Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 16, 2005 P&Z Minute Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 8 of 93 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: CUP 05-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family / clubhouse / office / daycare development with no minimum street frontage and multiple buildings on a single lot on 28.65 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. - north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 05-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 1 multi-family residential building lot and 1 commercial office lot on 28.6 acres in proposed R-15 & L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Conger Management Group - west of Ten Mile Road and north of West Franklin Road: Zaremba: And with that I will open some public hearings. The continued Public Hearing from May 19th for AZ 05-016 and also reopen the continued Public Hearing for May 19th for CUP 05-024, and a third hearing that is part of that that was not previously opened, is new tonight, so I will open for the first time the Public Hearing on PP 05-023. We will discuss all of those items together. They all relate to Silver Oaks Subdivision on, let's see, north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road and as I forewarned you, we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. the Silver Oaks development is -- I don't have a pointer here -- is -- there we go. It's roughly 28 acres located west of Ten Mile Road, between Ten Mile and Black Cat and north of Franklin, with a slight connection point to Franklin, approximately a quarter mile to the west of Ten Mile. I'll point out a couple of features on this aerial photo. There is the Kennedy Lateral, which is the property boundary that intersects at the western border of this project from the northwest to the southeasterly direction. These white buildings here, that is Avest storage unit. Earlier this year we did approve the annexation of the Avest storage units, with a conceptual development for storage units to the western portion of -- this is Ten Mile Creek in this location. Again, there is another application later on this evening for the Cherry Lane Christian Church, which is this property here. They all sort of relate to each other through development agreements and cross-access for this type of site, so that's why I'm pointing them out to you. The overall Silver Oaks development is for five commercial buildings in an L-O district. On Lot 1 of the preliminary plat, which is heard for the first time tonight, that is the closest portion to Franklin Road, with a new collector road running from Franklin Road approximately to the location in this -- where I'm pointing right now. I'll detail it a little bit here as we have extra conceptual plan here. In my discussion with the application earlier tonight, it is anticipated this building number 21 might be removed. Currently this is a little bit too far for the fire department to access, is what they are anticipating. With that, the original application was for 77 multi- family units, so if they can relocate that somewhere on site, then, that would still fit in with the conceptual design for this project, but it's looking like that this one may be removed. There -- this also -- this slide also shows the court area of the open space lot. It's not a lot, this is all one lot, but this is the portion of the planned development. The Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 9 of 93 second one here is the northeasterly portion. This is where the border of the Avest property would lie and, again, this is the layout where the parking would be in a commercial -- more commercial style of a cross-access for all of these lots. One point I guess I should have pointed out already was that the applicant has provided an estimate that upon this development these units would be condo platted after this planned development is approved, which is what we are hearing tonight. The planned development is for the multiple multi-family units on one lot, but through the condo plat, actually, is -- would be separate ownership of each unit within there. These are estimated to be four-plexes at 77 four-plexes within this 28 acres, roughly. The clubhouse and pool are the other amenities that will be provided to this site. This is, essentially located open space area that would be accessible to all of the buildings in the development. They are providing a trail -- internal trail-ways and appropriate landscaping. With this slide I'm going to point out one fact that in discussions with the applicant and with ACHD and fire for emergency access, as well as for addressing issues, this shows that the road is a collector system to this point for public, is the original proposal and, then, at that point the rest of this would become private. This would be a private road with the Cherry Lane Christian Church to the east and the subject development to the west. Staff has made a recommendation and has put as conditions of approval in this -- for this site that they provide a public access across to the Kennedy lateral. ACHD has supported that and has made it a recommendation that they would support that if the city would require it. This would facilitate a more public transportation system and we wouldn't have the competing private road system within this entire section. Staff feels that's very important, as there is no access to the north for crossing the railroad on this site, as well as the site to the west of this project is also scheduled for high density development under the comp plan and they are going to be facing similar issues as what staff anticipates in the future and to have the actual public street provide more of an internal circulation to the major point of access to Franklin Road. This will be an intersection that is potentially going to be controlled, it's going to have turning lanes going to the east and west and also onto this site. The applicant has shown me a rendition how this would layout and it appears to be very well thought through. With this -- this is the commercial portion. They have proposed five buildings. This is in a limited office development, so it would be subject to the L-O district requirements, so we don't anticipate any high retail or commercial uses there. They have proposed a -- the largest building to be a day care, which does support the uses of the multi-family development and staff is supportive of this. The plan would need to be redrawn prior to City Council, if -- if this -- if you make the recommendation according to staff's conditions, to provide this public roadway system from this location across to the Kennedy lateral. ACHD did put in a condition that if that was the case, then, they would need to -- the applicant would need to provide for half of the bridge for that site. The elevations for the buildings are -- the multi-family development or multi-family units are to the top of this slide, which shows that they are a similar design, split down the middle, with four units. And the commercial units are similar in nature and single story, which should provide some of the appearance of being incorporated into the development. condition that they need to provide a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District letter in order to have the requirement that this be tiled waived. It's not actually a designated -- a major canal, as far as we can determine, so they would just need to have the appropriate Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 10 of 93 documentation for the piping requirements on that canal. With that, staff will stand for questions, recommending approval as listed in the staff report, with two more changes now. The first would be the park's conditions, numbers three, four, and five on page 22 would be eliminated. They were carried over from a previous staff report and it's more of a -- I'm sorry; it's one, two, and three of the park's conditions. They are carried over from a previous staff report and don't apply to this site. Again, then, the second one would be on page 12, under the required landscaping, under site specific conditions of approval for the preliminary plat, the second portion on there says depict and construct a 20 foot wide landscape strip along the collector street. The collector street -- Zaremba: I'm sorry. Guenther: I'm sorry. Did you say -- Zaremba: Is it 25 feet or 20? Guenther: Twenty. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: Just for clarification, from Franklin Road to the -- towards the north to this location, that is the collector street that will be designed according to ACHD standards. The local street that staff has recommended is that connection between Lots 1 and 2. That would require the ten-foot landscape buffer. And so the comment should read: Depict and construct a ten foot wide landscape strip along the local street between Lots 1 and 2, with the remaining portion of the right of way being landscaped with lawn or other vegetative cover. And the second one should be exactly the same thing, only depict and construct a 20-foot wide landscape strip along the collector street, which would be the roadway to the east of the site. I'll stand for questions. Rohm: Did you get that, Dave? Zaremba: I didn't. Newton-Huckabay: I didn't. Moe: I think Commissioner Borup got it. Guenther: Would you like me to read it again? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Guenther: Okay. It should read -- if you're on page 12, site-specific condition number two. Depict and construct a ten-foot wide landscape strip along the local street. And, then, it should also read: Depict and construct a 20-foot wide landscape strip along the collector street. The local street would be the east-west division of Lots 1 and 2 and the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 11 of 93 collector street would be the north-south division between the Cherry Lane Christian Church property and the L-O district in this location. And that's it. Zaremba: While we are on page 12 and discussing paragraph two, which is the landscape plan, keep a finger there and look back at page 22. The Meridian police department, their items three, five and six would also add additional conditions to the landscape plan. We normally say when we say including all staff comments, that also includes the police and public works and everybody else. But your -- your ending sentence that no other changes can be made, leads me to question whether in paragraph two we should add one more bullet that says see the police comments. Does that make sense? . Guenther: We will make a recommendation after you hear the applicant. Zaremba: Okay. May be premature. Maybe they have fixed the questions the police had. Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Questions from the Commissioners? Moe: Yes. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I have one. Joe, I just wanted to make sure -- is there any indication at all, other than the day care, what's going to go in the lots up front, in the commercial lots? Guenther: From what I have seen of these buildings, it's your standard light office, professional buildings, professional service buildings. Moe: And they will be required to go to a CUP if, in fact, they decide to do something -- Guenther: They would be required to do the CZC. This is their CUP for the planned development. Moe: Okay. Guenther: And as long as their use is consistent with the L-O district, it would just be a CZC. Moe: Okay. Great. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 12 of 93 Baird: If I could chime in on your question. I think that on page 12 when it talks about the approved landscape plan, the approved landscape plan would, indeed, incorporate the conditions from the police department, so I don't think you need to make an additional cross-reference there. Zaremba: Thank you. That helps. Just want to make sure it doesn't get dropped. Thank you. We are, I believe, ready for the applicant. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. I must be losing my touch. I don't have anything to argue about tonight. I think we are ready to move this forward with a recommendation of approval. Read through the staff report. Joe made those corrections as you noted on pages 12 and 21. Commissioner Zaremba, you pointed out the police department's comments, and we are in agreement with all of those as well. Joe, if you could go back to the overall site plan, so we can see the whole thing at once. What we have tried to do with this project -- and as Joe pointed out, it's three separate applications. The first is the annexation. The Comprehensive Plan says multi-family and we have provided multi-family and it's about 12 units to the acre. And we have provided some office uses and a day care, which work together with the -- so that these people don't have to travel elsewhere to go to day care and drop their kids. So, they work together. And, then, we have some office uses. Commissioner Moe, you asked what those might be. We don't know at this point, but whatever uses the L-Q zone typically would have in this area, typically professional offices for insurance sales, we see a lot of dentists and doctors offices as well in these locations. And as far as the annexation goes, we really have no questions. I talked with Bruce Freckleton a little bit and he may want to address this, but on page nine, the first bullet point, it's on condition number four of this development agreement, right at the top of the page, the first bullet, it talks about how the sewer is -- and the extensions of water and sewer are all on the developer for cost. And I talked with Bruce about this and, Bruce, if you want to chime in, you can. What we'd like to do is -- like Bruce will address this as well -- is we'd like this comment to be revised to say that we will work with the Public Works Department on a cost share. This is a Public Works project bringing the sewer line through and underneath the -- the Union Pacific Railroad and we just want the opportunity to sit down and talk with them about that and how the reimbursement can take place there. If we come in ahead of the city, then, we have to pay for it and there would be a reimbursement agreement, similar to the old latecomers agreements. We just want a chance to sit down with them and work that out, rather than laying it all on the developer at this time and I think Bruce is in agreement with that. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I guess the proposal I would have for modifying that condition would be on the second sentence where it talks about sewer and water service extensions, if we struck the word service and put main line, the city is doing -- we are under contract and design is currently being done for the trunk line Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 13 of 93 extension that will come underneath the railroad tracks and traverse southeasterly across this project and the church project. That is a city project, but main line extensions will be the responsibility of this developer, but not the trunk line. So, I think if we just modified that to say main line extension, I think that would address Dave's concern. McKinnon: That's fine. Zaremba: Thank you. McKinnon: Thanks, Bruce. Like I said, three is applications. The next part of the application is a preliminary plat. This is a two-lot subdivision. Joe alluded to that. We have one lot that's zoned L-O per the annexation, and one lot that's zoned R-15. That's, essentially, the whole of the preliminary plat, two lots, and we are asking for a Conditional Use Permit. The third part of our application, which is to allow this type of multi-family project, with a 20 percent land use exception, and that's the office portion of this project. What we have tried to do with this project, instead of just trying to cram as many units on there as possible, we actually tried to create somewhat of a more up- scale multi-family neighborhood, rather than just a complex. That's why we have included the swimming pool, the court area, the playground area, and the clubhouse. This isn't your typical just straightforward four-plexes with no amenities, there are a number of amenities within this project. As Joe alluded to the fact that we have had discussions with the owner. In the future he may wish to condo plat the entire subdivision and create individual ownership of each one of the units within the four- plexes themselves. Joe, I don't know if you have got copies of the elevations in the presentation. Go through those a little bit slower. Different elevations, different colors, different designs. I think we submitted three different designs of the four-plexes. They are not all going to be identical to each other. The office project -- you see similar rooflines, you see a similar type of treatment between the two, so they will all have a similar look to each other. And I really think that's about all that you need to hear from me tonight, because I don't have anything else to add, other than we agree with the staff report and the conditions that have been requested and those have been modified tonight. Ask if you have any questions of me at this time. Zaremba: I, actually, have two. I'll start with one. Address the changes that would be required for making a road go east and west and across the lateral, please. It sounds like you're agreeing to do that, but how would it look different than what we are looking at? McKinnon: Do you guys have the overhead turned on? If you could turn it on real quick. I can address that and I have got a couple of quick drawings and see how it would change. Obviously, the east-west corridor would be right here. It's about 500 feet from Franklin Road. Coming up Franklin Road at this point we had initially intended on stopping the public street and, then, having a service drive running through here. With a service drive, like you typically find in apartment complexes, you can back your car out into it. With a local street you cannot back a car out into the local street, you Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 14 of 93 know, you don't have garages right onto a local street. Similarly, we can't have carports backing out directly into that. So, you would see all this on-street parking eliminated. You would see a wider street. You would see a 36-foot street section and a 50 foot right of way. Currently, that's only 25 feet wide, with 19 feet for parking on either side. See, you would see a wider road. You will see less open space, you will see less landscaping, but what you will see is a large portion of this being lopped off and, then, possibly a cul-de-sac here that would go across the road here. ACHD did not make this a requirement. ACHD said they would support it if the City of Meridian made it a