Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 7, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 24 of 70 Borup: Okay. Canning: Chairman Borup, before you move on to the next item, I wanted to let you know that tonight is Wendy's last Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. She is going to take a position as a senior planner with the city of Caldwell. Newton-Huckabay: Good luck, Wendy. Zaremba: Congratulations. But we will miss you. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 04-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.71 acres from RUT to C"G zone for Mountain West Bank by Erstad Thornton Architects -northeast corner of Venture Street and East Fairview Avenue: Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-035 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a bank with drive up service lanes in a proposed C-G zone for Mountain West Bank by Erstad Thornton Architects - northeast corner of Venture Street and East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. Next item, Public Hearing AZ 04-026, request for annexation and zoning of 1.71 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Mountain West Bank and CUP 04-035, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-up service lane for the same project. Like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Erstad Thornton Architects has requested the annexation and zoning and a Conditional Use Permit approval for a new 4,550 square foot full service commercial bank with three drive-thru teller lanes on 1.71 acres in a proposed C-G zone. The proposed bank sits on an un- platted parcel. It's approximately two-thirds of the -- within two-thirds of the black outlined parcel there that Bruce is pointing to. It's located on the northeast corner of Fairview and Venture, approximately a third of a mile west of Cloverdale Road. To the north of the subject site is Venture Subdivision. That subdivision is in the county, currently zoned RUT. To the south is a cemetery zoned RUT also in Ada County. To the east is the Peddles and Stems floral shop and zoned C-2 in Ada County. I just would like to point out the -- just on the other side of that parcel -- or that parcel that is adjacent to the subject parcel just to the east has recently been released by the City of Meridian to the city of Boise. It has not been officially moved, but earlier this year, excuse me, that property owner -- it's about two acres -- owns the adjacent 16 acres and requested that his whole 18 acres be within one jurisdiction, so, the city has released that. Therefore, the eastern property of this subject site will be the city limits if it is annexed and zoned as requested tonight. To the west of this site is agricultural land. It is currently zoned R-6 in Ada County. The situation -- just kind of a side bar. The situation is similar to the last development application you saw a commercial zone adjacent to residential and I'm blushing a little bit, because I told the applicant in the hall just before this hearing that there aren't a lot of properties within the city where you have Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 25 of 70 commercial adjacent to residential and that isn't the case for a lot of the city, it just so happens we have back to back commercial zones adjacent to residential, but I did just want to point out that that is a similarity with the last one and based on some of the testimony that was provided before, it is going to be applicable, not quite the same situation, there are some other factors that do make this site a little bit different than the last one. One being the site plan. As you can see before you, there is the proposed bank building on the western portion of the site. What the applicant has proposed has been modified a little bit through the Ada County Highway District. If you recall in the staff report at the time it went to print I did not have anything from the ACHD commission. Lori Denton-Hartog from the highway district did contact me today, I have received the staff report reflecting the action of the ACHD commission last night and what they have approved is a shared access point with Mr. Thueson, who is the property I was just talking about that is in Boise or will be within Boise city limits along this eastern property line. He currently has a driveway on Fairview Avenue that's just off of the eastern property line of this subject site. Just to further comment, I guess, on the highway district, since I'm on that point, they did have a special recommendation on the site plan. You probably can't see it on this overhead. They are showing a future split of this site. They were concerned with something that's usually done at a staff level, a lot split, something like that. Usually, the highway district is not forwarded that application, it is done just at staff level, and the property owner has two lots, so they were concerned that if, in fact, this property was split here, this parcel would be land locked if no access was granted, and their hands would be tied and have to grant, basically, a driveway to Fairview. So, one of their special recommendations to the city is that cross-access be provided here and if there is a driveway here, that this parcel can get out to Venture Avenue as well. So, I just wanted to bring that to your attention as well. That is covered in the staff report somewhat within the annexation and zoning portion on page nine. It's condition number five. It's somewhat a general condition, but it says the access points approved with this Conditional Use Permit are the only access points approved for this site and this site is the entire site as shown with approximately an third of it being undeveloped at this time. So, I believe that's covered. We do not need to require cross-access at this time. If a lot split does happened, we will require that the access points be shared amongst the two parcels, if, in fact, they are divided or even further subdivided, for that matter, a third lot or more. Back to the proposed site plan. The three drive-thru lanes are located on the west side. They do have two additional access points to Venture Street. Again, this one to Fairview Avenue has not been approved and should be located in this approximate location here. The landscape plan you see before you, did want to give kudos to the applicant, pretty dense landscaping along the north property line. Our Meridian city code does require a 25-foot buffer between commercial projects and residential projects. They have provided the full 25 feet with, again, pretty dense landscaping at full maturity. The landscaping along Fairview Avenue -- Fairview is an entryway corridor. Again, the city limits begin in this location, we do require a 35-foot wide landscape buffer and the applicant has provided that, with one tree every 35 and they have even got some additional landscaping in here. Even for the developed portion they are showing our minimum requirements, that width, and one tree per 35 feet of lineal frontage is being provided, so it is a tree per 35 feet along the eastern property line. I'll just go to the other side, I guess, of the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 26 of 70 development, the ten foot wide buffer along Venture has been provided as well. So, very happy with the proposed landscape plan. I just wanted to give you a little bit of the history on this site. It is in the staff report -- I hope you all had a chance to read that. Just quickly, there is the elevations for the building. In 2002 this property was denied annexation, mainly, in part, because that applicant did not have a site plan, didn't know what businesses were going to go in here, didn't know where access points were going to be. This was a major point of contention for neighbors and the City Council, blindly approving a commercial development. Therefore, they did deny the application. So, just a little bit of history there. I did want to make comments on the response letter from the applicant. I don't know if you all received that. I just received it later this afternoon, so I don't know if you all did get a copy of that or not. I'm going to touch on the items that the applicant has brought up and if you want to ask me questions later on about that and I'll let the applicant talk about them, too, but I'll touch on -- we already touched on the first one, I guess, the access point to Fairview. Number two that is addressed at a later time with the building permit. I have yet to see a comment, really, on addressing. I told the applicant, you know, out in the hallway before the meeting, if your building is facing Fairview, it makes sense for emergency services and everyone to have it addressed off of Fairview, since that's the direction your business is facing. I don't think that should be a problem. Number three, this does - again, I don't want to reiterate what just happened, but the staff recommended for this development limiting the business hours to hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. That was just kind of a -- off the top of my head something I thought would be reasonable for a bank type use and the adjacent residential uses. I imagine there is some people in the audience here that would like to testify tonight to that effect, too, but if you do elect to modify those hours slightly or even significantly, that condition is number five on page nine. It's the first bullet. And just to kind of tie that one in to the previous meeting, again, in 2002, that's really why staff came up with this. I did review those minutes, the findings for denial, and that, again, was -- the uses not being known at that time and the hours of operation were something that were testified on at that time. The building elevations -- and I will go back to those real quick. It's number five in the letter from the applicant. They need to substantially comply. If we are adding additional stories, additional buildings, things of that nature, any elevations, to tell you the truth, will substantially comply. Generally speaking, I -- we do not want to see this application again for a bank if it's just a bank and it looks like a bank, we don't want to waste anyone's time. So, just to be clear, that's how that condition is worded we don't -- again, we don't want to see a CUP if we don't have to. The parking stall sizes real quick. The parking is okay as shown, just a condition that it does need to be constructed that way. And number seven has to do with landscaping and, again, the landscaping looks great. So, I don't think we are asking -- staff isn't asking for any changes. It looks fine. Number eight I did talk with Bruce just for a second before the meeting, Bruce Freckleton in Public Work Department, and he believes that can be addressed by the City Council, rather than this board, having to do with the latecomers agreement and he didn't think that that would be a problem, it's just that the City Council should probably be the one that adopts that condition. One final note. I did receive a letter from the Moores with some concerns. I did want to make sure that that made it into the record as well. Their concerns were regarding traffic, lighting, and request for an eight-foot wall along the north property line. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7.2004 Page 27 of 70 So, I'll let you review that. If you don't have it, please, let me know and I can make copies for you as well. I did want to go on record with that. Staff is recommending approval of the application and I will stand for any questions you may have. Newton-Huckabay: Is this the one with the picture? Hood: That appears to be the one, yeah. Zaremba: We do have the letter from the Moores. Borup: Questions for Mr. Hood from anyone? Rohm: Could you go back to the site plan, please? Is this where they want the access into the property on the east? Is that -- Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yeah, it's correct. There is an existing driveway just off site that goes into -- it comes back and feeds a parking lot -- I think it's on the aerial, maybe. No, you can't really see it. There is a parking lot on this site that kind of comes back and feeds that. It's just off the property line, so it would be a shared access. That portion of the driveway I can imagine will stay and they will just basically add some pavement width to that, another five, six, seven, ten feet, whatever, to make that existing drive a little bit wider and share that with the property owner. Rohm: And so would we still have this one as well? Hood: That one has not been approved by ACHD. It does not align. There is an existing driveway with the cemetery on the other side of Fairview Avenue. It does not meet their policy for offsets and the widening of this driveway would meet their policy and that would align, but it's not further -- far enough away from either the street or the existing driveway on the other side, so -- no, that one does not exist. Borup: And could you explain item number one on the comments? I realize maybe you don't have it. They said that it was approved last night at ACHD. Hood: No. I'm sorry. And the applicant was there, I believe, so he can further clarify, but my understanding from the staff report - and I do have that -- is that this access was not approved, but what ACHD did approve, their commission did approve, was the shared access to Fairview. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: The eastern property line. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 28 of 70 Rohm: And that access does not have to necessarily be developed at the same time that the bank is constructed. Hood: That's correct. They could construct that access now and have that driveway come in and the bank could utilize that access. Is that your question? Rohm: Well, what my point is is if the bank is using this portion of the lot and this is yet to be determined, then, there is not a need for that access at this point in time. It doesn't appear to me that anybody would use it, because this is all vacant, there is nothing there, so why develop it. Borup: But the applicant would like to use that access. Zaremba: Well -- and the alternative is that this needs to be paved -" some assumptions. need to be made about where that building is going to go, so that this could be paved across - Rohm: I guess that was ultimately the point is if, in fact, you have an access on that east line, then, there needs to be some way to get from that access over to the bank development. Borup: I think maybe they could clarify that a little bit, the applicant could. Any other questions? Zaremba: Yeah. I think you mentioned it, but clarify again for me. Since this is currently one lot, they would have to do something like come back for a lot split or a replat in order to get a second building on it; is that correct? Hood: Yeah. Up until about three months ago, Commissioners, we didn't have the ability to do a one-time division, if you will, a lot split on any parcels. We now, for commercially zoned properties, do allow a one-time division with certain provisions with those. I mean we basically want to see subdivision improvements made to those once - - even if they are doing just a one-time division, but they do not have to submit a preliminary plat. Excuse me. Zaremba: I'm sorry. And that's approved by the planning director without coming before the Commission and the Council? Hood: That's correct. If it's -- if it is -- has not been platted before, it would need to come before the City Council with a miscellaneous application to apply for a lot line adjustment to do a one-time division, but both of those applications, the miscellaneous application and the lot line adjustment, ACHD typically does not comment on, because they aren't generating any trips and so that was -- this was the highway district's opportunity to comment on this site, the current CUP and annexation and zoning, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 29 of 70 Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else any questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Andy Erstad, 848 Fulton Street in Boise. 83702. I wanted to thank staff for working with us on this. It's been kind of an interesting scenario as we were at ACHD last night, a little bit terrifying, the room was packed solid with people for the fourth item. We were the third item. By the time we finished I think everyone in the fourth item was ready to have at us, but we are in agreement with all of staff's recommendations, with the exception that we really would like to have an opportunity to discuss the two points in the staff recommendation and those are the time limitations and, then, the requirement that any further buildings come before this Commission in a CUP application and I'll address the CUP application right of the bat. We are rezoning this land and we feel that the -- any of the uses allowed within the G-C zone -- or I always mix that up -- CoG zone that would be allowed, should be allowed, in essence, and that if there is a special requirement, Le., a drive-up window or whatnot, then, you will have an opportunity to see it, but we don't really see that the land use is going to generate something that is -- that would create a substantial hardship on the adjacent neighbors. So, we just feel that that is something that we would like to talk about, see if there is a way we could move around that one. And, then, the time limitation, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., in the -- in the purest of theory, I guess, if, in this case, the bank is running something that requires staff people to be there until 10:00 at night, they are, in theory, in violation and could stand to lose their Conditional Use Permit, so -- Borup: Maybe could -- I don't want to -- I don't mean to interrupt, but maybe some clarification on that. And I guess maybe it's a definition of hours of operation. If it's not open -- if it's a public building and it does business with the public and if it's not open to the public, is the business in operation? Hood: We have not in the past, Members of the Commission, Andy -- the hours of operation are when it's open for business. If there are employees there doing their job or working after hours, that's not -- you wouldn't be in violation of those hours of operation. It's when the doors would be open for business. Borup: And that was my understanding. Otherwise, the janitor staff couldn't even come and -- Erstad: Sure. Zaremba: Except in the discussion with the previous applicant we were saying that deliveries and stuff would not -- they are considered business operations to me and would have to fall within the hours. Was I in error? Newton-Huckabay: I think that's a little different. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 30 of 70 Borup: So, I mean I don't think the hours of operation would affect employees staying after work or janitorial staff or anything like that. Are you talking about the bank or a future building? Erstad: Well, I'm talking, actually, about the bank on the future building. Borup: I mean that's one where if the concern was for the future building more so than the bank. That gives a whole new definition of banker hours here, 7:00 to 7:00 doesn't - Erstad: Those are 9:00 to 4:00, so -- the other reason that we would like it -- we would like it either eliminated or greatly expanded on is that just as a scenario, if the bank were to decide to move down the street and Kinko's wanted to come into this place, Kinko's is really a relatively innocuous occupant, it's allowed within the zone, and its hours are 24 -- 2417, but it's not really generating a lot of noise that would impact the neighborhood. So, I think we are looking at it from a little bit longer position, if you will, or a little bit broader position and that's why we'd ask that the hours of operation be eliminated. So, those were the two points, really, the request -- or the requirement that subsequent structure on the undeveloped parcel right now comes through with a conditional use regardless, we just think that that's sort of a -- I mean it's almost a little -- a waste of time, if you will, for staff and for the Commission to sit there and review something that's allowed in that use. So, I stand for questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah, I was just going to suggest that the Commission, if you want to put hours of operation and there is a concern about deliveries, as Commissioner Zaremba has indicated, that you just simply could clarify that in your motion, so that there is no question that you're talking whether -- in this particular business you're not really as concerned with deliveries, maybe, but since there is the potential for other businesses here, that might help the staff and help the Council see the direction that you wanted it to go. Borup: I'd comment on your -- on the -- allowing anything in a CoG zone, that --I mean that does -- granted, the site is not going to maybe accommodate -- it's not going to accommodate a large shopping center or something like that, but a service station or a car wash is one of the allowed uses -- permitted uses in a CoG zone. That may be appropriate for some input from neighbors and this Commission, but, you know, maybe a couple others in that -- I mean that's a pretty intensive use. and maybe not what's intended, but that's -- I think that's one of the reasons for the statement from the staff for that. Now, the other thing that has happened in others, maybe some clarification from Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 31 of 70 staff, there has been a list of permitted uses -- I mean going down that list of permitted uses and eliminating some of those that would not be approved without a conditional use and everything else that was not eliminated would, I assume, be approved. That may be another option. Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think we would be agreeable to looking at it from that perspective. I think one of the things we are trying to do is eliminate the -- I don't want to use the superfluous need for an extra set of meetings and applications, if it's protected -- if the neighborhood is protected, we have got 25 feet of buffer that's heavily landscaped and we are giving up a lot of site to protect the neighborhood and we are also, actually -- I think we are actually creating a greater buffer by putting a building in between the neighborhood and Fairview Avenue and, you're right, there are some uses that might be a little bit more intense than others, but the .62 acres that's remaining is a tight piece of property. We now have a cross-access easement on there that's going to take out quite a bit of -- again, quite a bit of land mass just for the roadway and -- so you keep whittling this parcel down and I think it's really going to -- ultimately, it's going to greatly limit a lot of the uses that could go on there that the Commission might find troublesome adjacent to the neighborhood. Rohm: Speaking of access, would you like to speak to how you propose to get from here over to here? Erstad: We have got -- we have got a dozen D-8 bulldozers ready and standing by and they are just going to push a big old hole right through there. As staff indicated, ACHD last night nixed this entrance despite our valiant and legitimate argument. A little editorializing. But the thought -- and since we don't have a -- since we don't have a specific development agreement on there yet, somehow we are going to have to connect over and tie into this circulation system and at this point, to be quite honest, we are still sort of kind of weighing a number of options. What we do know is that the shared access would take us 15 feet off of our property line and bring us into the site. Now, if it brings us all the way in and down to the north side of it, that's one of the options. Part of it also depends on what -- how that adjacent landowner would feel about that shared access going that far into -- into the shared parcels. In other words, we haven't had a dialogue with the adjacent property, but we do know it's a 15-foot side to side off of that center property line and, then, it comes in. I can't give you a better answer than that. I apologize. Rohm: Well, I'd like a better answer. Erstad: Well, we know for one thing that we have -- we have a setback that exists with this line right here, so from this point south to the road is all going to be setback landscaping. Rohm: So, it's appropriate to assume, then, your access east to west will be north of what your setback would be, so one would presume that to get over to this development you would - your pavement would be along that line, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 32 of 70 Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think you're absolutely right. The term assume or presume is always one of those dangerous things, because until we know what's going to happen in this area, I'm nervous that we are locking ourselves into a specific solution when ACHD has allowed us these two access points immediately and the shared access point here, it may be that we don't develop that shared access point until further down the road. Rohm: Well, see, that was my point early on before your presentation. Erstad: Mr. Chair, if I can further discuss that point. At this -- at this current situation, this shared access is really -- would only benefit access onto this property. It doesn't increase access or increase car parks or traffic flow, because the current property right now is a -- what I would almost call a back access to a back parking lot on this -- on this property. It's not -- it's not a -- and I'm not speaking from knowledge at this point, I'm -- it's conjecture that that point and that parking lot back there, really, is more of a staff parking for the flower shop. So, we would have to balance whether or not the benefit and -- the cost and the benefit to this parcel that's in front of you right now warrants an immediate development of that. Rohm: Well, it doesn't appear to me that it's necessary for the development of that access to move forward with the bank and that was my point from the get go, is that access on the east line doesn't have to be constructed until you know what that -- the balance of the property use will be. Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think -- I understand your logic and where you're going with it. The reality is that we sat until about 8:30 at ACHD last night discussing the offsets and all of the access points and ultimately ACHD said here is what we will grant you. We would -- we would like the flexibility that's been written into sort of staff's report and ACHD that we could develop that, if our -- if our bank client would like to have that access point right there at this immediate point and there has not been enough time for us to resolve that issue. Rohm: I don't see any problem with that either. Erstad: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would like to make a comment about traffic pattern. Whether or not this access to the east happens immediately or at least -- I mean I would want to be assured that it's going to happen at some point and I guess I'm comfortable saying it doesn't have to necessarily be in place the day the bank goes in, but need know that it's going to happen. The other thing that I look at is traffic flow over in this area. My assumption would be that the drive-thru lanes are lined up so the traffic would come in this driveway and stack this way and, then, exit here. My difficulty with that is that all of the exiting Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7.2004 Page 33 of 70 traffic, then, has to cross the incoming traffic and if residents of the subdivision have two or three cars here, this is a very short throat to get out here and my suggestion is to reverse that idea, make this the in, move the islands to the other end of the building, so that traffic flows in through and out and doesn't ever have to cross itself. This also gives it a longer length to line up. Is there a possibility of doing that? Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we've actually looked at that and part of what's driving it is the client and the bank and their internal flow of systems and so as you -- as you look at the layout of the internal portions, that's one of the things that they have requested is that you actually come from behind and move towards Fairview. That was actually -- I appreciate your comment, by the way, because that was one of our discussion points with ACHD and this is over 300 feet long putting the access point for two parcels in the middle and the conflict we had was that the cemetery was the offsetting drive, but we felt that it provided a much better flow for traffic all around, because it reduced flow onto Venture Way as well. But that didn't happen. And, again, I can't tell you whether or not the access point off Fairview is an immediate or shortly after the structure gets built, but I think ACHD has insured that that cross-access easement is there, because they recognize the fact that that ground will be split and they didn't want to have that parcel land locked. So, it will have to happen. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Okay. Erstad: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair, before you begin public testimony, I just -- a couple of points of clarification and the most recent one that Commissioner Zaremba brought up with cross-access. We don't want to get into a situation where we require this applicant to construct a driveway that requires third-party's approval. Encouraging those types of things are great, but if we require him to knock on the neighbor's door and drive across his property, the city could get into trouble. So, encouraging those access points -- and that's what the highway district just says, hey, we will allow you this access point, they are not requiring to construct that with this application. If that guy says he wants ten million dollars for it, they're stuck. So, just as a point of clarification, if you want to modify that condition, that's fine, but we should probably stay away from requiring them to construct off-site improvements, Le., a driveway, even it is partially on their property. So, I just wanted to bring that up. And just -- I've kind of glazed over it in the initial staff report, but the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit -- and we are working on getting you a list of potential uses that could be prohibited on this site, rather than seeing a CUP, because it is somewhat a waste of staff's time in certain instances when you have, you know, 20 lots and they all have to come back in for detailed CUP approval, again, based on previous history of this site, it's a similar situation, they have an undeveloped portion, you don't know what's going in, the City Council denied that exact same thing just two years ago. So, that's kind of where I was coming from when I said, you know, the neighbors want to see what's coming in here, even if it's an allowed use, we may not be looking at the use so much, but, you know, how does the building look, you know, where is the parking on it, those types of things that contribute to the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 34 of 70 use. So, that's just kind of some of the background and why that CUP requirement has been put into the staff report. Again, we are working on getting you, you know, 20 or 25 uses that will be just straight out allowed uses -- okay, excuse me. Allowed uses not requiring a Conditional Use Permit and, then, everything else would be per the zoning ordinance, so if they wanted to do something not this list, it would require Conditional Use Permit approval, but these are the things they could do without having to pull a CUP in the future. Zaremba: I would just express the opinion that I think the two subjects that you brought up, your first subject supports the second subject. If we are not going to know the east boundary access, then, I think it's fair to whatever goes on that second piece of property, that will be our opportunity to straighten out that access, and I -- even though on every project we don't want to hear from every building, I can only see that there can only be one more building, there is not a big envelope, and I would support the contention that we do need a CUP for the second building, if, for no other reason, than to settle the access issue at that point. Hood: And that's fine with me. In that scenario, ACHD would get to look at this site again and could, if their policies changed and, you know, and everything changed at that point and they could do a 180 and they say, hey, you get an access point here, you don't have to share that at that time. So, there are -- you know, that public hearing process, there is maybe some benefit to the applicant of going through that procedure, because you do -- we would -- even if, again, in that scenario, you know, we don't approve access points per se, we need ACHD's blessings on those as well. So, you know, that's another -- that's a great point. Something else just with access points, we were talking about that, is Venture Street and, again, previous history with this site, there are homes that use Venture Street and that's their only access. If that's the only access for this bank, these people now are sharing that access with a commercial business. I definitely support the access to an arterial street and giving, you know, patrons of this business another way out, rather than using what has historically been a residential street and backing up and I can only imagine turning, you know, east out of this site on Fairview at rush hour and having that back up. But, anyways, I will digress. But that's -- that's in the staff report, too, so I think that access point is great. Zaremba: Well -- and I know that issue is probably going to come up, but my personal opinion -- can we go to a more expanded view that shows the subdivision to the north? Maybe an aerial. That works for me. The temporary situation is that this is their only way in and out. It looks to me like somebody's thinking originally was that at some point this cross street is going to continue on over to something that would connect here, as would this, and there is a signal here, I believe. So, there is -- it looks to me like somebody has thought through that this probably is going to have access to a signal at some point even though it's a temporary problem, that this is the only way in and out, I don't see that as being a forever problem, but I could be wrong, but my assumption would be that there is going to be other connections and even to a signal. Borup: Any other discussion? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 35 of 70 Newton-Huckabay: I just -- so are you recommending that any use have a CUP? Zaremba: I believe so. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. That's alii -- Zaremba: I think that's what staff recommended - Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And you're sticking with that? Zaremba: -- and I support that. Newton-Huckabay: And you're sticking with that? I just wanted to make sure. I thought that's what you were saying, but make I was following -- Borup: And I would interested on public input on that subject, too. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: If a CUP is required for the development of the balance of this property, would that ingress off of Fairview, then, be subject to review again by Ada County? Isn't that what I just heard? That that which they are allowing not -- not telling them they have to, but they are allowing as part of this application, ingress off of Fairview, that would be subject to discussion, once again, through Ada County, if, in fact, we required a CUP for the development of the balance of this property. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I can give you the most likely situation -- if that were to happen and if, you know, it's years before something comes in, those things will change, but today if something were submitted tomorrow for that other site, a CUP, what the highway district would do is photocopy this staff report you have today and say, hey, we have already acted on this, this is your access point, unless, when they came in with that building they said we want another driveway, something that wasn't consistent with what they approved October 6, 2004. So, if they wanted to do something different, then, their Commission would have to react on it. Rohm: I guess what my point was -- is if, in fact, you require a CUP and they have to go through that process once again, that parcel of ground could be landlocked, if, in fact, they didn't grant the access and -- but what you're saying is that will grant the one that they are proposing as part of this application. That's -- that's a known. Hood: And, I'm sorry, right how it's all one parcel, so if they do a lot split and access to Fairview was never constructed. There is access across the other portion of this parcel, but the city will say, hey, you need to provide access to this new lot you're proposing Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 36 of 70 and it's going to be to Venture, because there aren't any other access points. So, it would be a cross-access amongst the two new lots internally, basically, rather than across someone's property. Rohm: If, in fact, Ada County denied c- Hood: Any access. Rohm: -- additional applicant. Hood: Correct. Erstad: Mr. Chair may I -- Borup: Quickly, because I was thinking -- I mean you're going to have sometime at the end here, too, but -- unless it was really critical. Okay. Let's go ahead and continue with the public testimony. Do we have anyone here that would like to testify? Come on up. Earl: My name is Renn Earl and I live at 4203 Venture Circle, which is the second circle