Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 7, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning. October 7, 2004 Page 6 of 70 Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 04-011 Request for a Rezone of 9.16 acres from R-8 to C-C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 04-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial building lots on 9.16 acres in a proposed C-C zone for Cairns Crossing Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - south of West Cherry Lane and east of Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Our next project consists of two public hearings, RZ 04-011, request for a rezone, 19.16 acres from R-8 to C-C zones for Cairns Crossing Subdivision, and also PP 04-033, request for preliminary plat approval of 11 commercial building lots on the same property. I'd iike to open both these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this -- we have two applications here this evening. The first one is for a rezone of 9.16 acres. It's currently located in the City of Meridian and currently zoned R-8. They are proposing a rezone to C-C. The second application is a preliminary plat for 11 commercial lots. The subject property is located at the southeast intersection of Linder and Cherry and it's located directly to the east of the preexisting Linder Crossing commercial development. There are a couple of issues I wanted to touch on this evening that are pretty significant concerning this application. Here is an aerial. Both of these refer to access issues. The first of these -- the original -- the original plat submitted by the applicant contained three access points off of Cherry Lane and staff and ACHD have requested the applicant reduce that to two access points and they have done that, they have gone ahead and revised the plat since they had their first submittal. And the second significant issue is the stub street here at 13th Street. Directly to the south of the subject property is a residential subdivision, which was established in 1975, and called Northgate and that subdivision has a stub street that stubs directly to the south of this subject property and I wanted to kind of go through some of the issues there. The applicant is proposing to have emergency access at the stub street, also pedestrian access. This is supported by ACHD and also by Meridian police and fire departments, but definitely a point that you should consider whether you feel this is appropriate, if you think there needs to be a full access point, and I want to let you know that the agencies that have comments on this application are satisfied with the applicant's proposal to just do a ten foot pedestrian access and emergency access and staff would require and ACHD would require approval from Meridian fire and police on that emergency access connection. This is definitely a significant issue for you to consider. And this -- you may have seen this several years ago when there was another Linder Crossing Conditional Use Permit that came before Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and that was for a large commercial development and at that point the applicant was also proposing to not -- to not continue this connection, but the application was withdrawn before Council made it -- had any conditions on it, so it was brought up for discussion, but no decisions were made on whether that connection needed to go through at that point. That was several years ago. And this is, according to the applicant, vehemently opposed by the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 7 of 70 neighbors. They do not want, actually, any type of connection there at 13th Street, but we are -- staff is suggesting that we have, at a minimum, a pedestrian and an emergency vehicle access connection. So, those are, I think, probably the two most significant issues associated with this application and there are a couple other issues that we can consider and include in the development agreement. We can't through code require these, but a couple of these -- we want a cross-access agreement between all lots in the subdivision. I think it would be a nice feature if we had the applicant work with staff and orient buildings towards the street, so you have windows facing Cherry Street, rather than the buildings being oriented towards the parking lot. I think there is the potential for that -- the lot to -- to the south and this large structure to -- to turn out to be like a large commercial building and potentially with a large HVAC system, which would be more esthetically pleasing if we had them screen that. We can't require that through code, but we can do it through a development agreement. And we also might want to address operating hours, especially in consideration of the residential property to the south of the subject property. So, those are a couple of the issues I wanted for you to make sure and consider, but staff is recommending approval of this project and do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Question from any of the Commissioners? Moe: Just one. Wendy, as far as the access, is the new plan showing that the east access is lining up with the library per ACHD that wanted that, as well as this letter I'm reading? Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the access point on the revised plan, they have taken out one of the access points and the access point on the eastern part of the subject property lines up with the library access and we have a letter -- a comment letter from the library where, basically, they would prefer that there be no access point there, but acknowledging that there probably will be an access point. They want to make sure it lines up with the library, so they do meet their concerns. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: On that same subject, the library has one ingress and one egress and I wasn't clear which driveway we are planning to line up with. Kirkpatrick: It is egress. Borup: The east. Zaremba: Okay. So, it would be the -- Kirkpatrick: Going in. Zaremba: -- the eastern most. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 7,2004 Page 8 of 70 Kirkpatrick: The eastern most. Zaremba: And that's possible, we would be talking about this one that's right along the property line, I guess, would be the driveway that's going to stay. Kirkpatrick: We are conferring. Just a second. Borup: That's my understanding, yes. Zaremba: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Borup: Which was the -- and that was the one that the library preferred. Kirkpatrick: Let's go back to the aerial photo. Zaremba: Yeah. Well, I think for traffic flow that would make more sense. The turning movements -- yeah. Okay. Kirkpatrick: Right. Zaremba: I just wasn't clear. Kirkpatrick: So, it is -- correction. It is the ingress. Zaremba: And also on page nine, your sentence four is asking the applicant to provide more information on the relocation of the Cairns Lateral. Have you got more of that or do we need to ask the applicant tonight? Kirkpatrick: The applicant will work with staff and public works on that, but I think it's been resolved satisfactorily. Zaremba: Okay. That's it for me. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Mr. Boyle. Boyle: Members of the planning commission, Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa. Home address in Meridian. It's a pleasure to be in front of the Commission this evening on this proposal for a commercial project. The developer that is proposing this development also developed what is known as Linder Crossing, which would be the small development that sits immediately to the west of this particular site. That was completed recently and the majority of the tenant spaces in that have been leased out. I believe there is only one slot that's still available. So, it's been a nice investment for him and has filled up rather quickly. With that he plans to extend the same theme, the same architectural character that he started with in Linder Crossing phase one. If you're familiar with that Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page g of 70 project it does have more of a -- kind of a pitched roof line to it and kind of drops the scale of the buildings down, makes them a little more pedestrian friendly. The HVAC units are screened .in it. He's certainly willing to make that commitment on the buildings within this project; it will screen those units as staff has indicated. With this project and realizing that there may be some sensitive neighbors with the commercial proposal, we initially met with the librarian, the head librarian Patty Younger with Meridian Library District, had some good discussions with her on the project. When we initially went in and met with the -- with the head librarian, we, actually, had three access points, one that would be in a location closer to the west boundary, another one lining up with 13th Avenue, and, then, a third access that, actually, split the difference between the two library drives. That was the initial submittal to the city, the initial plan that we went into the library with. The library does have kind of a unique circulation pattern there. Their eastern most access is where you enter their parking lot. The western most is where you exit the parking lot. And they have signage to that effect for that circulation pattern. In meeting with the librarian, she did indicate that if there was an access near the library, that they would like to have that aligned with one of the library driveways, due to turning movements, et cetera, safety considerations there. So, that was one discussion that we had with the librarian. Outside of that she had very favorable comments. She liked the way that there were multiple building sites to kind of break up the bulk of the site and seemed to generally be in favor, as long as we met that traffic consideration. Since, then, I believe you have a letter where she shook it to her board. Obviously, they'd rather have no access points at all across from them, but, however, with the access points proposed, they are in agreement to having those lined up. So, we had those comments from the librarian. We also during this process held two neighborhood meetings. The first neighborhood meeting we invited the residents that were immediately adjacent to this site, so those people that actually had properties that bordered this development were invited, primarily because we felt like they were the most affected, most impacted properties to this site and we had -- had some people turn out to that and I will dive into some of those points for just a minute, but beyond that I did want to indicate that the second neighborhood meeting we invited the larger neighborhood area 300 feet out, as the city would notice, and, interestingly enough, the second night, which was kind of the broader neighborhood, we had one person in attendance and it was one of the adjacent property owners that had been to the neighborhood meeting from the previous night. So, I don't know if that's any sort of survey. Obviously, the people that are immediately adjacent are the ones that are -- seem to be the most interested in these developments. And I believe Mr. Stubblefield can correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of notices that went out was fairly significant for these neighborhood meetings. I believe it was 50 -- 50 plus property owners that the notices went out to. Totally he's indicating about a hundred notices that went out. So, it was a pretty broad notification. The first neighborhood meeting we did have neighbors out at that one that provided some input and comments. It seemed like one of the key points of discussion at that meeting was 13th -- 13th Street -- if I can hold my arm steady enough -- would -- stubs into the property in a location that's somewhat central along the south boundary of the property. It was a street that was' stubbed there many years ago. In discussing this with the neighbors, the developer of this project, Mr. Stubblefield, made the same commitment that he did with Linder Crossing phase one Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 10 of 70 and that is that he would install a six foot block wall adjacent to the residential area. So, that block wall would be proposed to tie in where Linder Crossing phase one ends, tie into the block wall, and extend along our west boundary to the south -- to the southwest corner of the site and, then, across the entirety of the south boundary. So, this is a fairly significant commitment by the developer. In Meridian's ordinances they don't specifically specify that a block wall is required to buffer residential areas, so it could have come in with something lesser, cedar fencing, vinyl fencing, whatever, but he has made that commitment, felt like he should do that to promote his wanting to mitigate some of those issues with the neighbors. He's also providing the buffers, landscape buffers, that are required adjacent to those residential areas, so they will be provided with 25 feet of landscape area behind the building and along the west side of the development as well. The block wall, when we held the first neighborhood meeting, there was a lot of discussion, again, on 13th Avenue and whether or not to provide a pedestrian opening in the wall, a vehicular access, actually, into the project, or to just run the wall straight across without any sort of access and my understanding from comments and Mr. Stubblefield's from the neighbors is that they were adamantly opposed to a vehicular access. There seemed to be a few neighbors that kind entertained the idea of a pedestrian opening there, The majority wanted the wall running straight through the site. Now, what happened is they had some discussion during that neighborhood meeting and I think they came out fairly resolute after everybody had had some discussion that they wanted a block wall just to run continuously down the property. Mr. Stubblefield in his development really just wants to, obviously, appease the neighbors, but he also has to meet the requirements of the city and ACHD in this development. He has no problem running the wall straight down the south boundary and totally closing off the street and he would certainly do that if the governmental agencies felt that that was acceptable and warranted. Since that neighborhood meeting we have had more discussions with. the staff of ACHD and Meridian, we went back and actually revised the plans to remove one of the access points, line up with the driveway across the street from the library, and had more discussion on 13th trying to come up with some sort of acceptable way of taking care of that. ACHD staff, Meridian staff, including the police and fire department, have felt that it's very important for various issues, including safety issues, for the fire department, police department, to have an access from the end of 13th into this project and so the outcome of those discussions and what was approved by the ACHD staff and . commission and what is presented by Meridian staff this evening is that there be pedestrian access into this site, but with that pedestrian access we need to accommodate ten feet of pedestrian access. Now, what does that mean? That means that we are going to have an opening that is either ten feet wide to accommodate that with some bollards to restrict vehicular access that would be break away, so emergency vehicles could knock them over if they needed to enter the site, it could be a combination of crash gates for those vehicular accesses, with just some smaller areas for the pedestrians to enter, and those are issues that the staff is comfortable with us working out those specifics with them. However, as the staff report indicates, that is the requirement to both ACHD and your staff is presenting is to leave an opening there that would allow pedestrian access and the potential for emergency services to enter the site. . So, with that said, the developer will certainly accommodate that if those are the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 11 of 70 requirements and it's necessary for safety issues and it sounds like it is from working with staff. Outside of that, the only other comments that I might bring up this evening -- we are in compliance with the land use map of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. It designates this area as commercial within the land use designations in the Comp Plan. Under the preliminary plat conditions -- and I believe we can work through staff on this -- they had one recommendation in there that talked about the building orientations. The majority of the buildings being oriented generally towards Cherry Lane. We will work with them on that. As you can tell, this is a conceptual layout of the buildings and, again, we are presenting that just so that the planning commission and Council can have some kind of an idea of how we envision the project looking. The main entrances to these buildings could very well be off of the sides of the buildings when they are developed. What we'd like to do is say we will work with staff -- the developer is committed to making this look good from the street with windows, architectural projections, whatever he needs to do to dress those up and he's certainly willing to do that and work with staff to workout those terms and provisions on the building orientations. So, I was fairly specific, we would like some time to maybe just kind of make some adjustments in there in the language with staff, but, otherwise, that's the conclusion of my comments this evening and he agrees with the rest of the points and site comments from staff. So, with that said, I respectfully request your recommendation for approval and answer any questions if you have them. Borup: Go ahead, Commissioner. Moe: Basically, then, what I'm hearing you say is -- is that you pretty much agree to all conditions that have been put forth in this report, but you are hoping to work with staff in regards to the point of the facilities facing Cherry Lane; is that correct? Boyle: That is correct. Moe: Okay. And, Wendy, would you anticipate that staff can work with them on that? Kirkpatrick: Yeah. Members of the Commission, we could work on it through the certificate of zoning compliances that are issued for this site. We could maybe have another potential plan or resolution that we agree on before City Council with the applicant. Moe: I just ask that question, because in the report it pretty much, as I read it, you want everything towards Cherry Lane, but if we are going to try and work with that, I just want to make sure that that might be done before it goes to Council. Borup: It looks to me like maybe the only point there is that the applicant is agreeable to have windows and architectural -- maybe just the fact that it's the main entrance. Boyle: Correct. Borup: Is that basically what you were saying? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 12 of 70 Boyle: That was one of the primary issues with that statement is the main entries faced Borup: Right. That was probably the only thing that you had issue with there is that term main entrance? Boyle: Correct. Borup: Okay. That's kind of the way I assumed, too. Zaremba: Well, I think I side with the applicant. The purpose of having the entrance face the street is that it not be the blank back of a building. I particularly don't care where the entrance really is. You have already said that you plan to make the street facade an attractive facade. That would be my issue. Borup: I agree. Newton-Huckabay: My only comment on that is there is one development in Meridian where a lot of the buildings face inward at Midtown Square on Cherry Lane and they are attractive buildings, but it's a very uninviting development, I believe. That's a personal opinion there. And I think that's where I -- I agree with Wendy that if you -- the more you have facing the street, the more inviting the development is going to be. Boyle: And, Commissioners, I'd probably say that I agree with that. I'm sure that Mr. Stubblefield wants to make this just as inviting as he possibly can for the business. It was just desiring to have a little bit of flexibility there in the entryway to the street. But I agree that, yeah, we definitely want to try to make it as inviting as we can. Zaremba: I would ask a question on a different subject, if we are ready for that, and that's the discussion of whether hours should be limited and before I go there, let me ask Mr. Boyle an alternate suggestion, perhaps, and, then, after that see if staff has a comment. I could see on the one hand limiting the hours on buildings -- or lots, rather, eight, nine, ten, and eleven which are these ones that back up to the residents. My alternate suggestion would be that those four lots be limited to uses that are approved in an L-O zone, which I think would also answer residents' questions about whether or not there was going to be noise and a lot of car traffic. We done that with others, saying that the lots that back up closest to the residents would meet L-O and my question is we probably either will put a time on it or ask that they be L-O and do you have a preference? Boyle: I would certainly like to keep the options open, so, you know, if we can do an either/or -- as far as the hours of operation, I don't know what the planning commission is necessarily looking at as far as the hours. If we were to restrict the hours of operation to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 13 of 70 Zaremba: I'm thinking like 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., just not 24 hours. Boyle: And I was 3:00 a.m. until midnight. Zaremba: With three hours off for the cleaning crew to run their trucks through there. Borup: Mr. Boyle, did that come up in the neighborhood meeting at all? Boyle: They did talk about hours of operation. I've had some discussion with Mr. Stubblefield on it and, actually, we had just the discussion that Commissioner Zaremba brought up just now and that is, you know, the potential of restricting it along that southern tier that's adjacent to the residential, I would say that would likely be the route that we would rather go, than an L-O restriction. The hours that we discussed were, actually, one hour earlier and one hour later than what you just described. We talked about a 6:00 to 11 :00 hours of operation on those facilities and if I don't get hit in the back of the head with a pen, I will assume that John's agreeing with me on that. And so those are something that, yeah, we'd certainly be receptive of doing and our preference would be to limit the hours of operation on those buildings, rather than the L-O restriction. Unless there is a way to work either/or. L-O uses typically are -- Zaremba: I would be comfortable phrasing either/or. That's fine with me. Question to staff is do you have a preference for 6:00 to 11 :00 or 7:00 to 10:00 or some other hours in mind? Kirkpatrick: I think 6:00 to 11 :00 is reasonable. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Any-- Zaremba: Then, I had only one other question and staff was asking for a cross-access agreement among all the subdivision lots. Since -- I believe it's the same developer, you would be comfortable if we added that we also needed a cross-access agreement with the existing Linder Crossing? Boyle: I am glad that you brought that up, Commissioners. There is, actually, an existing cross-access document in place right now and I believe it's this driveway here that extends and it provides access into the site right here. We had a discussion with the staff and the developer is certainly willing to provide cross-access for this development out to Linder Road, as well as the existing Cherry Lane access. So, yeah, not a problem at all. Zaremba: Great. Thanks. Borup: All right. Did you have questions, Commissioner? All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Boyle. Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 7,2004 Page 140f70 Boyle: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have any public testimony that would like to come forward at this time? Come on up. If you will go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Shirt: Okay. My name is Jan Shirt. I live at 1522 West 15th, which is just right adjacent to the development. And you covered a whole bunch of stuff that I was going to talk about, but I'll skip to the chase here. Mr. Stubblefield did say that he would put the same size wall that is between the new development and the Linder Crossing development and with 15th he did state that he would put that same size wall. It's a little taller than six feet, so I kind of wanted to point that out. It's about like six foot nine inches, by the way, but -- and, then, I wanted to talk about the lighting in the parking lot. I don't know if the staff ever said anything about that, but that he did agree also that it would -- that there is ways that you can make it where it shines away from the subdivision or shines down, so that it doesn't shine back towards the subdivision. And if it's approved, I'd like to see that as a part of the conditions. We did talk about the hours of operation and I was curious as to what is an L-O hour. I don't know what that means. Zaremba: Yeah. I'm sorry. Let me answer one question first and, then, I'll do that in a second. Shirt: Okay. Zaremba: As for the lighting, it's in the standard ordinance that they must down shield their lighting and provide it in such a way that it does not bleed onto neighboring properties. Shirt: Okay. Zaremba: So, that's a standard requirement that we don't necessarily have to add. They have to do that anyhow. Shirt: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: L-O is a zoning designation, essentially stands for limited office use, which means that instead of those -- the things that are limited office are not retail, they are more likely to be an accountant or a tax preparer or maybe a dentist, so that their hours of operation are limited -- a tax pre parer may, you know, for a couple of weeks out of the year go all night, but wouldn't have a lot of cars coming and going necessarily. So, the limited office use, that is an actual zone, but we have sometimes said, okay, you can have the zone you're asking for, but the building right next to the residents have to be limited office use and in this case we are saying either that or if it's some other use, like retail, which could go 24 hours a day, then, it can't, it can only be from 6:00 to 11:00,so-- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 15 of 70 Shirt: Okay. Zaremba: -- that's what L-O is. Shirt: And -- okay. Well, that makes a big difference. I'd also like to say on the 6:00 to 11 :00, that we -- I mean, of course, 7:00 to 10:00 would be more preferable, because there are a lot of school kids and elderly people in the area and, then, in taking that into com¡ideration, you have delivery trucks and so those delivery trucks, I assume, would have to come in after or before and they make noise themselves, so you're looking at, you know, 5:00 to midnight, you're looking at different hours, too, for interruptions of people -- Zaremba: I think we have generally required that when we establish hours, that that includes deliveries, so -- Shirt: That includes delivery. Zaremba: Yeah. Everything that might happen. Shirt: Okay. Well, this is news I didn't know. Okay. And, then, on the height of the buildings, I was going to just say that he had said it would be like the corner lot there on Linder and we think that's a nice looking building, so -- and types of businesses, I wasn't sure what the C-C zoning was and I kind of looked it up and it seems like it -- it follows along more like office buildings and quality retail buildings; is that true? And a little bit more high quality, rather than like a drive-in or that type of thing? Is that what the C-C zoning is? Or can I ask that question? Zaremba: They could possibly have a building that would have a drive-thru, but there is a separate requirement that any building -- even if the building didn't have to come before us for discussion, if they attached to it a drive-thru, then, that building does have to come before us, so the requirement is that any drive-thru goes through a public hearing and a process before us, so - Shirt: Okay. Borup: The whole same process again, if they came back and propose a building with a drive-thru. Shirt: Okay. That's good. And, then, on your access -- or your entrance into the -- into the buildings where the front faces on that back building there, is there a requirement now that you're putting on them that they face forward, that they can't face out to the side and have entrances on the sides? Because there is -- do you see there is people on the -- on the west side there that have the -- if there was an entrance on the west side of that building, they would be coming right in right beside us there. Now, is that what I took it when you were talking about -- Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 16 of 70 Newton-Huckabay: Haven't made that requirement. Shirt: Haven't made that requirement. Newton-Huckabay: But that was what we were talking about. Shirt: Okay. Then, can I just request that that be taken into consideration? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, you can. Shirt: Okay. Okay. And, then, one last thing -- this is it, that I was wondering about is that at the meeting that we had, it was more like this was just a preliminary, but that within each lot the buildings could be switched around and changed and before City Council or before you vote on it, once you vote on that plat, will that plat remain the same or can they take those buildings and move them closer to the sides or to the residences? Or will the plat be firm when it's decided upon? The map plat? Borup: Plat is, actually, the boundary lines of each individual lot, so that will not change. Shirt: But within that lot the buildings could change? Borup: They could. Right. Right. What they have here is a conceptual plan and there could be some movement and the buildings could be a little different shaped or whatever, but they would still have to comply with the other things that have been discussed. Shirt: As far as setbacks -- Zaremba: There are certain setbacks that are required that you wouldn't change. Borup: Right. And the orientation for the design to the front and .all that type of thing would still apply. Shirt: But we wouldn't have a chance to comment on that once -- I mean they can still do that without going back up for any other comment? Changing the building -- Borup: Normally. Yeah. They would normally work that out. Shirt: Okay. Borup: Maybe something they could work out with staff. Shirt: And I just -- I'd just like to say we knew this was coming, you know, this has been an area that's been going into development, so that's why we are so -- we fought against it the first time very hard, but we knew it was coming in and the development Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 17of70 seems -- we are neutral, depending, and we just want also to make sure that the kids are safe, because they walk along that to middle school and to the high school right there, so just take that into consideration. And that's it. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to make a couple of clarifications about the wall to the back. First, I wanted to make -- just clarify that the applicant is going to have a break in the wall for the pedestrian access and the emergency access and, then, second, if the applicant is proposing to have the wall be six foot nine inches, that the code only allows it to be six feet in height, so we should address that tonight. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, it allows up to eight feet, but anything over six feet needs to be approved by design review of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, if you want to allow them to go up to six feet nine inches, now would be a good time to let them know. Borup: And where is that measurement from? On which side of the fence? If there is a change in grade, that's going to vary also. So, that - it may only be six feet on the north side. I mean I haven't been there to measure it, but that's -- okay. The neighbor said that it was six nine on the residential side. That's why I asked where do you measure the six feet from? Canning: You can have up to eight feet. So, if you would like to specify where it's being measured from, that's fine. Borup: Okay. You mean eight feet without a -- without a variance? Canning: Correct. Commission. It just needs to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Borup: Okay. All right. I think we can handle -- that's fairly easy to handle. Come on up. You wanted to come forward, ma'am? Zaremba: Well, while she's coming up, I would comment on another thing also. Do you have the view that shows the surrounding neighborhood as well? Anyone of those is fine. The comment was made about the middle school students walking back and forth. They do, of course, use this sidewalk here and at first look, if you put a pedestrian access, it might make sense to believe that they would walk through this project and this way over to the school. However, there are pedestrian accesses both here and here and the number of students might choose to go this way is probably very limited. Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I discussed this with Wendell Bigham from the school district, if they wanted to have a pedestrian access point at that southeast corner and they do not want an access point there for the students. Borup: Okay. Yes, ma'am. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 18 of 70 Gaffagen: Hi. I'm Michelle Gaffagen, I live at 1538 West 15th Street and I was one of the neighbors that did attend. Actually, I was the neighbor that attended both meetings. A couple points I wanted to bring out is we discussed some of the lighting factors and maybe try matching how the library does their low lighting below the fence line and I know I've had a discussion with Patty Younger earlier this week, that was one of her comments, too, she said she wrote in a letter. So, I wanted to bring that up. I do -- would like to see the times kind of go for the day hours. That L-O sounds really good for the neighbors, but I don't think it's really going to flow for them. But the 10:00 to -- or the 7:00 to 10:00 would probably work out a little better, considering you would have the traffic coming in after the kids are in school and I like the sounds of an eight foot fence. I didn't know we could have that, but I did notice after our first meeting one night we went out there from the north -- from the north side down to the fence from where the Linder Crossing is now and where they start at the bottom of the fence is the bottom of the drive and the building gradually goes up and so when you get to the top if you're standing on the other side of the wall, the residential side of the wall, you can still see the doors of the building. So, I don't know if we can bring the buildings down further into the land, rather than building up the dirt. And I was wondering about the signage, if it's going to be a high sign lit 24 hours or if they'd have to turn it off in the middle of the night, you know, to kind of keep things dim. Borup: Okay. We will get some clarification on that, on the signage. Gaffagen: And that was pretty much all. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Boyle, any final comments? Boyle: Members of the Planning Commission, again, Clint Boyle. I'll just dive into some of the issues that I think were brought up and, then, from there you can pick up any that I miss. There was some discussion on the buildings and setbacks and where they are located at and, again, this is a rezone request, preliminary plat request. We did provide a conceptual layout, again, to show that we have a feasible project that can work on the site. There is some reasoning behind where the lots are located. Could those building areas move around within those lots? Yes, they could. Obviously, they are still going to have to meet setback requirements. My guess is adjacent to the neighbors, just based on building code issues and the size of the buildings, that there is going to be, you know, a substantial setback there, not only to allow fire access behind, but just for building code issues. So, I don't see the buildings getting closer to the residential areas, I think it would be fairly expensive if they were to do that, to meet fire code and building code regulations. But, again, it is conceptual. The fencing was brought up, the six foot nine inch, versus six foot versus eight foot. The block wall that was installed with Linder Crossing phase one is a six-foot block wall on the Linder Crossing phase one side of the wall. Obviously, there is some grade issues that pick up that extra nine inches, apparently, on the residential side, but it is a six foot wall. That is what the developer has committed to with the neighbors is installing that same six-foot block wall adjacent Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7. 