requirement. In talking with ACHD at the tech review, they felt that what might be most appropriate here would be a pedestrian bridge, but the City of Meridian felt it was necessary to have an emergency access or public street access here, that they would be supportive of and they made it a requirement saying that if the City of Meridian did that, then, they would be supportive of that and it would require it to be a local street and for us to pay for half of the bridge crossing. We really don't want to make the changes. The developer -- we contacted him to let him know that this was the desires of the City of Meridian, that said that -- they said that that was something he could work with. It makes it really easy for my part of the job. Of course, we would rather not have to redesign this, we actually like the design, being able to back out onto the street. We don't believe that any -- Joe, could you go to the overall again? We don't believe that there is really a whole lot of people that are going to come through her to get out to this access point. I don't see a major reason for a public street to go through what, essentially, is a driveway and it's going to be a driveway going over to another multi- family project. Zaremba: Except that the collector road where it connects with Franklìn may be the only signal between Ten Mile and Black Cat and that would become attractive to the people to the west, it would seem to me. McKinnon: Chairman Zaremba and Members of the Commission, it is a good point there and there should be some discussion as to where that traffic light should be. Typically, ACHD would rather move it more than -- more than a quarter mile away from the intersection. This point at Franklin is approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection. You would come back on this piece of property -- and I have got a couple of overheads. I can just show you and -- they are not really big and I promise to show everybody else. Overhead working, Josh? I'll just go ahead and pop over to the staff table really quick and I can show you a couple different drawings. Okay. What you see in front of you right now is -- we have a laser pointer really quick. The intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin right there. A quarter mile back is our access. That's this point right here. We initially intended only to go to this point with a public road. The staff is recommending that we take that public road and bring it across right here, approximately 500 feet north of Franklin and, again, traverse about 600 feet to the Kennedy lateral and make that a public road. From there we cross across here. Commissioner Zaremba -- or Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the half mile point is right here. They would be allowed to have one more unlimited access point right there and when I say unlimited, meaning not right-in, right-out. This would be a right in, right out, left in, left out. a universal access point. They require those to be 440 Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 15 of 93 feet apart. They have enough area there to put one at the half mile, another access that's unrestricted between that property and, then, our property right there. ACHD would prefer to have a traffic light at this location. We don't believe there will be a lot of cross-traffic coming through our project to get closer to the intersection. I believe it will be a direct route -- a more direct route to come straight down or to come through this project out to this, rather than coming across the Kennedy lateral, through another multi- family project with roads coming down through to it, accessing the road between the church and our property and, then, coming out. That's where we believe the intersection will be. If we were to go with a public street access, all the way across Kennedy lateral would be located right here. Sorry I don't have a full size drawing with the whole thing. We did a couple of sketches today, the architect did. Ten Mile and Franklin would be this intersection right here where my laser pointer is at right now. Coming up you find a cul-de-sac, some sort of turnaround, and, then, you have a large, wide roadway system. No parking -- as you can see, no parking backing up to it. The parking would be moved up in between the buildings. The buildings would be moved out, you get rid of open space, then, you have more parking. So, you have got more impervious surface, instead of green space. Coming straight across, ACHD requires a turnaround at the end of every one of their public roads. Even included a cul-de-sac turnaround, 55 foot radius, at this location. You can see what it does to a number of buildings, as well as to the open space. It reduces the number of buildings by a couple of different -- by a couple of office lots. Another idea that the architect came up with was to bring that public road in and, then, bring it down at a jog, so that, in fact, you would have a 500 foot access here, come across and, then, about 400 feet have another access across. The reason for doing that was to cause as little interference as possible with the four-plex project. So, it does change it dramatically. You increase the amount of roadway and you gain a whole lot, other than the City of Meridian fire and police would have a greater access to and through. In talking with your staff, we suggested that this could remain as an alley -- not an alley, but as a driveway with parking onto it, coming across and doing a cross-access over the bridge and building a bridge there, but not making it public, that way we would preserve the 25 foot drive aisle, we would be able to preserve people being able to back in and out onto that roadway and not having to get rid of the open space and getting rid of a few buildings with this. We think that that's a more appropriate route. Like I said, the developer said he was fine working with the city on that. I think that we end up with a better product if - - because this is actually a community, it's not something that we expect people to be driving through. It's odd shaped, granted, but we think this, actually, is enough access points here, we believe, that if we were to come across here with just a driveway, that 25 foot wide, just like you would see -- the fire department requires 20 feet, we would end up with just as good of product. If I can -- Joe, can you hit control alt. Right here -- you're going to see the church project tonight. I'm going to come back up to the podium, if that's okay. Tonight you're going to see the Cherry Lane Christian Church. It's moving to Franklin and I'm kind of excited to see if they are going to change their name to the Franklin Road Christian Church now, too, but that's a discussion for you guys to have tonight with them, but they are going to show the church site here and they are going to have two other access points here with, as Joe pointed out, Avest Mini Storage being located basically directly this direction. Joe, can you go back one more Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 16 of 93 and we can show Avest. Avest Mini Storage right here. You made a requirement on Avest Mini Storage to provide a cross-access. You didn't require a public street to come all the way through Avest and, then, connect to our project, you required a cross- access. We think that the same should be appropriate -- would be appropriate to come across here, just to provide a cross-access across the street there. We feel that that's the best solution to the problem, but we can work with the city, but if we have our own druthers, we'd rather be able to keep cars backing onto it and using the design that we have right now. Zaremba: Discuss with me the condo idea. If this is one project under one ownership, residential I guess being Lot 2; is that correct? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: And all of the residential being under one ownership, then, the private drive aisles are not a concern to me, because it's obvious who maintains them. Having private drive aisles for separately owned condos -- that wasn't in our notes, so this is a thought to me tonight and -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: -- worries me a little bit. McKinnon: -- it's not a decision that's been made, but when that decision is made, I think I heard some whispering over here from your attorney, there is an association, you would have a -- just like a homeowners association with that, they would maintain that and provide a cross-access -- Zaremba: Put it in a separate common lot and -- McKinnon: Exactly right. Each building would be sitting on that -- as you know, with condos you only own the interior of the home. From wall to wall I think is how they typically say that. You don't own anything solid, you just own the interior space. So, everything else is handled by an association. Zaremba: Including maintaining -- McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: -- a private drive and, as you said, cross-access. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: That would be a later application that could happen even after the buildings were built, I take it? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 17 of 93 McKinnon: That's correct. You have seen that happen a couple of different times in Meridian. The only one I can think of real quick offhand is the Goldstone building in Silverstone. That project. Goldstone. It was condo-ed after it was built and so they had to go in and survey the whole interior of it and it's actually kind of arduous to do. As a surveyor, you have to go -- just go from wall to wall and show all the interior dimensions. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: It does happen. Zaremba: Questions from other Commissioners? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I had one, again, on the -- on the east-west private road, talking about going to a public. The only thing I have not heard addressed is that the only access from the office area; correct? McKinnon: Well, you know what, I have got -- Joe, can you -- I'm going to ask you to do something really funny. Can you go all the way to the church property? Borup: I mean that is the only access out of the office, would be on that street. McKinnon: Right. That would be the only access. Borup: So, all the office traffic would -- would also be a potential to conflict with the parking there. McKinnon: I think you're right. Let me see if I can address that, Commissioner Borup, looking at this picture. You have this one access road coming in, but you have one access at the western terminus, you have a center access and somebody came in here. If this area was blocked, they could come down and around and come out. If they came in this area, they could come out and around this way. Back up, around, and, then, down. Or they can come across to the church parking lot. If they come in here, they can come either -- out either one of those. See, you actually have multiple access -- Borup: No. I understood that. I just -- I was just wondering about the conflict with parking pulling in and out. You had mentioned that as a 20 -- McKinnon: Twenty-five foot wide drive aisle, 19 foot parking spaces, just like you'd see at Wal-Mart or any other store. Or any other apartment complex, for that matter. Borup: So, the same time the cars could be pulling in and out, you have got traffic going in and out of the office space, too. McKinnon: And, that's, really, the place that would be most effective would be these right here. These parking spaces. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 18 of 93 Borup: That was alii had. Rohm: Could you address that one building lot up in the northwest corner? This one right there. McKinnon: Uh-huh. In fact, Joe, I think there is one more picture that shows that over there I left. A yellow sheet of paper. I don't know if I have got it still. Okay. We are looking -- he's looking for us. Okay. We went ahead and took measurements. As you know, you can only go 150 feet from where the fire truck parks, you have to drag the hose around to the back-side of the building. It's not as the crow flies, but, actually, how the hose gets to it. Went ahead and measured how far back we came, 211 feet, 220 feet. There is not a whole lot we can do to bring that back within 150 feet, because we are in a really tight corner back here. Essentially, we realize that -- it's note number six from the police department saying that they have a problem with that. The fire department has a problem with it, too. I have talked with Joe Silva about it and we have come to the agreement that lots number -- or building number 20 and 22 would actually curve inward, bringing them closer together this way and we will get rid of lot -- or building number 21. There is just no way we can squish that any further forward and it doesn't meet fire code and the police department has a problem with it. So, we will have to either relocate it or it's gone. We understand that. Borup: That's it. McKinnon: That's it? Okay. I don't know if there is anybody else here tonight to testify. Zaremba: We, actually, have nobody signed up for Items 5, 6 and 7, which is why we have held you in the hot seat a little bit longer, probably. So, Commissioners, are we ready to proceed or do you have more questions or things we need to discuss? Borup: The only thing I think -- Zaremba: Go with me for a minute -- a thought that mayor may not come up, but as you have observed, we are going to have discussion of the church property east of this tonight. If that discussion included -- and I'm trying to think of the cross-access to Avest property and all -- these three properties needing cross-access to each other and I think you even mentioned it. Under the current design, you envision that possibly people coming and going from this project would actually have to drive across the church parking lot for direct access to Ten Mile, if they chose not to go out on Franklin from your project. And I guess my question is -- let's see. Can we have, Joe, a larger aerial view that -- that shows the Avest and the church property? There was one that just had black lines outlining the properties, I think. It was probably the first thing -- yes. That one would do. It probably will come up during the church, because I'll probably bring it up, but if this were to be a road along the Avest property line and would have the north boundary of the church property, would you be agreeable to this collector being a public road all the way to that point? I don't think you had any parking on that upper portion of it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 19 of 93 McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, ACHD, as you will note in your staff report that Joe put in there, ACHD actually asked us not to continue it all the way up and so -- Zaremba: I think that was assuming it was a dead end, but-- McKinnon: No, it doesn't a dead end. In fact, the fire department has an emergency access. You're going to get to that with the Cherry Lane Christian Church tonight. Zaremba: All right. McKinnon: But there is an emergency fire access road. Zaremba: I jumped the gun. I just was wondering your opinion on this project. McKinnon: And I can address that. I can address that. What you would see -- I don't believe there is going to be a traffic volume enough further up for a collector street and, then, the other difference would be that you would see sidewalk and there is not going to be a whole lot of people using the sidewalk there, because the homes are interior to one side and the church people are parking going the other direction, but ACHD will still require a sidewalk there. There is really no nexus for that, because nobody would necessarily utilize that, because everything is away from the street they are going to. There is nothing they go to from either project to each other. On that one strip. Further down, absolutely, people are going to be going down to Franklin. Hopefully we will have some mass transit, like Jon Barrett brought up, or something will happen here. We know that Ten Mile and Franklin is going to become a busy intersection sometime soon, hopefully sooner, rather than later with the Ten Mile interchange. There is going to be a lot of retail here. This is going to be a service area and this is going to provide housing near that retail area. Zaremba: I have exhausted all my questions. No questions from staff? Guenther: Just waiting for questions of staff. McKinnon: Commissioners? Members of the Commission, Mr. Chairman, thanks for giving me some extra time tonight. I think I probably went into more than I was planning on going into and I appreciate the questions. As I stated, we'd much rather prefer to see this remain as just a private drive. We are agreeable to bringing an access road across the bridge, just like you did with Avest and requiring the multi-family project that happens over here on the cattle farm in the future to connect to that, so there is emergency vehicle access, and if people need to get across they can. I feel that's a better solution, rather than taking up more space with right of way and more space for parking. Ask for you approval at this time and ask any other questions of me and I can answer them for you and, then, I'll sit down. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 20 of 93 Zaremba: Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Discussion, Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, you appear to have thoughts building up. Rohm: Oh, just the one -- today's comments on the cross-access and, actually, quite frankly, I like his solution. If you have cross-access between this parcel and that to the west, it almost keeps all of the traffic within this development here and doesn't -- don't end up having people fighting each other between this apartment complex and any other development that may occur and I think it -- it will flow better leaving it that way, than trying to put a roadway through. That's just my opinion on that. Zaremba: Are you speaking of a cross-access that -- even though it's not a public roadway, still would be usable by vehicle? Rohm: Absolutely. Yeah. Zaremba: Would require a bridge across the -- Rohm: Right. And the cross-access and development of the bridge would a joint venture between this development and the property to the west. That seems logical to me. Zaremba: I like having the connection. I'm not stuck whether it's a public road or some other arrangement and, as you're suggesting, I think that's fine, but I like -- I mean that is a solution to having a connection, as you say, and if that's not where the signal is going to go, I guess I was thinking of -- and assuming, since the signal was mentioned, that this half was the half mile, as Mr. McKinnon pointed out, it's not in the half mile. Rohm: Yeah. As a matter of fact, that kind of goes into the logic of leaving that just as a cross-access, because I think that the signal being placed at the half mile is a much better idea than a quarter mile from the Ten Mile-Franklin interchange. Zaremba: All right. I think you and I are agreeing. Other Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I have a question. This area is going to get particularly dense and if it would stand to reason where -- regardless of where your inter -- your signalized enter interchanges, traffic is going to try to get there to, you know, get out. We talk a lot when we are talking about Eagle Road and things like that, how nice it would be to have frontage roads and that type of thing and, to me, it seems to me, you know, a public Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 21 of 93 road would kind of serve that purpose to help defuse some of the heavy traffic with something similar to a frontage road that's moving to the west and I will -- Zaremba: Well, we are all agreeing that there needs to be some circulation pattern for traffic, but I think what Commissioner Rohm and I are questioning is whether that really needs to be a public street. Do you feel it needs to be a public street? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think -- I was trying to -- I didn't have my Comprehensive Plan with me, but it could stand to reason that you could end up creating a public road that went west eventually all the way down towards -- and connect to Black Cat. It's just a thought. I'm not really strong either way. I just think a lot of times we get a lot of this development and we fill up these roads and, then, we have situations where we are going why didn't we think of that before. I don't think having a public street is a bad idea. I would look at it as hedging for future development myself. Zaremba: Which is why staff is proposing it. I mean it's exactly the reasoning behind making it a public street. Newton-Huckabay: Right. What are you gentlemen's thoughts? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you appear to be -- Borup: Well, you and Commissioner Rohm were talking about leaving it as a private street, but still having the access. Is that what I understood? Rohm: Yes. Cross-access to the west. Borup: My feeling would be if that's -- if that's the way it went -- if that's the direction, that maybe a little more width. It would be a lot easier to redesign also for the developer, but -- Zaremba: And still allowing the back-outs kind of parking, just make the drive aisle wider? Borup: Yeah. Rohm: And that seems reasonable, too. Zaremba: That's a good suggestion. Newton-Huckabay: This property next to it is industrial. The property to the -- all the properties to the west to Black Cat and beyond are zoned industrial or -- Borup: Oh, that was -- yeah, I did have another -- I did have a question. I thought Joe had mentioned that the property to the west was future multi-family. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 22 of 93 Guenther: It's high density. Borup: Pardon? Guenther: It's high density and, then, everything -- Borup: But what's the buildings that's on there now? Guenther: It's a farm. It's an actual -- Borup: Those are all farm buildings? Guenther: Those are all farm buildings that are on there currently. Borup: To the west. The property to the west. Guenther: Immediately to the west across the Kennedy lateral. Borup: That looked like a lot of buildings on the overhead photo. Guenther: It's a good size farm. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. That's what I'm saying, is that as land use goes to the west and you run into an industrial zone, those -- Rohm: That's beyond the half mile. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. It is. Rohm: Yeah. The half-mile -- west of the half-mile is industrial. Moe: As I guess I'm the only one that hasn't spoken on this yet, I would somewhat agree with Commissioner Borup. Actually, I would like to see it go private, but I would like to see if we can widen it up a little bit. I think that's the -- in between them, but both -- I don't think it needs to be a public street and I would like to see a little bit more width. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, just to make one comment. In terms of the parking, whether you -- whether you choose to go public or private, I think if the row -- if that street has parking on the oath south boundary, recognize that the volume of traffic, whether it's public or private, will still probably make it worth not having parking on that. I mean that wasn't necessarily brought up in the hearing portion, but, then, you could go private without the -- and narrower than a public street, but still with no parking backing up, and I think in terms of potential conflicts that would be created with parking there, with the day care operation, especially right on the corner, and I think the way that the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 23 of 93 you move traffic -- he showed a couple of different options at the beginning, which seemed to be workable and none of those actually -- I don't think -- they didn't show parking, actually, on that private street, so -- Rohm: Well, let's put one of those back on the screen. Borup: So, that would be leaving parking on the north side of the street, but eliminate it on the south side. Zaremba: These are hand drawn. I think they were intending it to be a public street with no parking. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. But a similar design could be for private. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Or if it was private, there could be parking on the north side. Hawkins-Clark: Well, staff would probably -- would not recommend parking on either the north or the south. Zaremba: Well -- and that design works for me. It wasn't attractive to the applicant, because they lose a building or two here and there. Hawkins-Clark: Well, if that street was narrower, though, it might be able to get buy with a narrower street. I'm assuming that they may -- they may have drawn, they may be able to get the applicant to clarify if that was drawn with -- Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open. Hawkins-Clark: -- a 50 foot right of way. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just to follow up on what Brad said. We, actually, did draw this with the 50 foot right of way. As you can see, it was drawn with a Sharpie, it's not exact. But it was done with just, you know, taking a piece of onion paper, putting it on top of something that was to scale and, then, going ahead and outlining what it would look like. This isn't just a straight forward -- if you were to narrow it down, but, then, still not allow parking, I don't think you have gained a whole lot. It wouldn't gain much in the sense of building. You know, the City of Meridian requires a setback, but a ten-foot landscape buffer is what you're going to get, regardless of whether it's public or private. I think that the volumes to the site are going to be tremendous. There will be -- there will be a number of vehicle trips that's generated here, but those of you that have shopped at Wal-Mart and Fred Meyers and other shopping centers, you know that people are able to back in and out safely. I don't believe that -- and living in an apartment complex and having managed apartment Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 24 of 93 complexes, people tend to be able to get in and out of parking that they are backing out into a drive aisle and they are able to do it safely. Borup: But this is not a parking lot, though, and -- McKinnon: On this drawing this is not a parking lot. Borup: Well, on the original drawing. I mean you're not just going to a single store, no matter how big it is, you're going to multiple buildings. Let me throw out one other idea. McKinnon: I'm sorry; I didn't follow you there, Commissioner Borup. Borup: Well, no, you're talking about the ~- I don't think your -- your analogy of a parking lot at Wal-Mart is a good analogy is what I'm saying. Another option may be is public street width to this point right here and, then, narrow it down at this point, which I think would -- and no parking on this side, on the north side. I think that would have a tendency to force the traffic down this street here and, then, you could still have the parking in this section. McKinnon: Commissioner Borup, I'm really glad you brought that up. That's -- I had a -- I'm glad you brought that up, because that is something I should have brought up. With this drawing -- I lost my laser. We talked about this with one of the architects on staff, is that people are going to come around this roundabout, this cul-de-sac area, and all of a sudden you have got people backing out with people coming around this. I think you make a very good point that this area right here should be restricted for parking. I think you make a good point there, because people are going to be coming through this area off a public street, coming back in there. I think -- I agree with you that maybe this area right here have some restriction to parking. Borup: Take that maybe from a 36 foot street down to a 28 or something and -- McKinnon: Twenty-eight would be fine. That's just three more -- Borup: I would -- I don't know, wouldn't that -- I would think that would have a tendency to move the traffic at the first -- at the first entrance there, rather than driving down further. Hawkins-Clark: Can I ask a question? Is the day care site that's shown on they're pretty firm or is it possible that it would move around? McKinnon: Oh, the day care site could move around. I think the reason why it's back there is to protect it from the higher volume of traffic, plus be able to pick up and drop off easier, separate from the other office projects. You can see they have got this drive aisle here that's separate from the rest of the office. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 25 of 93 Zaremba: Between this drawing and the one that shows the public road with no back-in parking along it -- McKinnon: Uh-huh. Zaremba: -- you don't actually lose any of the office buildings. McKinnon: Oh, that's -- Zaremba: Did you -- McKinnon: Can we go back -- Zaremba: How many of the four-plex residentials did you lose? Just one or two? McKinnon: Three. I would lose 76. That's where that parking lot was. Zaremba: Uh-huh. McKinnon: I'd lose 74. Again, the parking lot. And, then, another parking lot right here to protect that. And if you go back, we actually do lose some office as well. You got to go back a 30-foot setback from a public street. Zaremba: Lose a few feet off of it. McKinnon: And so you lose some more. So, you're going to lose at least one building, if not two buildings. In fact, both of the drawings that you see actually show two buildings being eliminated from the office side. One of the drawings shows two four- plexes being gone and the other drawing that had the straight across to the cul-de-sac that didn't jog down, it showed three four-plexes being eliminated. Extra parking. Again, Sharpie drawings. We haven't put this all onto -- just trying to figure out -- we thought you might have some questions tonight, so we thought we would put something together. Zaremba: Let me ask this: When -- when we know at some point in the future that a road is going to be put through, the full radius turnaround isn't always required, is it? Once it's a connecting road, there is no need for a turnaround there. I realize that there is a temporary need, but is there another solution that wouldn't take up so much land? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did talk with ACHD about that and there is some possibility of doing a hammerhead, a Y-shaped turnaround. Actually, the fire department here doesn't like the Y-shaped turn around. A hammerhead or a snoopy. But that whole section of it has to be public road or you have to provide an easement for that and it needs to meet the fire department and ACHD standards. Typically, the simplest way to do that is with just that cul-de-sac. You know, you could Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 26 of 93 do a snoopy or a hammerhead, but I don't know if it creates a whole lot, but, yes, they do require you to provide a turnaround according to their standards. Borup: No matter what the depth is. No matter what the distance is. McKinnon: Well, there is some language that if you go back less than 150 feet you don't have to provide a turnaround, as long as it's servicing no more than two homes. Borup: Right. And wouldn't this be less than 150 feet and servicing anything? McKinnon: Well, the public road itself -- I've got to get a new laser. Borup: Well, I assume that Commissioner Zaremba was talking about the tie in here. McKinnon: This public road itself would stop right here and not continue and so you'd have to provide a turnaround at this location. They required us to put a turnaround at this location if we stopped it here. Zaremba: I'm not -- yeah, I'm not questioning the collector turnaround, I'm questioning the west turnaround, since it would only be temporary. McKinnon: Okay. Like I said, I did talk with Andrea over at ACHD about that -- in fact, this specific question, that if we go to here do we still have to provide a turnaround. The answer was, yes, you still have to provide a turnaround. Yes, you can provide it in an easement or you can go ahead and provide a permanent turnaround. I'm trying to think back. Those of you that were on the Commission with Elk Run Subdivision, when it came through off of Ten Mile, they were required to put in a turnaround that came into the driveways and into part of the house and one of the lots and they said in the future when this connects we are going to tear out this sidewalk, we are going to build the house out into it, because ACHD required them to put the turnaround in the little subdivision with just nine lots, even though it had a stub street going north. ACHD requires a turnaround at the end of every public street, regardless of whether or not it stubs to a property. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, I think there might be some miscommunication here, because I think Dave is -- are you assuming, Dave, that this would be public when you're saying all of that? But I think where the Commission is headed is that if this goes private, do you still need a turnaround here and I think the answer is no, because our fire department can already -- this is a turnaround for the fire department. They can get through here just the way that they have drawn this. McKinnon: Thanks for helping me out, Brad. Exactly right. If it was -- if it was private, no turnaround. If it was public, there would be a required turnaround. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 27 of 93 Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: It seems to me that if we could eliminate a couple of the parking spaces here to address the traffic that's coming in around this corner on the north side and, then, maybe eliminate the parking along here and leave that private and that will lead for a larger drive aisle, even though it is private, and leave the balance of things as -- as it is. That seems as if that would address -- Zaremba: Plus an easement and a bridge across the -- Rohm: Right. Exactly. Yeah, to -- Zaremba: Do you -- okay. If I lost one, two, three, four, five, six -- if we lost 15, 18 -- let me ask staff. If we lose 18 parking spaces, do they still have adequate parking for the office buildings? Guenther: That would be analyzed through the CZC. It's going to be dependent on the size of those buildings. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: The conceptual in front of you is an approximate. What actually comes in for a building permit is what we would scale the parking requirements on. Zaremba: Okay. So, let me summarize and see whether we have consensus here. Thinking that it would remain a private road, that three or four parking spaces on the northeast side would go away, the row of parking on the south side would go away, giving a wider drive aisle and the landscaping would be pulled back a little bit, so there would be a wider drive aisle, with back-out parking only on the north side, except for the right three or four spaces wouldn't be there, and there would be a bridge across -- this applicant would be responsible for half of the bridge, but there.would be a bridge and a cross-access across Kennedy lateral. Rohm: To the west. Zaremba: To the west. Is that -- Rohm: That's -- I think that's -- Zaremba: I see people screwing up their faces. Moe: How many spaces were you talking about getting rid of up on the -- up in the corner? Zaremba: I'm just saying four or five, probably. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 28 of 93 Moe: I'm looking more like eight to get it to basically line up with the curbing. Okay. To line up right into that area, you're going to lose about eight spaces. Excuse me. Line up right here. Borup: If you go back the whole way. Moe: Right. Borup: I think Commissioner Zaremba maybe was talking about just right at the east end. Zaremba: The ones right at the driveway were connection -- Borup: I really like the idea of eliminating eight and, you know, have the curbing come in and narrow that street down and discourage the traffic from even going straight -- discourage the office traffic from even going that direction. Moe: You have the planter area right here and, then, just kind of line -- if you take it out from there to there, it just lines up a heck of a lot better all the way through there and I do agree with taking out the parking spaces on the south side and I think that would -- that would work well and keep it private. Zaremba: Does staff have any further comments? Guenther: If you're going to go private, then, we need to know what standards for which the bridge will need to be built, which staff would recommend that be built to ACHD standards, that bridge, and that the applicant be required to bond for 110 percent of half of that bridge. Zaremba: I can see that, because, conceivably, fire trucks would have to go across it. Needs to be able to support -- and probably moving vans and stuff like that are going to use it if it's there. Guenther: Yeah. And so, essentially, if you're going to make it private, then, the city needs to maintain the construction standards of that. If it was public, then, ACHD would be responsible for that. Borup: When you're talking about ACHD standards, you're talking about structure and weight load and that kind of thing, not necessarily width, so it doesn't need to be public road width? Guenther: It would be for public road width as well. It would be a minimum of 24-foot improved surface. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 29 of 93 Zaremba: I wasn't terribly uncomfortable with the private road, but thinking of a private bridge 75 years from now, when it's falling apart, somebody has to replace it. Guenther: Most likely it's going to be a large culvert style bridge across the Kennedy lateral. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, more than likely it would just be a culvert crossing. It wouldn't be a concrete bridge structure like you would typically think of when you talk about a bridge. It would be a culvert crossing. Zaremba: And in long-range thinking that would not be as expensive for a homeowners association to maintain if it were a private -- Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: -- culvert crossing. Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: But it would still support a fire truck and -- Freckleton: Absolutely. Yeah. As long as it was -- you know, as long as we place the condition on there that the Ada County Highway District standards be applied, that would cover the loading -- loading requirements and all the design criteria that ACHD would apply. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: While I've got the mike, I'll take this opportunity just to clarify a point that Joe made. When we talk about the developer putting up half the cost, typically what we have done in the past that it's in the form of a bond or a letter of credit, it's a cash deposit. That way, basically, the developer is done at that point in time and, then, when the property to the west develops, those funds are, then, turned over to that developer to the west to complete those improvements at that point in time. So, it would be 110 percent of half the cost of the culvert crossing. Zaremba: And who figures out what that dollar amount is? Freckleton: Well, it would be -- it would be done during the time of their design and, then, their bid for construction. It would be based on a contractor's written estimate. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Then, do they get the ten percent back? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 30 of 93 Freckleton: The ten percent is basically there to account for any inflation costs or costs of materials and that sort of thing. So, it's 110 percent of the cost. I see our city attorney making faces. Got a comment? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Are we ready to make a motion on this? Zaremba: Well, let me ask. Basically, the rest of the project hasn't raised any questions. Are we saying that -- that, basically, we are in favor of the project, what we are noodling out is whether or not this needs to be a public or private road and what form that takes. Is that really the only issue we have to discuss? Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would, actually, like the applicant to come back up and maybe make a point as to what we have been discussing here, as to whether or not they are in agreement with that. Zaremba: Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission, I'm sitting in a good position where we know that we can accommodate either position that you have taken. We would like to preserve as much of this design as possible and I like the direction that you have been going as a group. I know that individually there may be differences among you, but as a group we like the direction that it's headed. I think some great points have been made. I really like some of the comments that are being made. The increased width of the driveway, blocking some of the parking up on the north side to make it safer, I think these are all the appropriate directions to be going tonight. That's alii have to add. Borup: But we have talked about several different things, that's what we were trying to maybe narrow in on. One to one in talk to the last was to have a wider entrance off the public road and, then, neck it down as it passes -- as it comes passed the entrance to the -- McKinnon: I think that's a great comment. I would support that. That was, actually, like I said -- I thought about it, too, but I just didn't mention it to you tonight. Borup: And that's one of your preferences? McKinnon: That's fine. I think it -- Borup: So, we just need to discuss the road width, then, do we? Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: What's appropriate for that width? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 31 of 93 Zaremba: Would that make you need to find extra parking for building 77? McKinnon: We may end up losing that. Zaremba: It makes that inconvenient for them. McKinnon: We may end up losing another building and that's -- Zaremba: But you would only lose one building. McKinnon: We would only lose one building. Exactly. And so we end up better than -- Borup: Or you may be able to shift everything partially. McKinnon: I don't know if we want to design this to be anymore dense than it really is. I think we have, actually, got a product here that's got a nice amount of open space. It's a little bit different than everything else that's out there in the status quo. I don't think the intent is to try to squish it and move things around to make it better. Borup: That's still losing less buildings than what you had on your other concept. McKinnon: That's absolutely correct. Zaremba: You'd probably lose 77, would be the one you would lose. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: And still maintain all of the office buildings and maybe put a couple more trees where 77 is and nobody would miss it. McKinnon: Or you spread it out. Zaremba: Yeah. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners? Borup: We were just discussing what do we make that width, then. If the drive aisle now is 25, I mean what are we looking at, 30 feet for the other? Thirty-two? Probably 30. Zaremba: Twenty-five is the standard requirement in most parking lots. Any park you have driven through recently is probably 25. Borup: I'm talking about just that little stretch there that's going to be wider. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 32 of 93 McKinnon: Members of the Commission, just one last thing -- Borup: Or do we let this work out with staff? Zaremba: What were you going to say? McKinnon: The wider the street gets, the faster traffic tends to travel. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Well, I understood that. That's why I like the neck down. That's going to slow it down. So, can our motion just be a wider entrance and the width work out with staff? Newton-Huckabay: I think that's a good idea. Zaremba: That's a good solution for me. Rohm: That works. Zaremba: Are we ready to close the Public Hearing -- public hearings plural. Borup: You go ahead. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Oh, I -- Borup: Commissioner Huckabay was ready to do it. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Because I'm ready to close this Public Hearing. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearings on AZ 05-016, CUP 05-024, and PP 05-023. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I have one question. I still prefer the idea of the public street to the ideas that were presented here, so should I just vote against the preliminary plat or all of it or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 33 of 93 Zaremba: My suggestion would be that you make the motion and make it a public street and see how we vote. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- Borup: But it wouldn't just be on the plat, I believe. Zaremba: Oh, yeah, it's not an annexation, it's not a CUP. It's a plat issue. Rohm: I think it would be better if a motion -- Borup: Is that correct or would it be part of the CUP, too? Moe: No, I don't think so. Zaremba: Well, I'm going to -- Borup: Because the plat is only two lots, isn't it? Zaremba: Yeah. The plat is only two lots. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Borup: The design is -- is that a CUP issue or -- Guenther: If it's going to be public, that road will need to be included with the plat and also the CUP is for a planned development, which is for the overall site layout. So, it would be -- if you're going to vote no on those, you're going to have to vote no on both the conditional use and the planned development -- or the preliminary plat. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, before we go either way, let's try and crystal ball into the future and the development of the properties next to it. If it's a public road, that's fine. If it's a private road, not built to public road standards, we virtually can never go back. Visualize what you think the development west of this will be. Visualize if this is ever going to need to be a public road. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I'm not helping, because I could go either way on it. Guenther: Mr. Freckleton just brought up a good point and that is that by -- if you make this private and this is -- half the reason why we actually went with the public in the first place, is you're forcing the applicant to the west to maintain his project as private as Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 34 of 93 well, so he can't come through and do a plat for multi-family, because you can't go from a public road system to a private road system to a public road system. Zaremba: Right. If ACHD refused to connect -- Guenther: ACHD would refuse that. Yes. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: But the property to the west has a half-mile access paint. Zaremba: Well -- and that may be attractive to these people as well. They may wish to go west to that signal. Rohm: I, actually, think it's better to break it up just a bit. You're going to have these -- this development that's going to dump out onto Franklin at the quarter mile and the property to the west will dump out at the half mile and it doesn't get everybody congested at one point, so from my perspective, maintaining it as a private drive enhances the development of both properties, rather than hinders it. That's just as I look at it. Zaremba: You could get traffic to do that by not making the connection, which is back to the way it came in in the first place. Rohm: Well, I -- Newton-Huckabay: You guys are killing me. Borup: I feel there does need to be some connection. I don't have an opinion whether it's public or private, although I -- I could see that some year down the road we may wish it was public. Newton-Huckabay: I just think this is going to become a very busy corridor when you have the Ten Mile interchange, we are going to have -- I think -- I see, you know, development from Ten Mile all the way down to the cheese factory, I mean that's what you're having developed now, you have a car lot and different things and I envision that's probably what we are going to see and I think public roads -- you know, like I said, we are just hedging the possibility of, you know, a real congestion problem and people are going to migrate towards controlled intersections. If you have a public road through here, people leaving from the church, you know, may head that way to get there and people heading from the industrial area, if there is a public road to get to a controlled intersection. And I think if that never -- because if it never develops that way, you know, you, at least, have a -- it's still a usable road. I think we should make a motion, then, and vote a it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 35 of 93 Rohm: Before a motion is made, where do we make the changes in the staff report to address the elimination of the lots -- the parking spaces, if we are to address that in our motion? Or do we just simply state that the developer work out the parking with staff? Guenther: Generally, if you're going to make major changes to the design, we'd like to see a redesign -- I'd like to have a design that you're comfortable sending to the City Council. Rohm: Okay. So, would that be a site-specific condition? Guenther: Yes. Rohm: On the preliminary plat? Guenther: Conditional Use Permit. Rohm: Pardon? Guenther: Through the CUP. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Borup, do you have a motion already prepared, the details? Borup: I have got the staff comments written down, but not on this road thing. I'm a little up in the air. Moe: Page 19, I would assume, on number seven. Borup: Yeah. That's where it would go. Moe: Yeah. I'm still unsure what -- Zaremba: Well, to muddle it farther, I'm -- Borup: Commissioner Rohm, are you -- Zaremba: -- the farther we think into the future the more I'm leaning towards Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's opinion that it -- we will some day wish it were a public road at least to public road standards. Borup: See, I don't see that if it stays -- I mean if the property develops as multi-family like this, they are never going to be torn down and something else built, it's always going to be the same. It depends on how far in the future you want to go. Rohm: Commissioner Borup, if you make a motion I'll second it. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 36 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: I think we are to that point. We need to make a recommendation and -- Borup: Yeah. Commissioner Rohm, did you have a motion written out on the road part? Is that where you put it, on 19? Rohm: Actually, I put it on page 14, item 12, but that's -- I just added -- on a site specific condition and, then, just -- I just wrote the -- Borup: That's under the annexation, though. Rohm: Okay. So-- Borup: Just take your same motion and move it to 19. Rohm: To 19. Moe: And make it an Item number seven. Newton-Huckabay: How about if we make a motion for a public road and then -- Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: -- you can see who will vote for that. Zaremba: You, actually, wouldn't need to make changes, because that's what staff recommended. Newton-Huckabay: Exactly. Right. Zaremba: Are you making a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. 1-- Moe: Before she does, may I make one more comment, please? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess just one last point I would probably -- I still somewhat agree to the private road aspect of it, but at the same time, as I have heard, the applicant tonight has made statements that he, in fact, can work with it either way. I guess as we go through this thing, you know, if the applicant is of the opinion that they could work through that and Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 37 of 93 make it a public, I guess that would probably be the best case all the way around for future use and whatnot. So, having said that, you go right ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-016, request for annexation and zoning of 28.65 acres -- do I have to read the whole thing? Zaremba: You don't need to read the whole thing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Just referencing the file number is fine. Newton-Huckabay: To include all staff comments from the transmittal date of May 18, received on June 10th. Moe: Not done yet. Newton-Huckabay: I'm not done yet. Moe: Then you need to go with page nine and make the change here. Newton-Huckabay: Everybody, you will be happy to know this is my first official motion to the City Council. Okay. And on page nine we want to make the change that the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water main line extension, so strike the word service. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Rohm: Nay. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: I forgot the landscape portion. Guenther: You forgot page 12 and, then, to strike the parks comments. Moe: That would be on the-- Guenther: I'm sorry. Borup: This is just the annexation. Moe: That's the annexation only. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 38 of 93 Zaremba: I missed that. Is the motion complete or are we -- Guenther: For the annexation, yeah. I jumped the gun. Zaremba: Okay. So, I believe we have four ayes and one nay. Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-024, to include all staff comments of the memo dated May 18th, received by the City Clerk June 10th, and with the change to -- page 12? Moe: No. Newton-Huckabay: Page 21. Moe: You want to strike-- Newton-Huckabay: Page 21 we want to strike the first three comments from the Meridian Parks Department, comments one, two, and three. End of -- Borup: That's it. Newton-Huckabay: What about the -- oh, no. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rohm: Aye. Borup: Aye. Zaremba: Motion carries three ayes, two nays. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-023, to include a memo -- staff memo dated May 18th, received by the clerk June 10th, with the change on page 12, bullet number two, needs to read: Depict and construct a ten foot wide gravel shoulder on the local street abutting the site. Is that right, Joe? That doesn't sound right. Guenther: What was -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 39 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: I'm trying to restate your site-specific condition on the preliminary plat number two. Guenther: It would be -- for the second portion it would read: Depict -- depict and construct a ten foot wide landscape strip along the local street between Lots 1 and 2, within the remaining portion of the right of way being landscaped lawn or other vegetative cover. And, then, in addition, it would say depict and construct a 20-foot wide landscape strip along the collector street, which would be on the eastern property boundary south of the private road, the Lots 1 and 2. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to have my motion include the statement just made by city staff and that would be end of motion. Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Guenther: Also the ACHD comment that says if the city requires on -- it would be page 23. It should be incorporated that the city does require that stub street to be connected. Newton-Huckabay: So noted also. That comment. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rohm: Aye. Zaremba: I believe we have four ayes and one nay. The motion carries. Thank you all. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Zaremba: We are approaching the time we traditionally take a break. I think I will suggest that we do take a ten-minute break and reconvene. (Recess. ) Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 05-008 Request for a Rezone of 2.61 acres from R-4 to C-G zone for Walgreens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 05-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 14,490 square foot retail pad with dual drive thru for the pharmacy on 2.61 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Walgreens by Hawkins Companies - 3150 West Cherry Lane: