Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 8, 2004 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 14 of 58 proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - Northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -Northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from May 25, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development to allow the construction of a combination feed store and gas station /convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain and the property for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - Northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 13, 14 and 15, it would be very helpful to have our -- the applications in front of us. We can ask staff to give an overview and -- and I guess hear from the applicant and, then, after that you will have to decide on how you want to proceed. So, Steve, I will go ahead and open Items 13, 14 and 15, the continued Public Hearing. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a continued Public Hearing for Mussell Corner Subdivision. It's an annexation and zoning application, as well as a preliminary/final plat and Conditional Use Permit. Before going into too much detail, has the Council had the details of this project presented in any form yet? I know it's been continued twice, but I was under the impression that it had not had a presentation yet. De Weerd: That's correct. We haven't. Siddoway: Okay. The location of the project is at the intersection of Meridian Road and Victory Road south of the interstate. The annexation request is for the full 21.38 acres. They are currently zoned C-2 in Ada County and would be looking to annex to the city as a C-G zone. You can see the aerial photo here and the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is for four commercial building lots on the same 21 acres. It's a little a difficult to see the lots on here. I'm going to step fonroard to this one. You can see one, two, three, four lots. The corner lot is proposed to have a new feed store -- feed and seed store, Double D, as well as a gas station. The lot above it is proposed just for future commercial at this time and would remain vacant. The other two currently house the existing businesses of Victory Greens Nursery, the associated retail business that they have there, and the sprinkler business and their office and there is a residence on the same lot, I believe. The Conditional Use Permit is proposed to allow that -- the remaining -- the existing commercial and residential uses to remain on the property, and this is a site plan of the one site which they have a detailed proposal for with the Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 15 of 58 proposed Double D supply store and gas station facility right on the corner. Meridian Road is along the south here and Victory Road is there. The recommendation before you from the Planning and Zoning Commission is for denial. It was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 4th and 15th. The reasons for denial are spelled out in the recommendation. They have eleven points in the CUP, ten in the preliminary final plat and seven in the annexation and zoning. It's been on two past City Council agendas on May 11th and May 25th. Both were continued ahead of time to give the applicant a chance to work out some of their access issues with ITD. I believe that those were acted on by ITD last week, but I'll let the applicant address that. And there are no findings in the staff report or in the recommendation for approval, because the recommendation is for denial, and so if the Council chooses to approve the project tonight, it would need to be remanded back to staff to prepare findings for approval, because there are none at this time. But with that I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Steve, if you could, please, list off the reasons for denial, since we do not have our computers on in front of us. Would Council like those listed off or -- Bird: Yes, I would. De Weerd: Okay. Siddoway: I believe the Conditional Use Permit recommendation has them all. First, the site currently lies outside the five-minute response zone goal for the fire department. Next, there are not -- why don't I put this up on the board up there, then we can all see it. Would you like me to go ahead and read them into the record? De Weerd: Yes. Siddoway: Okay. So, the second item was there are not any developments in the area that have developed in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone, i.e., commercial. The third is the proposed amenities are not appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development. Fourth, the proposal to operate a gas station, convenience, feed store may be disturbing to the neighborhood. Fifth, the proposed gas station, convenience store, may involve inactivity's, processes, materials, equipment, and/or conditions that will produce additional traffic noise, fumes, and odors, as well as negative -- other negative public impacts. A proposed use that is to remain the single-family home is not prihcipally permitted in the proposed zone. The applicant is not proposing to bring the existing uses that are to remain, signage, landscaping, public infrastructure, sidewalk, bike lanes, screening, drive aisles, or parking into compliance with current city code. The proposed access points to Kuna-Meridian Road, State Highway 69, do not meet the location requirements of ITD or action item two in Chapter 7, Goal 4, Objective D of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed building setbacks, landscape waivers, and lack of a frontage road are accounting for additional right of way on Kuna-Meridian Road does not meet policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian City Code. Existing violations to Ada County Code, Title 8, on this property and without annexation the city does not have jurisdiction to approve the development, which they had already Meridian CIty Council June 8, 2004 Page 16 of 58 recommended denial of. I'm not able to speak in any detail of these, but I know that there -- when I was at Planning and Zoning Commission, there were existing noncompliance issues with Ada County. They had continued them once to give them a chance to bring those items into compliance before and annexing it and it is my understanding that they -- that one item was done with the removal of a light, but of the other items that were code enforcement issues for Ada County had not been taken care of. There is a noncompliance issue with ACHD regarding an existing driveway off of Victory Road and, then, the ITD access issues off of Meridian Road were probably one of the most significant issues that they have been trying to workout with ITD. At the time they were proposing no frontage improvements along the existing business. We made -- I believe the applicant may be proposing to have agreed to make those improvements, but I'll let him speak to that and I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions at this time? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant -- Dave, if you could put that on -- up on the stand, so everyone can see that. McKinnon: Be happy to. Well, we can see it, but I don't know if the people on that side of the room can see it. McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Dave McKinnon, 735 S. Crosstimber. I think everybody on this side of the room has already seen it. De Weerd: Oh, They are all -- McKinnon: They are all here in favor of the program tonight. So, I think the people I want to impress are sitting in front of me tonight, so -- instead of off to my left. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is kind of an interesting situation to be in. I'm, actually, pretty lucky to be in this situation. I have been lucky to have some good clients on this project. We have got a developer, Layne Yost, has had developed in this town before and they are willing to do what it takes to make this a nice project and I have got a client, Double D Feed and Seed, who has an old building in downtown that would like to move into a new building, into a different portion of town that would better suit their needs. Currently right now Double D Feed and Seed is located in downtown Meridian. It's not very often that you find a feed store in the middle of a downtown area, but that's what we have. They are trying to move further out from the downtown and that would open up some space within the downtown area. Obviously, as you can see from this picture that I have put up on the tripod that you can see, is that this is a much prettier building than we currently have downtown for the Double D Feed and Seed store and I just point that out based on status quo, this is a much nicer thing than what we have previously got. I mention that this is an interesting situation. It gets further complicated by the fact that we are trying to do what the Comprehensive Plan has asked us to do. They have -- the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2002, set this area aside as commercially zoned property. We are designated for a commercial use and we have proposed a commercial use and the staff -- that list that you saw in front of you, had taken the Comprehensive Plan and taken the text of the Comprehensive Plan and said this doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan, because it's commercial and it might Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 17 of 58 disturb the neighborhood and there is no neighborhood surrounding it. And I will get to those bullet points and we can go through each one of those bullet points. Previously in the past I had written memos that went through and hit each one of those items, but I want to ask you to read through those, as we can go through those in a few moments. The Comprehensive Plan shows this as commercial and we want it to go commercial. Unfortunately, we have run into a problem. The biggest problem we have run into, as you will see in the staff report, is access. It's access, access, access. In August of 2002 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, it wasn't envisioned at that time that all access on the type four roadways would be limited to half mile, and mile intersections. Even in the past six months the City of Meridian has approved projects on State Highway 69 with access in locations other than at the half-mile location. The problem that Meridian's run into several times -- Steve, if you can go back to the Southwoods proposal. Southern Springs just recently in the past four or five months, recently approved by the city -- keep going if you could, Steve. One more to the -- there we go. Southern Springs, a commercial development, was recently approved by the city with multiple access points. onto State Highway 69. At that time there is no letter of recommendation written from ITD. Staff did not write anything in opposition to that and now they have been working with ITD to get -- to have those accesses. Just like we have been denied from ITD an access point, that project was denied access points as -well onto Highway 69. That project had three deeded accesses from ITD, just as this project does from ITD and ITD has now granted them at least one of those accesses. So, we will work with ITD to get this situation worked out. ITD has constantly worked on trying to limit the amount of interruptions on state highways, State Highway 69, Chinden Boulevard, Eagle Road, specifically, in the City of Meridian -- Meridian proper. As you remember, those of you that were on Council and on Commission when Lochsa Falls was approved, there was a great deal of discussion at that time to limit the access. This isn't a new issue, it's just an issue that's become more prevalent as developments happened on Highway 69. And ITD writes a letter to all applications and they actually addressed it to the city, that goes ahead and states their request and I know you have met with ITD, but I just want to read to you just a little bit out of this letter. It doesn't say that they can't allow the access; it just says that they would like not to have the access points at those locations. It just says that access to principal arterial type four roads will be at intersections and spaced at one-mile intervals in rural areas and half-mile intervals in urban areas. Approaches other than at intersections may be permitted in special cases on a temporary basis as follows and it gives three different reasons. Allow until state highway system improved by construction project, at which time an access will be provided to the property, which may not directly access the state highway system, but may be via frontage or back-age road. Shall be recorded at the county recorder's office and temporary access restrictions will be noted on the permit. ITD's not exactly asking for a denial, they are saying we'd like not to do this, but there are certain occasions where we may permit this and I think we are running into a situation here where we have a commercial designation on the Comp Plan for 22 acres and we are limiting the access to that on the state highway to two locations on Victory Road, which require a commercial development to move all the way a quarter mile to the north off of a county road and, then, back out onto the county road before being able to access the highway, that puts a large burden on this property. Steve, if you can go forward to the aerial just Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 18 of 58 like that of this project. That will work great right there. If we want to limit this to the half-mile intersection, we run into a couple of problems with this site. We currently have a house and a small cul-de-sac development and to the north of this we have another small cul-de-sac development. The opportunity for ahalf-mile collector road or a half- mile frontage road to access this site being built in the near future is very limited, based on the fact that we already have development north of this site. Granted two accesses by ACRD off of Victory Road. There will be no access points located along ITD -- along ITD's right of way, if ITD has their way. ITD has a process. We just received today written denial of our request for the accesses from District Three. I have a copy of that if you'd like to see it. We received a written denial. After there is a written denial from District Three it goes to headquarters. Headquarters takes action and, then, they write a letter denying or approving that requested access. At that point we have the opportunity to appeal and that's what happened with the Southern Springs project to the north of this site. They appealed it and ITD worked with them and we'd ask for the same consideration, that we be given the opportunity to work with ITD to have those accesses and be granted those accesses per ITD's requirements. Keep in mind we do have three deeded accesses and those are accesses deeded