the C-G zone and it could comply with the regional concept, but we feel that approval of this application would, basically, with a C-G zoning and accompanying detailed site plan, would only increase the possibility of a hundred percent commercial development of an almost 40 acre site with no mixed use. I know city code -- I believe there are sections that require you to consider transitional zoning or even transitional uses between commercial and residential uses. So, this detailed site plan before you does not include any transitional zoning or use. And approval of the detailed site plan also augments the following issue, which I -- some people brought up tonight. The city code asks has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas, which may dictate that the area should be rezoned? For example, have the streets been widened? Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways and streets, et cetera? Will the proposed uses not involve uses that will detriment -- that will be detrimental to any persons, properties, or the general welfare by reasons of excessive production of traffic or et cetera? Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property, which shall be so designated as not to create interference with traffic on surrounding public streets? And, again, in the staff report he references a traffic study that was done and submitted by ACHD that basically indicates at 2010 build out this project will roughly generate about 10,000 additional vehicle trips and if you add in the other areas in this vicinity that also will generate -- generate traffic, like the Blue Marlin and the Kissler projects -- and I think it's a very important issue. Many -- I guess Eagle Road could be considered to be currently operating easily with standards. Ustick Road is my concern. Would it be able to handle the traffic as a two-lane road? I would definitely call to your remembrance the north -- North Meridian Traffic Study that did study this area and did make some recommendations on what could be improved on Ustick Road and, if you remember, those improvements have not been made yet. So, we request that you either deny the application or require the applicant to submit a site plan that shows -- that basically meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, shows mixed use, shows transitional uses. At the same time should you find that this project does comply with your Comprehensive Plan, we would request that conditions of approval that -- I have made alist -- be also included in a development agreement. And, unfortunately, I only have one copy to submit, but who do I submit it to? Borup: To the clerk. Beck: Okay. And I will state that the applicant has not seen the conditions of approval. Unfortunately, I was not made aware of this application until roughly two days ago. And just some other -- Borup: You say you weren't made aware until how long ago? Beck: Two days ago. Borup: Two days ago? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 33 of 70 Beck: Uh-huh. However, I do live outside of the 300-foot radius and I'm not a hundred percent certain if the homeowners association did receive notification. I haven't seen any type of letter. And just as --just because it's kind of a -- Borup: And you had not noticed the site sign? Beck: I did notice the site sign. Uh-huh. And this is kind of the final comment. The applicant did indicate that -- and I don't know if you could go back to the elevations? Would that be possible? You know, the site -- the applicant said that, you know, Lowe's is stepping up the architecture, trying to come up with something that's visually pleasing and when Iread -- you know, when I take a look at this elevation, I just basically see a box, you know, with a few extensions. Just a box. I don't see a step up in architecture. And those are basically our concerns. Again, we would request that you would consider whether this application with the site plan and zoning really complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Stringham: Hello, my name is Carol Stringham, I live at 3441 -- never mind. 3441 Bottlebrush. It's going to be right back up to the street that will run behind this new development. We originally bought the house with the promise from Heather Meadows that it was a low density commercial. I'm thoroughly disappointed there is going to be this Lowe's. First of all, a beautiful sunset can be seen. I know that I have to give that up at some point, but to such a large building. Instead of the 9:00 to 5:00 low-density commercial low use, a 9:00 to 9:00 I'm guessing high volume, I'm concerned about the noise, privacy. Also resale. We are a -- just a starter home, so we are going to be out of there sooner than later. And something that I would consider -- I'm curious if -- I'm concerned about the connections with the -- I don't know what you call those, the streets that are dead ended right now that will connect to it. Stub streets. Thank you. So Broadleaf is the one that's closest to us on -- and that won't be shielded by the 20-foot sound barrier. I am grateful they are going to put that in. I didn't know they were going to do that. Something I would have you consider is that Ustick Road right now where Heather Meadows is where you turn in, it is three lanes, with the middle lane, and, then, it starts narrowing to Eagle Road and does get back, as was, previously mentioned, to our subdivision and even back to the school in the morning hours and at night. And so with that narrowing and the traffic already congested, I see that there is going to be a change in having to widen the road. I want you to consider if they are going to do that, because it is narrow. Also I would ask you to consider not repealing the requirements of having the 12 acres of professional development, since that is what we were told and, hopefully, that would be some less real estate that would be there that would kind of transition, as was used on the sound and the use of that area and those are my thoughts and I am disappointed, but I appreciate the sound barrier going in and wish you to consider those two points I brought up. Thank you for your time. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Turnbull, final remarks you'd like to make? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 34 of 70 Turnbull: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. I will respond briefly to the comments that have been made. I'll let Mr. Manion address any issues of hours of operation and those kinds of things. Mr. Bowhecker, who represents the church board to the north, mentioned that we hadn't had any contact with their church board. We had discussed this with Merlin Knight, who I think is the president of their board and Tony Bohner, who I think is their attorney. Okay. And, basically, Matt Smith from our office discussed it with those two gentlemen. They said they wanted to form a committee and they'd get back to us and they did return our call and directed Matt to meet with Steve Hill, who I believe is on your board; is that correct? Okay. So, we have had some discussions with them. And I understand that those things don't always get transmitted, but we have made a good faith effort there. Borup: So, I'm confused on the status of the -- of the road. There is not a right of way at this point? You said it was partially completed and -- Turnbull: Our understanding from Mr. Hill was that that road was, essentially, completed, except for the final connection to Eagle Road. So, this was done on private property? No ACHD approval or inspections? Turnbull: No. I believe it was done with ACHD approval. However, when it came to making the final link with ITD, from our understanding from Mr. Hill, I believe, of the church board, there was a deceleration required on Eagle Road and the two property owners weren't able to work out that agreement. That's what we are trying to help accommodate. Borup: Okay. So, they were intending that that would have been deeded to ACHD, but since they couldn't make their link, it didn't happen? Turnbull: Correct. It was a requirement of the Providence Subdivision to connect out to Eagle Road. Borup: Okay. Turnbull: And so I believe Hubble, who developed that project, the Providence development, actually constructed that road over the property I think that's owned by the church. But the final connection was never made and, hence, we have some unfinished business there. Borup: Okay. Turnbull: Let's see. Carl Gilbert mentioned the signal. You know, we -- and there was several other comments made about traffic on Ustick Road. The traffic study that was commissioned and has been through ACHD and been reviewed by them indicates that Ustick Road will require widening with or without this project. The traffic generation that are quoted will happen, you know, with or without this project. We, actually, are working Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 35 of 70 with ACHD to see if we can enter into apublic-private partnership with them to get that -- that process moved up, much like was done at out Silverstone and EI Dorado projects on Eagle and Overland Road projects. Those details haven't been worked out, but, obviously, it's in everybody's best interest to get those improvements done as quickly as possible and at the most cost efficient way possible. So, we are pursuing that. Mr. Harnden, I believe, mentioned safety issues. The safety issues are -- can be mitigated with the collector road that we are proposing to construct, plus the signalization, plus further widening. A couple of people asked about the stub streets. Those stub streets were required in those locations by ACHD when Providence development went in and so those are -- will be required by ACHD to connect to this new collector road. I don't think that that indicates that traffic will be reverse flowing into this development, it typically goes the other way, the residents in that neighborhood will have access -- better access out of their development and access to these retail sections, but I don't think people are going to be driving through their project to get anywhere, because it's not the quickest and easiest to get anywhere, other than the subdivision. Borup: And they'd also have access to this signal light, then? Turnbull: Correct. They would have access to the signal light. Richard Beck mentioned that this application doesn't substantially comply with the Comprehensive Plan. I think the staff-report adequately details that it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. As per the issue of transitional uses not included, we discussed that at length with staff and concluded that the addition of that street, with the landscape buffering, does, in fact, constitute a transition and does provide that landscape screening. Again, Ijust -- I would reiterate that this area is designated for commercial uses. That's what we are proposing to do here. We can work with this Commission to come up with satisfactory solutions to any of the noise pollution issues. I think we are --already have gone a long way in addressing any traffic issues with the mitigation we are proposing to put in and if you have any further questions for Mr. Manion on operational issues, I will defer to him on those items. Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Have you -- do you see any feasibility at all with having a small amount of office space on the site somewhere? Turnbull: It's possible, but I don't think -- I think 12 acres was probably an arbitrary requirement and probably in excess of what I could feasibly project. Like I said, it hasn't been a requirement in some of the other applications. If it's feasible and we can do it, we will certainly look at it. Borup: And I'm not saying 12 acres, but -- and I don't know what -- Turnbull: I'm not unused to doing office. Borup: Yeah. I realize that. So, I guess that's what I'm asking, if a smaller amount would be feasible, ten percent, or something like that. Or have you looked into it to that extent? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 36 of 70 Turnbull: I haven't. You know, it's hard to quantify. I don't know how you quantify that in advance. But I think what I stated before is probably accurate. When you want to do a mixed use between office and retail, the way it works best is if you have -- well, we have done this in one of our projects, Boise Research Center, we have 1,250,000 square feet of office and we have probably 30, 40 thousand square feet retail, plus another 45 square foot hotel that's about to start construction. So, you know, it usually works the other way where it's predominately office and, then, you supplement it with service retail and those kind of retail uses that augment and service the surrounding employment center. Borup: Okay. Nothing else? Thank you. Maybe we can get some clarification on the hours, then. Manion: Jim Manion with Lowe's. Our hours of operation in Idaho -- Borup: Yeah. I think the main concern was like hours for the compactor and delivery hours. Manion: Okay. Thank you. We have receiving between -- receivers that come into the store between 7:00 and 4:00 p.m. and that's the predominate receiving hours at the store. What we -- we are a little different and I think it's to the benefit of the community in how we operate. We are a DC operating company where we receive truckloads from a company-owned distribution center, so the frequency of deliveries is greatly reduced from competitors that we have and so -- and it's, I think, a less intrusive operation. What I can say is that there is about three truckloads a week for the covered trucks -- truckloads that come from a distribution center to the store throughout the week and they are company trucks. Now, there are a number of other trucks that come in throughout the day that are anywhere from a FedEx to a flatbed to a pickup truck bringing widgets and gadgets at a smaller quantity, but -- Borup: Are those trucks usually backed up to a loading dock? Manion: Yes. Generally -- I went by a couple stores -- I have developed all the stores in Idaho, but it's primarily an exchange program. The truck comes in, there is always going to be a trailer at one of the other doors and what happens is from the company trucks -- and it's more efficient for us -- is on this exchange program a trailer is backed in, the full trailer, and it will unhook and hook up to the previously delivered trailer and pull out and leave and, then, the night -- the crew has so many days to unload that trailer until the new delivery shows up. Borup: And that's enclosed trailers? Manion: That's correct. Borup: Okay. So, those are going directly into the building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May,20, 2004 Page 37 of 70 Manion: That's correct. Borup: I think probably the concern would be, you know, forklift operation and that type of thing at late hours. Manion: That type of operation does run during the business time of the -- over at the other side of the store, the lumber area, that operation is about two trucks a week, company owned, again, coming from a distribution center consolidating and that activity is really during business -- those receiving hours. Borup: Okay. Manion: But what I -- I guess the point I wanted to make and in full disclosure is what happens is in a 24 hour period -- I'm not saying it would happen, but that exchange happens, but there usually has to be somebody in the store and this market doesn't require 24 hour operation in the store, but in our dense populated, high volume stores, there might be a night crew throughout the night and they could receive this drop trailer and, again, here I believe the primary would be during business hours, a drop and exchange. Borup: Okay. Manion: But -- Borup: How about the compactor operation? Manion: I have to admit, I'm informed more on the construction side, but -- Borup: Any problem with restricting those hours to -- Manion: I don't think so. We kind of -- Borup: Probably, the main question would be is the noise level. The compactor is inside the building? a Manion: I have to be honest with you, I have been -- I do 11 states and a lot of commission meetings and everything and this is the first time compactor hours was ever brought up or the noise level. It's pretty unique. And I really am not prepared to understand what kind of level that they generate and nor have I ever been hauled back later after a store is open and said you got to do something about that compactor operation. Now, I have heard about trucks and such, but it's kind of unique to me to hear that tonight and I don't believe it will be a problem, but as to the hours it operates and everything, I'm kind of stymied on that. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 38 of 70 Manion: Thank you. Borup: Well, let's see. Questions from any other Commissioners? Manion: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any other comments from staff? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, just a couple of things -- Borup: Did you get a copy of both the submittals? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, we did. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: On the notes that I was taking, I think one thing that was missed -- there was a question about whether or not the homeowners association was notified. I am looking at the mailing list and I do see that Heather Meadows Neighborhood Association -- there was a notice sent to 701 South Allen Street, Suite 103, attention homeowners association. So, they -- that did go there. That was one question. On the question of the historic home, I -- the staff report did raise that. There were three findings that staff felt probably could not clearly be met and one of those was the finding that historic structures be looked at, if at all possible, to be preserved. Statfs understanding it is not on the national register. It is listed on Ada County's historic survey, which is different than the National Park Service list, which, actually, is the register. But I did explain that in the report. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: It is a sandstone blockhouse that's there in that corner that is on this property that would be removed if this proceeds as approved. Borup: Okay. And being on that survey -- I assume that means if someone wanted to make an application, it would have been considered, but at this point -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It is eligible to have an application submitted for it. Right. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Any other comments? Hawkins-Clark: As far as Ustick Road, Ada County Highway District report, I'm just looking here, they -- they have recommended that for the first 500 feet from the Eagle Road to the east, that they dedicate 60 feet of right of way, which would make it 120 wide and, then, at that point it would taper down to 48 feCt of right of way, but just to clarify, that's just referring to the dedication of the road, not the construction of it, which Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 39 of 70 would be an Ada County Highway District project. And to clarify, the Highway District hasn't really -- they haven't had a hearing on this, because they haven't received a formal development application. What they have given the city is conditions that they would probably put on the applicant if they do get a development. application. So, that's just to clarify that those discussions would probably still take place. Borup: And there would be a public hearing at ACHD or -- Hawkins-Clark: I can't answer that. Borup: Not sure. Okay. Zaremba: Actually, that's a general question. ACHD's hearings are open to the public, but I don't believe they are noticed in the same way that our hearings are. Often people don't know their hearings are happening. But they are open to the public if you know it's happening. Borup: Okay. All right. Commissioners, I think that concludes testimony. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the hearing on AZ 04-009 be closed. Rohm: Second Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Anybody want to start any discussion or are we ready for a motion? Zaremba: We probably need to tweak the motion a little bit. Moe: I would be a little interested as to what we are going to do about the 12 acres in regards to the north, as far as showing those as commercial. Deleting that or not. Zaremba: Okay. That, by the Comprehensive Plan, is mixed use area. The zoning requested matches Comprehensive Plan intention. I suspect what staff was trying to do is to make sure that there is some mix to the use. I didn't read that sentence as requiring the entire 12 acres to develop that way. To me, when it says it shall be required to incorporated professional office and other non-retail, I read that as some of it would need to be that way, not all 12 acres, and that the sum is unspecific as to how much it would be. I'm comfortable either way. Newton-Huckabay: So, you're saying a percentage of 12 acres needs to be -- Zaremba: Yeah. I'm not so sure I want to specify the percentage, but I didn't read that as saying that all 12 acres had to be pre-designated as office or non-retail, just that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 40 of 70 some should be incorporated, and I think the operative part of it was that the zoning administrator, which means Anna Powell, would make that decision, rather than us, so that it didn't have to keep coming back through us and if we wanted to add the word some, so that it doesn't sound like all 12 acres have to be that way -- Borup: I think if we could make it a little less ambiguous would be good. Zaremba: And not to speak for the applicant, but it may b~ almost automatic to have some of it in there. I would see that change. Loading docks, which are at 3-D, we have had discussion about loading docks. The thing -- what I probably would add there would be the comments about the operation of the compactor and the generator and, then, perhaps define some hours between which all of those have to occur. It's just on the thought that at some point the retail operation of the store may go to 24 hours -- I mean 15 years from now, maybe, but that could happen. I think it's reasonable to have some restriction on delivery and generator and compactor hours. I probably would be more inclined to go closer to 7:00 a.m., than 8:00 a.m. and maybe cut them off at 6:00 p.m., rather than 4:00 p.m., as suggested by the homeowners association. That's open for discussion. That's just one person's opinion. Borup: That's the exact hours I was thinking, 7:00 to 6:00. Rohm: So, you'd just expand D to include -- Zaremba: The compactor and the generator. Rohm: Generator. Zaremba: And, then, let's say all of those activities have tole conducted between 7:00 and 6:00 p.m. Newton-Huckabay: What about loading dock hours? Is that in there, too? Zaremba: Yes. Yeah. Loading docks are mentioned -- well, what it already says is loading docks, trash collection, out-door storage, shall be incorporated into the overall building or landscape designs so that the visual-acoustic impacts of said functions are minimized. After -- let's do this: After trash -- after loading docks and before trash collection, I would add: Compactor, comma -- that wasn't just generator, it was auxiliary generator -- Moe: Emergency generator. Zaremba: -- Emergency generator at that point and, then, I would add a new sentence at the end that says all of these activities shall be confined to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 41 of 70 Borup: Maybe some -- are you talking unloading -- unloading the -- parking the truck during those hours? Not necessarily taking the goods out of an enclosed bed truck that goes directly to the building. Zaremba: Once the trailer is parked and, essentially, attached to the building by the enclosure, I am not limiting that activity, but -- Borup: Okay. I just that maybe. Okay. Well, and I -- that's what I knew you meant, but I -- Zaremba: Do I need to -- Borup: Well, I don't know. I don't think we want to define unloading as being able to load box goods out of an enclosed trailer. Newton-Huckabay: I think the idea was to prevent, you know, backup alarms at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. Borup: Right Moe: Which is fine. And not only that, you're giving them a couple extra hours anyway for the receiving time. Zaremba: Some of the other issues from the homeowners association about lighting are, in my opinion, pretty well covered by the existing statutes about how lights can be placed and light cannot shed off onto adjoining properties and stuff like that. Borup: Yeah. Those are all standard -- Zaremba: Do we think we can cover those anyhow? Right? Okay. All right. Transportation policies. Okay. Transportation policies, I, in my mind, would refer back to page 11, paragraph 3-A, number three, where the real comment is that regardless of what we say about access points, the City of Meridian is not really approving or disapproving the roadway accesses, those are -- those are the purview of ACHD and ITD and whether we agree with this site plan or not, does not mean that we are authorizing accesses that either ACHD or ITD -- and I think that one covers -- I think 3- A-3 covers the transportation policy, so I would leave that alone. Does that mean we are close to a motion? Anybody have anything to add? Moe: I think you're ready. Borup: Any comments on the submittal from the applicant? Zaremba: Well, that's, actually, what I was working off of. Borup: Okay. Well, you had mentioned on the conditional use aspect. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 42 of 70 Zaremba: He -- I believe the applicant was satisfied with staffs explanation of why it's in there. Borup: Right. And I didn't know if we needed to add -- Zaremba: It's really -- should we add the intention is design review? Borup: Yeah. Design review and not use of -- and not use. Zaremba: Okay. Okay Rohm: I think it's suffice to just leave it the way it is and our verbal commitment that we are not trying to minimize -- Borup: Well, no, but -- Zaremba: Iwould begin it the same way, add that any structure over 5,000 square feet shall be considered a new conditional use for design review. Borup: Okay. That was a blanket conditional use and that means everything for any reason, so -- which we have -- that's been a condition in a lot of projects, that anything within that project needs to have a design review. We have done that in the past on a lot of annexations. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Are you ready? Zaremba: I think that covers pretty much that. Okay. Let me give it a stab. Correct me if I miss something. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-009, request for annexation and zoning of 36.93 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Market Square by Smith Brighton, northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 20th, 2004, received by the city clerk May 17th, 2004, with the following changes: On page ten, under special considerations, the second bullet, which is titled proposed uses, paragraph C under that, add the statement: Any structure over 5,000 square feet will -- I'm sorry. Correct that to 50,000. Any structure over 50,000 square feet shall require a conditional use for design review purposes. On page 12, paragraph D, will be modified as follows: The following standard shall apply to all development on the subject property. All loading docks -- and add the words compactor, comma, emergency generator, comma, and, then, continued trash collection, et cetera. In paragraph D add anew sentence at the end that say all such activities shall be confined between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Borup: Did -- you had mentioned earlier about page 11-3-A. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 20, 2004 Page 43 of 70 Zaremba: I'm sorry; I missed my one little word in there. Yes. Another change on page 11 under annexation and zoning facts and conditions, paragraph three, subparagraph A, sub subparagraph 2, so 3-A-2, the 12 acres shown as commercial on the north end of the site shall be required to incorporate some -- I add the word some -- professional office or another non-retail use. And, then, the second sentence remains as is. Then, I already mentioned the change on page 12. That still stands. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you. And there will be another hearing at City Council in a month or so. That date, again, will be posted on site and, then, those that -- and, then, mailings will also go out, just like for this hearing. I think we will probably take a short break at this time. We will reconvene after the break. (Recess.) Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 04-005 Request for Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for proposed Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 04-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 42 single-family residential building lots and four common lots on 9.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 04-011 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for proposed Larkspur Subdivision with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front and street side yard setbacks by Larkspur LLC/Ron Sargent - 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and continue with the next items. Public Hearing RZ 04-005, request for rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 for proposed Larkspur Subdivision and accompanying that PP 04-011, request for preliminary plat approve of 42 single family residential building lots and four common lots and CUP 04-011, request for Conditional User Permit for a planned development for proposed Larkspur Subdivision. I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for Larkspur and it consists of three parts. The first one is a rezone of 9.47 acres from -- currently it's R-4