Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 17, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page10of76 Zaremba: The rest of it appears to apply correctly to Spurwing. Guenther: Okay. I got you. That one. Zaremba: Commissioners? Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Seeings how there is no other comments, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending vacation of 05-003, including all staff comments for the memo dated February 14, 2004, for the meeting date February 17th, 2005. I said four. I meant five. With the one change on line two of the application summary, change Ashford Greens Sub to Spurwing Limited Partnership. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from January 20, 2005: RZ 04-017 Request for a Rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L & L-O to CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from January 20, 2005: CUP 04-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Conceptual Planned Development for commercial/retail uses for approximately 615,430 square feet of building areas in a proposed CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the beginning of the public hearing section of our meeting tonight and I will just make a comment about the procedure that we follow, for those of you who don't attend these meetings very often. The city professional staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of time together, so we begin each public hearing with a report from the city's professional staff. They will present to us the location of the project and the major features of the project and some of the discussion that they have had with the applicant. Following that, the applicant has an opportunity to get up and respond to anything that the staff has said, clarify, add anything they want. We give them 15 minutes to do that and that includes the applicant or any other engineers that are part of a team, all speak within those 15 minutes. Following that anybody from the public who cares to comment is welcome to make comment. If you signed up on the list, I'll actual starting asking the people who signed up first, but, then, there will be an opportunity for anybody who didn't sign up to just speak. We do ask a couple of things. One, since it's important enough for you to come Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 11 of 76 down this evening and speak, it's important that we hear you, so we ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone. Come forward; speak into the microphone, that way we can hear you and our recorder can get it into the public record. I know many of you are not accustomed to public speaking, but, please, don't be afraid of the microphone. Speak up, so that we can hear you. We do limit individual public testimony to three minutes, so that we don't end up going until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning with our meetings. We do offer, if somebody is representing a group, for example, the president of a homeowners association or other spokesmen, we allow them extra time if there are people in the audience who give up their time to that spokesman. At the end of the public testimony, then, the applicant, who has taken notes during your comment, is given another ten minutes to respond to any issues that have come up and, then, we will have discussion among the Commissioners and, hopefully, make a recommendation to the City Council on what to do with the project. That being said, we are ready for Item 7 and, actually, Items 7 and 8 are the same thing, so these are continued public hearings from previous meetings. I will open and re-continue the hearing for RZ 04-017, request for rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L and L- 0 to CoG zones for Ten Mile Development and also continued hearing CUP 04-051, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a conceptual planned development for commercial retail uses for approximately 615,430 square feet of building area in a proposed CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC, by Hansen-Rice. This is on the southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and we will begin with the staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. Since you have already heard most of the background on this, I won't spend much time on that. Suffice it to say that you did, at your last meeting, forward onto the City Council a recommendation for approval on this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. That was on City Council agenda this week, but the item was tabled at the applicant's request to have that Comprehensive Plan Amendment and these two applications that you have on your agenda tonight, the rezone and the CUP, be together. So, just was thinking you might be able to have some information tonight on that, but, unfortunately, I can't give that to you as far as the Council's position on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. What's on the screen is the Comp Plan Amendment and staff -- and just for the record, we, obviously, have been working with the applicant on, you know, amending some of our conditions and whatnot. We still, for this record, want to state that we believe that this is not the correct place for this. We did recommend denial of the Comp Plan Amendment, but the game continues on here, so what you have before you tonight is the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit. Again, the property -- both of these items involve the entire 62 plus acres. The rezone, I think as was pointed out last time, there might have been a little question about the limited offices and that was noticed correctly, so we will hear that -- that will be a part of the City Council hearing and part of any future rezone on this property. The entire 63 acres would go CoG, commercial general zone. You should have received a February 14th memo from myself, as well as the February 16th reply to that memo from Dave McKinnon and those two documents, basically, summarize the background on the conditions that we are talking about tonight. I think the only other document that you received or that the city clerk received Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 12 of 76 as a part of this, in between your last hearing and this one, was the letter from Ned McCall, who was the property owner of the approximately eight acre parcel that is undeveloped here at the southwest corner of the site. He primarily is -- continues to be concerned about his rights to the ingress-egress easement that he has, which is the Commercial Court easement that cuts across through the center of this project and the access onto Eagle Road. So, I just wanted to point out that if you hadn't seen that, we did receive that letter in the record in between this meeting and your last one. What you see on the screen is the initial conceptual site plan that they submitted with their application and the one that was talked about at your January hearing, they did modify that and here is the modified site plan, which you should have received in your packet. The applicant did submit this ten days before the hearing, as was requested. As you can see, one of the main changes they made was to open up that 50-foot wide ingress- egress easement that I had just mentioned that is in favor of this McCall property. They had pulled back some buildings into this southern area. Before they had the large ones backed up to what they show as the future transit station here on the Union Pacific Railroad right of way and if you look at this alignment here, they have, essentially, created a main street boulevard concept there that does provide, we think, a lot more orientation and user friendliness, if you will, to the transit station, should that ever go in. The other change, they have shown a possible hotel site on the property in this corner. If you recall, that was originally shown back on the west end of the property and I believe one of the Commissioners made a comment about that. So, they have also accommodated -- we had three or four other site plan related concerns and they have generally been addressed by this plan we feel, particularly this north-south movement, they have these three main drive aisles in the site, which connect to Pine Avenue and these do not have any parking adjacent to them, I think they provide a much better flow of traffic in the site. There is a few other, as I mentioned, concepts that are reflected there that I won't go into right now, I did want to touch on just a couple of changes and comments on the staff report -- or the staff memo dated February 14th and Dave McKinnon's February 16th reply. On the front page of my memo, before the conditions are actually listed there, in the last paragraph I mention that one of the items that we talked about, the staff did and the applicant related to this main street concept and I think this goes back to what -- what this is that you're looking at. You know, what you're looking at is a conceptual planned development that is not -- if it's moved on by this body and approved by City Council, still does not give them building permit authority. It basically gives them the -- the confidence that the city is going to support this basic plan and concept. They would have to come back. We feel that -- that that's a pretty central part of this concept, you know, this main street, pedestrian friendly, kind of area that people can come to in this project. They have -- there is currently nothing in the conditions that says you must retain this. I think if we approve the concept, then, essentially, this plan generally has to be complied with, but we do feel that a main street really isn't a main street, if you're trying to sort of replicate that feel, unless you have historic construction on both sides and the building is fairly close, is a fairly wide sidewalk and, you know, it's long enough to kind of do a loop around the block, if you will. And that was not reflected in the conditions that the two story -- we had a little bit of conversation back and forth about that. We do still strongly feel that as a concept that that two story construction is an important element of that area and that it's -- we would Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 13 of 76 recommend that that be included in the conditions, but I wanted to point that out for the Commission and ask Dave McKinnon to address that tonight as well, as to where they feel they stand, but my understanding is they are not really ready to commit to that, but staff feels it's an important element. In Dave McKinnon's memo he does ask that condition number three, bullet point three and four, be addressed and, again, this is referring to the development agreement that would be entered into between the developer and the City of Meridian with this rezone and one of those development agreement conditions, the third bullet point and the fourth bullet point, deal with the access onto Eagle Road and they are -- this plan does still show three new -- well, their commercial is existing and they are showing an access on the south side and, then, an access on the north side, in addition to Pine and we -- while ITD, obviously, has the final authority for the approach permits and the applicant is working with ITD very closely on that, but I think to be consistent for what the city has done in previous developments on Eagle Road, we have said you have to go and get your approach permits through ITD, but we want to communicate to ITD what the city's position is on these Eagle Road and other state highway corridors and staff's position is that at the most one of these three would be approved and, if it was, it would only be a right-in, right-out only. And that is a -- that is consistent with what the Eagle Road corridor study shows is having a future median in the middle of this -- of Eagle Road, which, of course, would -- would force right-in, right-out, unless you happened to be lined up at a signal. But because of its proximity to Pine Avenue, which has the light, that's something that we do feel is an important piece to keep in the development agreement and we do think that the city is -- in the past the Council has wanted to support ITD -- this corridor arterial study that they just finished a few months ago and we think that this is consistent with that, so -- and, I don't know, maybe if Mr. Nary, the attorney, wants to make a comment on the question about -- that Dave McKinnon raises in his memo about the easement and right that Mr. McCall has to that easement, particularly as it relates to full access. Did you want to comment on that? Nary: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we did receive a -- the city did receive a letter from Mr. McCall regarding his preference on the comments and the recommend by the planning staff regarding the right in and right-out. It's my opinion that -- and the reason it does give him access, the right-in, right-out is not prohibited access, I think the city is planning and does have the ability to ultimately make that decision on where the access points along Eagle Road should be. The City Council has done that previously along both the Kuna-Meridian Highway and Eagle Road to be able to make a determination on the developer on the project and where the access points should be and I don't believe it would be restricted. If the right-in, right-out were to be a commercial court where Mr. McCall's easement is, he still would have access to his property and the fact that it's more restricted, I don't think it's a legal issue for the city. It may be an issue between him and the developer for access, but it's not an issue for the city. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 140f76 Hawkins-Clark: And, then, going down on -- still on the development agreement, which is on the conditions -- condition number three and, then, the third bullet up from the bottom, which is the fifth bullet down, that says prior to detailed CUP application being approved on this property, the owner shall provide written documentation to the city that Commercial Court access has been relinquished and this site plan, if this is the one that you approve, really addresses that subject. That could be omitted and that is what Dave McKinnon is requesting that we do and I agree that that doesn't make any sense now with this new plan. As far as the truck route, which is the second to the last bullet on page two of my memo, that talks about the site currently would allow trucks access to Eagle Road and I think the main change I would recommend on that is just instead of saying the applicant shall redesign the site -- this is the second sentence in that bullet -- just say the applicant shall design the site to limit the need for Eagle Road access for trucks, this -- you know, the plan -- I think that would be really something we would deal with at the detailed CUP level and, again, as Mr. Nary stated, I think as far as Mr. McCall's access and being able to use trucks back and forth "- nothing's built on this property today, so if anything does happen on there, this body is going to see that application again and we will deal with truck access at that point, but I think the goal here being you have Pine Avenue, it's signalized, that's where we want to encourage the flow of the traffic movement of trucks and not having to pull out directly onto Eagle Road. Then, there was two last issues for my presentation. One of them is on the phasing plan for this project and that's on page three of the memo, item number two, subparagraph C, identify the project phasing plan. As with most subdivisions, you know, there is usually a phase plan submitted with the subdivision. These commercial projects are a little bit different animal in that, of course, they, understandably so, don't know who the clients are going to be, if they are going to have anchor tenants, major tenants usually in these kind of situations, you know, they need a way for a major to come in, so we understand that they are not necessarily going to be able to tell us right away exactly how they are going to pave it. We assume that they are not going to build all of this infrastructure for the full 62 acres right up front and our main point there was just to insure that we understand generally for infrastructure, you know, how it's going to be extended, sewer and water and irrigation and which access points are going to come in, who it relates to the Hickory signal. They will require, the Ada County Highway Districts, if you put money up for the construction of a signal at Hickory. The decision relates to that and what Dave McKinnon is suggesting is to have the detailed -- the first detailed conditional use permit have the phasing plan at that point and I think if the Commission is comfortable with that, staff is. Related to the phasing, though -- and I should apologize, because I haven't had a chance to talk with the applicant about this, but one of the things that came up in the traffic study related to Pine Avenue and, as you know, today Pine does not connect over to Locust Grove Road. Mr. Funkhouser's traffic study, though, stated that -- that once Pine does connect to Locust Grove Road, it's going to, you know, significantly reduce the impact on Eagle Road. I think his number was about 31,000 trips that would be generated at build out by this site and you would have somewhere between 15 and 16 thousand less trips that would need to use Eagle Road if Pine is connected over to Locust Grove Road. I mean it makes sense, since a lot of this will come from the west and you have the future Locust Grove overpass and Pine being five lanes and so one of the things that we talked about at the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 150176 staff level was should this project have a limit on the amount of building that can go in here until Pine actually is extended. Obviously, this applicant does not have any control over the I.and where Pine would connect to Locust Grove. That being said, they are proposing a project that has a significant impact on Pine and on Eagle and so we are suggesting that that -- that no more than 300,000 square feet of this project be built until -- until Pine Avenue is extended. And I should point out that we have application submitted to the city that proposes to extend Pine Avenue that you will be seeing in the near future. The last point on item number six on page four, I think that's just basically an error on my part. I didn't really finish that condition. It talks about a minimum perimeter landscape strip on the south property line, but that was already included in item number two, to item number six could be omitted. And I think that ends staff comments. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions for Brad. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Brad, you just talked about the point on the 300,000 square foot to Pine. Where is that noted? Hawkins-Clark: It's not. As I mentioned, we just talked about that before the meeting and I haven't had a chance to talk with the applicant about it, so -- Moe: Okay. I do have a couple other things for you. And, actually, I have been -- on your item number three, bullet point number one, where you talk about the developer shall be required to incorporate some professional offices or non-retail use in the development when they get 300,000 square feet. What kind of square footage are we talking about for the professional office or non-retail? Is there. -- are we looking at a certain amount of square footage? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, that's a good point. We have struggled with this issue on mixed-use developments on exactly how to enforce this. Since the ordinance doesn't give us the direction, we are relying on the Comprehensive Plan, which says this should be a mixed-use area and they are asking for a mixed use regional designation and yet they didn't propose a mixed use. So, we have -- this is -- this almost identical language that we had on Market Square, which is where the Lowe's is going on Ustick and Eagle, they had 38 acres there, that was also mixed use. On that site we said similar language and didn't put a minimum square footage. Open for suggestions on that. I think it's a good point on how we track that. It's a little bit above - - balanced between complying with the Comprehensive Plan and the market and should the city be -- set, actually, minimum square footage of non-retail. Moe: Well, my point to that was -- is that I was glad to see that there was some possible plan for office or non-retail, but not so many type of a square footage noted. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 16 0176 I'm kind of curious about that. And I wanted to just kind of make sure -- we are anticipating if the city wants to have one right in, rightcout onto Eagle Road; correct? So, I'm assuming, then, that that would be the portion for the easement right there, that would be the one and only that we would be anticipating; right? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. If that. I should point that out. I mean, you know, there is other -- Pine Avenue is five lanes and a full access and I think with the median there, that was basically a compromise, if you will, from our position. Moe: Well, already having an easement there, the problem is we don't want to detour from the -- from Mr. McCall's access to that point, so that's why I would anticipate that to where it is as well. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Moe: Thank you. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, if I might. Commissioner Moe, just because staff didn't put a square footage for the non-retail use, that is certainly something that the Planning Commission could consider in their deliberations tonight for the Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: It certainly sounds to me like it would be a good use for a second story along the main street part of it and maybe other square footage as well. I just wanted to comment that me personally and I think all of us as Commissioners, are aware that staff had a strong recommendation to not only deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but also this, and we do take the staff's comments and recommendations very seriously. As you know, it was kind of a close decision not to follow your recommendation and I just want to say I appreciate the effort that you have put into going a different direction and giving us the study and the analysis of the direction that we, at the moment, seem to be going. So, I just wanted to appreciate that and make a point that we take your recommendations very seriously and struggle with it. That said, are we ready for the applicant? Any other questions? Borup: Yeah. I have one, Mr. Chairman. It's related to something that Commissioner Moe had mentioned and that's on the Eagle Road access. You had mentioned that the one access point you felt was in compliance with ITD's recommendations. Are their recommendations general or do they have some specifics as far as distance between access points or access points per piece of property or is it -- you know, anything a little more specific in their -- what they are recommending? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Borup, you're referring to the Eagle Road arterial study? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: And the recommendations in that study? Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 170176 Borup: Yes. And I assume that's what staff's comments were based on. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Well, they included several exhibits in that study, which did zoom in on, you know, segments on Eagle Road from 1-84 up to the city of Eagle. Or maybe it was Chinden. But, anyway, so they -- and they generally are saying they have signalized intersections identified pretty clearly in their study, but -- and they do have a pretty detailed concept of how the landscape median and the turning movements in the median and how it relates to the existing streets that are there. They did not specifically state a distance, I don't believe, on separation offsets for the driveways or the streets. Borup: You had mentioned that you thought that the one access was in substantial compliance with what their-- Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess my point there was it may work with a right in, right-out -- Borup: Well, I definitely agree with that. That should be the only option, is a right in, right-out. But I was just wondering about one access point only. Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think that was my point was that the compliance would be that it was right in, right-out. Borup: Yes. But didn't he also state there would be only one access? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I don't -- yeah, I don't think that that -- like I said, they did not include separations in that. I think that's -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. I certainly agree with the right in, right-out completely. That's all. Zaremba: As long as that's a topic, I will chime in with an opinion also. ITD has been very plain that they want to limit access to Eagle Road. The City of Meridian has also been very plain that we support that and want to limit. I do think it's fair for the city to signal to ITD that we agree with them that there should only be one access. If it appears, because of the existing easement, where that access is is pre-established, but I also agree with the city attomey there -- it is not terribly restrictive by causing that to be only a right-in, right-out and I have agreement with the staff, and I think the other Commissioners, that we should signal to ITD that Meridian is in support of a single access and that it would be right-in, right-out at that point. Borup: Well -- and that was my question was whether another access would really cause any traffic problems to the extent -- being that there is a signal right there close and that's a break in the traffic. But I would -- I would think I'd need to see a traffic study that would indicate that -- you know, that the turning from both directions on Pine, you know, may impact that to extend, because it wouldn't be practical or not. And I don't know the answer to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 18 0176 Zaremba: Okay. Any other comments before we -- Rohm: 1 guess we will hear from the applicant. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. Mr. McKinnon, you must be here someplace. Canning: Mr. Zaremba, I just wanted to follow up on that note before Mr. McKinnon starts. There is -- in some ways the Planning Commission -- or the City Council may have a little more tools for restricting access than ITD might have, because ITD struggles with a number of access agreements that they have made in the past that there seems to be a little bit of question of when development occurs if they need to fully honor all those existing access points, whereas the city, with the request for a rezone or for annexation, when that's the case, has a little more ability to have -- place conditions on the property. So, I did want to -- you used the words support their decision, but in some ways if it is your own decision, it might even carry a little more -- help them out more if it's a decision of the city to actually limit access. So, I just wanted to -- to bring that to your thoughts anyway. Zaremba: Thank you very much. McKinnon: Good evening. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, representing the applicant tonight. And just to jump in where everybody else has been talking about tonight with our right-in, right-out, and the multiple access points, I'd love to come up and say to you tonight that I'm an expert on traffic engineering, I'm not, but I brought one with me tonight and he's here and Gary Funkhouser can get up in a little bit and address the issues concerning the traffic access points. Brad talked about them just really quick. Currently there are two access points to this site. Those of you that are familiar with the site remember that there is two basically cinder block buildings on the site. There is one located right here and, then, there is the old Club Wholesale building about right here. There is an access currently on Eagle Road right here that's being utilized by the occupant of the small building and, then, Commercial Road is the access point right now for the old Club Wholesale building. And, then, further back it goes back to Ned McCall's property. Brad basically let you know that already and the things that he had to say we are in agreement with for the most part. Items number -- oh, item number three -- condition number three, bullet points three and four, this is Idaho Transportation Department's jurisdiction on Eagle Road and we haven't heard back with their comments on Eagle Road and what they will and what they won't recommend. I have talked with District Three. District Three would like to see the recommendation -- would like to see the recommendation to the super committee to have one access point on Commercial and eliminate the other two access points, that would be the north point -- the northern access point above commercial and the one below Commercial and that was District Three's recommendation to Idaho Transportation Department's super committee. And I don't have a result back yet from their super committee and what their determination was, but that's what I can update you with with Idaho Transportation Department. So, seeings how they haven't made a decision yet, it's hard for me to Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 190176 comment onto what Idaho Transportation Department will finally do, so that's why we are asking at this time to leave it up to Idaho Transportation Department, because they have the expertise and they know how to determine what is and what isn't a safe access point to Eagle Road. So, that's the reason for the recommendation from us to wait until ITD figures that out and if ITD comes back and says one access on Commercial Road, right-in, right-out, we are happy to abide by that. And coming from District Three that was the request at that time. So, it is at headquarters right now. You have the letter from Ned McCall. Ned McCall does not want to see his access point limited to right-in, right-out, and he may have some discussions with Idaho Transportation Department with that as well and I appreciate the comments from Mr. Nary concerning that tonight. Condition number three, bullet point five, I'll ask you to strike that. Again, I'd just ask you to strike that when you make your motion tonight. Condition number three on page two, bullet point number four, the truck routes. The truck routes in my comments in my letter I mentioned that we do have an access -- full access at Pine, besides the three north-south access points coming onto Pine Street, which would allow truck access to come in and out on this site. With the construction of a median in Eagle Road I don't believe any trucks are going to try to turn out into Eagle Road during the peak p.m. and peak a.m. hours. I believe that most of the truck traffic will all be moving up to Pine Street to gain access to Eagle Road, because that's the only place they are going to be able to do it during peak trip hours. So, that's where that's going to go, but we can't restrict Mr. McCall's access to be able to take trucks back there. He has a use for that piece of property in mind and he wants to leave that open and so we have accommodated that by this site design. Onto -- actually, let's go to my letter, condition C -- condition C-2 on page tree. As Brad, pointed out, we have some suggested language for that and Brad said if you were comfortable with it, he was comfortable with it. I want to tell you that I'm comfortable with the language I suggested to you as well and ask that you adopt that tonight. Onto page five, condition number 18. This condition was discussed by Brad and I just before the meeting and there was some misunderstanding on my part. We were concerned that Brad was asking for all of the site improvements to be done at once prior to a certificate of occupancy for just one building and Brad and I talked about that just before the meeting and he said, no, that's just for each individual building or each individual phase. And so we don't have a problem with that. We just were concerned with the wording and I just wanted to make sure that it was understood that we would do all improvements for each individual building and phase, rather than all the improvements all at once prior to a certificate of occupancy. So, we are on the same page, we just read that a little bit differently. Brad mentioned a couple things that -- let me touch on just a little bit concerning the build out of Pine Street. It's not a condition that he has anywhere in his staff report, he just recommended to you tonight to limit the amount of uses that can go onto Pine Street to 300,000 square feet of retail and other uses until Pine Street is extended. That's a curve ball. It's not anything that we have heard until tonight and Brad did apologize and I just want to address that a little bit. We are talking about Pine Street is going to be, essentially, an arterial roadway, it's a 96 foot street section, it's going to be five lanes, and the cost of the improvements for all of Pine Street fall square around the shoulders of the developer, in addition to the cost of constructing that road and dedicating the right of way for that road, he also puts in 105,000 dollars for the construction of a stoplight at Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 20 01 76 Hickory and Pine. To incur all those costs, yet still not be able to construct beyond the 300,000 if that becomes the limit. Brad mentioned that Pineridge Subdivision has been submitted to the City of Meridian. It has been submitted to the City of Meridian and part of that application as well, it will be coming to you soon. The size of these two projects are large, over 180 acres in size. It's hard to determine the phasing of this and the timing of this project. We don't know when Pine Street will be connected completely. However, because of the size of this project, build out for this project is not going to be alleviated. There may be a number of buildings that come in place and be placed on this site. Maybe 100,000 square feet of building. Pine Street will have to be constructed moving back. The 300,000 square feet, if we pay all that money and we can't go any further, it's really hard to recoup those costs. And so we would ask that you not make that a condition of approval tonight, because the timing of this site -- and we don't know how fast it's going to develop and if it did that as quickly and there is a demand for that, we don't want to be restricted to somebody else completing their roadway. It's in -- the application's in, but we don't know the timing or the phasing of that project yet either. That's in for a Conditional Use Permit as well. And, remember, this is conceptual. We will have to come back to you with one of these individual building plans and each one of these individual phases, so you will have a chance to look at this again in the future and if the traffic study support more than 300,000 square feet at that time, since Pine Street is not constructed, I don't think that right now is the time to limit that and we can limit -- we can see where we are at once we get to that point in construction, because you will be seeing a detailed Conditional Use Permit for each one of these projects as they come in. Even though it is just conceptual right now, we don't even know who the users are going to be, we don't know how many square feet they need, and we don't want to be limited at this, because the traffic may justify what is there, so, please, don't pick an arbitrary number tonight and limited us to that, to just say 300,000 is all we can do before Pine Street is connected. On to some fun stuff. Brad asked about two story buildings. Two story buildings are great and they are fun, they are neat, they are expensive to construct, especially with retail and office together. This project, like you said, was a very close decision last time and we have some things to workout with their site plan. We have been working with staff and staff has