Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 2, 2005 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 85 of 117 (Recess.) Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. -SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 05-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 5.39 acres in a proposed R-15 zone far Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. -- SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 05-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval of a mixed-use development consisting of 10 multi-family buildings and 6 office buildings with multiple buildings on a single lot and a waiver of the street frontage requirement in a proposed R- 15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. -SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene this meeting and let the record show that all Commissioners are present again. And I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05- 018, request far annexation and zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8, and R-15 zones far Westborough Square Subdivision. Also open the Public Hearing PP 05-020, request for preliminary plat approval for seven building lots and one common lot on 5.39 acres in a proposed R-15 zone. And also open Public Hearing CUP 05-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit planned development approval for amixed-use development consisting of ten multi-family buildings and six office buildings with multiple buildings on a single lot and a waiver of the street frontage requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for Westborough Square Subdivision. All of these by JLJ Enterprises, Incorporated, southeast corner of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I did a pretty good job of explaining this project. You touched on some of my paints, so I'll try to skim aver and touch on same of the major issues that we have, but first just a little mare background to help. This project is annexation of everything shown here in bold. It's about -- approximately 29 acres, 17 acres of that is proposed for the R-4 zone. There is an existing charter school on that site. The 5.53 acres to the west are -- have five single- family homes. The applicant has proposed R-8 zoning for those one-acre parcels. And, then, the remaining approximately six acres is right on the southeast corner of Jericho and Chinden and that's proposed for R-15. Now, this is also being platted and the Conditional Use Permit is on this rectangular shaped property on the corner, so just to kind of clarify that for you. Some of the boundaries are different. In 2004 the City Council did agree to provide sewer service to the five residential lots in Westborough, again, these five one acre lots as they were outside of the city limits. Now, the lots don't -- the homes and lots don't show up on this aerial, as it is older, but the lots are there on the aerial. In exchange for sewer service, the owner agreed to sell the city a well site, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page $6 of 117 which is right in this location right on Locust Grove in that location and to request annexation once they were contiguous. Arcadia Subdivision, which I think is on the next aerial, Arcadia Subdivision was recently approved. Saguaro Canyon is in this location. And they are contiguous and have -- and the applicant has request annexation. To the north of the site are one-acre homes in Eagle. To the south single family homes zoned RUT. This was the Reserve Subdivision. That one was withdrawn. That's still in the county as RUT. Again, a church to the east. There is a church to the east here on the corner of Locust Grove and Chinden and Tustin Subdivision is also a recent one that was approved by the city on the corner of Ustick. Or, excuse me, McMillan and Locust Grove recently. The applicant is proposing to re-subdivide, again, the 5.39 acre parcel, Lot 6, Block 1, of Westborough into eight new lots for Westborough Square. There are six single story office buildings on the west side, so approximately here is the line separating the office uses from the ten proposed four-plex buildings on the eastern approximately half of that site. The remaining lot is a driveway lot, which I will get to now. The applicant is proposing one 30-foot wide -- and it does vary a little bit. It's 30 feet here and it does go down to 25 and 20 feet from some areas, from Jericho Road, to serve those seven lots -build-able lots within the subdivision. There is no other access proposed. There is some -- a mix of garage and open-air parking spaces for the units far the residents of the multi-family units. Here is an elevation of the multi-family. This is a four-plex. A lot different than what we are used to seeing for afour-plex building. They all are two bedrooms, just different floor plan for each of the units. The gross density of the subdivision is 7.4 dwelling units per acre. However, if you exclude the office, basically half of the building, then, the density almost doubles to 14.4 dwelling units per acre. Here is an elevation for the proposed office -- or one of the office buildings in a conceptual elevation far that. Because the applicant did not submit applications that complied with the Comprehensive Plan, as noted in the staff report. Staff did recommend that the city annex and zone the 17-acre school site to R-4 as requested and that the 5.53 acres containing the one-acre homes be zoned to R-4. And I will stop there for just a second. It was requested for R-8 zoning. Staff did not think that that's appropriate and did not represent the land use on those lots being one acre and the redevelopment potential of those to even subdivide those -- the area of those lots take up a good portion. They are pretty centrally located on those one-acre lots. They probably aren't going to redevelop anyway, so the R-4 zone mare closely represents what's actually on site. And, finally, that the 6.62 acres requested for the R- 15 zoning be denied and that be zoned R-8 as well. Since the recommendation went over to the Commission I have spoken with the applicant and about recommending approval of R-15 zone with the stipulation that no office uses go on there, that they only be residential uses on the R-15. I'm agreeable to that if the applicant does agree to construct only residential dwellings on that, excuse me, six acres or so. However, the plat will probably need to be revised, a new site plan will need to be submitted, a new landscape plan with new lot lines and landscape buffers surrounding the uses and the amenities that are appropriate to the size of the development. So, there are some conditions with that that if that's the direction that this board chooses to go, we will need to be modified and staff has not included any conditions of approval right now with this application. The recommendation was just to approve these modified zoning and not the plat or the CUP. Also, the final remaining issue, if you will, is the sewer service Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 87 of 117 there and it is noted in the staff report. I would like Mike to explain to you a little bit more of what's going on there and if you have any questions of me, I am available. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- excuse me. This is -- this development is being proposed to sewer through a private lift station that they -- they installed that we reviewed for the five building lots on the left-hand side of Westborough and for the 31 lots in Arcadia. These five building lots here and this one. And for this little area right here that -- we are not planners, but at the time they told us it would be commercial. So, Public Works reviewed and accepted that lift station for that amount of influent to come into it. Now, with this being proposed as R-15 multi-family residential four-plexes, apartments, that's a significant increase in the amount of influent that is being generated and the lift station doesn't appear to be able to meet that -- that demand. They have had some talks with our department and we said that they could build maybe a couple of them, put on a flow meter at the lift station to get a true representation of the sewage that's being generated and see how much they could handle. And the other issue of that is it's a -- the sewer is being pulled right now to Saguaro Canyon, the North Slough trunk line is coming through that right as we speak. So, it has gravity means to it soon, but not yet. They don't have the sewer capability to sewage -- to sewer these multi-family lots. That's the sewer problem. I think I have made myself clear. I will stand far questions. Zaremba: When the new sewer gets there, then, they will no longer have any need for any lift station; is that correct? Cole: That is correct, sir. It's -- it has been planned to -- the routing of the sewer through this Saguaro and the Arcadia Subdivision has had the pipes upsized and was planned to sewer all of that. So, as the gravity gets there, it -- they will have capacity then, just not with the lift station they have there now. Zaremba: Is there a target on haw long it will be or is that developer driven or Cole: I -- I had conversations with Ben Thomas and he has final -- he is trying -- going to try to final plat Saguaro Canyon three and four soon. He was asking for routing of sewer mains. So, I know that it's -- it's close. He's wanting to final plat and as soon as he final plats it, Arcadia is just waiting for it to get there, so they can go. But, then, again, it is on the -- on the developer's timeline, just because they final platted it, doesn't mean they would be building it. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Mae: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would ask staff a question. Just through staff comment alone I'm sensing that we are actually not really going to be ready to do much of any decision on this issue Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 88 of 117 tonight. I think there is -- there is items already that need to be addressed and -- before I'd even want to consider sending this onto City Council. So, I'm a little bit concerned. I want to see the project go forward, so I guess my point is I think we should be considering a continuation of this, as opposed to -- I'm just sitting here trying to walk through this thing when there are so many items that are still somewhat up in the air. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, if I may, if you would allow the applicant his time, anyways, and, then, based on that you can -- it's going to have to be remanded back is how I envision it, anyways, for either conditions of approval or you send it on with the recommendation for this zoning or however you want to go. There isn't a plat approved with this application. There is not a CUP approved. So, depending on how you want to go with the zoning, that will kind of lead us down the next path and I envision it coming back again, but I don't know if necessarily in a continued manner and it will be something more to the effect that you're remanding it back to me to come up with findings and conditions for whatever you want to see, I guess, is how I envision that coming forward. So, anyway, that's my two cents. I agree there is no conditions to modify, so the motion is a little bit difFerent