2004 Page1gof70 to the residential areas. If the neighbors -- well, to back up. That's a significant development cost to install a block wall. If the neighbors desire a height that is higher than the six foot, then, the developer may be willing to do that, but without a block wall. If it was some sort of fencing, vinyl fencing, cedar fencing, et cetera. Obviously, the higher that wall goes, the higher the price tag and it's already a significant expense to make a commitment to do a block wall. It's not something, again, that's required by ordinance, it's something that the developer wanted to do to show some good faith to the neighbors that he wants to buffer them to a degree that you may not find in other areas. Lighting in the parking was brought up and, again, we will comply with the Meridian ordinances on that. Those ordinances indicate that you -- well, Wendy can help me here. I don't remember exact the language, but it definitely has specifications in there on lights being directed towards your development, rather than spillage onto neighboring properties. Borup: I think some of the concerns were probably lighting on the backs of the buildings, maybe even more so than the parking lot. Boyle: In the backs of the buildings -- and I appreciate that, Commissioner Borup. It's kind of a difficult situation. On the back side of the building you're going to have deliveries there, potentially, you could have employee, you know, access points, potentially, that I would envision back there. So, you end up with a safety issue. If there is no lighting there, it's going to be a place that -- Borup: Well, you have to have lighting, but -- Boyle: Right. That hides, you know, crime, etcetera. As far as the lighting, the developer, just like in Linder Crossing phase one, he will, you know, make every effort that he can to direct those lights back to towards the development, screen them, shield from the neighbors. There was some discussion about the library's lights. The developer doesn't feel like that's a feasible option. The lights that I believe she was referring to are more of a lower bollard style light and those tend to have maintenance issues from getting hit by rocks, kids, whatever, when they are down low to the ground. Otherwise, we would probably see streetlights at about that height as well, So, I don't know that that's a feasible option, but we will comply with Meridian's ordinances as far as lighting. He realizes the neighbors' concerns. He will direct those lights to the extent possible back into the development, rather than on the neighbors' neighboring properties. Borup: And you already said the intention would be single story, similar to the first -- first building? Boyle: He intends to carry a theme -- architectural theme similar to the first building, single story development, so he does not have any two story office building or, you know, whatever might be proposed on the site. He is looking at single story buildings on the site. Hours of. operation. Again, this is something that isn't in Meridian's ordinance. At some point in time I actually wish that it was, because it would make my Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 20 of 70 job a little more easy with the developers and with the neighbors, but, unfortunately, it's not and the developer is requesting that the hours of operation for the back row of lots adjacent to the residential remain with the 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. He think that that's a reasonable time frame and one that's been done in other areas of Meridian where there is similar situations of commercial adjacent to residential areas. Zaremba: While you're on that subject, I would point out that even though we allow that, not every business is going to take all of those hours. Boyle: Correct. Borup: I think one of the last questions was the subdivision sign age. Is there going to be major signage with the concern about there being glaring lights at night or -- Boyle: As far as the signage, I think that the developer would just request similar signage to what the Texaco gas station off of Eagle Road has. Big electronic reader board. Lights up Eagle Road at night. No. I say that jokingly. But as far as the signage, obviously, the subdivision signage itself for this project is going to be out along Cherry Lane. We did have some discussion about the illumination of signage and maybe I misunderstood the neighbor's question a little bit, but I had some discussion with the developer on the actual wall signage around those buildings and he just indicated that on the back side adjacent to those neighboring properties that he wouldn't illuminate signage adjacent to the residential properties on the back side of the building, those lots that are adjacent to the residential areas. So, signage, I guess alii can say is it will meet Meridian code. It will be located out along the Cherry Lane Street frontage for the main project signage and -- Borup: And I think the new sign ordinance addresses most concerns along that line, too. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think the only one you run into a problem with is if you put a sign on the west -- southwest side, if you put a building and that's what Mrs. Shirt was talking about. Right there. A neon sign glaring down into somebody's property there, which I wouldn't venture a guess that a building is going to be facing north at that point, front of it. Boyle: And, again, adjacent to those residential properties, those lots that are adjacent to the residential - and I guess that can apply to that little blip of two or three lots that are adjacent there, that he won't illuminate the building, the wall signage on the building. He said he may still need an identification sign for the businesses on the back for employees or whatever, but he will keep those non-illuminated. Zaremba: And I think there is a provision in the code that says internally lit signs can't be facing a residence within a hundred feet or something like that. I forget the exact detail, but there is a provision that covers that. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 21 of 70 Borup: Okay. Anything else Commissioners want a clarification on? Have we covered everything? Okay. Boyle: I think so. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Boyle. Boyle: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Zaremba: I think I'm prepared to make motions, but let me just ask consensus of the Commission on the hours. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I had a question on that. Is there a limit on the hours of operation on the one to the west? The one right beside it? Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, that was approved through a certificate of zoning compliance, it wasn't a Public Hearing item, so I don't believe there are any restrictions. But I do want to point out it does have a different zone. It's CoN zoning for that commercial project to the west, while this is C-C, a more intensive commercial zone. Borup: The one to the west -- Kirkpatrick: Linder Crossing. Borup: I thought there was -- yeah, there was a public hearing -- am I thinking of the first one? Kirkpatrick: In 2001 there was a Conditional Use Permit for-- Borup: Okay. Kirkpatrick: -- for the subject property. Borup: I was thinking of the first one. Zaremba: Well, there was a Public Hearing on the drive-thru part of it and we may have attached some hours to that. I don't remember exactly. Borup: Clarification? Boyle: Commissioners, again, Clint Boyle. Just to clarify. That is correct. The Moxie Java that's there now had a drive-thru request that came through the Commission and their hours are limited from 6:00 to 11 :00. 6:00 in the morning to 11 :00 at night and the remainder of it does not have hours of operation restrictions on that first Linder Crossing phase. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 7, 2004 Page 22 of 70 Borup: I can't think of too many businesses that open at 6:00, other than a coffee shop. Zaremba: Well -- and that's what I'm thinking. Even if we allow 6:00 to 11 :00, which is more generous than I was going to be, not every business that's there is going to use all of those hours. They may be 9:00 to 5:00 and -- it just protects us along time down in the future for -- as things change. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, just as some examples of businesses that do open earlier, some dry-cleaning places open a little earlier so you can pick stuff up on the way to work and we just recently had a modification to a time limit with City Council on Tuesday to allow a workout facility, a small workout -- like a women's only workout facility that was next to a neighborhood and they needed to open at 6:00 o'clock as well. Borup: That was the one I was thinking of that could be earlier hours. Zaremba: But, even then, I wouldn't call those high traffic, like a full blown retail, you know. I think that's safe enough, Borup: I agree. Okay. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 04- 011 and PP 04-033. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: And I would comment that the smoothness of this presentation speaks highly to having the neighborhood meetings. It's an excellent idea. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-011, 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 the following changes: On page two, the first paragraph, second sentence, says the 14,880 square foot commercial building, parenthesis, Linder Crossing, closed parenthesis, located directly east, that, actually, should be west. And on page eight, at the very top of the page, the first paragraph says in accordance with the Comp Plan, policy number 12, et cetera, et cetera, staff finds that the number of vehicular accesses to Meridian Road, State Highway 69, that should read Cherry Lane. And, in fact, the applicant has complied with that. On that same page, page eight, special considerations, paragraph one, subparagraph A, add a second sentence that says: A cross-access agreement will be established with the existing Linder Crossing. Subparagraph B, I would leave the same, but add an additional sentence on the end that says these conditions may be modified by the Meridian Pianning & Zoning October 7,2004 Page 23 of 70 applicant working with staff to establish street facing facades. Subparagraph C I would leave the same. I would add a new subparagraph 0 that said Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 shall have the restriction that any use that would not be consistent with an L-O zoning, will be limited in hours to between - hours of operation to between 6:00 a.m. and 11 :00 p.m. every day of the week. I would add a paragraph E that says the perimeter wall height, which the applicant has said will be a block wall, shall be designed such that the top matches the top of the wall on Linder Crossing, which on one side is measured at six feet. Borup: Do we want that in the rezone or in the preliminary plat? The plat talks about buffers. Zaremba: We don't want it on the development agreement? Borup: Oh, yeah. That would probably be the -- Zaremba: That's what I'm reading now is what's in the development agreement. Borup: Okay. Yeah. That makes sense. Zaremba: So, the point I'm making is that the top of it will match the top of the existing fence and knowing that the ground varies in height, we are allowing that actual measured height may be anywhere between six feet and eight feet, but the intent is that the top matches the existing fence. End of annexation. Or, I'm sorry, end of rezone. 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 PP 04-033, 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 the following changes: On page nine, paragraph five, I will add a sentence that says: Applicant will work with staff to plan the final relocation of Cairns Lateral. On paragraph six, subparagraph B, modify plat to show two access points off Cherry Lane and align eastern access point with the library's -- and I would add the word ingress access point, so that this says it's aligned with the library's ingress access point. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 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 CoG 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 CoG 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 CoG 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 CoG 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