Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 7, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 30 of 55 Moe: I really wouldn't have a problem with that either. Rohm: With that being said, I'll look for a motion. Borup: Okay. You're waiting for me. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP OS-011, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a day care facility for six to 12 children by Stephanie Edwards, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff report for April 7th and with the following condition, that the number of children be limited to a maximum of eight, unless that number is reduced by the fire department report. Newton-Huckabay: I thought we agreed to defer to the fire department. Borup: Did we? Okay. That's why I wondered why you wanted me to do this. Moe: Well, you had written notes down, I figured you were doing it. Borup: How about I revise the second half of that motion. With the one exception being the number of children allowed will be that determined by the fire department inspection. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP OS-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 05-010 Request for a re-subdivision of Lots 4 & S, Block 1 of Bonito Subdivision for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 commercial building lots and 1 other lot on 4.06 acres in a C-G zone for Bonito Subdivision No.3 by Travis Burrows for Dave Evans Construction - 3041 & 2967 East Copperpoint Drive: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP OS-01 0 and hear the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a re-subdivision of these three lots within Bonito final plat subdivision, which is also known as EI Dorado Subdivision, which was the preliminary portion, which also had the Conditional Use Permit that was issued for this type of mixed-use development. With that there are nine building lots that are proposed in this location in this configuration, One point that is incorrect on this site plan is that there is a SO-foot wide easement for the Ridenbaugh Canal in this location and, then, the applicant has indicated that there is a 3S-foot wide irrigation easement in this location. The original Conditional Use Permit indicates that this 3S-foot is the multi- Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7.2005 Page 31 of 55 use pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal. Ridenbaugh. My accent. If you also notice the conditions of approval that have been stated in the staff report, a detailed fencing and landscaping plan in compliance with the original Conditional Use Permit and Meridian City Code Chapter 12-13, shall be submitted with the final plat. This is -- we do not have a landscaping plan at this time that has been approved with -- that we approved with this preliminary plat, but this will be addressed through adherence to our landscaping ordinance at the final plat stage. And there was one letter that was submitted to the file and that -- I brought up that point with the landscaping, because they did indicate that no landscaping has been prepared, which is true. However, we are requiring that as a condition of approval. I believe everybody received that as item number ten in your packet tonight. And at this time I will stand for -- I will ask for questions, but keep in mind that this is also subject to the conditions of approval for the Bonito - the EI Dorado preliminary plat Conditional Use Permit and the Development Agreement, which was adhered to at the time of the original development. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Borup: Not right now. I think I will later, though. Rohm: Yeah. I think we are going to -- this is going to go back and forth just a bit, but at this time I'd like to hear from our applicant. Collingwood: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, my name is Rick Collingwood with Toothman-Orton Engineering. Address is 9777 Chinden Boulevard in Boise. Upon reviewing the staff comments we have no exceptions to the comments. Everything looks pretty straightforward to us and I'd just like to open up for questions if there is any. Newton-Huckabay: Did you get a copy of this? Collingwood: No, I did not. Newton-Huckabay: Would it be appropriate for him to respond to this after the public testimony as well? Rohm: Yeah. It might be just as well to take a few and give you a chance to just read through it and, then, we will just proceed after you have had a chance. Collingwood: Okay. Borup: Before he leaves, Mr. Chairman, I -- maybe just one question at this point. This is a re-subdivision of two original lots in EI Dorado; is that correct? Collingwood: That's correct. Borup: And we are going to nine lots? Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 32 of 55 Collingwood: The proposal is to have nine lots and they are delineated there around each proposed building. Borup: Okay. So, then, all the in between would be common parking or landscaping, et cetera? Collingwood: Common landscaping or common space. All the access parking, access aisles would be all common area, common access, and everything that's outside the lots. Borup: So, then, rather than to two large buildings, we are probably looking at nine smaller buildings? Collingwood: Looking at nine around 4,000 square feet. Borup: A lot smaller than what would have originally been on those lots. Collngwood: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Let's take a short recess and give you an opportunity to read through that and, then, we will continue. Borup: Why don't we go ahead with public testimony, because isn't that the same thing? Rohm: No, I -- we can -- I'd rather wait for just -- and let him read through this and, then, I'd like to have him finish his testimony and, then, that might give the balance of the people that want to speak answers to some of their concerns before they come forward, so we will just -- we will take a short break. (Recess.) Rohm: I think we are ready to proceed. Mr. Collingwood, are you ready to -- okay. Collingwood: Okay. In light of this letter from Joe and Andrea Waters here, I'll just go down here the ones I can address right at this time. The walking path, for instance, going back to City Council's recommendations back in 2003 -- 2002, I'll just read it verbatim out of here. It indicated that the pathway will be constructed on a block-by- block basis or as P&Z recommends and completed when 50 percent of the buildings are completed in the block. So, as the development -- as the buildings are built we will improve those plans. The pathway which will go along Ridenbaugh Canal will be put in in conjunction with this development. And I will stop right there. I do not know if -- well, there is -- the development right now that's being built next door, their building's going in Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7,2005 Page 33 of 55 right now. Are they required to put in this path right now? Are you -- I'm not familiar with what that is or what's going on there, but -- Rohm: I would bet that they are. Guenther: I can -- you're talking about the pathway -- Collingwood: The pathway along the Ridenbaugh Canal. Guenther: Which is the lot closest to Eagle Road? Collingwood: No. Guenther: Or is it the one on the other side? To the west. Collingwood: Where they are building the two buildings right now. Guenther: I'd have to check their certificate of zoning compliance, but I anticipate that it will be -- recently we had a discussion with Jonathan Seal, who was the PE of EI Dorado Subdivision, and he -- we actually went through how the pathway is going to be interconnected on this site and he is overseeing that it is being completed block by block as conditioned by the City Council. Rohm: Thank you. Before you proceed, I'd like to just interject something here. This is your time to present your project in the light that you want to present it and I only gave you the letter to read through to help in -- or possibly give you some additional information to -- for your own presentation. So, at this time I'd like to just let you go back to the presentation that you had intended and if you choose to include additional comments, that's certainly your prerogative. Collingwood: As I stated, the staff's comments are pretty straightforward. We have no exceptions to the comments and since you handed me this letter here, I'm just kind of going through each issue here and responding where I can. There is some issues here that were brought up in this letter regards to the street lighting, down lighting, spacing of buildings -- as you can see, there is quite a bit of open space between the buildings. I don't know what corridor is for the parking and access-ways. What you're looking at there, you see 6,000 square foot buildings and so forth, those have all been reduced to right around 4,000 -- four to five thousand max. Borup: So, I assume that was a concept of what maximum building sizes could be, is that what -- is that correct? Collingwood: Correct. And it sort of goes with each building, depending on what goes in there and what -- they can -- they change the size from space to space. I mean they could -- it's almost dynamic as you go through there, depending on how much space is Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7,2005 Page 34 of 55 needed, but that's just a conceptual plan for the approximate square footage of the building and -- Rohm: Is it suffice to say that the aggregate of the buildings that are now being proposed, is that close proximity to the total build out square footage that would have been had there been just the two buildings? Collingwood: The two lots. Rohm: It seems like that that's possible, but I -- Collingwood: Well, the two lots that were there -- the two existing lots, I don't know the exact size of those, but they are very large and you'd have to have a very large building to fill up those lots. Dave Evans Construction generally works with a smaller commercial product like this and generally in business and medical and so those lots were very large for his type of product and that's why we are re-subdividing into smaller lots. Rohm: Okay. Collingwood: Let's see here. We talk about the height standards of the building in here. That's one question on the letter. And going back to the City Council's approved recommendations -- let's see here. I'll find it. We are looking at -- it says in the occasion that all lots -- all construction within lots one through seven -- which this is lots two and four. Lot three is a small lot with the irrigation pump station there, so this is lots two and four, which is included in this, they said that the maximum height would be 35 feet and, let's see, their subdivision height is 28 feet. So, there is some confusion here with the letter and what was approved by the city. The street lighting, we can sure address that. I mean the letter indicates -- it directs to indirect, the street lighting on Copperpoint Drive was, of course, approved by the city. I don't know what kind of street lighting is going into the new buildings that are being built right now or to the existing Heritage Reflections building there on the corner, but I would assume we would comply with and stay with that same type of lighting. Rohm: Yeah. I think that there is actually lighting standards that speak to light contamination to adjacent property and maybe staff can comment on that after your testimony, but-- Collingwood: But we are -- you know, whatever staff recommends there. That's not an issue. We can take care of that very easily. I really don't have any more comments. If there is any questions I can answer. Rohm: Okay. I think the only thing that I would say is as we take public testimony, it's probably to your advantage to take good notes, so that you can respond to them once you have an opportunity to have final comment, so -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 35 of 55 Collingwood: Sure. Okay. Rohm: I don't have any additional comments. Thank you, sir. Collingwood: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony and we will start with Ed Strickfaden. Strickfaden: Commissioners, Ed Strickfaden at 3044 East Green Canyon Drive. I think tonight as we talk about residential areas clashing with business areas, that's going to happen over and over again in Meridian, probably already has. But what -- how this is conducted, how this is done, whether officially by law or by the good will of us in Green Canyon and those that are building the buildings are -- is extremely important. Just because somebody can, doesn't mean that that's what they need to do, if they can build in a way that harmoniously blends residential and business. I want to speak specifically about the walk -- the path and wanted to refer -- apparently it's been amended that I didn't know about, perhaps, but the case AZ 01-018 as approved by this Commission and I want to talk about and read a section on page 14 about that path, which says that it must be completed prior to any building permits being levied on that property. I hear tonight that they are going to put the path in building by building, block by block, but already the rehabilitation center is being built on that property with no walking path. It was my understanding originally Winston Moore, the owner, started to build the path behind Heritage Reflections, who was allowed to build too close to the canal and punctured the Ridenbaugh Canal and caused it to be cemented. The irrigation district told them to cease and desist on the walking path until it was cemented, but it's been cemented for some time now, but yet no path has been put in and buildings built, which violates this particular document. Borup: What document are you referring to? This is the one from City Council? Strickfaden: This is the approval from the City Council. Borup: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Strickfaden: That case number that mandated that path be built prior to any building permits be issued there. So, perhaps it was amended and we at Thousand Springs didn't -- are not aware of that amendment, because none of us testified to it. But I would encourage that that path be built and that the compliance with those things that are passed by the Council, you know, be upheld by the zoning commission. And I would ask the contractor to -- the rehabilitation center that's being built there is putting dormers on top of all their buildings and windows that look right out at the backyard of the people that live there. You know, there has got to be some reasonableness. Things can't be mandated here all the time, but reasonableness in the building's design should happen. We got to get along. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 36 of 55 Rohm: Thank you, sir. Before we take the next testimony, I'd like to go ahead and go back to staff for a moment and let's -- who could speak to this path development prior to building permits being issued? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, yeah, I was the planner when this originally came through, so I'll go ahead and speak to that and if Joe wants to add. But the gentleman is correct that the -- there is, actually, two different pathway conditions in EI Dorado. One of the pathways is public and that's this one, the one along the Ridenbaugh Canal. The other pathway that is built block by block is a private amenity of EI Dorado planned development, that they were allowed to construct that jogs and path, which is internal, in between the buildings, et cetera, and as block by block as -- when 50 percent of that block is built, then, they have to finish that, but, again, that's a private internal walking path for the benefit of the business owners association. There is this public pathway, a pedestrian easement on the north side of the Ridenbaugh that was required to be completed. Because they had Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, John Anderson, the superintendent out there, tell them you're not going to be doing any digging -- I think it was only a matter of ten inches or something and they started -- you know, they had some pretty significant leakage out of that. I did meet out on site with W.H. Moore Company and the parks director to look and see if there was any alternative alignments, but that was contingent on the irrigation district coming back and saying, you know, absolutely, no, you can't build this and they did not do that yet. So, they do still need to construct that pathway. That annexation and zoning condition that was there was somewhat delayed because of this Ridenbaugh Canal leakage problem and, frankly, we probably just -- I mean it has been a few months, I don't think it's been a long time, but we do, as staff, need to get back to the irrigation district, confirm that since it does somewhat impact their maintenance area, that, you know, we have a clear go ahead on the design of the path, the exact location of it, et cetera, but -- and, again, that is from Eagle Road all the way over to the west boundary of this property. So, it's along that entire stretch. Rohm: Well, it sounds like the developers have some responsibility on this as well. Hawkins-Clark: Right. This was the -- this was a condition of the W.H. Moore Company on the original plat, not necessarily this development that you're having tonight, which is a different applicant. But -- and how they work out the financing and the construction, you know, is really up to the private parties, but it does have to be done. Rohm: Yeah. And not trying to speak for the public, but I think that that's part of the concern, is that it appears as if there is development moving forward without consideration for that -- for that pathway and it sounds like that's the direction that we are going to go at the end of the -- at the end of the day the path along Ridenbaugh will be fully developed along these lots and some of the concerns of the public should be addressed in that regard. Meridian Planning & Zoning Aprii7,2005 Page 37 of 55 Hawkins-Clark: And just to clear up for the record, we, the city, our holding bonding for the construction of that pathway. Borup: That's what I was going to ask. Rohm: Thank you. And I think that really helps everybody understand how this process works. So, thanks, Brad. Okay. With that being said, we will move forward and the next person on the list Loren Hornbaker. Hornbaker: It's Loren Hornbaker and I live at 2918 East Green Canyon Drive. The thing that -- lights was brought up and I don't know whether it was ever in any records, but Jonathan said all lighting would conform to -- in other words, they would shine down, such as parking lots, grocery stores, where the lights would not flood out and bother people. All the lights that was put in for the roads in EI Dorado were a globe type, which has no restriction of the light, it goes until it dies out. We could write a letter in our living room at night with no lights. I got Jonathan Seal up there at night and showed him the problem and he said, well, we paid X number of more dollars for all this and -- which doesn't help me a bit. He also said that they would get reflectors and put in them, which they did at some more cost to them. I am sure they would have saved lots of money if they would have done what they were supposed to do originally. But that didn't happen and I don't know who is supposed to bird dog those, whether the residents are supposed to bird dog it and go down there -- we don't have a lot of authority, so -- but that's bygone, that's -- unless you want to go in and have them tear them all down and we'd appreciate it, but he wouldn't. He has also told us that the lighting in -- off of -- in other words, from Copperpoint to the canal, all of those businesses would have low lighting that would illuminate maybe -- that said Dr. Jones or something. It wouldn't -- and also canopy lights recessed such as you have here. There would be no lights that would interfere with the people that lived across the Ridenbaugh. And that's all we ask as far as lights. I mean the overhead parking lots, if they end up putting lights in like they did down on the streets, we are going to have a fight. The second thing in this Exhibit D, which - and this is in your CC 6-22-04, it lists an awful lot of businesses that evidently are acceptable for that zoning. We were told when Moore had it, that these businesses would be doctor's offices, light office buildings, small office buildings, and things of that nature, not body shops or manufacturing where they would be unloading trucks at night with forklifts and from reading this Exhibit D, it opens the door for a lot of things that wouldn't be permissible under what we understood Moore to promise. Mr. Moore promised to be a good neighbor and I hope the new people do the same thing -- I mean better. I shouldn't say the same thing. But if we can get some idea of what's going in there, rather than just open the door and there it is, you will get what you receive, my understanding was that the new company, if it -- that they would have to conform to the same thing that Mr. Moore did. Now, I hope that's true and I hope that he abides by it. Can anyone here tell me if that is correct? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, that is correct. This application tonight does not change any prior commitments to land uses. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7. 2005 Page 36 of 55 Borup: Everything that was a condition agreed to in EI Dorado Subdivision would still need to be complied with by any other development in there. Hornbaker: Well, how much of it's in writing that we have access to and the new developer has? It's pretty hard when a person gets a building three-fourths along and you say, hey, that looks like it's too high. You can't walk over and tell the guy to tear it down, he's got to start over. I mean we can't. Borup: Are you concerned there is something over 35 feet in there? Hornbaker: Well, I'm concerned about the child care over there -- or not the child care, the rehabilitation center. I looked at the lower dormers on the print and they were 32 foot seven inches. They put another dormer over the top in the center part and I bet -- well, I won't bet, but it's -- I'm quite sure that that's over 35 feet, but -- Borup: That might be a definition of building height, too, whether it's the usable building height or whether it's architectural projections. Hornbaker: It's just a -- Borup: Isn't there a difference in definition? Moe: Yes, there is. Hornbaker: But, anyway, I think one of the other persons are probably going to talk some on that, but I would like to have it checked. Another thing on the lighting, I contacted the city and asked about the lighting. They said there was an entity that controlled that, but nothing was ever done. And I would like to see more communications, because some of these amendments we are not aware of. We don't get -- and so, therefore, something can be changed and we are not -- we don't know about it. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Next on the list is Frank Herron. Herron: My name is Frank Herron, I live at 2896 East Green Canyon, which is just on the south side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. And part of the -- the problem that I have is I don't understand exactly the distinction between Moore's and the Bonito Subdivision or whatnot, I just know that there was a lot of discussions and we had a lot of meetings, some of them was in this building and some was in our own housing district, where there was the good faith discussions to appease people's types and concerns. One of them, just starting off, was that initially it was proposed for that 35 feet, they said it would be no higher -- that they had planned for no higher than the surrounding as if it was a housing district. For instance, Thousand Springs has a height limit of 28 feet and there was a big discussion on that, because the subject came of what the definition of building height -- there seems to be a big to do about that and it was clearly stated that there would be nothing over 35 feet period. And some of the definitions don't even Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 39 of 55 cover the roof, they just go up to the eaves. They talked about the continuous path of the multi-use path. It was described to us as a see-through fence to guard against the security of the canal down on the bank, because they can't put it up above, but as close to the bank as they could, followed by a five foot landscape between the fence, the walking path, and a 20 to 30 foot setback for the buildings passed that with 30 foot preferred and the 20 was the exception of the corner down there that they needed. We talked about the buildings a little bit. I'd add that the similar things that they was all small single story office buildings, typical of dentist offices, insurance, beauty shops, et cetera, that was compatible with the neighborhood compatibility, which they said would outlaw no such things as sports bars, restaurants, or anything that would be intrusive to the residents. They also said that it would be for day use only, which consists of no habitation in any of the buildings between Copperpoint and the canal. They said there would be some exceptions -- in other words, they would be dark at night, with the exception of cleaning activities or maintenance activities that would need to be done during the nighttime or after hours. The lightings of the security on buildings would be down light, which have been discussed a little bit, cast down -- up and down the sides of building, the security lights, and they likened them on to what was being developed at that time in Silverstone was the example they gave us and showed us what they would be. In placement of the buildings they said that each house in our subdivision that would be affected by this would have a view zone with this via access roads, landscape open spaces, or parking lots, but there would be view corridors and I notice just behind my house they buffered them two directly together. looking at the plot, comparing it to my dimensions, it looked like about 150 feet of blockage space to there. Now, these things, I don't know, they are -- we was done on trustworthy and hand shakes and given cards and talked to Mr. Moore and Jonathan Seal, who was the people concerned and interfaced with us. I don't know how -- whether he sold it completely -- I don't know whether there is any link between these two people, I don't know if any of these verbal agreements have any merits, but it was the other ever proposed and anything we ever heard was two huge buildings, they was all small office type buildings, end of story, with day use only. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Herron, you understand that's what's being proposed now is nine small buildings? That's what's before us today. Herron: Well, I have not seen any height limits, other than what's in there. I have not seen any time zone -- time horizons for development, I haven't seen anything -- Rohm: I think that they are -- they are still subject to the same conditions that were put on the EI Dorado development at that time and what they are doing is they are just taking what had been at that time two buildings -- or two building lots, I should say, and dividing that into smaller lots with more buildings, but they will still be -- has to adhere to the conditions that were placed upon the development at the time it was originally approved and -- but I think what you're saying is -- is the -- that which has been developed doesn't seem to be in compliance with what was agreed to at the time that it was approved and I think that the developer here will be able to address some of your concerns after we finish hearing the balance of public testimony. Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 40 of 55 Herron: The concern, I guess, is basically what I have is the -- kind of the verbal commitment versus the permit and particularly for building types and that sort of thing. Rohm: This Commission isn't a code enforcement, but there are code enforcement people within the city and if, in fact, developments that currently exist within the overall development are not in compliance with that, I would venture to say that you have a right to question that. But this developer is under the same -- the same rules and conditions as that which has currently been developed. But I think probably the best thing is let's finish our public testimony and give the applicant an opportunity to respond. Herron: Thank you for the opportunity to talk. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe just one question. The hearing before us tonight is just strictly on the re-subdivision, but on the original plat all these properties were still subject to conditional use. Is that still -- I assume. So, that's still the case and that still would apply on any specific buildings or-- Guenther: That is correct. We have that -- we just reviewed that section of the development agreement and it says that all uses listed in Exhibit D, which are, essentially, the L-O zone uses, are either allowed or as conditional uses. In Ridenbaugh area all the uses shall be processed as conditional uses. Borup: I think -- I think it gets a little more specific than that. Guenther: Right. It-- Borup: Yeah. The way I read that, the development of the property south of Copperpoint by crossing Ridenbaugh Canal from Thousand Springs shall be required to obtain a separate conditional use, unless professional office or flex uses are proposed. Guenther: Yes. Borup: So, anything other than office or flex uses would require a conditional use, which means there would be another -- there would be a hearing for each of those buildings before this Commission, unless it was office space. Guenther: And one more point of clarification. The original Conditional Use Permit on these two lots allowed a 23,000 square foot building and a 50,300 square foot building. So, there is significant reduction in square footage on these, as per the original concept plan. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7. 2005 Page 41 of 55 Rohm: And so in some way this is actually a better neighbor than what had been previously proposed. But with that being said, I think we should move on to -- the next name on the list is Tom Conley. Conley: Okay. Just want to see how that works. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, nice to see you again. I was here about two weeks ago. I was the gentleman right behind the fire station. Moe: Would you, please, state your name and your address? Conley: My name is Tom Conley, 2484 Southwood Avenue -- or Ranch Avenue. That was a very good experience two weeks ago. You brought two sides together and we enjoyed that. We both presented our sides and our points of view, we arrived at an understanding, we shook hands, and from the people that are backing up to the fire station we felt very good. We thought that was an honorable situation. Now, we just have to get it done and we are working together. On the other hand, I think what you're hearing tonight from all of us and a little bit of a summation from me is we are not getting that good feeling from the EI Dorado Subdivision. I think tonight it was already stated one of the unique things is we are a private home area and we are butting up to an extensively large commercial development area and I think that's one of the unique things for us. Most of the time a commercial or a private area goes up against a private area and it's probably not as complicated as all these problems with lights and everything. What we are trying to do is we want you and we need you as an ally and as does the developer need you as an ally. You have a very difficult position, because it's your job to grow the area and without forgetting us and it seems like there has been good exchange that I have enjoyed. I don't have a solution, I don't think any of us have a solution, we just know that there has been a variety of things that have happened that we don't feel we are holding the hand to the fire of the developer to follow through on the majority of the things they have said. The path is one thing that -- actually, I back up to the Ridenbaugh Canal, I have seen the school kids in the water horseplaying around. That's my -- one of my concerns. I think that path needs to get fixed. That's one of their -- they jog their -- cross-county I think it is. The loss of the view, the shifting of building sizes is really concerning. I mean it sounds like we did away with a couple of big buildings, but now we have nine small ones. But it seems like it keeps shifting on us. So, that's a bit of our concern, too. Borup: Would you rather have two large buildings? Conley: I don't know. What came up without us knowing -- first of all, I had the first blister and I got the Heritage Reflection and all I see is a big roof. The second blister that has come up is that rehab center and it's just a monster, taking away a view of several houses. So, we are just concerned what's going to happen. Now, I know I'm running out of time. The other thing that -- one of the important things for a lot of my neighbors is not to build up the ground to the Ridenbaugh height, which did take place with the rehab center. They actually had elevation from the ground and, then, the 35 or 28 foot came into play. So, I'm just hoping that when the new development of these Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 42 of 55 nine facilities -- they are not going to build it up eight feet at the height of the Ridenbaugh and, then, really take it away. But you're a good group, thank you, and enjoyed being with you for a couple of weeks. Rohm: Thank you for your comments. I believe it's Joe Waters. Waters: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Joe Waters. I live at 3000 East Green Canyon. And the worst part about being one of the last guys up is already everybody has already stoled your thunder and especially when you have to follow Tom it's real bad. The walking path is probably one of the -- one of my main concerns, insomuch that it was one of the things that we talked about. Winston Moore did come up and say, yes, don't worry about it, we are going to have big buildings, but we are going to push them way to the front. They are going to probably be this big and the parking is going to be in the back. The first concern is on the 50 feet, is that from the center of the Ridenbaugh Canal out and, then, the 35 feet from that? That's just one of the questions. I wish I had counted all the times that, you know, we talked about the good neighbor thing and that -- but, you know, it seems like we keep coming up with the same old problems. I won't talk about the walking path anymore. Building heights. I need to know -- I'd like to know if we can have an answer if the -- from how high up off the road -- the road which they connect to, the grade road, how high the building is going to be from there. Are they going to build them up? Are they going to take -- you know, is it going to be excavated down? What's the height, the gradience. And, actually, what happened with the -- the thing about the 35 feet, the 28 feet, is that when we asked how tall the buildings were going to be originally, they said, well, what we believe is it's 35 feet and what it turned out was our covenants were actually 28. It was just a misunderstanding on that part. Borup: Yeah. I think that 35 is city ordinance; right? Waters: I don't know. In our covenants is where they said we will go with is 28, but probably is 35. And, actually, everybody else talked about what I wanted to talk about. And I hope we can be good neighbors, I really do, because I plan on living there a long time, I plan on raising the kids, we can be good neighbors if we do work together. Thanks for the time. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Waters, did you see the -- the -- the -- Waters: It's late. It's okay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm stuck on semantics here. The picture of the buildings -- not that one. Waters: The next ones. Newton-Huckabay: That one. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 43 of 55 Waters: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: Do you feel as a neighbor that this is better than a 50,000 square foot building and a 20,000 square foot building? Waters: Well, it depends how tall it would be. See, all I'm really -- I hate to sound like I'm really -- you know, this is my -- but I love looking out my back door and seeing -- it used to be called Squaw Butte, that's the butte that's over in Emmett and now we are not allowed to call it that anymore, but that's what I really love seeing and just to be able to see -- I don't, you know, need to look down and see the road or, you know, listen to the cars go by, but to be able to look out and over. I grew up in the middle of Idaho, a lot of land around me, and I get claustrophobic real quick. You know, if -- actually, if it was a 50,000 square foot building, but it was sub grade, you know, and had a soccer field on top of it, I think that would be great. As far as, you know -- no, no one wants the 50,000 square foot building, you know, nice paintings on the side and -- see, we still want to see our view. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Gary Richards. Roberts. Roberts: My name is Gary Roberts, I live at 3066 East Green Canyon Drive, which is directly -- almost directly behind the Heritage Reflections building. Like everybody else has said, our main concern is that we get the walking path done and that we can continue to communicate with the developers to help us get these buildings done where they will -- we can all live there. One of the concerns is the height. Obviously, when we were told originally that they would not be any higher than what our buildings were in our subdivision, which was 28 feet, now we are being told that it's 35 feet. Borup: You know, I think I was at that meeting however many years ago it was. I think the understanding was that it would be what was allowed in a normal R-4 zone, which is what your subdivision is. Roberts: Right. Borup: And, obviously -- Roberts: Something slipped through the cracks. Borup: Well, we weren't aware that your subdivision had come up with covenants that differed from the city ordinance. Roberts: Well -- but, nevertheless, I mean we have met with Mr. Moore and they -- his people have told us that they would try to keep his building heights down and we would like to see them continue to try to keep those building heights down. Also in the original plots we saw that all the buildings -- all the parking lots were going to be towards the Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7. 2005 Page 44 of 55 back, all the buildings would be pushed out towards the front. And the way that that land slopes and with all the dirt that has been brought in, especially out of the Heritage Reflections building, it got all piled onto the lot next to it and graded out. Now, that -- you know, a foot is a foot. You know, if we keep adding a foot here and a foot here, you know, they are going to build their buildings up and they are going to be 35 feet more, I mean if we could get them to take some of the soil out and, then, build their buildings, any little bit would help and that's kind of where we are -- what we would like to see, you know. The smaller buildings, yeah, that's great. I mean as long as they can position them, so that some of these people still have their views, like we still have our views, I mean we can still kind of look through the Heritage Reflections area -- now, if they build a building right next to that -- and, see, that's one thing we haven't seen -- I mean where Heritage Reflection stops, but there is another lot there and we haven't seen anything that they are doing with that lot and, then, all these lots start. So, there is a building lot in between the two there, somewhere about -- I'm guessing right in this area. Somewhere in there. And we'd like to see what's going in that also. We haven't seen anything about a hearing or anything for the building on that either. Thank you for your time. Borup: This is what's here tonight is next to the Heritage Reflections. Isn't that what's showing? Guenther: This lot where the pointer is right now is not included in this development. The person who drew the box around here -- Borup: Oh, it got marked out wrong. Guenther: Right. These two lots are the two lots that we are hearing tonight. Rohm: All right. That is the end of the list of people that have signed up to speak, but anybody that chooses to speak is welcome to come forward at this time. One at a time. E.Herron: My name is Eileen Herron and I live at 2896 East Green Canyon. And can you put it back on the -- go back one. Go back another one. One more. Okay. This is my house right here. My total view and the Hornbakers next to us, they might -- well, we have -- we will have no view. And because there is such a small space there and our house -- their house is here and our house is right here, we will lose our total view and that's all I'd just like to comment to you that it's -- I just feel bad that if -- if they could have had the parking lots behind and they were up a little closer, maybe it would have helped a little, but at this point both of us totally lose all view of anything except a building. Rohm: Is your - is your side of the canal lower or higher than -- E.Herron: It's a little higher. Rohm: A little higher. Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7. 2005 Page 45 of 55 E.Herron: It was a little higher. Now, they have been built -- it was quite a bit higher originally, but they -- like they said before, they have been putting dirt in, building it up. Rohm: Right. Okay. Thank you. E.Herron: Thank you. Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Okay. Before we go back to the applicant to respond, I'd like to ask staff a question about how the building height is determined from -- I mean if it's 35 feet, is it from the original grade or what -- what changes can occur as development occurs? Guenther: The building division would look at the elevation from grade to the highest portion of the roof and we will occasionally have buildings that will have architectural structures on top of the roof and those are not included in the height. But in this development they will be included in the height. A few weeks ago we had one that was not, but that was in a different development. This one specifically calls out buildings located on properties adjacent to Thousand Springs Subdivision shall be restricted to a maximum of 35 feet to the top of the roof in height, as opposed to 40 feet. Rohm: Okay. All right. I think that answered the question. Anybody else have any additional questions before we turn it back to the applicant? Borup: Just I think everyone here understood -- maybe just to reiterate that there has been a bond with the city for that -- for that path, so they put up the money. If they don't put the path in, the city has the money to higher someone plus, what, ten percent or -- Guenther: It's 110 percent of the cost. Borup: A hundred and ten percent of the cost. There is an incentive there to make sure it's done. Guenther: The entire subdivision bond is not just the pathway, it would be landscape screening, required improvements, so it's a very large bond that will not be released until everything has been satisfied. Rohm: And I think that, in part, construction was halted due to the Ridenbaugh Canal being in jeopardy there and -- Guenther: In this area, this general vicinity in -- south of Overland Road, along the Ridenbaugh, we have many properties that have -- the Ridenbaugh is a very leaky canal and that's why they are working on sealing it for quite an area and if you go on the other side of Locust Grove -- Victory Road, the developments entirely on the south side of Victory have completely sealed the Ridenbaugh in order to mitigate their high groundwater issues as what developed on this site. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 46 of 55 Rohm: Thank you. And that, at least, offers up some explanation why the pathway has not been constructed to date and knowing the answer sometimes helps people understand why we are -- where we currently are. So, thank you. Brad, did you have something else? Hawkins-Clark: If I could just interrupt. One other clarification. I heard from testimony some mention about the 28 feet versus 35 feet and I did just look through the written agreement that we had in 2001, I did not see that. It may have been made verbally to the neighborhood association. We, obviously, can't confirm or deny that, but what we have in writing that the City Council approved is what we enforce and that does say 35 feet. Chairman, do you want staff to respond or -- Rohm: Yeah. Go ahead. Borup: You might want to repeat that question, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: The question was can the limitations be changed, the height limitations, in future developments from the original 35 feet in the agreement. And staff could respond to that. Hawkins-Clark: In order to amend a Conditional Use Permit or development agreement that has already been approved by the City Council, you know, there are steps to follow, obviously. Each of them is a little bit different, but the development agreement is, essentially, a contract between W.H. Moore Company and the City of Meridian, which states certain terms that can be followed. I mean and the public -- these are all public documents and you're welcome -- they can come to the planning and zoning office and check these out -- you know, look at them all they want to see what those terms are. I mean I guess the answer to the question is it could potentially be changed, but not easily at this point, since it is a recorded document. Rohm: And venture to say that the existing structures probably aren't going to be changed, but this is an opportunity, possibly, to talk about the buildings yet to be constructed as part of this development and the applicant's certainly here and will -- maybe this is the time to turn it back to Mr. Collingwood and let him respond to -- Baird: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to make one clarification. Because of -- as staff pointed out, the development agreement is an agreement between the city and the developer, those are the only parties that could initiate the change. Unfortunately, no amount of pressure from -- you know, the request would have to come -- or the pressure would have to go on -- on the developer to seek an amendment, basically. Is that staff's understanding about how changes would be initiated? Guenther: That would be the only way to change the original documentation. I was just discussing with Mr. Freckleton that this is still a new application, this is a new preliminary plat, and the answer to the question fielded from the audience is we can be Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 47 of 55 more restrictive than the existing documentation, but we cannot be any more lenient. We can't be less restrictive at all. Rohm: And I think that's where I was going with this, that the applicant wants to speak to the concerns brought before us tonight and maybe -- we can't do anything about the path and some of the ordinance things, like lighting, that have been brought up, but as far as the future development of the two lots and converting it into these -- this development, we can address that and I think at this time let's turn it back to our applicant and we will take it from there. Collingwood: I just wanted to clarify that I don't work for W.H. Moore, the original developer. We are hired by Dave Evans Construction here and I'm not familiar with the size of the buildings, the architectural renderings of the buildings and how high they are going to be. But I do know what the small -- with the smaller buildings, instead of using one larger building, you're going to have less height and with this product that he's put around the town, generally, you're in the 20-foot height range. Borup: So, it's all basically been single story? Collingwood: Single story. Borup: That's what this -- Newton-Huckabay: You're not going to get 5,000 square feet -- Borup: No. This concept shows all single story. Collingwood: Uh-huh. Borup: And I realize it's just conceptual, but-- Collingwood: Right. Borup: This is showing all single story. Collingwood: And there was a question about the bike path -- or not the bike path, but the pathway along the canal. How a lot of fill has been brought in on the site and you really can't construct the pathway until the site is graded. That's usually one of the last steps when the building is in and improvements are done, the landscaping is completed. So, once the proper grading is done and that's been designed, then, we can finish that pathway through there. But right now it's just raw ground and to construct the pathway right now and, then, build the buildings is kind of backwards. But it's -- I want to also tell somebody -- we did the design on the building next door that's going to be the Trout Weeks Law Offices, Trout Weeks Nemec Law Offices, and they have a lot there, it's right next to Heritage Reflections, which is off the map there -- maybe I can use this thing here. What you see here is this is the entrance off of Copperpoint and this right Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 48 of 55 here, this edge of the building, this is the Trout, Weeks, Nemec, probably, right here and just to let you know that we are removing about five foot of fill that's there now. We are tying into -- our storage drainage is down here and we are doing the same thing with EI Dorado here -- or with Bonito No.3 is we are implementing our storm-water retention down -- everything collects in the middle here and, then, these parking lots or aisles here, everything drains to there and so we are tying in -- we are draining in off Copperpoint and we are draining back this way and we keep that a minimum grade and, for instance, over in Trout Weeks we have a retaining wall behind this building, so we are, actually, taking out a lot of material and staying -- you know, keeping as low profile as possible. We are not -- we are not just following the -- what the grade is right now and putting buildings up on the hill. They are all going to be down below the canal and we are going to remove a lot of fill and it will all be graded toward the middle here, so there will be a lot of material that will be removed here. We are not just, you know, grading from Copperpoint all the way back to the Ridenbaugh as a straight grade, kind of like where the rehabilitation center is, we are grading from the outside in on both sides at both ends here. So, we are going to keep as low profile as we can and keep the grade as minimal as we can through here, but our storm-water collection, basically, dictates that through here. Rohm: One of the testimonies was concerning the height of these two buildings, because they are the very closest to the development across the way. Is there anything that you can offer up in terms of height limitation commitments on those buildings? Collingwood: I just don't know anything about their product they are proposing there. I don't know a thing. We can sure get that, but it's -- I don't know that. Borup: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think we are here to look at a re-subdivision. Any buildings coming in will be back for a Conditional Use Permit, so that's not even on the agenda, any building like -- we are supposed to be looking at is -- is are-platting. Collingwood: Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, could I offer a clarification there? Rohm: Please. Hawkins-Clark: That the Conditional Use Permits are only if there are not office. Borup: I'm sorry. That is correct as stated. Yeah. So, that could affect the height. Or the height could be two story buildings, then, if it's an office. Rohm: Well, I think it's suffice to say -- and I'm not going to hold you to this, but by breaking this up into individual office buildings, as opposed a 20,000 and a 50,000 square foot building, the chances of the height not being as obtrusive as the former proposal are better. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7. 2005 Page 49 of 55 Collingwood: Uh-huh. Rohm: Probably not going to see all nine buildings in up to the 35-foot height and I think that that's one of the concerns that the public has addressed, too. Collingwood: The only thing I can base that off of is Dave Evans' previous office building construction on Glenwood and Overland Road and they are single story, 20 feet height, approximately. They are not very tall. Rohm: Let's talk about lighting for a bit here. It appears as if the lighting that was installed on the lots that have been developed has been less than what -- or more than what the public has wanted and can you speak to that a little bit for us? Collingwood: The dome lighting that's out there now is better -- was that an approved design for -- for that development? I'm just trying to remember what's at Heritage Reflections, for instance. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- excuse me. The lighting out there in EI Dorado has been -- has been a problem. At the very beginning before buildings went in, we received a few calls in the Public Works Department regarding the lighting and we contacted the developer, talked to them, they -- I know they went out and they had meetings with several people in Thousand Springs. My understanding was that they did install some shields in those lights. They -- the lights that are out there along the roadways have an acorn globe in them and they have -- if I remember right, they have a vertically oriented bulb that's in those, instead of a horizontally shielded bulb. And so you do get a hot spot when you're looking at them, you see that glare. But they did install some shields inside those. I personally haven't received any calls since that point in time. I guess I would -- I would encourage people to call in and get those complaint registered in the Public Works Department and we will -- we will work with the developer to make sure that it gets taken care of. He did -- Jonathan Seal did tell me that -- you know, that they were going to try the shields and see if -- see if that took care of the issue and, like I said, I haven't heard -- personally I have not heard anything since then. So, I guess I was under the assumption that everything was going pretty well, so -- but they are -- our city code does require down-shield lighting or downcast lighting, so on the buildings, the wall packs and things like that that they are going to have on the buildings, are required to be a downcast light. They are not? Okay. That would be a code enforcement issue and they could -- the person to contact would be Joe Venamin in the police department. He's the code enforcement officer and he will work on that situation, get that resolved. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Bruce. I think that the important thing here is they are almost two separate issues. You have got the lighting that's existing that doesn't appear to be within code compliance and, then, we have got the lighting that will be installed as part of your development that these people are here to try and make sure that we don't aggravate the situation that currently exists and I think that -- I think it suffice to say that the lighting fixtures that you put in this development adhere to the ordinances that are Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7, 2005 Page 50 of 55 already on record and I think that that will go a long ways towards making the public happy and I don't see any resistance on your part. Collingwood: No. None whatsoever. I'm trying to remember what's out there. I just can't remember. But at Heritage Reflections did they have the dome? Borup: Mr. Chairman? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we can't have testimony from the floor. Newton-Huckabay: We can't take testimony from the floor. Rohm: Okay. Collingwood: We will do -- we'd like to work with everybody here to get everybody happy here. We will use the indirect lights with reflectors down. I'm sure Dave Evans will have no trouble with that, as long as it's okay with the city and -- Moe: Are you anticipating any low lighting whatsoever or is this going to be -- you don't know yet? Collingwood: I don't know yet. No, I'm sorry, I'm not -- Moe: Okay. Collingwood: I'm more in the design and so forth, not the building itself. Moe: Sure. Collingwood: So, sorry about that. Rohm: One more thing on the landscape plan is -- will you have a final landscape plan prior to City Council? Collingwood: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Moe: Not the applicant, but of staff. That is part of the conditions anyway, is that not? Guenther: That's correct. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. Any discussion amongst the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 7,2005 Page 51 of 55 Borup: You know, I think maybe -- I think -- well, it just depends on where the discussion is going. Is there -- are we going to be leaving too many height restrictions on the buildings? If there is, I need some more information. Rohm: Quite honestly, I think that the height limitations on the existing EI Dorado Development, I don't feel compelled to change that, but the fact of the matter is that by breaking this up into multiple units, the likelihood of that being as big of an issue has been significantly reduced and I don't know that it's -- I don't think it's our place at this point in time to change those conditions, but they should end up with a better development than what had been proposed before. So, that would be my position on that, Keith. Borup: Okay. I'm fine with that. Moe: Yeah. Quite frankly, I think we have kind of worked through quite a few issues this evening as far as -- I would hope that the neighbors are a little bit more settled in regards to understanding the situation with the pathway and that code enforcement will take a look at the existing lighting concern still and that, basically, the developer now has been discussing what they are anticipating for lighting and will make sure that your concerns are noted there. I guess the -- I think that they have done a great job. I think nine smaller buildings in this development are going to be much better than two huge boxes, you know, height-wise as well, I think it's going to be a little bit better to have view corridors in this arrangement than you would the other way. The only thing that I guess I would ask that the -- that the gentleman from Toothman-Orton take back to the Evans Building would be maybe to kind of anticipate what they do in eight and nine over there as far as what they are doing with the neighbors over there to see if they can't give them just a little bit of relief over there when they design those two buildings. Other than that, I, quite frankly, think it's a lot better plan than would be than two large buildings. Rohm: Absolutely. Okay. With that being said -- Moe: Well, with that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-010. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearing on PP 05-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we move -- that we move -- we forward to City Council approval of PP 05-010, to include all the staff comments of the hearing date of April 7th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office April 4th, 2005. Meridian Pianning & Zoning April 7. 2005 Page 52 of 55 Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion passed. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Thank you, everyone, for your input and I look forward to seeing this development move forward. Huckabay: Thank you. Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 05-003 Request for a Rezone of 4.42 acres from a R-8 PD zone to a CoN zone for Quenzer Commons Commercial by Landmark Properties, LLC - west of Locust Grove Road and north of Heritage Park: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing RZ 05-003 and open it with staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for a rezone of a planned development commercial lots and they are R-8 to a more appropriate district for a commercial neighborhood. I will stand for any questions. Staff is recommending approval. Moe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Quite frankly, this one confused me a little bit and it took me a few times to read it through and I'm still somewhat confused. I mean I understand the rezone, but, at the same time, your findings and what you're requiring, they are to stay with the same restrictions that were on the PD to begin with, so why make the change? What -- this is -- bear with me, I'm in a learning process here. What changes? Guenther: Nothing, except for the appropriate zoning. Generally, when an insurance company or an appraiser comes through and they ask how did you get a commercial property on a residential district, because these are R-8, then, we issue letters out to the commercial appraisers or whoever it might be, saying we have this use exception. It cleans things up a lot more on the inside edge of the development if the commercial projects have a commercial zone code. And that's why the developer has come back to rezone these and we require the rezones for a lot of the R-8 PDs in future developments and we -- since I have been here I haven't seen a use exception be actually utilized. .,