than the standard motion, but that's -- Moe: Well, I have no problem listening to the applicant. I would have one other question for -- Zaremba: I think that's appropriate, because they may be able to clarify some things. Moe: Absolutely. Zaremba: When we do -- if the end result is that we continue this for staff to write a report, the conditions -- we will have things that we can suggest go into those conditions. Moe: Absolutely. The only one other question I would have for you, Craig, I know we talked about as far as the 17 acres going R-4 and you talked about the 6.62 acres going into R-15. Are you still looking to do the 5.53 that R-8 to go into an R-4 as well? Hood: I would stand with the original recommendation that those be zoned R-4, not as R-8 as requested, but to more, again, closely represent the current land use of single- family homes on one acre. The applicant and I have not discussed that zone, but -- Moe: That was my question. Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Let's have the applicant if we may. Jewett: Jim Jewett, 516 South Capital in Boise. I was going to go one way tonight, but because of your comments I'll kind of go first -- that my planner here maybe can clear up some questions to get a direction. So, if you'd go to the plat, the colored one. You know, what's driving the annexation of not only this property, but the school property and the well site and the five one acre lots is an agreement we have with fihe city to do Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 89 of 117 so. That agreement was entered into just over a year ago and with Arcadia being approved, that keyed that agreement going to the next stage was the annexation. That agreement, unfortunately, was not specific on zoning, so it was, I guess, left to us. After staff made -- had its report, I had a talk with staff about what -- the appropriate way to go and as far as the school zoning, the one acre lot zoning, whatever the city desired there. There was some discussion about the R-8 being on the one acre lots for some specific reason, but it wasn't from us, so R-4, R-8, that really is immaterial. What's important to us is that the five acres be zoned something that"s usable for us and R-8 is not going to be usable far us. The R-15 -- what drove us to this layout initially was just like the application you had prior, when that new resolution came in that allowed three acres of L-O when you have frontage on an arterial or a collector street, that's what laid out this three acres of this commercial here or L-O was based on that. Then, as we got into it, we found out that we -- that we really didn't fall under that resolution, so, then, we went to the R-15 with a conditional use for the commercial, since we had already gone down the road of starting commercial and so the apartments was just really what was left over of our 5.6 acre lot. So, with the staff support, not finding that they could support the L-O or the commercial use or the L-O use within the Comp Plan, I talked to staff about, you know, zoning the whale thing R-15 if you left the L-O out, but, ultimately, it's this body and the City Council that needs to decide what they feel is appropriate on Chinden. So, I felt it was in our best interest to come forward tonight, present why we thought L-O would be appropriate or those uses would be appropriate and get the input back from the -- from the P&Z and if the P&Z feels strongly that it's not appropriate, that we can then -- we would be willing to withdraw the conditional use and just let it go the R-15. I think it's important tonight that we try to get a recommendation on that zoning and we can let the plat -- the conditional use either go away or be tabled, let us modify it, but for the sake of the other properties that are already in the sewer area that need to go into the city and would need to continue forward, we have finished the transaction with the city on the well lot, I think it transferred to them last month, and it's outside the city limits right now and that's included in this application. So, I believe that the zoning needs to move forward and if -- and a recommendation of zoning for this one needs to move forward. If there is a difference and it needs to be modified an this application on the plat, we can let it be tabled, let us revise it to whatever your recommendations are, and let it come back through. But I would encourage that the zoning be allowed to move forward and that we discuss what appropriate zoning should be here tonight. Now, if that's the direction you'd like to ga, then, Phil could come up and discuss the buildings, discussion that commercial, how we laid it out, and why we laid it out and how we feel it meets the Comp Plan and, then, we can discuss that. So, with that I would stand for questions on how you would like to see me go forward. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 90 of 117 Hood: I would just like to clarify, if that's the direction that you choose to go and basically we are moving on just the annexation request, that, too, I think if there is not a plat and a CU, it should at least be sent back so I can have some development agreement conditions. I mean we never sent anything to the City Council with at least some conditions for a DA saying that, you know, okay, you have got R-15, however, it's limited to this or that or you need to come back in and hours of operation, those types of things in a DA. I can't remember ever just seeing a recommendation for, you know, zoning and you're done, so -- unless there is a plat or CU that can have those types of conditions on them, if that's the direction you're going, we are just moving forward with annexation and zoning, that still needs to be remanded, or at least tell me what condition do you want to see this at the City Council, if you're comfortable with that. I mean that's the third option, I guess, is -- Zaremba: Just a personal opinion. My instinct would be that we generally try and keep these three subjects together when they are together. City Council has responded to us that they prefer that as well. I personally -- and I think the city is satisfied that you are -- you have initiated the process to be annexed and so you are complying with the original agreement. I don't think there is going to be any discussion that says if we hold all three of these together, you are in default of some agreement that requires you to annex it. You have made that application and it's moving through the process, so I don't see that becoming a problem. We only get one opportunity at this, so we do need to get it right to everybody's satisfaction, so my instinct would be to keep the three of them together, remand -- probably continue all them for some rules and I don't think the city's ever going to say you weren't trying to live up to your part of the bargain, so, personally, I didn't -- if anybody else agrees with me. Newton-Huckabay: I do. Rohm: About a hundred percent. Zaremba: That's good. Let's see. Do we have -- well, let just ask. On the five point I think 39 acres, really, is the focus of the discussion, are you amenable to making that all four-plexes and having no office there or -- discuss your -- I know you said that you wanted to plan in the first place, but do you have other options that would be a second choice? Jewett: Well, like I stated earlier, R-8 zoning, we don't consider that to be acceptable, but R-15 all residential we would deem that acceptable. Our desire to move forward on that, I'll just be real clear on that, I mean the county -- we have had -- with this piece of property we have gone through quite a bit with this piece of property and just, really, we are left with this 5.6 acres and the county has deemed it their responsibility to tell us it's commercial property and it's worth one point some million dollars and they tax us accordingly. And there is -- and we just sit there and pay taxes. So, our desire is to do with the property what is the highest and best, so that we can dispose of it and move on and just quit paying taxes on it. We have sewer available to it now. We have annexation to the city available to it now. We would like to have a use that allows it to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 91 of 117 move forward and if that's all residential in an R-15, that would be acceptable. We thought this is what the city all wanted us to do when we made the agreement with them, but I think they all envisioned a new comp plan being in place before now that would take in the north Meridian and it just doesn't exist right now and I think that's our problem more than anything is we have a comp plan that's really not adjusted for what's happening up there along Chinden Boulevard. So, you know, I'd like to have the input of this body on what they -- what they envision that should look like and if they don't think that the L-O is appropriate, that all residential and apartments or townhomes is more appropriate, then, I'd gladly take that recommendation and go back and modify the preliminary plat and bring it back. Sa, we really do need that direction and if you do want to hear the planner make a presentation on this application and why we did it and what's in it, he can gladly do that, but if the staff really feels strongly that it's not going to be supportive, then, I don't think that either of our time is spent well at this hour going over something that's not going to be acceptable. If the body really feels that -- that R- 15 with an all residential that -- me and staff talked about late today, is what would be the only thing that would be acceptable -- or the highest acceptable use in there, then, give us that direction now and, then, when we are out, kick behind us, and we can all ga home. But I -- I really think there is merit to this one, but if it's really fighting an uphill battle, let it get known now and so we can make the modifications and Iwould -- I don't disagree with the idea that all the applications should stay together and I do appreciate your comments and I -- and so I would just look for your direction. Zaremba: I'm not sure, to me, that it would be a waste of time to hear your case for your present configuration. I don't know about others, but the one reason that I would consider listening to it is that within a planned development you do have in the ordinance the 20 percent use exception and if I calculate the whole 29.18 acres into this application, you would be under that; am I correct? And that would allow you to do something like six acres as a use exception. Hood: And I'm not sure how that's -- it's -- requested far R-15 is, actually, 6.62, so it's -- we are splitting hairs a little bit. I mean it could be modified to get to the 20 percent, I guess, and it's real close. If that's the direction -- it could be as a use exception, you know, we do have that in a PD, like you said. That's not how it was submitted, so -- Zaremba: Let me ask the other Commissioners. Is it open for discussion or -- Barup: I think it might be. I do have a couple of questions that probably -- some of it may be answered if we did that, but some of my curiosity -- apparently the assessor's office doesn't take into consideration Comp Plan designations? Jewett: No. Borup: That seems rather strange to me. Jewett: I could go on far a long time on that issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 92 of 117 Borup: Well, I was just clarifying that. Newton-Huckabay: Let's nat. Jewett: Let's not. Borup: And, then, you had mentioned the Comp Plan -- I mean the Comp Plan is not that old. I mean 2002 doesn't seem that long ago to me, anyway, and didn't you have control of the property -- or you were lacking at the property at that time? Jewett: Yeah. We had control of it. Borup: Did you do any input into the Comp Plan on designation at the time the Comp Plan was being changed? Jewett: Yes. And if you remember -- Barup: No, I dan't. That's why I'm asking that. Jewett: Do you remember when the Wardle plan far north -- was going through? Borup: Yes. Jewett: And the Comp Plan kept being delayed and delayed, waiting far the Wardle plan, finally, the City Council said we have to get a new Comp Plan in place, so they said we are going to move forward, understanding that we are going to have an overlay for north Meridian. Well, then, Wardle withdrew his plan and, then, that's where it's been ever since. Borup: But you didn't -- you didn't put any input at any of the public hearings about - Jewett: I assumed the Wardle plan was going to -- in the Wardle plan we did. Barup: Okay. Jewett: But not -- we all assumed the Wardle plan was going to change the -- Borup: Okay. And, then, I didn't see where ACHD really said anything -- had any concerns or anything about this. Jewett: ACRD has none. Borup: I noticed that. So, even the -- you know, staff had some concerns on access to this site, if there is, you know, going to be -- especially much commercial type traffic, because there would be a signal there or anything else, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 93 of 117 Jewett: We have a new signal at Locust Grove. Borup: Right. Jewett: It slows the traffic -- Borup: But that doesn't get you in and out of Jericho, other than -- other than, yeah, the stopping. Jewett: It's just that the people are going a little slower to get in and out of Jericho. And, you know, the commercial would be less intrusive than the residential when it comes to traffic, because it would spread out more evenly through the day, then, residential would be more concentrated at 8:00 to 5:00. So, that's one reason why we always had planned some commercial there, because it would be less intrusive. Borup: But in my mind I mean some office there seems appropriate to me. You know, good access to it. I don't know if that's -- the only traffic that's slowed down is the westbound -- eastbound traffic from the previous light has enough time to spread out, that -- unless there is a red light there. I don't know. I don't see where that's -- and that's the -- and it's the eastbound that's going to be the most conflict. But it still seems like probably an appropriate place to have some office. Jewett: And I do believe -- I don't drive Chinden all the time, but they have widened that to a turn lane the whole length of that mile. There is a turn lane the whole mile. Borup: In the center. Jewett: Center turn lane. So, people who want to make alert-hand turn into Jericho now can get out of traffic. They don't have to be stopping traffic going westbound. Zaremba: Well -- and somewhere in the future it will be a five lane -- Jewett: Right. Zaremba: -- the only discussion is whether it's a five lane plus bike path, but it would be a five lane. Is our assessment that we would like to hear the planner's presentation? Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question first? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think I might have missed something during your presentation. This -- why are we not -- this is what I think I missed. On the Comp Plan this is medium density residential and we don't want it to be medium density residential anymore? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 94 of 117 Hood: No. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit. The R-15 zone is a bump up -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- he's asking for a bump up to R-15 and, then, on top of that they are asking for a Conditional Use Permit to do nonresidential uses in a residential zone. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Hood: The reason that it didn't jive with the Comp Plan was not only that, but also there is a neighborhood center less than a quarter mile away and depending on the scope -- you know, this amount of office will -- you will end up with a Paramount. Basically, the city will have to initiate a Comp Plan amendment to remove the neighborhood center at the half-mile, because all of the commercials are going to be taken up here or a good portion of it, anyways. At least that's -- so that's why R-15 didn't seem to be appropriate. Jewett: And we did have an answer to that and that's one reason why Phil can talk about that neighborhood center and how it affected -- or how we would affect it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. If I can just finish my thought. Can you back up to the one that has the bigger area? Okay. This seems -- this here seems very awkward development of this. Like the neighborhood center is right there, right? Okay. So, we have that neighborhood center there. We have Arcadia. And, then, if I remember right, this has been withdrawn, but I suspect it will come through again and ACHD had access here, access here, of course, going into Jericho and, then, you put 350 people living right in here -- it's just really busy. Zaremba: So, are you suggesting that it should be split between residential and commercial? Newton-Huckabay: I'm not sure what I'm suggesting. I would think that it should be just residential myself, but -- either that or -- I mean because like when this connects through and comes up through Saguaro Canyon and Arcadia and through here, you know -- and I don't know how long this is, but it just seems like we are -- at some point somebody's going to go, boy, that was just a really bad idea when all that comes together. And that -- I guess that's why I'm -- that's why I'm thinking -- and, you know, I mean I -- just there is a lot of stuff that's in process all around in here and I don't think developing this as R-15 -- and this is the neighborhood center -- Borup: Well, I don't consider -- that's not a neighborhood center, is it? It's just office space. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. No. The neighborhood center is right here Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 95 of 117 Borup: Oh, there. I'm sorry. I thought you meant -- Zaremba: It isn't on this property. It's west of this property. Newton-Huckabay: He's kind of a whole cacophony of things going on all in this area that I think it's going to make this -- like I said, somebody's just going to go -- that really wasn't thought through very well. End of comment. Borup: Quick question on traffic count. Which is mare, residential or office? Residential is, what, ten trips a day. Hoad: For a single family residential it's ten. Borup: Yeah. Hood: For multi-family it, actually, goes dawn per unit. Borup: And, then, what's office? Hood: I don't remember what was said about office. Borup: Anybody know? Okay. I just wondered if it was more or less. You're talking about the -- about the traffic concerns and I -- I didn't know if office would be less traffic than apartments or more. Newton-Huckabay: I would think that it would be less -T Jewett: Let me try to answer some of those questions real quickly. That's on the quarter mile. Secondly, I'll give you what I know about -- Reserve was withdrawn because they wanted to connect this street to Locust Grove and the developer does not wish to do that. So, by doing that you have an alternative out that -- with Saguaro Canyon, you had it connecting, so you have an alternative out this way, but you also have an alternative out this way. So, it's kind of a two way street. As far as the neighborhood center, I want to point out that you have existing commercial uses here that is going to prohibit the neighborhood center from going right on the half mile, because of the existing uses of Zamzows and the --day care or school there. So -- and I'll let the planner talk about that. What's happened in here is a result of lots of different things and I can't say that it's the best of the long-term planning, but they are what they are, and we had -- I had to deal with them as a homeowner, the city has to deal with them as a city and the P&Z as the P&Z on what to do now. And that's what I'm asking for is your direction. Staff has made a recommendation. We will have Phil go ahead and make a presentation on the -- what our uses are and why we thought they were appropriate and, then, go from there. Zaremba: I say let's do that. Please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 96 of 117 Halt: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Phil Holt with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. Basically, as we were going through the planning process and in reading through the -- the Comp Plan, we grabbed onto some language, basically, that made us think that this would be an appropriate use for this corner. And all kind of steps -- or deals with the neighborhood center concept at that location. I'm just going to read some of that language that was in our application and report that we submitted. Basically, considering the development application to apply to the neighborhood center concept, with our project location contiguous to a future mixed use community neighborhood center, professional office on the corner of Chinden and Jericho would fit well with mare intense commercial uses across Jericho to the west. So, basically, what we were saying was with the more intensive commercial use at the center of the neighborhood center, if you can visualize that graphic in the Comp Plan of what that neighborhood center looks like, there is basically concentric circles radiating out from that central care of more high intensive commercial use and we are envisioning this as one step out from that and this professional office not being an intensive commercial use, it's, basically, a transition to the higher density residential an an outer ring and, then, ultimately two lower density residential. That's, really, how we came to this concept, as well as the property being located on Highway 20-26, but huge traffic challenges and at the same family residential up against that really made some sense to us. Lower traffic counts generated from office, as opposed to the higher density residential. A couple of other items. I'll just kind of paraphrase a couple of the Chapter 7, Goal One, Objective B, a couple of the action items that are out of the Comp Plan. It says locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to compliment with adjoining residential areas. Our site is located on an arterial, Highway 20-26, and a collector, Jericho, providing for professional office only, not retail or mare high intensive commercial uses. We will provide for a more compatible use to single family lots to the south. We are kind of hearing that also that the single family residences to the south would most like the lower intensive commercial use better, as apposed to the higher densities eventually. Basically for lower traffic counts, no two story developments looking down on -- those types of things. Hours of operation. So, just it's really made sense just to provide some commercial on this corner for those -- those reasons. Zaremba: Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. Let's proceed with the Public Hearing and we will have some discussion after awhile. The name is only a last name, but McClure I believe it is. Please come forward. McClure: My name is Lynn McClure, I live at 6055 Jericho Road. It's the property right next to Arcadia. A five-acre lot. And I was really happy to hear what you had to say, because that was our main concern, because all these little places coming in and the major traffic going down that really narrow small road and, then, they wanted to add these ten four-plexes, adding approximately 40 families, possibly two cars apiece, another 80 cars coming out on one little street right there at the entrance of Jericho, making it very difficult to get out in the mornings. I'm not real fond of businesses, but if we stuck with the smaller ones, we would have less traffic and I think it would be easier Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 97 of 117 to get out, because right now I wait five to ten minutes to get out to go to work, so I really am not too found of the idea of multiple homes going in on that property. What I'd really like to see is another, you know, one-acre lot or half acre lot. That's what we would love to see, because that would fit with what's across the street, what's all around us. But that's not going to happen. I really would like to see something less imposing, something that brings less traffic onto that little tiny road and it is a small small road. It has never been properly -- how do I want to say it? It was a dirt road when we moved there and they threw some chip seal over it and, then, about six months after this started and we started complaining, they came in and threw some tar over it. So, they have never gone back and made the road wider or put in a good bed in there or anything, to handle all this traffic that's going to start coming in and now we have two schools, that's going to bring traffic and classes, parents, so you have got a lot of traffic that's going to be coming into that area already. And, then, to add ten more units, it would just become impossible for us to get in and out and I da -- my daughter has horses and we bring our trailer through there and I know that it isn't your problem, but since they started development, people must think there is a race track down there, because from what used to be a very quiet neighborhood, we now have racing motorcycles and cars and it's going to get worse, it's not going to get better. That would be our suggestion. And I know that Mrs. Martin, who lives next to us on a five acre lot also does not want to see four-plexes go in there. Thank you. Borup: Ma'am, I have a couple questions. Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. McClure, I was just -- I haven't been down Jericho recently. It's still a dead end now -- McClure: No. Newtan-Huckabay: -- ar even though it's connected into Arcadia already. McClure: Because Arcadia already has the cut out roads, the dirt roads. They are not really -- actually, they are not even really roads, they are just -- they have gone in there and indicated how the roads are going to go through and the motorcycles and the four wheelers and -- they are just flying through there. Newton-Huckabay: But that connection has already been made? McClure: Yeah. They have already started. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Thank you. _ Borup: Now, you -- you had asked a question about what was going to happen to this road. Part of their application is they would put sidewalks down -- McClure: One side. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 98 of 117 Borup: -- one side and have 24 feet of paving. So, you understood that? McClure: Well, the road is paved, if you want to call it that. Like Isaid -- Borup: Well, it's going to have to be paved to ACHD standards, so I -- I don't know that it's probably to that standard or not, but the new road would be to highway district standards. McClure: They are not going to be able to put a light out there and they have put a light on Locust Grove, yes, and what that has done is it backs up. But, then, you know, they were saying it only backs one direction. If you have ever been out there at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, it backs both directions, very tightly, going down that road. And Meridian -- the Meridian light and -- Linder? Is that the next one? That one is really bad at backing up. I have seen it back up from Linder almost all the way to Locust Grove at some point. Okay. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. She was the only one signed up, but there is an opportunity for anybody else to speak if they wish to. If not, we will have the applicant back again. Jewett: Okay. I have a chance to go over a couple other issues I haven't had a chance to go over yet and one was the sewer. We did -- to make a long story short, the city originally agreed to allow us to serve these properties, these five one acre lots with a temporary lift station -- grinder lift station on each house and pumping over and dropping into the line at Locust Grove. DEQ said, no, go build a lift station here, so we can turn around and move it over to here to turn around and do away with it in all a one year time frame. So, we ga spend thousands of dollars, we built a lift station here, which arcadia is simply going to move over to hear for the summer and we just finished it. So, we have put a lift station in here and the lift station was sized to handle Arcadia, our five one acre lots, and this