been very generous with their time in working with us on this project. We haven't done a detailed market study to determine whether or not the two story office buildings will work on top of the retail in that area, but that's something we will definitely look into and you will, again, have the opportunity to review these projects as they come back to you with a detailed Conditional Use Permit. We understand staff's recommendation for that. It's not a condition of approval that they put in tonight and we are happy to leave it out of the conditions of approval tonight. We will look into it. You will have the opportunity to see it again in the future, under a Conditional Use Permit, the main street right through here. As that project comes in, you will have an opportunity to review that and we'd ask that you review that at this time. Please keep in mind that we are dealing with this on a conceptual nature right now. Brad mentioned that we are just about done with this game and I think that you have been very helpful, you have worked with us, you have asked us to do a lot of things, which we have tried to comply with. We have increased the open space. We have added a pond for ducks and geese up in the corner to try to match up with what -- the wonderful things that Blue Cross has done and we have Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 21 0176 increased the open space. We valued the pathway and we have increased the plaza areas. The request that staff had to improve this project, we have tried to incorporate into this. We feel that we have got a project right now that you can move forward and will become an asset for the city in the future. We'd ask that you approve it tonight and I'd ask if you have any questions at this time. Zaremba: Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple. I'm still going back to your first comment on access points. Do you know how many access points there are in Crossroads Subdivision across the street and how many square footage of space they have? McKinnon: Brad, can you go to the overhead, the aerial photo? We have Presidential that comes into Crossroads Subdivision. Above Presidential you have the access that runs across basically from the access into Kinko's, Starbuck's, Wendy's in here. It doesn't go far enough up. There is one more access point just north that goes into the Applebee's area, Borup: So, there is three on Eagle and how many on Fairview? McKinnon: On Fairview they have one, two -- they have the traffic light at Wal-Mart and, then, the one passed Wal-Mart, I believe. Borup: So five? McKinnon: They have got a number of them. Borup: Okay. And you're not sure -- how many square foot -- McKinnon: Square foot is the entire project minus Wal-Mart -- boy, I saw projected build-out numbers when I worked for the city. I don't know the complete build-out numbers at this time, because that was conceptual as well. So, I don't know the complete build out at this time. Borup: Then the other -- and maybe just a comment and that's on the Pine Street extension. I know for me one of the major pieces of information has influence when we were discussing the Comp Plan Amendment was that Pine Street would be extended. I know if I felt that that was not going to happen, my opinion of the whole project would have been different. So, I thought that was a major piece of information as a necessity of that extension for this project to work. McKinnon: I'm sure it is going to be extended. That project has been submitted, so-- Borup: No. I understand that, but I'm just making my personal comment on your concern on the full build out of the project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 22 01 76 Moe: Mr. Chairman, a couple questions. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I know you have made mention in regards to possible office use and whatnot, but realizing it's conceptual, do you not have any kind of a square footage idea of what may be put into this project? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we have gone over that issue a couple different times, just like staff has, and we sat down with Brad and said, you know, is there a cut and dried number and we didn't come up with a number as to how much. We added the hotel, which takes us out of the straight retail uses. So, there is the hotel site. There wasn't a hotel site on the original application. What Brad mentioned in the far west end was, actually, another anchor tenant, it wasn't a hotel. So, we have added to hotel to have a mix of uses beyond just straight retail. Six hundred thousand plus square feet of building is a lot of area and there will be plenty of room for office use within that area. As far as picking out an individual pad site or individual building site, there isn't one specific to this site, but there is a great deal of area that could accommodate office. Moe: Okay. That's alii have. Zaremba: I have a question about what I think is Hickory. Maybe we can tell -- is this the intersection you're being required to signalize? Is that where Hickory is? McKinnon: Uh-huh. Zaremba: The aerial view that was here before didn't show that this connected. Do we know if it now connects? McKinnon: It does. It's part of the Gemtone Five project. Zaremba: And do you or anybody else -- now I know at Fairview -- where Hickory crosses Fairview there is a plan to signalize that I think within this year. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Does this one connect all the way through? Does Hickory go all the way through to Fairview or is there a break in it somewhere? McKinnon: Yeah, it does go -- Zaremba: It does? McKinnon: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 23 of 76 Zaremba: I think that gives us some extra traffic options until -- until Pine connects through to Locust Grove, Eagle isn't, actually, the only choice. McKinnon: That's correct. It will have a secondary access out. Thanks for helping me out. Zaremba: Well, it doesn't depict it, but I was thinking that there is a connection. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have got a couple of things that I wanted to just kind of throw out, here. Dave, when we -- listening to this project last time, there was a lot of opposition from the staff based upon the fact that Eagle Road is so congested already. You gave us some compelling arguments that said that even though you should be allowed development -- and, obviously, gave us enough to sway us to go your direction, but what I'm hearing now is now that you have got us leaning your direction, you want the whole thing and it seems to me that there should be some give and take on -- like you mentioned the ITD -- part of staff's reluctance was not to have that additional ingress-egress off of Eagle Road and if, in fact, you can find a way to develop this commercially and not have multiple ingress-egress off of Eagle Road, I think you'd get a lot more support from this body and we would be in a lot better graces with the folks that we work with everyday. Would -- could you comment on that? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, can I put a smile on your face? We can live without the access point above Commercial and the access point below Commercial. Commercial is the one we definitely need to have happen. So, if that was, you know, your recommendation that you would like to see those gone, we are okay with that. Rohm: Okay. Well -- and now we are moving in the direction I'd like. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Rohm: Now, onto the non-retail. You have been at this game quite awhile and I think that it would be appreciated if you could give us some sort of a ballpark idea of out of 600,000 square feet can you have 50,OOO? I mean you ought to have some idea of what you can commit to from a non-retail perspective. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Commissioner Rohm, when I get back up for rebuttal I will be able to have a better answer for you. I want a chance just to talk with the developer, find out what he's comfortable with. Just one other thought on that. We do have a large number of office spaces or bare land that's located immediately north of this site. The Gemtone project provides high quality office space. And we have Blue Cross, which is a very large office building just north of this site. I will have a number-- Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 24 01 76 Rohm: I want you to know that I'm not trying to kill what you have going here, because I think that there has been a lot of give and take both ways, but I really want more than just, well, we will see as -- and each project will come before you as a conditional use. I'd like to have some feel for what you think you could manage as part of this project. Thank you. McKinnon: I'll get you that. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to -- I don't have any questions, but I want to make some comments. I believe I was the one Commissioner who did vote against this project and I just want to go on record again, I don't think this is the appropriate place -- could we go back to the aerial view? And I have been thinking a lot over the last four weeks as I drive down Eagle Road everyday, why I think this is a bad place for this project and I drive down Pine this way, go all the way over here to Cloverdale, with the exception of Lewis and Clark Middle School and this subdivision here, You have industrial uses, industrial land for sale, industrial uses, industrial uses and industrial uses. You have the Coors Distributing, you have a utility truck place here. Sorry, I can't remember the name of it. You have a distribution center here. I think we show a pattern of a lot potential for industrial growth in this. I think that Pine Street to the north -- I think Pine Street creates a good stopping point, if you will, for commercial development on Eagle Road. There is a lot of land here to the north that is already designated with the mixed use regional where commercial development, I believe, would be more suited. I -- now, granted, I'm not a land planner, the Mayor did not appoint me to this Commission as a land planner, but in the time I have been on this Commission one thing I have learned is that a Comprehensive Plan was designed for future land planning and I believe that future land planning takes time and amending a Comprehensive Plan that is approximately three years old I think is rushing future land development along at an unnecessary pace, if you will. And I don't think the time is right for this project. It seems like a very nice project, but I just want to go on record saying I am wholeheartedly opposed to it in this area. End of comment. McKinnon: I have just been handed a note. Moe: The number is? McKinnon: Fifty thousand. Rohm: Thank you. McKinnon: You're welcome. Rohm: I appreciate that. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I appreciate the levity tonight. We have been at this a long time with this project and we have been at it a long, your staff has been at it a long time. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I appreciate your Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 25 01 76 comments. We do have this Comprehensive Plan. I was part of the Comprehensive Plan. The area was specific for mixed use, not industrial as it was zoned. You mentioned that it goes back along Pine Street; it's not industrial on the Comprehensive Plan. That is all mixed use regional and you're going to see some more additional -- Newton-Huckabay: It's being marketed as industrial along the for sale signs. McKinnon: Well, yeah, it's been marked that way, but as far as complying with the Comp Plan and if the Comp Plan is to be taken as what it is, the Comprehensive Plan does not intend that to be industrial. I appreciate your comments. I know we battled through that last time and the recommendation went through and I do appreciate your comments. I really do. Although I disagree with them. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba? Or Chairman Zaremba, it would appear that the applicant is testifying again. McKinnon: I can get down and finish my testimony. Thank you very much for your time. Zaremba: I have been electronically challenged. Am I able to be better heard over this microphone? Okay. Canning: If you pull it down can we -- can we test it out for you there? Zaremba: Well, we didn't change it. I'm using the hand held one, although I'm just resting it on the counter. And if I can be heard that way -- Canning: That's working. Zaremba: We will proceed with that. Let's see. I failed to mention that we had this handy-dandy light system here. When the light is green you have time to talk. It will go to yellow, that gives you about 30 seconds to conclude, and when it's red we do ask that you conclude. I didn't see it light up. I saw it was green for a while. I didn't see what happened later. Okay. The applicant has spoken. The only other person signed up is Gary Funkhouser. Would he care to come forward and add some comments? Apparently no further comment. Okay. The meeting is open to anybody else who wishes to comment, even if you didn't sign up. That being said, we will give the applicant an opportunity for his closing remarks. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the. Commission, Dave McKinnon. No rebuttal to my previous testimony. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: That was perfect, Dave. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2006 Page 26 01 76 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I actually have one question for him and that would be would that be a minimum of 50,000 square feet? McKinnon: Yes. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: That truly helps with the nature of the -- even compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in mixed use, as staff pointed out, all retail is not mixed. The hotel helps, if it does turn out to be a hotel, and if there is some concept that maybe another 50,000 could be a different use than retail, I believe that helps. Thank you. There was an original staff report, but I -- I think the staff report of February 14 addresses enough issues that I would probably refer only to it. Staff is nodding that this is now the operative staff note. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, it appears that all discussion has been had. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 04-017 and CUP 04- 051. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Sometimes we all speak at once and sometimes nobody speaks. Another motion would be appropriate, unless there is some further discussion. Moe: Well, if that was a comment to me, Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to get my thoughts in order here first. I guess I'm going to ask the one question I'm a little bit unclear on and that would be we are -- I do have some changes that I do want to address on that. Am I addressing that to the CUP or the rezone? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, are you referring to the square footage? Moe: Well, a few things here, I guess. Hawkins-Clark: The rezone, Commissioner, is the development agreement. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 27 01 76 Hawkins-Clark: So, essentially, if this site is rezoned to commercial general, all of it mixed use and if, for whatever reason, this project doesn't happen, what things would you like to stay with this land, regardless what goes there. Maybe that's just one way to help you think about a development agreement. The Conditional Use Permit is also an option to put the conditions, but I think the development agreement is for that longer term view of this site, so -- Moe: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, now, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-017, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of February 17 and -- hang on here. Hearing date February 17th. Zaremba: The staff's memo date is February 14th, 2005. Moe: And that is correct. And the staff memo date February 14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page two of the staff memo of February 14th, item three, bullet point one, in the sentence where the developer shall require -- be required to incorporate some -- I'd like to change some to read to incorporate a minimum of 50,000 square foot of professional office or non-retail use in the development. Under bullet point five I would like to admit that in its entirety. Bullet point six, under the applicant shall redesign, I would like to delete re and make it that the applicant shall design the site to eliminate the need for the Eagle Road access for trucks. End of motion, The number of access points are already fairly noted in four as one -- one only and that's exactly what I'm asking for. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, is it possible for staff to ask for a clarification as we prepare a recommendation -- Zaremba: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: -- for Council? Commissioner Moe, did that 50,000 include the hotel or not? Moe: No, it does not. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Borup: Oh, it doesn't? Moe: That's what I got out of that. Borup: Well, it says -- okay. But the -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Then, that may need rewording, because it says professional -- it says non-retail. Professional or non-retail. Wouldn't a hotel be non-retail? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 28 01 76 Moe: I took it they made a point of a hotel and, then, this would be over and beyond the hotel square footage. Newton-Huckabay: I concur. Borup: It's not worded that way now. I was assuming you meant the hotel was included in that. Zaremba: As part of the motion do you want to revisit that first bullet under paragraph three on page two? Moe: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend my motion in regards to item number three, bullet point one -- I forgot what I wanted to say. Borup: I think you were going to say in addition to the hotel. Moe: Oh. Basically, where it says to incorporate a minimum of 50,000 square foot in addition to the hotel, of professional office or retail use. Borup: Or non-retail use. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Zaremba: Okay. And we will clarify that all other elements of the motion as previously made are included with that one amendment. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion does carry. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES; ONE OPPOSED Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-051 to include all of staff comments of the meeting date February 17th, 2005, staff comments of February 14th, 2005, with one change. Under site specific conditions on page three, item two, item C, like to have that point stricken and changed to read: A phasing plan shall be submitted with the first detail Conditional Use Permit application for this project. Revisions to the phasing plan shall be approved by the planning director or his/her assigns if changes to the plan are requested. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 29 01 76 Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES; ONE OPPOSED Zaremba: Thank you all. Traditionally somewhere in the neighborhood of 9:00 o'clock we take a break and I believe this would be an appropriate time to take about ten minutes and reconvene. (Recess.) Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 6, 2005: AZ 04-033 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Star-It by Avest LP - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting. Let the record show that all Commissioners are present again and we will move on to Item 9. I will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 04-033, request for an annexation and zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Stor-It by Avest LP, 355 North Ten Mile Road, and we will begin with staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. I will try and be very brief with this one and if you have any questions, please ask. This is an annexation. The location is right off of Ten Mile just south of the railroad right of way. This is bisected by Ten Mile Creek. The east portion is the C-2 zone and the west portion is the RUT zone. At this time the front -- there is the aerial photo. At the time the front here has existing storage units on it. The bridge in this location recently was completed, as well as they are going -- they are proposing to put in new buildings in this area in the rear and two new ones in the front. This is a conceptual plan. There is no approval for the actual buildings at this time. What we are looking for the -- being addressed in the development agreement for the site would be the compliance with the five year work plan along Ten Mile Road, as well as meeting the Comprehensive Plan for the multi-use pathway along Ten Mile Creek on the western portion of the site. This site is also bordered by a proposed multi-use, multi-family high density to the west and this is all proposed, since everything there is vacant currently. And a church site to the south. We have met with the church site and they will be putting the pathway to the Avest property off of Ten Mile Creek and that's part of the reason why this pathway needs to continue up -- continue through. To the north is a recent R-8 development that has also continued the pathway on the west side of Ten Mile Creek. At this time it's -- the staff report reflects what our comments would be. We believe that all of the issues for the site can be addressed during the development agreement and the site would just be redeveloped through certificate of zoning compliance in the future. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for the staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. !"".............