in the back. I would like to first comment that, yes, there is a reason to restrict and/or have a CUP is because -- for the use of that adjoining plat, is because that insures government by the representation of the people, which is us, because we live there. My first notes as to what I had, I looked at your July 2002 comprehensive report and I noted that on Chapter one, page three, it states -- and I quote: Land use policies, restrictions, and/or conditions do not violate private property rights, adversely impact property values, or create unnecessary technical limitations to the use of the property. My point one is, yes, there is a very big technical property -- or technical property -- problem that exists for and by the use of the egress on Venture. I would like to. see that all of the egress or ingress on Venture be removed. We do not have -- and you can say future use however you want that they will eventually go to Record Street, which is the stop light that exists there for the PAL soccer field. It doesn't exist today and, in fact, there is a two foot cement ditch and so we can't get there from here and since it does not exist now, allowing a full commercial use onto our street, which is the only way we have in and out, especially emergencies, you know, you cut off your finger and you got to go to the hospital, if they are blocking that intersection, we can't get out. That's point one. Also Chapter two, page seven, it states: Commercial areas will be located to minimize traffic congestion. We would -- as I agreed with the highway district last night, that the use be put expressly on the eastern most section where Ada County Highway granted that, that would be where I would like to see a big loop made around and that's just a small notation. Chapter 7, page 102, it states: Located new commercial areas -- and this would be new commercial areas -- on arterials or collectors, near residential areas in such a way as to compliment with adjoining residential areas. That brings up in putting in a development agreement with a three foot berm and a six foot block wall and the reason I state that is because that is what Wal-Mart has in order to protect them from the other areas around them and that fits within the neighborhood, as well as -- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 37 of 70 Borup: That was your time. Earl: Sir? Borup: That noise was your time was up, but -- Earl: He was granted longer. I clocked. Borup: Sir? Earl: Yes, sir? Borup: Yes, he was. That's part of their regulation. That's part of our -- he had 15 minutes. Earl: Oh. Okay. Well, then, I'll - Borup: So, you need to summarize read quick. Earl: Yes, sir. In the development agreement, to add that six foot block wall, which fits with the adjoining and, then, you have already stated, as to the light orientation is already required by the City of Meridian, but I would emphatically require that the hours of use be kept in -- this is our neighborhood and as your -- in your book, it's Chapter 7, page 102 -- and it needs to compliment and having an open use of that land would not compliment our neighborhood. Borup: Thank you. Come on up. Hall: I'm Bill Hall, I live at 4225 Venture Place and I -- my lot joins -- abuts this property in question. I know Mr. Borup was here at the 2002 meeting -- I don't remember if the rest of you were here or not, but one of the main reason that was denied was because of the two cuts going into Venture Place. The first plan he had when he came in here was to build a pizza parlor, a gas station, anything he could think of, and the only way he could get in and out was through there. So, the Council said to him -- says, well, how else can you get in here without using that street, because you weren't going to let him do it, and he says, well, I got a gentleman's agreement with the property next to me to-- I'll have access to that property. So, they told him to come back with a plan. Well, he come back with the same plan, he wants to get into our street again. I -- that was -- it was in the meeting. You didn't that bring up. I'd like to challenge any of you and you to go out there and try to get out at 5:00 o'clock in the evening. Anytime between Saturday, go out there right now -- you put a bank there and the only ingress and egress is on our street and we will never get out. It's a mess. And you folks got a responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen and I really ask you to do that. The other thing I'd like to say -- he talks about the lush landscaping at the north end. I have got a stand of trees there that's been there for 30 years and I hope you don't cut them Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 38 of 70 down. I put those there for a purpose and this type of thing. This really angers me, because this wasn't what we were told. This guy is always coming back with something different than what we originally agreed to and it really bothers me. I wish all of you would go out there and try to get out. It's impossible, because sometimes you look to the right and with this PAL soccer field, it used to take us sometimes seven lights to go down the street. So, what you're trying to do here is going to really. mess up our neighborhood. I'm not opposed to the bank, I think it's a wonderful idea, I'm all -- I'm a hundred percent for it, but I'm not for the way they are trying to get in and out. We need to -- he needs to come in like Mr. -- like Renny just said -- on that one part and they need to make a loop. I'm sorry it takes up some of their property, but what they need to do is think about that, they may need to move bank over or do something different, but what they are trying to do is make us pay, because he wants to subdivide that lot and that's not right. Okay? That's all I have to say. Oh, by the way, CoG, I just looked at, it says it's not for strip development. That's strip development. So, it should probably be L-O and I hope you folks will reconsider that. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Hall? Hall: Yes. Borup: Just a quick question. You had mentioned trees and you were hoping they don't cut them down. Were they -- trees are off your property or-- Hall: They are on my property. Borup: They are on your property. Hall: They go right along the property line. Borup: Okay. Hall: They are 30 years old. Borup: Okay. Hall: And they are high trees. Borup: They are on your property? Hall: They are on my property. Borup: Okay. Hall: And, I'll tell you what, they have grown so big they are probably hanging -- the limbs are hanging over on the other property. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 39 of 70 Borup: Okay. Hall: I mean I will be serious about it, but when I planted them I had no idea they would get that big. They are Ponderosa pines and they have a tendency to spread out, but they are good looking and I'm sure the bank would like to see trees like there. It does look nice, but I don't want him cutting my trees down. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hall: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Come on up. Moore: I have a poster that kind of explains our neighborhood a little bit. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Janene Moore and I live at 4292 Venture Place. This is -- and I agree with my two neighbors, we have been meeting and we have strong consensus on these issues. So, I won't go over some of the things that they have gone over. But I do want to talk about what it's like on a day-to-day basis on this intersection. First off, our neighborhood is park like. It's like a bird sanctuary. It's beautiful. We have invested a great deal this year in our property and we are continuing to invest more to improve our property. It's -- we feel like we are in a refuge. It's a wonderful place to live. We plan on getting animals for our pasture and barn. This is kind of a blowup of the intersection. This is the site in question. This is the drive area that they are talking about making common. And this is what it's like to get -- come out of our neighborhood and go east. We go into a median, so I think it's a wonderful decision that ACHD did not allow an opening right here, because there is just not room. What hasn't been taken into consideration is that this is a four-way intersection. We have a bay here that -- okay. We are cruising down Fairview and we have got to zip -- zip in here and stop. This is a dedicated bay just for a left-hand turn. There is a concrete barrier here, so it's not a common median that you can go in any direction, it's a dedicated barrier. This blocks the traffic coming north from this intersection, so they dodge us and -- to get onto Fairview going west. This bay currently holds two cars or one trailer. And, yes, it is a rural subdivision and we do have horse trailers and a variety of trailers to accommodate the rural subdivision. This bay barely accommodates our subdivision and to put additional load on that for a commercial business is -- we would be -- would be locked in and locked out. So, this is our only ingress-egress and these two exits and entrances do. not work with our subdivision. A suggestion would be to come in here, loop around, and come back out. Have this be a wide ingress-egress. That would be my recommendation. As far as this unknown business, it's important to us, we are all very busy and it's -- we appreciate the opportunity to speak, but it's worth it to us to have input on what's going to be built there. And I