Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 15, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 35 of 67 Moe: Second, Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-021, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc., north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004, and with the knowledge that this leaves the applicant the option to make some of the properties attached dwellings in an area where they requested to have that option, Moe: Second, Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, would you like to proceed on or a short break? Zaremba: Five minutes. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break right now. (Recess.) Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 04-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.5 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Stow-It Storage Facility by Lyons Development, LLC - southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 04-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a storage facility with a caretaker residence and future office/retail use in a proposed C-G zone for Stow-It Storage Facility by Lyons Development, LLC - southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting. The next item 13 and 14, AZ 04-013, request for annexation and zoning of 13.5 acres from RUT to C- G zones for Stow-It Storage facility by Lyons Development, LLC. It's at the southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland. And also Public Hearing CUP 04-017, a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 36 of 67 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for the same facility. I'd like to open both of these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned, this site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Overland and Stoddard. It is approximately 13.5 acres in size. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this property as mixed-use neighborhood. The surrounding properties -- and I guess general properties in the vicinity, directly to the south of this parcel is another parcel that's owned by Idaho Power Company, they are the current property owners of the subject site as well. They have a substation on that site and an access road -- as you can see on this aerial photo, it goes out to Overland Road running along that western property line. To the west of this site is a single-family residence. On the north directly across the street is some industrial commercial type businesses on the north side of Overland Road there. On the west side is the Queenland Acres Subdivision and Bear Creek Subdivision. Queenland Acres is the northern part that has the R-1 stuff. You can see the frontage, single family homes, on the south side of Overland Road there and, then, the other part is RUT, the larger parcel just to the south of those R-1 parcels, and, then, Bear Creek is zoned R-4 and has been annexed into the city. Just a little bit of history, I guess, before I go with the current application. This site may look a little bit familiar to you. Last year this -- there was an application on this site for a similar project, definitely not the same. It had a -- a contractor's yard was an element of that application, different layout for the storage units, and they didn't have as much of an office and retail component to that application. That application was denied by the City Council. They found that the proposed contractor's yard was not consistent with Bear Creek primarily and what the city envisioned for this site. The applicant of that -- the applicant at that time also requested a Comp Plan amendment for a C-G zone on this site and the City Council just couldn't make the findings for that. So, just briefly, that's some recent history there. The current CUP application is required because the applicant is proposing multiple buildings on a single parcel. There is not a plat associated with this subject application, its all a planned development, one lot with multiple buildings. Now, it may be subdivided in the future when the office and retail come in, but right now multiple buildings on one lot. And because there is an existing -- or there is a proposed residential component as well, they are proposing to have a caretaker's unit right here above this -- there is office space on the ground floor for the store unit complex and, then, a 1,600 square foot caretaker's apartment above that. Residential uses are prohibited in a C-G zone, which is what the applicant is requesting, but with the use exception through the PD process, the city can approve those, much like the first application you saw tonight, as a use exception. The applicant has not requested any deviations from the standard dimensional standards for any uses. They are meeting all setback requirements and frontage requirement, et cetera. A lot of that is because they don't have a plat and it's an existing parcel. The detailed CUP portion of this project is about 11 acres in size, with the remainder two and a half acres being this future retail office area right on the intersection. Included with the 11 acres that's going through the detailed is nine mini storage buildings, containing 150,000 square feet of storage space and 28 boat and RV outdoor storage spaces located in this -- along this west property line here. I'll come back to those in just a minute. Included within the Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 37 of 67 buildings I mentioned before is 3,200 square feet for the office for the storage complex and a 1,600 square foot caretaker's apartment. There is 27,265 square feet of future retail and office shown in this future development area on the corner. The applicant is proposing three access points onto Overland Road. Let me see if I can find them all at this scale. There is one right in this area here north of -- or, I'm sorry, east of that, north on this map. It is a full access driveway in this location and a future right-in, right-out for the retail office approximately here. I can't see that far. And, then, there is two driveways to Stoddard. Again, a future access point here to the retail commercial and I think that's it right there. Gated entry to the storage complex. The applicant did submit elevations for this application. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations and material shown on them. Moore Design Associates submitted those drawings and staff believes that the design features, the architectural features that are included with the elevations will blend in with the existing residences, as well as the commercial and industrial in the future. They really look nice and think that they will bend in very well in the area. Just a couple of the outstanding issues or issues raised in staff report, as well as in the applicant's response letter. I'm going to try to kind of go in -- in order on this in the staff report, beginning on page 14, site specific number three for the CUP. Staff is requiring -- again, there is a single-family residence currently in the county approximately here. Meridian city code does require a land use buffer between different land use classifications. Outdoor storage adjacent to single family residential requires a 25-foot wide landscape buffer. Staff is requiring a 24-foot wide landscape buffer along this entire length. Did want to note that there are currently steel Idaho Power lines in that location. They have a 75-foot wide easement there for maintenance of those lines. They did have some concerns with the height of those trees being placed in the berming and landscaping that's required by the city. Staff concurs with that, anyway, that a maximum height of 25 feet for any landscape materials constructed along that west property line as appropriate. I talk with Mr. Hawk today, which is -- he is the owner representing Idaho Power and he thinks that should work fine, they should be able to get in through there and to do any maintenance they need, as long as the height doesn't get into the power poles. The other thing I want to -- while we are still on that side, the other thing that I wanted to talk about was the boat RV storage. I mean 25 feet is quite a wide landscape buffer. I talked with the applicant in the hall before this hearing. I don't know what they are going to do regarding that requirement. It would either cause them to significantly redesign to get any type of outdoor storage there or significantly cut it back on the amount of outdoor storage for boats and RVs. So, not quite sure exactly how that's going to go. I'll let the applicant address that requirement and maybe it just goes away. I guess that would be staffs initial response, would just -- maybe it's not appropriate there, having those people who want some landscaping there, outdoor storage adjacent to that, although I don't think it's going to get a lot of use. People only park their -- their RV and their boat for the winter, come and get it, you know, in the spring or whatever. So, not that it would be too intrusive, but I'll let the applicant touch on that, I guess. Amenities were the other thing that I brought up in the staff report. There were no proposed amenities. As you know with a planned development, even for a commercial or office use, the city does require amenities appropriate to the size and use proposed. So, the applicant did, in that meeting that we just had out in the hallway, give to me a couple of the pictures of what they kind of envision. Also, in their response Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 38 of 67 letter dated yesterday I believe they kind of detail what they propose to do there, five to six foot tall water fountain, some brick pavers around -- right at the intersection of Overland and Stoddard, I think, you know, this looks pretty nice with some benches as well, so I'll leave that up to the discussion of the Commission, I guess, but I'll let the applicant describe that a little bit better. The Hardin Drain, did note in the staff report -- it's a good size lateral, I don't know, Bruce could probably say what size pipe that would require, but it's a big one and the applicant has requested, since this has gone on, that they be able to leave that open. I believe that condition, which is site-specific condition number seven on the page 15, can remain the way it is. It says if the City Council approves a waiver of having to tile or cover the Hardin Drain, if not, they have to cover it. So, I don't believe that needs any modification by this body. Sewer service I think is the last thing. Sewer service, I guess, and, then, one more -- is not currently available to this site. They have worked with Mr. Freckleton and the Public Works Department on coming to some type of an arrangement to allow the caretaker's unit and this office area to utilize a septic system until sewer is available to the site, with a non-development agreement for the remaining retail and office use. That was the same situation that the last applicant had to go through a year ago when this was before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Public Works Department has included conditions that they are comfortable with anyways, so that's site specific number ten on page 15. I did want to address -- because in the applicant's letter they did have some comments regarding phasing. For simplicity I made up the phasing. I called phase one the detailed storage and office and phase two the future stuff. They further clarified that and said, actually, there are three or four phases in what I called phase one. The intent of that is just that, your detailed -- the detailed stuff can utilize a septic, because the storage units don't need to utilize septic, only the office and apartment. But that -- the remainder portion does need to hook up to sewer. So, that may need to be clarified a little bit. The current verbiage I think is a little bit confusing, maybe, and just to clarify that the existing office and apartment, you know, for the storage use only or something like that. And, then, the last thing I just wanted to have the applicant touch on the hours of operation. I'll just leave it at that, I guess, and let the applicant -- I don't know if you have an idea if this is going to be a 24 hour facility or a -. depending on -- I don't know how, again, intrusive that would be, but just a point of discussion, I guess, for this hearing. And that I believe concludes staffs report and I will stand for any questions. Borup: Question from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, Craig, just curious, how do you envision this parcel to be fully sewered down the road, if, in fact, this is a temporary solution to allow it -- septic and well, what -- how do you see it being served down the road? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, the sewer that's going to serve this entire area is going to -- is the Black Cat Trunk Line, which has not begun yet. It starts north of the interstate and is going to traverse down through this area. It will follow the Hardin Drain and currently the Bear Creek Subdivision has a lift station in it and this trunk line that would be extended to Black Cat Trunk will take that lift station off line and, then, the whole Bear Creek will gravity sewer. So, one of the things we have asked for Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 39 of 67 in our staff report -- and Becky has acknowledged in her written response, is the need for an easement along the Hardin Drain for that future trunk line. Does that answer your question? Rohm: Uh-huh. Freckleton: Okay. Zaremba: Yeah. Part of the -- the development agreement or non-development agreement is that at such time as that's available within 300 feet they will abandon the septic system; is that correct? Freckleton: Yeah. As soon as it's available. And I don't really necessarily want to lock them into a septic system. On the -- out in Overland Road we do have -- we do have a sewer that has -- is at Stoddard Lane, but it's at its absolute end. It is very shallow. There are currently Western Electronics, which is on the north side of Overland Road. They pump their sewer to that manhole and this apartment office could put in a grinder pump and pump up to that point, too, if they -- if they wanted to go that route. So, I just kind of want to leave that door open. It's either a septic or they will have to pump it. Zaremba: I don't remember seeing that option in the report, but should we add that? Freckleton: Well, the way that the