from ITD to the property owner Tim Mussell to have those three access points. We are not asking for something we don't already have deeded to us, we are asking for some sort of mediation with ITD and to be given the opportunity to work with ITD on that. So, that's the biggest issue that we are running into on this that I see is the access, access, access issue. We'd like to have all three. If ITD says we can have one or two or three, that at least gives us access onto that and it would be something we would work out with ITD and that's something that we would ask of you tonight to give us the opportunity to work with ITD to be able to have that access from ITD, rather than a denial of this project based on not having access at this time. It takes time and money to get through the ITD process and we are in the middle of that process right now. A couple other issues that Steve hit on that were in the bullet points and I'll hit on those and these are just some special things that Craig Hood had pointed out in his April 15th memo. It was the last staff memo that you should have received on this issue and one of the issues was dealing with landscaping and we stated at the Planning and Zoning meeting that we would be willing to do the landscaping that's needed. We don't have conditions of approval. There was not a point where the staff said we'd like you to put landscaping across the whole frontage of all these lots; we just said none has been proposed. This site's currently a nursery. We have got the access to landscape material and we can go ahead and build the landscape material. I know there has been discussions with Tim Mussell, the owner of Victory Greens and the owner of this property, to go ahead and landscape that and that can be worked out and we are willing to do that. As far as the issue regarding building setbacks, in the staff memo there was some discussion about the Idaho Transportation Department wanted to have the build out for this road to be 240 feet wide or 120 feet from centerline. That's not the case. The letter states that they would like 70 feet from centerline if there is a frontage or back-age road, system provided. Not that it has to be a public road or a private road, but across-access agreement between all the properties along this road, as long as there is cross-access between the parking lots, ITD considers that a frontage road or a back-age road. It doesn't have to be a publicly dedicated road. And the idea that the buildings would sit on 120-foot setbacks Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 19 of 58 was just a misunderstanding. Craig Hood and I have worked that out and have also had a chance to talk with ITD concerning that issue. The issues regarding open space, public parking, and drive aisles, we have -- we talked with the Planning and Zoning Commission, we were willing to go ahead and pave all the drive aisles. In fact, we would be closing one drive aisle that currently exists on Victory Road and those of you that have gone to Victory Greens to purchase landscaping in the past, it's the middle access, the one that goes right up to the house, we have agreed to close that and agreed to go ahead and pave all the parking for that area and to pave the parking within the subdivision and to make sure that those areas that are being driven on by vehicles that don't rip up asphalt -- again, keep in mind this is an active nursery and there are skid steers out there that can rip up asphalt, as we discussed with the Commission, and they seemed to agree with that, that it would be okay to allow some area not to be asphalted where the skid steers were driving and picking up rocks and plants. Public services. The first item that you see on the bullet points was that this lies outside of the fire department's five-minute response area. I have had numerous conversations with Joe Silva, including one today about that. This currently lies outside of the five-minute response area, but we are not annexing this into the Meridian Rural Fire District, this is already part of the Meridian Rural Fire District. In talking with Joe, I said, now, Joe, if we were to bring water to this site with fire hydrants and sprinkle this building, would that be better or worse for the fire department, would that increase the fire safety of this if we brought water and sprinkled the building and he said that's an obviously -- that's an easy question to answer, Dave. Yes, it would be better to have fire services available at the site. Currently there is not a fire hydrant available to this site and if this were to catch on fire, alternative fire relief would be necessary. There is no sprinkling of the existing buildings and no water currently available from the domestic system and so in talking with Joe it's, actually, a better situation for them than currently exists under the status quo. Steve, if you will go ahead and move forward to the plan now. Thanks. I appreciate that. As you can see right now, we are currently asking for just four lots within the subdivision. A basic subdivision. The owner of the property, Tim Mussell, would like to be able to continue selling his rocks from this portion of the area and to continue to run his nursery and the existing pipe business down in this location. The gas station would be located on this lot and an additional building lot in the future to be built at this location. As this is a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, the additional buildings built on the site would be in compliance with -- that would match in design of the building that you see in front of you with the wainscot, the metal roof, and the small -- and the nice roofline that you see here. It would be built in compliance with that. Steve, if you could go really quick to those conditions of denial they were asking, just go real quick through those point by point. If you can just pull it down a little bit. De Weerd: Dave, just to let you know, you have three minutes left. McKinnon: Okay. I'll go fast. I'll lump everything together. Developments in the area that haven't developed in a similar fashion. This is the only area on the Comprehensive Plan in this area that's commercial. Obviously, we are not going to see other commercial developments in this area develop in a similar fashion, because this is the only commercial area. The proposed amenities are not appropriate for size and use. Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 20 of 58 It's a nursery; it's really hard to figure out what type of amenities make sense for a Conditional Use Permit that's a nursery. The proposal to operate a gas station may be disturbing to the neighborhood. It's not lying adjacent to any neighborhoods, it's laying adjacent to a nursery right now. There is no neighborhood around this. There is some small residential lots around this and those people have contacted me saying they would like to see water and sewer brought down to this area, because they'd like to hook onto that. The proposed gas station may involve activities, processes, materials, and equipment that would produce additional traffic, noise, and fumes and odors. If a gas station doesn't make sense on an arterial and on a collector where there is no residential, where do they belong? That's the proper location for one, away from residential, in commercial area. The proposed use is to remain on site. There is a single family home that's used as the office for the station, that's why we are going through the Conditional Use Permit. It's not principally permitted, but can be through a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is not proposing to abandon existing uses -- to remain. We will do that. We haven't received any conditions of approval for this and we are willing to meet those. Proposed access points on Kuna-Meridian. I have addressed that. We'd like to work with ITD to have those access points. We don't want to give up on ITD because they said no the first time, because they have in the past granted those accesses for others. The proposed building setbacks, waivers, lack of frontage road, there would be a frontage road. Like I said, in talking with ITD, a combined access for the parking lot works. Steve, if you could slide it up. Existing violations of Ada County code. There were several existing violations on site. Those have been addressed. I have got a letter to that extent from Ada County Development Services. It was written by Mike Williams, the code enforcement officer. There were several things that needed to be taken care of that were in violation. All but two of those have been taken care of and two of those hinge on whether or not this project gets approved. One was to do a one-time split. If we are subdividing and annexing to the city, a one type split would not be necessary. The other issued had to deal with screening of an existing use and the county has stated that if the existing use is brought into the city, the screening requirements for the city would come into play, rather than Ada County's, so that's why it hasn't been addressed yet. As far as without annexation, the city does not have jurisdiction to approve a development plan for this site. That's just your legislative authority as the Council. You have the ability to annex this property and to put conditions and approval onto this site. We think we have an improvement of what we currently have on site right now. I believe this will improve the downtown area by moving an inappropriate use out of the downtown into a gateway area. We will have a beautiful building; it would be fronted by 35 feet of landscaping, as required by the landscape ordinance. This is a good project with good developers. I'd ask for your approval tonight and ask if you have any questions at this time. De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none at this time. Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 21 of 58 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Please come forward. Please state your name and address forthe record. Veneziano: My name is Jose Veneziano and I'm at 403 East Fairview. De Weerd: Your time's up. Veneziano: Already? All right. Bye-bye. De Weerd: Will you, please, spell your last name? Veneziano: V-e-n-e-z-i-a-n-o. De Weerd: Thank you. Veneziano: And good evening, ladies and gentlemen and Madam Mayor, Councilmen. Well, I would love to see this happen for two reasons. One, it takes away a lot of traffic from this city. Two, it benefits my business and all the other businesses around. There are five subdivisions around it and they all will benefit out of this project and, best yet, where is a better place to put a gas station? Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Would anyone else like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Any last words from the applicant or any questions from Council for the applicant? McKinnon: I guess I don't need to offer rebuttal to no comment, but Ijust -- we think it's a good project and makes sense for the area. There is a demand for that. There are vehicles that utilize this area. We do realize we have an issue to workout with ITD and we are willing to work with ITD to get that resolved and we'd like to have the opportunity to do that. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions for Dave? Okay. Any discussion or further information that you need before I would accept a motion to close the Public Hearing? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: (wondered -- Steve or the chief, on the issue on the response time and the building being sprinkled and having a hydrant and that, I know Dave's testified to it, but I Meddian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 22 of 58 don't know -- I mean was there --did you have any comment or input about that? Bowers: Madam Mayor, City Council, Councilman Nary, and several years ago the Council and the rural wanted us to put that stipulation on all of our transmittals that was coming through. I talked to Deputy Chief Silva this afternoon and he stated that there would be water hydrants and sprinkler system at that building, so we would not be concerned at that time. De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I've got a question for Mr. McKinnon. David, why is ITD wanting us to take action before they take action? Do you have any reason why they would want to do that and if you go back to the layout, Ithink -- do you have -- on the north end do you have the old lane of Rumples there that goes up behind? Is that part of your access right there on the north?Ithink it is, if you -- McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, let me address that last issue about the Rum -- what did you call that? What was the name of that -- Bird: It was -- Rumples used to live up there on it, yeah. McKinnon: Rumples. Okay. I don't want to mispronounce that. The Rumple -- Bird: Iused to play with him. Had to go pick him up. That's why I know it. McKinnon: Okay. That's -- I went and bought rock there, geez, about four or five weeks ago and that's the access I used. I believe that's the access he'd like to continue using. It's an access that's currently under existence from ITD for that use. When ITD widened the highway, oh, three or four years ago, that was an access that was granted to them to continue using for the use that's currently there, which is the rock quarry that he has to sell rocks and that's an access point that's currently utilized for the business and I believe that that's something that Mr. Mussell would like to see continued. As far as other questions, why would ITD like to see us -- like to see you take action? It's been -- it's adifferent situation. In the past ITD had written letters saying this is what our recommendation is and the city has taken action and it's gotten to the point now where if we are dealing with -- I wouldn't say that this is ITD asking the city to take action first, it's just the way things have worked. In the past people have gotten approval from the city and, then, worked things out with ITD, just like Southern Springs and how that happened. ITD's becoming a lot more aggressive in trying to protect their type four roadways and they have come forward saying this is what our policy is and we want you guys to do that and I think that there is going to be a paradigm shift realty quick that applicants are going to be going to ITD and working things out with ITD before they Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 23 of 58 come to the city and since we have been caught in that shift right now, whereas we applied for this and, then, we found out that there was the issues with ITD and we are trying to work through those. ITD is not the fleetest of governments. They don't move extremely rapidly. We have applied for the permit over two months ago and just received notification today that it was denied. We didn't have any opportunity to testify at their commission meeting, it's just a committee meeting, then, it goes to headquarters and, then, we get to go into the appeals process. I have had other projects where it's taken nine months to get through the appeals process and so I think what's happened is we are caught in the shift right now in ITD policy, where we have to work these sort of issues out with ITD before you will do that. I know that you have had your meetings with ITD and you want to support ITD and their policy and I understand the reasons for that, but at the same time I can see how this site and other sites that can be locked by not having access need to be able to have those accesses issued from ITD and they have a process for that and we are working through that. In the future, the accesses, we are trying to work through those before we come to the city. It's acart-before-the- horse issue or a chicken before the egg. If we go to ITD and ITD says no, then, we don't bring this to you, but if ITD says yes and we bring it to you and the city says, no, monies been spent for good and bad. If you get denied by ITD, then, you know that you get approved and, then, you come to the city and get denied, you've spend good money after bad. So, it's just acart-before-the-horse issue. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: It would seem like to me, logically, that if you put a frontage road running north and south along Meridian Road and made your entrance up there on the north, that you're probably, what, a third of a mile from the corner? I don't think there was too many of us on the Council that like to see entrances close to any of those major corners like that, but something like that, if you put a frontage road in there, is that possible to do and would ITD do you think be more favorable to something like that? McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird -Steve, could you -- let me ask staff to move forward to the -- there you go. The half mile location is right here, Councilman Bird. Bird: Yeah. McKinnon: To go a third of a mile - a third of the way up would put us -- half is there, so a third would put us up where this access would be. ACHD were looking at this. Their policy on a major arterial is 440 feet for a universal, 220 feet for a right in, right out. We would go twice that to 660, which is what the deeded accesses are. That could work. And, then, build a frontage road from 660 up and, then, down and that would provide access for all of those and that's something that we would have to work out with ITD. Like I say, we have got three granted accesses -- three granted deeds. We'd like to keep those accesses, all three, but if we are limited to one, that's what we would have to Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 24 of 58 live with. But, yes, that is a possibility and we would build that frontage road and provide access to those lots. Bird: Thank you, David. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary Nary: Yeah. Dave, one of the areas -- I guess I didn't really hear a very good answer to is the amenity part of this planned development. What I thought I heard you say is, well, it's a nursery, so, therefore, there is lots of landscaping and availability of landscaping, but the report indicates -- it seems like what the staff focused on wasn't the fact that it's a nursery, but the fact that there wasn't really any dedicated portion of this property to remain as open space, it's simply where ever you move the trees around and the bushes to is going to be your open space is what it sounded like. McKinnon: Okay. Nary: And you didn't really make that very clear and the other portion -- the other second amenity is this sidewalk that the staff report indicates isn't very significant in comparison to the size of this property. So, could you be a little more specific about the amenities and what those are going to be? Bird: Sure. I'd be happy to address those. Under Meridian Code 12-6-2, the planned development ordinance, it requires the amenities to be appropriate with the type and use of the site and this a commercial development that's largely inhabited right now by a nursery and to figure out what types of amenities -- we sat down with staff on numerous occasions, I worked with Craig Hood on this and Anna, saying what type of amenity do you want to see here. Is it the ten percent? Is it the picnic benches? Is it the park benches in front of the gas station? What type of amenities are appropriate? And one of the amenities we came up with that would not be required would be a sidewalk on Meridian Road. It's not required. It would be provided along that and that was one of the issues. It wasn't one that was extremely applauded by staff, but it was one of the amenities that we felt would be appropriate for a gas station. We have asked staff on numerous occasions to offer suggestions as to what might be appropriate for a site that would be a large nursery area and a gas station, essentially, at this time. And they said that ten percent open space would be something that would be sought out and be something that would be adequate, but the ten percent open space, when you have a four lot subdivision, I guess would you like a dedicated lot that would be for that before we know how it's going to develop in the future? In a development agreement -- and at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting I believe there was some discussion as to saying in the development agreement at some point ten percent would be dedicated as it develops. If you've got suggestions we are willing to take those. Again, we didn't have conditions of approval or suggestions from staff as to what would be needed to approve this site. We are open to putting in amenities, such as picnic tables for the Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 25 of 58 eating areas provided with the C-Store or the gas station, that's something that we could work into the landscaping and provide an area for that, if you think that that would be appropriate. That's something that we can do and bring that into the site. But you're taking an existing nursery and trying to, I guess, shoehorn --just saying this area now is forever dedicated as open space limits the ability to redevelop that area. So, we are just asking for some flexibility on that, Councilman Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, just a follow up. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Nary: And I think this is more of a comment, Dave, but I guess you have been here plenty, you have seen us try to redesign people's projects for them and, then, really say, you know what, this is not really ourjob and I guess that's just my little concern over that particular point is, you know, it's unfortunate that between you and the staff you weren't able to come up with some appropriate type of commercial amenities for this particular site, but it isn't our job to design it for you, it's your job to convince us that you have met the standards of what the ordinance requires and so it's really your responsibility to come up with those and I'm going to assume that there are commercial PUDs out there that have amenities of some sort, so, you know, we don't have to invent the wheel for you, but it is your responsibility to show us compliance and I guess my comment is is I'm -- I don't think compliance is we will figure it out later and that's kind of what I'm hearing you say in this, we will figure it out, trust us, and I don't think that's good enough at least on that point. McKinnon: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, It's a hard site. We have an existing single family home and, like I said, adding some picnic area, some bench area to the site is very easy, happy to design that. As far as the types of uses on this site, amenities in the rock garden area, not appropriate. Amenities in the nursery itself, there is not many appropriate areas for that. We are dealing with a single use on a single lot for the gas station and the single use on that single lot is the gas station. That, in and of itself, doesn't trigger the Conditional Use Permit. The area that triggers the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development is the single family home located on the nursery lot and the fact there is two -- there is two buildings on that additional lot. You can see those buildings right here and the single family home located right here. Those are the two buildings and that's what kicks this into a planned development. We asked staff if we could just deal with those issues separately as a planned development and they said we believe that this should be a planned development for the entire site, even though there is a single use on a single lot within the subdivision for the gas station. So, that's why we felt it would be appropriate to add the use of the sidewalk on that lot and we can add an amenity to the gas station if you would like and we can do that as a picnic table and eating area for that C-Station. We are happy to do that. De Weerd: Dave, in the nursery, isn't there a landscaped area with a stream and a pond and -- isn't that an amenity? Meddian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 26 of 58 McKinnon: It is, but it could go away -- it could go away. It's a nursery. De Weerd: You don't want to commit to keeping that there? McKinnon: The applicant would just like to make a comment if he could really quick. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address. Were you part of the swearing in process? Laney: I was not. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Laney: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Laney: My name is Steven H. Laney and my address is 2849 East Hardrock Drive in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Laney: And I guess just to address Madam Mayor and Council Members, there is a pond -- and you correctly identified it. You can see it, actually -- let me go over here and touch it. Bird: Grab this mike. Mr. Laney, grab that mike Laney: You can see there is a pond area right here that, actually -- Tim Mussell spent a fair amount of money and time developing a waterfall here that flows into a pond, there are trees around it, it's pretty good size. You can see by -- you know, relative to the 2.48 acres here, you know, we are talking about at least an acre, if not more, and we are certainly willing to leave this as it is, you know, as a dedicated open area. And it's beautiful and he's done some fabulous work. He had a guy that trained with Disneyland. De Weerd: Named Brain something. Laney: Yeah. He's just brilliant. And he, basically, designed that waterfall and we are willing to leave that dedicated as an open site and one other comment, if I may, is we are not unfamiliar with the changing landscape of Meridian. We originally took the downtown blocks at Generation Plaza over here and we bought that land and we put in George's Cycle and the buildings there. That was basically our group that did that. So, we are not unfamiliar with the changing landscape of downtown Meridian and we would like to do the same thing with the old Double D site is to, you know, take down what's Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 27 of 58 there, even though it's a very nice operation, but it's a little bit ugly. Would like to take that down and put something that kind of compliments the downtown in the way the downtown is going, so -- and we have done that before, we have been successful at that and we are certainly ready to do it again -- ready to commit to the city that within a certain time frame of getting approval to go this direction, that within, you know, whatever the time frame is, 90 days, 120 days, that we will demo that site, take everything that's there down and, then, start working on, you know, trying to get a professional complimentary use downtown. So, I guess long answer to what is the pond, I guess that's my long answer back. De Weerd: You said you would keep that as an amenity? Laney: Absolutely. De Weerd: Okay.. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant Mr. Laney? Okay. Thank you. Laney: Thank you. McKinnon: I guess we got a pond. Do you have any other questions at this time? De Weerd: No. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Okay. Council, anything further you need before we close the Public Hearing? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to make a statement while we are on the Public Hearing. I think this is a very very good development. I think it's an ideal place for a gas station. I might be the only one that thinks that, but it does cover a lot of subdivisions out there and people don't have to run into town to get gas. We all know that it's -- at the price of gas you don't want to go any farther than you have to to get a gallon of it. I think it's -- and D&D going out there I think probably helps their customers. They don't -- probably don't like coming downtown any better than a lot of other people do at this point, because of the traffic to get their feed and seed and all that. I think it's a very very nice development. I have a -- I really would like to see a frontage road and just one entrance and exit off of Highway 69 and I don't know if that's going to happen or not. I wish we had a ruling from ITD already. So, I'm in a quandary of what we should do. I like -- I like the project and I just really like it a lot better since the pond got stayed. So, I really like it now. And I think it's an ideal place for a gas station and for the D&D deal, I really believe it is, so -- but we got to work out the --with ITD the exits and entrances. That's my statement. Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 28 of 58 De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Bird. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I'm also going to agree with Mr. Bird as far as the statements in the recommendation that there aren't other areas that have rezoned similarly and agree with the gas station. One of the things that I didn't hear -- and we have certainly a neighborhood here that we didn't hear with one of the past commercial developments, is a large outcry not to have that -- that convenience store or that gas station as part of the development. I'm also concerned with access. I'm not sure, really, how to go about that. I think in my mind a lot of the landscape questions have been answered and setbacks and those sorts of things, understanding that it's part of a four parcel development and not -- and we are dealing mostly with the landscape. Existing business within Meridian, that's kind of triggering a lot of those, and so as far as a planned development and amenities, I think those questions have been answered in my mind. The access issue hasn't, but I'm not sure how we get beyond that. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think I'd agree with both Councilmember Wardle and Bird on this. I mean I do think it is a great project. There is a lot more pluses. That single access on Highway 69 is really the only sticking point in my mind. I seem to recall the last time that we sort of left it to ITD we have Krispy Kreme on the comer and we have an access point that we all don't like, so -- no offense, Councilman Rountree. So, I guess I'm apprehensive in simply approving it without making some statement about the access point along Highway 69. I think -- I think the developer -- the applicant has made a good showing on all the other concerns that were raised by the staff in regards to the buffers and the amenities and the like, but that's probably the one point to me that I think that we need to -- I guess since the Public Hearing is still open, if Mr. McKinnon wants to address that, I think at least for me to support this project, I think the motion is going to include that there be only a single access point on Highway 69 and if there is others along Victory, that's fine. De Weerd: I guess I would introduce for discussion -- you know, I, too, agree with everything that's been said. This is going to be an excellent face lift to that whole development and it's pretty exciting. I love that landscaped area and appreciate hearing that we will keep the amenity that they have existing. I guess -- and I did talk to the applicant. I don't -- I guess I should -- only -- not about the application, but about our policy on -- in keeping with ITD's and I do believe that we have formed a relationship with ITD to preserve these corridors, so we don't continue to have happen what we see on Eagle and I think a lot of lessons were learned there. Until they have a connection to Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 29 of 58 alighted intersection at the half mile or where ever ITD is going to place the light here, it does make sense to ask that they have some kind of a back-age or frontage or whatever the term of the week is on that thing, but that that be put in, but they have some kind of right in, right out access to the corner until that connection is made to a light and I guess that would be my only additional comment that hasn't already been said. Bird: Madam Mayor, would you tell me clearer now that I'd understand. Right in and right out next to the corner on Highway 69 or are you talking on Victory? De Weerd: I would talk on Highway 69 at the appropriate distance and I have heard between the 400 and 600 area for a right in, right out and, then, have the designated area that I think you were talking the Rumples or - Bird: Yeah. Rumples. De Weerd: So, that was just my suggestion. And if the applicant would like to comment, he certainly has the ability to do that. McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that what you just said makes perfect sense to us and the applicant. We realize that you do have that agreement with ITD and you're willing to work with ITD and work with them and we appreciate your willingness to work with us as well to find some sort of use that will work for this site at this time and, you know, where that's a right in, right out at 400 or 600 and what's deemed appropriate, we can work with that. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: My recollection from the staff report from Mr. Siddoway -- and, again, if Mr. McKinnon needs to comment, I think because we don't have any conditions of approval -- we actually have conditions for denial, I think before we close the Public Hearing on this we probably should continue this matter for a couple of weeks to give staff the adequate time to have conditions of denial -- or conditions of approval prepared, 'rf the Council is a mind set to do that. At least I am. If we think we have had a lot of jumbled information, we are probably going to have to have a transcript to be able to be sure that we cover all the points and I want to give the staff the adequate time to do that and I don't know if two or three or four weeks would be more appropriate. Foui? Four is the high sign. Is four going to be adequate, do you think, Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Mr. Nary -- or Mayor de Weerd and Mr. Nary, the site plan that we currently have does not -- I believe, Dave, you can correct me -- have the design that we are talking about with the frontage slash back-age road with the right in, right outs with that. So, we need a site plan that addresses all these agreements, that we can respond to and write conditions of approval for. These negotiations and the agreement that seems Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 30 of 58 to have been reached are all -- all good items, but they are not items that were shown on the plan that was submitted and that the staff report was based on, so if we could get a final revised plan that addresses the issues raised by Council, we could, then, take that and prepare a revised staff report on that plan. McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we can agree to do that. We could have something submitted by the end of the week. Nichols: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, but where does that leave this project, even assuming those issues are worked out, until the ITD process is complete? I mean do you want to have this left open until the process is complete, so that you know exactly what -- how many accesses? Because if ITD says no, we are sealing off all three, we are going to keep them -- call it inverse condemnation, call it what you want, you're not going to get it, do you have -- I mean you see what -- they could come forward with a site plan that has an access, but ITD says no. So, how would you propose to handle that part of it, Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Nichols, the feeling that I got from the Council was that we would need to provide a frontage road, regardless of where any access would be and we could show an access that could be located in a variety of areas, you know, from the requested area from ACHD from 400 feet to 660 and beyond. We can show that there is a frontage road or a back-age road to that. What you see with a frontage and back-age road, the requirement is that you have a parking lot with cross-access and as long as we can show that the cross-access of the parking lot in front of the buildings provides access to each of the other lots, that that access is provided. So, I don't believe that it's paramount right now to show exact location of that access, but to show that an access can be provided within a certain range or distance and show that there would be a connection between that and the gas station to the south and the ability to go as well. So, we could show an access at some location and it would be a floating location until ITD approves it, as long as we have a frontage or back-age road that would provide connection both to the north and south. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Dave, it sounds to me like there is probably still a bit more work to do and the recommendation we had was for denial. Would it be more appropriate to remand this back to Planning and Zoning? Because you're going to have to make some significant changes to the site plan, you have some commitments from this discussion -- again, I Think the mood of the Council at the moment is that we are in favor of all of those changes, but realistically it maybe should go back to the Planning and Zoning Meridian City Counal June 8, 2004 Page 31 of 58 Commission for that. I don't know that that really delays it any longer than us setting this over for five or six weeks to get findings and a new site plan and all that done. I'm not as concerned as -- about the access points, because if ITD says none of them and us saying one is okay by us, isn't going to really make much difference. If ITD says two and we say one, one it is. So, I think either one of those contingencies doesn't concern me as much as whether or not Planning and Zoning should really be reviewing this again, because you're going to be making significant changes from what they originally looked at. McKinnon: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, these were all items that were discussed with the Commission. At the time that the Commission voted to deny it, it was a motion made by Commissioner Zaremba after asking Craig Hood -- he said do you want to continue this hearing until we have the issues with ITD worked out. Craig Hood responded: I don't want to baby-sit this project anymore. Commissioner Zaremba made the motion to deny this project based on the fact that they didn't want to wait for ITD. That was the reason for that, was for ITD's -- and they went ahead and based their motion on the majority of that for ITD issues. The additional bullet points were discussed at that meeting, it was discussed at that meeting that we would add the additional landscaping and the frontage requirements at those meetings, but it was the issue with ITD that was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. De Weerd: Mr. Siddoway, do you think that these would be significant enough to remand? I guess they were all items that were discussed. I .don't share the same opinion, but -- Siddoway: I was not present at the P&Z hearing. My items I think were before it and, then, had left and this was covered by Craig later in the meeting, but -- so I can't speak for sure by my own knowledge as to what -- how much of it was addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It certainly will be nice to have all of these tied down on one plan and based on what I know, it seems to be significant enough to warrant P&Z to look at it, given the opportunity for adifferent -- somewhat different layout based on the back-age road and access arrangement, which may affect that site plan. I guess we could get some input from Dave as to whether it would significantly alter the layout of those buildings as originally shown. If it does, then, I would certainly remand it back. If it doesn't, then, it's just whether it needs to be remanded back based on the accesses, the landscape buffers, the amenities, to get P&Z's buy off on those items as discussed tonight. McKinnon: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, Ijust -- Steve, could you move forward to the site plan that shows -- yeah, leave it right there and I will be right back. Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the reason why I wanted you to see this site plan is to see that this is what ITD is considering the frontage or back-age road, is the parking lot. It provides access -- it would be cross-access at this point. All the buildings have to have -- there is going to be a 35 foot setback for landscaping from the future right of way line and, then, you're going to have parking and, then, you're going to have a building. So, as far as a major redesign of this site, there is no major redesign. Meridian City Council June 8, 2004 Page 32 of 58 What it is, is if we have to take this access point and move it down here, we provide the additional parking all the way across the front just to match this and you provide the building, so it wouldn't be a redesign, it's just the location of where that road is. So, that we are not talking about a major redesign. As far as landscaping, the landscape ordinance covers what the requirements are for that. There is nothing major to do that, it's one tree every 35 feet, plus some shrubs and bushes and some irrigation and you all know Title 13 as well as I do, it covers the landscaping. So, there is nothing major that I see there. We are just dealing with where the access point would be and, then, the parking lot that's all connected across the front. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I don't know why we have to remand it back to Planning and Zoning. I don't think it's that much of a change. Their denial reason was because of the access and they -- you know, they are making some changes, but it's the access that they basically did it. I would like to see them get four weeks and bring it back before us and after the staff gives their report and let's go on with it. McKinnon: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Dave. McKinnon: Thank you. De Weerd: Was that a motion? Bird: Well, we need to continue the public hearings and I would make a motion to continue the public hearings for Items 13, 14 and 15, the Mussell Corner Subdivision. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Was that to July 6? Bird: To July 6th, 2004. De Weerd: Okay. And the second agrees? Wardle: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. All those in -- oh, I'm sorry. The motion is to continue. Items 13, 14 and 15 to July 6, 2004. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Meridian City Coundl June B, 2004 Page 33 of 58 De Weerd: Okay. Siddoway: Madam Mayor`? De Weerd: Yes. Siddoway: Just for clarification, the applicant is to get us the revised plan within a week and, then, we have got a couple of weeks to turn around a report and -- a week prior to the hearing, then; is that correct? De Weerd: That is correct. Rountree: Madam Mayor, would you have the record indicate that I abstain from the vote? De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Rountree: Thank you. Item 16: Public Hearing: MI 04-004 Request for a Miscellaneous request for an amendment to the Development Agreement for Resolution Subdivision No. 1 by Aspen Grove Development, LLC -south of East Overland Road at Celebration Avenue and Gala Street: De Weerd: Mr. Rountree abstains from the vote. The ayes, one abstention. Okay. Thank you. Item 16. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for Item 16, MI 04-004, with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a miscellaneous application, with a request to amend the development agreement for Resolution Subdivision, specifically for Lot 1, Block 1 of Resolution Sub No. 1. At issue is that the subject property, which sits in the lower right-hand corner or the southeast corner of the subdivision and requires a Conditional Use Permit for all uses, regardless of zoning, in compliance with their conceptual CUP and their development agreement. Most of the other lots in the development have been through in the last couple of years for detailed CUP approval. Recently there was an application submitted for Valencia Subdivision on Lot 1, Block 1. It's been through Planning and Zoning and I believe is on the City Council hearing for next week. One of the conditions of approval in the staff report for that subdivision is the continued requirement for detailed CUs on all lots in that subdivision. They have submitted this miscellaneous application to request that that development agreement be amended to not require the detailed conditional use approval. You should have a staff report dated June 8th that goes through most of the issues. The analysis on page three hits the highlights with the development agreement -- De Weerd: Steve?