would recommend this be an L-O, instead of a CoG, and the hours of operation are extremely important. As far as a barrier wall, landscaping is very nice, but it doesn't -- it's not a sound barrier, it doesn't have the density for a sound barrier, and more light from headlights and whatever else is going on in that business, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 40 of 70 Borup: You need to sum up. That was the time. Moore: Okay. I appreciate it and I'd appreciate L-O zoning and thank you very much for your time. Borup: Thank you. Dykstra: Good evening, my name is Scott Dykstra. My address is 4260. Venture Circle, which is straight through on Venture Street. You'd run into my house if you kept going and sometimes people do. I have four main concerns. I'll try not to repeat what's already been said. However, there are a few points that are so important they bear repeating. First of all, the traffic pattern is a critical issue. As we are exiting from our subdivision on Venture, it's not unusual to wait five minutes to turn left and travel east on Fairview. We do have a center turn lane. The speed limit on Fairview at this point is 40 miles an hour, so you are trying to gauge pulling into this narrow turn lane with cars coming at you from both directions at 40 miles an hour. Traveling to the west, same thing, as you're pulling out of the subdivision you have to immediately get in the flow of traffic that's traveling 40 miles an hour. As we approach Venture coming from the east, traveling west, you've got cars on your tail, you turn on your turn signal right about here, you start slowing down and they start catching up with you and you take this going about 35 miles an hour, so nobody runs over you, and if there are cars parked right here waiting to tum out, you're going to get run over, especially if you've got a trailer. Coming from this direction, I cannot stress how bad this intersection is right here. There is actually a median right here, so you cannot jog over until about a hundred feet from the corner. It was designed so that people coming out of here would not -- would not get into the center lane here, but what it creates is a -- just a real dangerous situation right there. There have been times with our trailer when we are traveling east and we have to pass the intersection, turn around, and come back and approach it from the east going west. Noise is, obviously, an issue. A bank is going to have an ATM, I'm sorry, there is no hours for an A TM, it's 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If you look at the site plan, there is a dumpster located right back here, those guys don't necessarily care what hours they are picking up the trash. The drive-thru is going to have speaker noise and a certain amount of volume there. Lighting, of course, we have already discussed the lighting issues. And, then, zoning -- obviously, you mentioned C- G zoning. If it was CoG, we could have a Kinko's or a 24-hour operation right here. We would prefer, as has been stated, that the only access come off of Fairview, there are no accesses to Venture, and that the zoning be at the most L-O, rather than C-G. Borup: Thank you. Mr. Dykstra, maybe a couple -- and perhaps we will have the applicant answer this. I was just curious -- comments of ACHD. Did they -- did they discuss the intersection and access points and stuff at the ACHD meeting? Were you there or do you know? Dykstra: I wasn't there, but, Brad, did ACHD say anything about this access here? Borup: Okay. I thought maybe you were there. We will just ask them that later. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7.2004 Page 41 of 70 Dykstra: Okay. Borup: Thank you. D.Moore: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Don Moore. My family and I live at 4292 Venture Place, which is the first cul-de-sac there in the subdivision. I feel a bank at this location would be a minimal impact to our neighborhood, except for the associated traffic and noise. We are very concerned, as you have heard, about the traffic. That intersection is very treacherous. To mitigate some of that traffic, I believe we should see a de-acceleration lane in front of the bank on Fairview so traffic running west would be able to pull off and slow down. I think that's a safety issue. The other issue that was brought up earlier is the de-acceleration lane coming to the east that would -- that is very short right now and it's a very treacherous situation. We also have a lot of traffic that comes in from the south side. There is a subdivision -- several subdivisions back in there that that's their primary entrance into Fairview, so that intersection is really really getting busy. I'd also like to address the additional noise created by putting in a solid brick block wall along the back there, probably eight -- at least eight foot tall to minimize the noise that would be created there and create a barrier between that property and ours. I would also like to request the modification of the zoning plan to L-O from C-G. This would -- this change would insure a compatible business use would be eventually built there. We are real concerned that with a C-G that a lot of different products -- for example a gas station could be put in there and that would not fit in with the neighborhood at all. That would be devastating. As you can probably see, there was -- they didn't have any neighborhood meetings, because I think a lot of -- as mentioned earlier, I think a lot of these things might have been able to be taken care of if we had that kind of cooperation. Thanks for your time. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Come forward, sir. Thueson: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, my name is Greg Thueson, I live at 4263 Nystrom in Boise. I have actually been one of the owners of the Peddles and Stems property next door for about the past 12 or 13 years and the old produce barn and there are a few things that I have learned tonight that I was not aware of, but, generally, I believe that a bank is an absolutely excellent use for this site, because of the limited nature of the access requirements for time. I was under the impression that the bank was buying the whole site and not just part of the site before this meeting tonight, but I do have an understanding and compassion, definitely, for the neighborhood. We have tried to deal with the neighborhood as positively as we can, owning the other property that backs onto it and the property is beautiful back there. I have actually -- my parents lived there until just a few years ago and it is a very quiet solitude area that's just beautiful. So, I'm understanding of the neighbors' concerns and their plight relative to the access, but I know that a bank use limits quite a bit of traffic and I can't think of many commercial uses that would be a better neighbor than a bank in a situation like this. I, actually, am in real estate and spent many years dealing with issues like this and I think they are a very good neighbor. We would be delighted as neighbors next door to Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 42 of 70 have the bank here, we think that that's an excellent use. We would much rather see something improved than the weed lot that's there now and I think that we would want you to definitely consider seriously the annexation and the rezoning and I would encourage that, but the access issue, I understand the concern and plight of the neighborhood, but I still believe that it is only fair and right that the owner of the property have at least one access onto the roadway there on the side and we would be open as neighbors next door to see if we could work out some kind of a shared access using our driveway and widening -- adding some of their ground, but I think we would want to know what type of use that extra piece of ground would be used for as well. So, that would be my only concern. I think that if access can be worked out, possibly, I am a hundred percent behind this and think it would be an excel. lent neighbor for us, so I would just encourage your consideration and I would like to go on record for thinking this is a good thing if that access can be worked out. So, thank you. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Thueson. May be just a question while you're up there. Thueson: Sure. Borup: Have there been any discussions between you and this applicant on that driveway? Thueson: We have had preliminary discussions. We see that as a possible benefit to the access that we have as well. Our access roadway there to the rear of the property is not a fully developed access roadway and I think it works in both property owners' favor if we can do that. Not particularly all the way to the very back of the property, but at least maybe halfway back to have them have an easement on our property and we have an easement on theirs. Now, I have another partner that owns that property and haven't really -- I can't speak a hundred percent for him, but I think I can speak for my wife and I that for our part we see this as a real positive asset and I think he would, too, Borup: Okay. Thank you. Thueson: Thank you. Borup: I don't know of anyone else. That's everyone that signed up. Was there anyone else here to testify? Okay. Would you like to make some final comments and maybe we will have some other questions. Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Andy Erstad, 848 Fulton Street, Boise. I think a couple of points that I'd like to make. As all you are very aware, ACHD really tells us where we can and can't come into properties. I mean, ultimately, ACHD is the one that analyzes the traffic flow on Venture and Fairview and makes that determination. So, our -- we are somewhat bound and I -- while I understand the plight of the neighbors, it's a public right of way, it's paid for by all of us, and that access onto Venture is the access that ACHD is granting us. We are encouraged by Mr. Thueson's comments and, as he indicated, preliminary discussions about the cross-access Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7.2004 Page 43 of 70 easement at the east property line and we agree that it's -- that it would be a great thing and this was one of the points I was going to make earlier, is that we cannot force a third party into an agreement, we all have to come to the table mutually, and so it's encouraging that I think we can get there. One of the concerns that the bank is going to be a bad neighbor, you know, our site plan has 25 feet of buffer against Mr. Hall's probably 30 feet of plantings on his property site. It's going to be a veritable forest back there. It will have a significant impact on the noise that currently travels from Fairview back up into the neighborhood. We are not in agreement and don't think it's prudent to be building an eight foot tall wall there. We are putting a building in front of -- a building between Fairview and the property and I think that's going to be a significant sound barrier, more so than any block wall is going to be and it's almost a double -- a double whammy when you have 25 feet of expensive, heavily planted landscaping. We still would like you to consider the hours of operation. We just feel that that's a restriction that we'd like you to look at and we'd like it to be -- to be eliminated. And, then, the final thing is that the CoG zone is really what we are -- what we are told via the Comp Plan. It's not that we came in asking for CoG, it's when we submitted for the rezone that's what the Comp Plan said should be applied for and that's how it's designed all down Fairview, so we are in agreement with it, by the way, and it's one of those tough issues. Thank you. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. Oh, maybe I do have a question, Mr. Erstad. Previously staff had put a list up on the board. Was that -- I mean on the screen on the -- Mr. Hood, was there some comment on that? There was no explanation and I didn't know if there was discussion or-- Hood: These were the uses that the applicant I believe came up with that Anna has put down on a piece of paper that would be allowed or at least that they would be proposing that they be allowed to come in with one of the uses shown here without having to obtain CUP approval. Anything else that's not on this list would, then, be subject to Meridian city code, as far as either being a prohibited use or requiring Conditional Use Permit approval. Borup: Okay. Thank you. That just hadn't been discussed. That's why I -- Erstad: And I think everyone is aware the intent here is that if -- if anyone of these uses wanted say a drive-up or something that actually requires a conditional use, then, that would clearly come back in front of you, so we wouldn't be taking that away, by any means. Borup: No. That's understood. Commissioners, discussion? Hood: I did -- Mr. Chair-- Borup: Yes, Mr. Hood. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 44 of 70 Hood: Just a point of clarification. It was asked during the public testimony about access points to Venture Street and what the highway district approved. Borup: Right. Hood: They did approve both access points to Venture Street as proposed. I guess I'll leave that at that. And, then, as far as the business hours, that would restrict it for all uses on this site, obviously. If someone -- again, staff's kind of thinking with this, if someone did want to come and this bank does turn over to be a Kinko's -- that example was used, an option always is to come in and modify the development agreement, why we are changing the use, we need to change the business hours, similar to what happened last week at City Council with that -- the women's fitness center that wanted to go in or is coming down the line. They are going to change use again -- you know, that's kind of a protective measure, at least that I thought restrict the business hours and uses both. If not one or the other, then, both, I guess. So, that's just a little bit of -- and, then, just a final note to neighbors. A lot of the issues that were brought up tonight, the highway district, as far as the medians in Fairview and maybe changing those so you have a little bit wider turn bay or having an accel or decel lane on Fairview, it's really going to be up to them. The city has very little input on those type of traffic-related issues. Their traffic department, you can work with them and maybe get some of those issues addressed, but I just wanted to make that a little bit clearer, that access and any roadway improvements on Fairview are, really, the highway district's jurisdiction, so -- thank you. Borup: That's understood. Okay. Commissioners? Zaremba: The changes that would have to be made to the drawing to eliminate the access on Fairview, are those major enough that we would need to continue it and see it here before we moved it on or -- Hood: I do not believe so. Depending on .- if you wanted to further restrict any access, that may become significant, but as far as -- that's something that staff recommended in the staff report, was that this -- we aren't real supportive of that driveway location as it's shown, so anticipating a change would have to be made, so that eastern property line I've kind of played it out, not knowing how far back it's going to go and how it's really going to function internally, but if that driveway were just constructed that one goes away, I would say that's not a significant change, no. If your comfort level of approving or moving this on or doing whatever with it is not satisfied, then -- I mean you can table it until we get a new drawing and any analysis you'd like me to do. That's fine, too, but I personally don't believe that's necessary. Borup: Okay. Mrs. Moore, did you have a comment on the ACHD meeting? Is that what you wanted to discuss? Yes. Moore: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thanks -- my name is Janine Moore at 4292 Venture Place. Thank you for this comment. We were not notified that there was a Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7.2004 Page 45 of 70 meeting at ACHD, because, trust me, we would have had our -- we would have input this information. Obviously, ACHD doesn't know what it's like to enter and exit our property and please remember it is our only entrance and exit and this is -- this is all we have and we already spend a great deal of time waiting to get out and oftentimes it's under very treacherous situations. So, you know, there are -- I think a bank would be great and there are -- we could loop the traffic around and come in on the approved entrance on Fairview and it would preserve our -- it would be infringing on our private property rights if we cannot access -- access and exit our own property. And if you approve these two entrances on Venture -- if you approve this arrangement, you will be denying us access to our own property and -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. I thought you had some additional information on the ACHD meeting. Moore: No. I just wish we had been there. Borup: Okay. Moore: Okay. Borup: Real quickly. Hall: I'm thinking -- Borup: State your name again. Hall: Bill Hall, 4225 Venture Place. Thank you for letting me just add this. Just a thought. If you're going to go ahead and use that east access, why not go ahead and pave this area right here and come on in this way. You have an entrance here and you could have one out -- going onto Venture Place, because you're going to have to pave that sooner or later anyway. So, I don't know why not do it right now and make it better for everybody right now. Borup: Because that would be adding a new access point that ACHD has not approved yet. Newton-Huckabay: No. He's talking about the east access. Hall: Excuse me, Mr. Borup. The one they did approve. Borup: Well, but that's on -- that's off site. They have got to. work that out with the neighbor, though, because it's on his site. Hall: Okay. Thank you. That would be a point. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, how would we like to proceed? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 46 of 70 Nary: Mr. Chairman, you need to be sure the applicant has the last -- Borup: Right. That is true. Mr. Erstad, since there has been some more public testimony, is there anything else you wanted to add? Erstad: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Andy Erstad, 848 Fulton Street, Boise, Idaho. The only comment is -- going back to the access points, ACHD has approved the access points. The layout of the property and the layout of the banking -- the drive aisles is such that as a customer comes up to do their banking via the vehicle, they can look out their door and see the window and see their banker as they do their transaction. So, the layout of the property, as we have shown it, is very -- is a functional layout and it works. The access point - elimination of these access points is -- it can't happen and this is a public right of way and this same parcel of ground has a similar right to access onto Venture Way. So, I appreciate your patience. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners? I think the public testimony -- well, if we have a motion for that. I think we are done with public testimony. Newton-Huckabay: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-026 and CUP 04- 035. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we want a little discussion first or was someone ready for a motion? Rohm: Well, I think we should have a little discussion here. Zaremba: I think there is some discussion to be had. Rohm: I think that, to start off with, we should probably take a look at the past to determine -- help determine where we go with this into the future and last time that this parcel came before the zoning commission and, then, onto City Council, it was ultimately rejected, because it wasn't clear as to what the total development of the property would be. I'm not sure that we are any closer to having a clear understanding of what the total property development will be with this application anymore so than it was last time that it was brought before the Planning and Zoning and, then, ultimately, onto City Council. That being said, it seems to me that before we can move forward with this application onto the city with any recommendation at all, it would be to the applicant's benefit and everybody else's if, in fact, there was a little bit more clear understanding, if, in fact, only by limiting the number of -- or the types of activity that can go on to the balance of the property, something along those lines, so that at least the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 47 of 70 City Council would have some understanding of the direction this body sees this development going. Borup: Are you saying your preference would be to limit that, rather than a CUP? Rohm: Well, I kind of like that list of uses that Anna had placed and I like that approach myself. And I think that that would at least bring it into a little bit clearer focus than without anything, other than the fact it would have to be brought before this Commission again as a Conditional Use Permit and if you do it with a Conditional Use Permit, the city doesn't have any clearer idea of the balance of the development than what they do already and that's my concerns on that. Borup: That part's true, but there is more control. Any other comments? Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I just want to clarify how this list was constructed, just so you know. I handed the applicant the zoning ordinance and they just penciled through some of the principal permitted uses that -- and I guess I'm not sure exactly what the penciled out meant, but I went through all the other principal permitted uses that were left and they are here. Now, I'm not sure whether the applicant wanted those other principal permitted uses to be conditionally allowed or if he was willing to just restrict himself to these lists of uses. So, if the Commission is heading that way, you might want to confer with the applicant on -- on that issue. Borup: Okay. I think we will wait and see if we are heading that way first. We have closed the hearing. Commissioner Huckabay, you have a comment? Newton-Huckabay: Well, my concern is that we can't grant accesses; we can't take accesses away on a piece of property. The only thing we could do would be to deny, if I'm understanding -- I'm thinking out loud here -- is deny -- or recommend denial of this development, which still doesn't take away the accesses, as I understand it, so that if another development came up, they still have the accesses on Venture Street. So, my thought there is that a bank is probably lower impact use on Venture Street than say a video store or-- Borup: Gas station. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Or a restaurant. And you do have the limited hours and, you know, a lower noise level and so I -- but I understand the quandary with the access issue, but I'm concerned that, you know, we -- if I understand all this correctly, which I was trying to get Commissioner Zaremba to confirm for me off the record, our only option is to recommend denial of the whole thing, which I'm not necessarily -- think that the whole development is -- I think that a bank is not a bad -- a bad choice for that -- for that piece of land. I -- although I am in favor of a CUP on any development that would go in next it. I do have to say that I think that would be appropriate given the concems of the neighbors, the type of development they'd like to see go in there that would compliment their -- and that's my complete thought. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 48 of 70 Borup: Okay. Any other comments? Zaremba: Thank you for saying that on the record and my comment would be that I agree with you. ACHD is the one that decides accesses. We can help support their decision and even if we were to deny this application, ACHD has established their philosophy that there would be access to Venture and there would not be access onto Fairview this close to Venture. I don't believe that attitude would change with the use and I also agree that a bank is probably the lowest impact. I also support the idea that I think the other piece does still need to be a CUP regardless of what's going to go there, so that if it does go through the hearing process -- and, again, we have the opportunity to discuss the access shared with the neighbor and, hopefully, by, then, they will have gotten together and made some decision on the -- I also would be comfortable sticking by the hours. Again, the idea there is if there is some other use that requires longer hours, I think that needs to be heard. So, even though I was waffling before I started talking, I think I may be coming down on the side of leaving everything the way the staff asked for it and possibly moving it along. Moe: Well, since I'm the only one that hasn't said anything yet, I will. Quite frankly, I would have to agree with Commissioner Huckabay and yourself as well. The only thing that I'm concerned about, if, in fact, number one, ACHD has granted those access points and there is nothing we can do about that, I am definitely not in favor of a denial based on that. I guess the only thing that I'm still -- that -- what I would rather do, if anything, if I really had a real concern to this, would be I would be looking for a continuance to get some information on what, in fact, they are able to do with the other access point onto Fairview Avenue. But having said that, again, ACHD has granted those access points and I'm in favor of the 7:00 to 7:00 time frame, as well as requiring the CUP on the other property -- on the other piece if something's put there. Rohm: And with that being said, the access will be addressed as part of that CUP when that additional property is developed, so that -- Moe: I mean my whole point being is that -- that access doesn't really -- they are getting -- they have already been given the access points onto Venture by ACHD, so -- I mean that's just another access point to take care of the one they were denied on Fairview Avenue. Rohm: Yeah. And I think the real point for the people in the audience that have spoke against this is, in fact, regardless of what development were to go in on that property, they are all going to take access onto Venture and that is a given. We wouldn't have any way of changing that even if we wanted to and -- okay. I think we have kicked this one around. Zaremba: Did we close the Public Hearing already? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page 49 of 70 Zaremba: Want me to do it? Okay. Mr. Chairman -- let me just look real close here at my notes. Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-026, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of October 7, 2004, received by the city clerk October 4, 2004, with one change. On page ten -- and this is a continuation of a paragraph that begins on page nine, but on page ten, the last bullet says: Business hours for the property shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I would add that that also includes deliveries. No other changes. Rohm: 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 04-035, to include all staff comments of their memo for October 7, 2004, received by the city clerk October 4, 2004, with no changes. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: All right. Thank you. Thank everyone for being here. We will take a short break -- short recess break at this time. (Recess.) Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 04-025 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 121.96 acres from R4 (Ada County) to R-4 zone for Vienna Woods Subdivision No. 1-7 and Edinburgh Place Subdivision No. 1-2 by the City of Meridian - NEC of East McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. The Commissioners are here ready to continue. If anybody else is. Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting for this evening and continue with Public Hearing AZ 04-025, it's a request for annexation and zoning of 121 acres. Essentially, this is an annexation and zoning of Vienna Woods and Edinburgh Place Subdivision. I'll go ahead and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I would have not believed about four or five months ago when I started this process that we wouldn't have anyone signed up to testify on this item, so I am -- Mr. Nary must have scared them way. We