report is written it says may, if I remember right. Zaremba: Okay. I may have missed it. Okay. I do have one other question and this would be on the landscaping and, again, once -- whether or not my memory is playing tricks on me, but my recollection is that when this part of the project -- although it's a separate thing, was being discussed, that's where Idaho Power has their -- I forget whether it's a contractor's yard or a substation or both, but, anyhow, they needed access along here, but at the time my recollection is when this was approved Idaho Power was required to say this is my drive aisle and Idaho Power was going to put in 25 feet of the landscaping. This map is turned sideways, but west of their drive aisle, that their drive aisle would be right up against their property line and I thought they were having to put in 25 feet of landscaping. Am I not remembering correctly or-- Rohm: I was thinking that that was to be abandoned. Once the substation was completed, that access off of Overland Road would be abandoned and until future development, which would, then, place a roadway under an application for a roadway, that that road would be gone altogether. That's the way I remember it. Zaremba: Now that you mention it, I remember that part of the discussion. What I don't remember is which way it ended up going, so -- I remember both of those being discussed. Rohm: Yeah. I'm pretty sure that that's the way it ended. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 40 of 67 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I do -- I don't remember the landscape requirement. I do know the history behind that access drive. It is a temporary access only and was to be abandoned once their access to Stoddard and the substation -- there was a contractor's yard component there, but -- and they do have access now to Stoddard, so it's currently hard surface, but it's not being utilized as best as I could tell and it was a temporary access point. The applicant is -- I believe -- and she may have to help me out a little bit here, but ACHD's commission, I believe, was supposed to act on it last night, so that access point is in the general location that that temporary access was there and I know that ACHD staff originally said, no, this is a temporary access, you're perpetuating that, it needs to go away. I don't know how that came out last night, so she may be able to just shed some light on that. And, then, the landscaping -- I don't recall seeing that as a condition, but, again, this application was denied by the city. It was approved in the county for the substation and there is a condition in this report, which I'm going to ask the Commission to remove, it says comply with all the Ada County's requirements as the applicant requested. That was actually a carry over from that last staff report that I -- I asked the staff person why that condition was in there and I didn't get there and the condition still remained in the staff report, so that's the best I can help you out with some of the access and landscaping requirements, but that is still in the county -- the substation is still in the county and any requirements would be of the county right now. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm representing the applicants in this matter. As Craig indicated, this particular site is part of a larger site that's -- or the southern portion that's owned by Idaho Power. My understanding was when they purchased the property for their substation, that they had to purchase the 19 or 20 acres, approximately, and -- but all they needed was the seven acres to the south of the Hardin Drain and so they have been trying to sell this northern portion. Craig also indicated that an application came before the Council here awhile back and it was denied. Prior to even coming up with any concepts, we did meet with the staff, we talked to them about what had transpired and the staff indicated to us the main objection that the Council had at that time was the contractor's yard. The esthetics of it, the fact that the property does slope south, so Overland sits high, so you would have a view, you know, into the property being the fact that it is sloping to the south and just the esthetics of it; since the City of Meridian does have the community park at Bear Creek approximately 600 feet south of the southern boundary of this northern portion. So, my recommendation to the applicant was to get with an architect and try to come up with, one, a creative site plan that showed some mixed use and, secondly, a style and type of mini storage building that would, obviously, compliment this area, since you're going to have a considerable amount of public traffic going down Stoddard as the community park, you know, for their destination. Since we do have people in the audience, I will stick it up here. Now, obviously, with the Idaho Power substation, we have the substation located here, designated as a quasi-public use on your Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page41af67 Comprehensive Plan. They are very sensitive right now to residential being constructed adjoining these substations, so the input we have received in the past anytime we are doing any development next to an Idaho Power substation is that it did not have a residential component. Over here to the east you have got low density residential. Over here this is designated for commercial, even though those lots in Queenland Acres are currently utilized as single family dwellings, they are rentals owned by -- Mr. Burgess's mother, I believe, still owns them. To the north we have a designation of commercial and, then, industrial where Western Electronics is and, then, oh, to the west this is designated on your Comprehensive Plan as residential. So, in working out this site plan, we came up with the idea of this retail office concept here right at the intersection. We are going to enter into a development agreement with the City of Meridian that that is un-developable and would have to come through for a site specific Conditional Use Permit in the future only at such time as the Black Cat Trunk comes through here and is available. We currently have central water available here in Stoddard and I believe it's out in Overland. Bruce can correct me if I'm wrong. So, we will not be putting down any wells. The only issue is the issue of sewer and, like Bruce stated, sewer is in Stoddard, but it's just a lift station and a pressure line and, then, they have got a manhole up here that is flowing south -- or north across the freeway and there is a question about the capacity of that, but we would like the option to work with the staff in finding the best solution for the service to the apartment and the office that's associated with the mini storage facility. The phase one that Craig indicated would include, obviously, the apartment and the office and, then, this climate controlled area here, all of our parking, as you can see, is on the interior between the buildings. This would be a full access to Overland Road. This would be a future right-in, right-out, a future right-in, right-out, and, then, this would be a full access here to Stoddard. Also part of phase one we would build this building here and, then, the perimeter building and landscaping along Stoddard and, then, obviously, improve this Overland frontage here. Phase two would be this building, the I building, the H building here, and, then, phase three would be these three buildings and, then, obviously, that would be dependent on the sewer extension across the freeway. I'd like to show you the buildings that -- that they are proposing. I was very pleased when the architect e-mailed these elevations to us. I thought he did a very good job in trying to come up with a concept that was esthetically pleasing. This would be the Overland corridor, so what you would see is you would have the -- obviously, the landscaping and trees, you would see some facilities that would be setback behind that future office commercial area and, then, this would be the gated area coming into the facility. This is the apartment up above and this would be the office. In that office they would also have a little retail shop that would sell packing tape, packing supplies, you know, locks so forth. Anything that, you know, would -- you would need if you were storing your stuff at this facility. Along-- this is a closeup of this same elevation here. As you can see, it's got a little clock in it. It's got quite a bit of glass. Real cute. Trying to make it look rural. Along the Stoddard elevation -- or Stoddard Road we have this elevation here and what they did was they are breaking that up with these buildings, so we didn't -- what I told them I did not want to see was a wall of buildings and that's typically what we encounter and that's very esthetically pleasing. So, they did a good job with breaking this up and incorporating kind of a little barn, rural type concept. We will have 25 feet of landscaping along Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 42 of 67 Stoddard. I think we showed 30 feet along the Overland corridor. One of the questions that came up and we struggled with was amenities. What kind of amenity can you have for a mini storage facility? Well, after we submitted, we kept pondering that thought and trying to figure it out and we did come up with an idea and this is what we would like to construct right at the Stoddard-Overland intersection. This picture is the Applebee's at the intersection of Glenwood and State. We would install a five to six foot fountain, stamped colored concrete around it creating a little plaza effect. A couple of decorative park benches. It would be located right here. And, then, obviously, highlight it with landscaping, such as trees, shrubs, and flowers. The thought that I had was, then, when somebody turns down the Stoddard Road here that's going to be a really nice visual feature. To tie that in along Stoddard, we are going to duplicate the stamp colored concrete in two locations and, then, have the same decorative park bench kind of nestled into some landscaping. You have seen that in some of the subdivisions along the perimeter on the arterials. Stoddard is not an arterial, it's a collector, so the highway district is asking us to install curb, gutter and sidewalk and expand the pavement on our side or to trust fund for those improvements. Overland Road we will have to construct sidewalk or trust fund for that. It is scheduled for an upgrade in 2007. They will be building it out to five lanes and rebuilding this intersection. So, a lot of times what they do is prefer that we trust fund for the sidewalk, so that there is no mistakes that cause them to have to tear some of it out in the future when they do their sidewalk design. But we think as far as the appeal from that intersection, that's what I would like to duplicate and as you can see with the landscaping and that set in there, it's going to create a nice plaza and I believe that that's the type of amenity that should be installed in this type of facility and it will really give it a nice soft feel. The hours of operation. Craig asked me to address that. This will not be a 24-hour facility. It will be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Fencing. The Idaho Power site has some chain link fencing at this time, I guess with some tan slates. We should probably try to duplicate that along the south boundary to tie in. As far as the western boundary, we do have Reinharts there. They are the property that is -- would be most affected by visually from this facility, so I have talked with my client, we did hold a neighborhood meeting, Sheri handled that for me, and met with the Reinharts. She indicated that their main concern was, obviously, buffering and fencing for -- obviously, for their property. But we'd like to work with them to try to come up with an idea of how best to -- what type of fencing, what height of berming, landscaping, work with them to try to come up with something that would -- they would be satisfied with. As far as the Idaho Power easement, Ada County Highway District did confirm that Idaho Power told them that would be temporary and that they would, obviously, eliminate it at such time as this redeveloped. But Idaho Power had implied to my client that they needed that access. Now, we do not utilize this access at all, so if it is the -- if Idaho Power made prior commitments to the highway district or the city, then, obviously, they should stand behind that. I believe the 75 foot easement, from what we have been told, is to just access and maintain the transmission lines, because they are coming out of the substation and running along that west boundary. So, we do have to, as Craig said, keep in mind that any type of landscaping installed will have to meet their requirement for that separation -- the horizontal separation and, then, the vertical separation. We also have a pipe -- there is a ditch facility that's piped along here, it takes water onto the south. Sheri indicated that Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 43 of 67 the Reinharts wanted us to coordinate with them on the irrigation. Well, obviously, you know, any small service ditches or so forth will have to be piped, if they have not already been piped. We are requesting that we not pipe that Hardin Drain, it is a large, deep drain, since we are a mini storage facility and, then, you have got a power substation on the south side, I really don't see how that would benefit. You know, we are not going to have a ditch safety issue. We will have fencing on our side and, then, have to, obviously, coordinate with Nampa-Meridian to allow them access to that Hardin Drain. As far as mini storage facilities are concerned, this is the third one that I have worked on. In looking at a market analysis for the demand for storage, there is only one facility south of the freeway right now in the Meridian area and that's that old Valley Storage, which was a chicken farm or something at one time. They converted it. It's not a very attractive facility. But as far as the newer facilities, there isn't anything available south of Interstate 84, so we believe that this will -- there is a need for it, there is a demand out here, a lot of homes in Bear Creek, we believe that this will be a good neighbor, we believe it will provide a service to the surrounding urban area, keep people from having to go across the freeway and to the north, hopefully, cut down on the number of trips. If I lived at Bear Creek and I had a ski boat and I needed to store it, as would most subdivisions, they do not allow you to store recreational vehicles on your lots, the best place to go would there. So, I think there is a need for it and I think this is a good facility and I think an exceptional plan. We worked pretty hard and took a lot of time to carefully come up with an idea and a concept and a style of building that we believe will make this area very attractive. In reviewing staffs conditions, we had, I believe, one condition that we were not happy with and Craig indicated that he was going to eliminate condition number 12 under site specific Conditional Use Permit. As far as all the other conditions, I believe we are in full agreement with your staff. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: I do have one. Discuss, if you would, a little further the area that involves the Idaho Power easement or where you plan to do a storage. and stuff. If there is a landscape requirement or whatever that landscape requirement is to buffer the property to the west, are there ways you can work out what you need to workout or -- just tell me what's happening with that. McKay: Commissioner Zaremba, when we first -- when we came up with the site plan, it was thought by the applicant that that 75 feet could not be landscaped, that it had to remain a gravel surface, because of the poles and so forth. Zaremba: Access to the poles and -- McKay: And access to the poles. Zaremba: Nothing growing up under them. McKay: But in Craig's conversation and, then, some subsequent conversations this week, it appears that they -- they are softening and they would allow us to have some landscaping here. The code says 25 feet. One of the thoughts that we had was the Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15,2004 Page 44 of 67 potential of -- we could put the berm and put the top of the berm right here and, then, berm back and work with the Reinharts, if they want some berm on their side, the landscaping, I guess it could straddle the property line and it could stay just solely here and this could be eliminated. This was just gravel. It was open. That potentially could just be eliminated. That would be one option. I wasn't sure how to handle that buffering, because Idaho Power in the beginning appeared to be so restrictive on what we could do. But it's a reality -- you know, like I said, we have got that single family dwelling located right here and we need to provide something that the Reinharts would be happy to live next to. Zaremba: If I'm understanding you, to put the full amount of required buffer on your side of the property line means that the rest of that area, essentially, becomes useless. Borup: It would just be, I believe, a corridor. Yeah. Now, they may be able to -- Mr. Moore, who came up with this concept, you know, he may be able to, you know, realign these or reduce these and somehow, you know, allow for some limited open parking. We showed -- I believe the site plan only had -- it had five feet right here of landscaping and your ordinance says 25. Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask a different question of staff. Along the Hardin Drain is there ever any thought that that's eventually going to be connected to a pathway system or -- I didn't see any mention of that. I know Bear Creek has pathways somewhere. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba. I was just double-checking on the Comp Plan, but it is not shown as a multi-use pathway on the comprehensive, so the city didn't envision any pathways adjacent to. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Rohm: If, in fact, that existing ingress off of Overland is to be abandoned because the substation can be accessed off of Stoddard, then, that's no longer going to be used as vehicle,traffic and I don't know why they can't be fully developed as a berm, as long as the utility is able to drive on that berm to service their facility. That seems to be the proper -- the right answer to me. McKay: Yes, sir, I believe you're correct. That is my understanding. Access to the poles is the issue, not access to their site. Rohm: Right. And so it's not a service -- there is no service road there once the access off of Stoddard became available. McKay: That's correct, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 45 of 67 Rohm: Okay. Borup: But they still kept the 75-foot easement. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Please. Reinhart: My name is Jackie Reinhart and we, obviously, live to the west of this facility. Certainly willing to work with the developer. Our concerns are for the berm, any landscaping that they are going to do. The original picture with all of the -- all the storage from our end -- I'm not sure how it's going to work. If they did, indeed, keep that, there is not enough room to back in vehicles with the 75 foot easement for the Idaho Power and make it all work -- physically work, have the berm, the landscaping -- I don't know that there is enough room there. Borup: There isn't and that's what they said, when the 25-foot buffer would go in, they would lose a lot of that storage space. Reinhart: And, then, originally there shows an exit right on that western boundary between our house and this property, an access to Overland Road. Does that go away? The Idaho Power road. Rohm: Right here. Reinhart: Right there. So, the access between the two properties would go away, correct? Rohm: Yes. Borup: Well, then, how does that apply to getting access to that area? Newton-Huckabay: It wasn't just access to the poles? Borup: To the poles. Yeah. And that's what -- Rohm: Yeah, it wouldn't be a roadway, but it -- you know, they can just drive up and over the berm. Their vehicles can get about anywhere. It's pretty amazing. Reinhart: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 46 of 67 Zaremba: If I'm interpreting this and remembering previous discussions, there is a gate here for Idaho Power to access their poles. There would be a gate here if this remains at all usable for the storage area and this would close. Reinhart: Okay. Okay. That's all. Zaremba: We can get the applicant to say whether I'm right or not. Borup: We will clarify that, what ACHD finally said. I don't know if that was answered what they said last night. Wasn't that last night? Okay. Zaremba: I believe the answer was they said that's supposed to be abandoned. Borup: Okay. And, then, maybe -- could you elaborate what type of buffering you would like to see there? Reinhart: Well, our concern when we saw the -- Borup: I mean the city has already said 25 feet. Reinhart: Right. Borup: And so is a berm with a fence on your preference or what would you like to see? Reinhart: Right now next to this is a horse pasture and, then, as it goes down further and that's where we keep all the horses. From our property we would be able to see it. I don't know what kind of a wall we are looking at. I don't know. Borup: Well, it -- Reinhart: We would be able to see -- if they had recreational vehicles, we would be able to see all that and one suggestion was wrought iron. I don't know. And we are certainly willing to work with the developer. I just -- yeah. I don't know. Rohm: If I remember correctly, your biggest concern was the ingress-egress office and it wasn't specific to the berm or whatever their vegetation was, it was just that you didn't want to have the traffic back and forth. Reinhart: Correct. Rohm: Fair enough. Reinhart: And with the contractor's yard from last year, that was one of the big issues was -- Rohm: Right. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 47 of 67 Reinhart: -- the traffic and so -- Rohm: So, the 25-foot berm I don't believe is a significant issue -- Reinhart: No. Rohm: -- to you folks. Right. Okay. Reinhart: The details of it. Rohm: Yeah. The details of it. Okay. Thank you, Borup: But you like the idea of the 25-foot buffer, I assume? Reinhart: Absolutely. Borup: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hodgekiss: My name is Shane Hodgekiss, I'm with DBSI or Western Electronics. There are -- right now there is 75 feet between their property line and the building. Is that right? Where the parking was going to go. You're losing 25 of that to the berm, so you're going to have 50 feet of space just landscaping, then, between -- it would be a total of 75 feet of landscaping. Borup: Well, sir, you need to address the Commission. Hodgekiss: Oh. Okay. Borup: You can talk with the applicant later if you'd like. Hodgekiss: All right. What -- I guess the concern that we would have is what they are going to do with the rest of the space between the berm and the 50 feet, as she was saying, you know, the 50 feet isn't going to give them adequate space to park RVs or anything in there and be -- Borup: Not a very large one. Hodgekiss: I'm concerned about what they are going to do with the rest of it. That's the only thing that I can see that we could have a problem with. Other than the fact that -- Borup: Would that still be a concern if there is no access at this point? Hodgekiss: Well, just that they are maintaining a nice appearance to the lot. There is a lot -- an RV storage lot off of Franklin in Meridian that has the RV parking and stuff that Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 48 of 67 really doesn't look very -- I can't think of the address now. It's just off of Linder, I believe, and it's kind of ugly in there, too. Newton-Huckabay: That's just RVs parked in a field, basically. Hodgekiss: Well, but it's -- isn't it next to a subdivision that's -- it's designated for RV parking and it looks like some body's renting space out or that's the way it used to look at least. It's been awhile since I have been by there, but that would be our only concern, I think. Rohm: So, your concern is that it's maintained -- the 50 feet from the 25-foot berm to the development and I think that the developer can respond to that. Hodgekiss: Right. Borup: Yeah. And maybe they could clarify on the landscaping, but it looks like if this access is abandoned and this whole landscaping strip would continue on through that and you'd have that whole landscaping buffer clear along Overland. Hodgekiss: Absolutely. Or maybe even move their building further to the west closer to the landscaping and utilize the rest of the space in the -- Borup: Well, I think they would probably like to do that, but -- well, no, they still got that Idaho Power easement there and I'm assuming they could not put the building over that easement. Hodgekiss: I see. So-- Borup: But I'm sure they would rather do that. Hodgekiss; Yeah. I guess -- and, then, the other concern would be that we have got more acreage down between our building and the freeway. The sewer line when -- are they expecting to continue that sewer line through? Borup: Your question is when would the sewer line -- Hodgekiss: Right. Borup: -- be through? Bruce, I don't know if there is an answer to that yet, is there? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, no, there is not. The city in its current budget has allocated funds to start the project. We are going to be building trunk line down Black Cat Road and it will be on the north side of the interstate as part of our project, but -- and that will be right down by Ten Mile Road. So, it's going to have to come quite a ways, you know, still. Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 49 of 67 Hodgekiss: Okay. Well, with the expansion that we have done, we have increased our usage on the sewer just in the last two months. We have more than doubled our input to it, so I think there would be a little concern there, too, as to how much that would handle with the future development of -- Borup: Well -- and that's why they are saying that it appears that that trunk line would have to go in before they would allow that future development. Hodgekiss: Right. Borup: But the city would probably love some developer to come along and put that trunk line in. Hodgekiss: I'm sure. Okay. Well, that's alii have to say. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Harwell: My name is Garrett Harwell, I live at 730 West Davenport in Bear Creek, I just had one quick concern to address. We are basically looking -- every time I look out my back door this is what I'm going to be seeing, so -- Rohm: You want to grab this mike. Harwell: Okay. I live basically right here, so I'm going to be looking at that and to my understanding it's basically what I'm seeing right here in the last picture that we had up -- yeah. This is looking like one solid row of buildings to me, which is -- I think we said we wanted to avoid. I was just looking for a little clarification on that. Borup: What you would be seeing, sir, is this row here and this row, if I'm seeing this right. This is elevation on Stoddard. This is the gate that goes into the property. I believe this gate is right here. Harwell: Yes, I believe so. Borup: And, then, this bottom row is the other that you would be seeing. And that is the area beyond their landscaping buffer. That's the buildings right along here and, then, you have got the trees and the landscaping between the road and those buildings. Harwell: Okay. Will there be any hill or berm or fencing or what will there be specifically in there to buffer the view from the side? Newton-Huckabay: I think you're looking at the row of -- you know, the decorative barns. That's the view is it will kind of look like a series of barns, rather than like the ones against the freeway, a series of cinder block buildings. Harwell: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15,2004 Page 50 of 67 Borup: Sir, did you understand what -- this is the view as you first come along Stoddard. You would be seeing these buildings. Well, here we go. It's up there. So, this is the main gate into the project. Harwell: Uh-huh. Yeah, I follow that. Zaremba: To make the connection, that main gate is probably this area right here. You probably live down around here and I agree with you that the question to me would be on this drawing these appear to be individual buildings, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven individual buildings with probably a fence in between. On the other drawing that appeared to be a continuous building with just indents. Harwell: Correct. I think that was -- Zaremba: I think we will have the applicant clarify that. Borup: Okay. Yeah. I assumed it was a continuous building with taller sections, so -- Zaremba: Well, the visual variety is there. I think we just clarify how it's achieved. Harwell: All right. Thank you. Borup: And what do you think of this compared to most of the mini storage projects you have seen? Harwell: Honestly, I have never seen a storage facility that I have enjoyed looking at, you know, so I'm hoping that this one can prove me wrong if it does go in. That's kind of the bottom line. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Okay. Becky, any final comments? McKay: Becky McKay, I guess just to clarify what ACHD staff placed in our staff report concerning the westerly entrance. They had told us their preference was to abandon that Idaho Power access here. Since that's not utilized by our facility, if Idaho Power was insistent that it remain, it would have to align with Western Electronics and in doing a site evaluation, there is no way it could align with Western Electronics, because of pole contact, one of those poles. So, therefore, the only option is abandon. Borup: So that's your intention? McKay: I believe that's the only -- the only viable thing to do and,obviously, you know, it's the preference of the Reinharts that that go away. Then, that would allow us to continue the perimeter landscaping along Overland to the westem boundary, which, then, would make Mr. Hodgekiss happy. Fencing along here, if we were to go with a Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 51 of 67 wrought iron fencing, that doesn't -- I mean you can see through that. If they want something that's more sight obscuring, but not wood, we thought like a -- you know, a vinyl-type fencing would be nice, it's low maintenance. I guess, you know, I'd want to chat with Reinharts after the hearing tonight and see if that would be acceptable to them. As far as the issue on the 25-foot buffer, what would happen with the remaining 50 feet, Idaho Power has indicated that they want that left gravel, so they can drive in with big trucks in the event they need to access the transmission poles or lines, which are here and the arms of those poles all hang to the east, so we do have -- you know, we could not encroach into the easement with the building. So, we have got to leave that open for them to have some type of an access, hard surface to get into the poles and that landscaping would go here. If the landscaping is continued along here, which it would be if this were eliminated, then, you wouldn't visually be seeing -- you know, looking in there, because it would be buffered and it is the intent of the applicant to do some berming. The berming that I would say -- the berm would take place right in here. You wouldn't go with a real tall berm here, because you need visibility for the site, the entrance, the office, et cetera. Here with the berming you're going to bring elevations of the buildings even -- make them look even squattier by pushing your landscaping up. As far as the sewer service, if we were allowed to pump into that manhole you'd have probably one, two toilets tops, you know, for a little above apartment and, then, the office down below, maybe three. As Bruce can tell you, that would be absolutely insignificant in the whole scheme of things, as far as what's going into that manhole. This area, you know, it will blossom big time when that Black Trunk comes across the freeway. At this time, you know, the opportunities for development are limited to what's out there now as far as public facilities. Mr. Harlow talked about living in Bear Creek. I did the Bear Creek development, I was a planner on that, worked with the city on the city park and so forth, so I'm very familiar with that subdivision. The way this is designed, because this property is sloping south, these buildings are stepping down, so what you're going to see is you're going to see it oscillating and stepping down. If you didn't step those buildings down, because that elevation is dropping pretty fast, if you didn't step it down you'd end up with monstrously tall buildings by the time you got to the end. So, the natural topography of the property is helping us bring these buildings and step them down so your rooflines are dropping as you go south. The exterior here and, then, the exterior to the west -- I think it was asked by Mrs. Reinhart what would she be looking at on the backside of that building. Mr. Frizzell has indicated that they will -- they will continue with the little barn-type concept, like the little windows, barn doors, that would have an esthetically pleasing exterior, just like we are going to have here, so if Mrs. Reinhart shouldn't think that's just going to be a blank wall she's going to be looking at. I think that's it. I mean I have covered most everything. Does the Commission have any other questions? Borup: I think just a clarification of that eastern building, if it's a continuous or -- McKay: Yes. That building is a continuous building, but it is dropping -- you see it's coming down and they are changing the elevation on the building. Borup: Right. Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 52 of 67 McKay: The roofline -- if you can see here -- see what they are doing, they are stepping it down and, then, the roofline is changing. It gives the illusion that it is -- that it isn't one continuous building and that was the whole idea, that we not create one solid wall like you find in most mini storage facilities. Borup: Right. And, then, these sections here would just be taller -- taller storage buildings and this step down here would probably be -- McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: -- a normal height building. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: That's the way I understood it. Zaremba: I believe I can see it that way now. Borup: There is the power line right there. Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Well, if there is no other -- anybody else to speak to it, I move that we close these three hearings. Zaremba: Two. Rohm: Two hearings. Excuse me. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Discussion? Zaremba: I think it's an excellent project. It's much improved over the previous iteration. There were a number of people that came and spoke to us against the previous project. The way it would appear, this looks to me to have answered all of the visual problems. I think it will be -- Borup: I agree. I have never seen this much design innovation in a mini storage before. Zaremba: Yeah. I think that's great. Maybe it will start a new trend. That being said, I don't think there is really any question about the annexation and zoning. We do need to Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 53 of 67 talk through the CUP and make sure we have all of those issues corrected in some of the things that we might state differently. Once I find where that starts. Borup: I think the only one there was any question on, maybe, was item 12. Moe: Item 12 I think is the -- 12 you just wanted to eliminate. Borup: And, Craig, you said you wanted to eliminate that? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the site-specific conditions start on page 14 of the staff report. I'm sure you probably found them by now, but condition three was one that staff had asked to be slightly modified. The fifth bullet there, talks about that 25~foot wide landscape buffer along the west property line. If you want to talk about coordinating materials with Reinharts -- also what I would like to have added into that bullet is that any trees placed within that 25 feet -- or within the buffer shall be no higher than 25 feet at mature height. I think we should add that to that condition. Number four, the applicant, if you want to just remove that and have a new condition about how you felt about the amenities, I guess that needs to be addressed in the recommendation to the City Council, so modified, however you so choose. Zaremba: If we can just say the amenities as presented at the Commission hearing will be required. Hood: That's fine. That sounds adequate. Number seven was one that the applicant brought up, but, again, I don't think that one necessarily needs to be amended. Number ten; Bruce has some language that he may be able to recommend to you. Freckleton: Thanks, Craig. I would just maybe suggest striking the word shall in the first sentence and inserting may. And, then, before septic system, put in the word temporary in that same sentence. And, then, right after where it says office apartment uses, scratch the words in phase one. So, the sentence would read in whole: The applicant may be allowed to utilize a temporary septic system for the office apartment uses only. Period. Zaremba: Works for me. And, then, we are deleting 12? Rohm: Craig? Borup: Yeah. I think is what he said earlier. Hood: And, then, the last one was, yeah, condition 12 as noted. And I believe that's -- those are the changes brought up in the staff report and by the applicant in our response letter. Zaremba: Do we want to reference the hours of operation that were mentioned by the applicant? Should we add that? Bullet 22 or something -- I mean paragraph 22? Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15,2004 Page 54 of 67 Borup: What were the hours again? Newton-Huckabay: 7:00 to 10:00. I think. Zaremba: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. In that case, unless somebody has anything to add, I believe I'm ready to give it a try. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-013, request for annexation and zoning of 13.5 acres from RUT to CoG zones for Stow-It Storage facility by Lyons Development, LLC, southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-017, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a storage facility, with a caretaker residents and future office retail use in a proposed CoG zone for Stow-It storage facility by Lyons Development, LLC, southwest corner of Stoddard Road and West Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004, with the following changes: One minor typo on page two. In one, two, three, four, five -- about the fifth paragraph down it says the subject applications, parenthesis, PP and CUP -- the parenthesis should be changed to AZ and CUP,. Minor typo. Then, beginning on page 14 with site specific comments, under paragraph three, the fifth bullet down, it says provide a minimum 25-foot landscape buffer along the west property line. Materials used in the buffer shall be in accordance with MCC 12-13-12-3 and these materials will be coordinated with the property owners to the west, with the final result being that no trees shall be added in the area of the power lines that have a mature height greater than 25 feet. Paragraph four, still on page .14, will be changed to read: Two amenities as presented by the applicant at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing will be required. On page 15, paragraph ten, the first sentence will be modified to read: The applicant may, change the word shall to may, be allowed to utilized a temporary -- add the word temporary septic system for the office apartment use, delete the words in phase one, so that it reads: For the office apartment use only. Period. The rest of the paragraph stays the same. Page 16, paragraph 12 can be deleted and we will add a paragraph 22 that says the hours of operation of the storage facility shall be contained between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on all days. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 55 of 67 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 04-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision consisting of 16 multi-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders - east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 04-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a reduction to 10 feet for the rear setback, minimum 5-foot side setback, minimum 20-foot front setback and no minimum frontage requirement for lots within the proposed development for Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders - east of North Linder Road on south side of East Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. Thank you. The next items are for the Roundtree Subdivision. Public Hearing PP 04-018, the request for preliminary plat approval for a re-subdivision of Lot 2, Tramore Subdivision, consisting of 16 multi-family residential building lots and three common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for the proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Big View Builders. And, then, Public Hearing CUP 04-018, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduction of ten feet to the rear setbacks, minimum five foot setbacks and 20-foot setbacks. I'd like to open these two public hearings and, legal counsel; did you have a comment you wanted to make first? Gabbert: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. I just wanted to disclose for the record that the law firm of White Peterson has represented Big View Builders on some of the corporate work. We have not been directly involved in this project as we -- lead counsel Phil Peterson had abstained from any work on this project directly, so we do not perceive that there would be any conflict of interest, and we would continue to advise the Commission on this application. I just wanted to disclose that for the record and let everyone know that that potential interest exists. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. So, then, we'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This site is also probably pretty familiar to the Commission. It was before this board about four months ago, 'believe. Was another one that the City Council denied. I'll talk about that in just a minute. It is located on the south side of Pine Avenue, it is approximately 5.7 acres in size and it's about 1,000 feet east of Linder Road. It's designated as high density residential on the Comp Plan future land use map and it's currently zoned L-O. To the north of this, which isn't reflected very well on this aerial, are the recently constructed Tramore senior apartments and on the other side of Pine Avenue north, as you can see, is a residential development, a couple of them, actually, and they are zoned R-4. To the south of this site is the Union Pacific Railroad. We have a large corridor there and that's currently vacant on the other side of that -- of the railroad tracks. To the east is a 7.5-acre parcel, which also should