five acre lot as a commercial lot. You know, once we got going through this process, it was, obvious, that we weren't going to get all commercial on it, so the use has increased. The residential use is more than the commercial when it goes to sewer. And so we have written a letter to the city, as well as to the Arcadia developer saying that he can't relocate the lift station. He can have his hundred percent capacity and we will take whatever is remaining, and we will wait until the gravity sewer line connects before we will develop beyond that point. That's when an agreement will be made. We have issued that to the city. We are confident that this will be in long before we get that close. So, as far as the sewer, we are more than agreeable to what we have agreed with the city and what we have issued in a letter to both the city and the Arcadia developer. As far as Jericho, with the construction of these five one acre lots we were required to curb, sidewalk, and asphalt one half of the road. So, with that we paved the road from here to here and put sidewalk all the way to here and a curb just to here. We had an agreement with ACRD that when we developed this, that we would widen the road again from here to here and put curb. And that's a condition imposed by ACHD. With the construction of the sewer line that went down this side of the road to Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 99 of 117 here, we have the rebuilt -- the road on that side. So, it has brand new pavement from here all the way to here. The only part it doesn't have re-pavement is from here to here and as we build the other curb, we will construct that other half. We have widened the road from its original construction, I believe to -- if I remember right, our original condition it was a half plus 12 of a 36 back. So, it's much wider than 24 feet. I don't know the exact width of it, but I know it's much wider than 24 people, so we had to widening it with the construction of these. The -- I want to talk about the neighborhood center concept with the Comp Plan, which the comp plan is this right here. The neighborhood center that's being talked about is right here on the map. Can all the P&Z see that now? Now, if you look at the schedules here, you can see what's going on here. I have talked about the Zamzows and the other usage here, the Holy Apostles church right down here. The idea behind the neighborhood center is that at the half mile line you would have a rand that would radiate out. That is not doable in this situation, because of this entrance. If there was ever going to be a road that would line up, it would have to line up here. ITD is not going to say, no, you can have another one here and another one here. They want to limit it to half miles. Well, since this one was existing and they put this road into the north, the most likely spot far a center point for radiating neighborhood center would be here. So, by shifting -- and the Comp Plan does allow this line to shift. It's not set in gold. So, if you shifted that point to there, it encompasses our property. So, one of the things we looked at when we looked at this is that, you know, that area can float to cover our property and with that, then, we are at the -- not only adjacent to that neighborhood center, but actually within that neighborhood center and which makes are use appropriate. And I also want to point out, as you look down Eagle Road, both north and south of Chinden, that you have professional office tucked in next to residential subdivisions all up and down from Ustick -- actually, all the way to Fairview now, you have these kind of uses that dump onto Eagle Raad, which has a mare traffic -- mare traffic taunt than Chinden does. Another example of apartments and mixed use of office and even higher uses is aver at the HP Research Center right off of Discovery Way, which has the Renaissance apartments right across the street from the Burger King, which also shares an entrance with Hobble Creek. And, yes, they have widened Chinden there, they put a stop light there, but those are improvements that have happened. So, these are uses that are in the general vicinity that are very common to this. The fault on this property is that Jericho existed and it existed before we started -- we owned the property. It was there. So, Jericho is going to be an established entrance onto Chinden, it's going to be established for same time and as we grow and continue to grow, its use is going to grow. But, hopefully, other accesses to other peripherals also happen, giving more people alternatives. We don't think -- we don't think that residential an that 5.6 acres is the highest and best use. I don't know if in your packet you were distributed the agreement that we made with the city when we serviced this sewer outside the city limits. But that agreement speaks that this five acres as a commercial lot. It speaks of it in two -- two times in that agreement that this future five acres would be a commercial lot and the discussions with City Council when we made that agreement was you don't want that to be residential and I said, no, but we were -- you know, we, obviously, thought it would be two or three years before sewer came. We didn't think it would be just over a year. You know, it's just -- that's what our growth is doing to us. So, you know, again, what Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 100 of 117 I'm asking for you tonight, if you like the application that's in front of you, you can make a motion and go forward from there. If there is something you want to see different, then, I would ask that you convey that to me, so that we can go back and bring something back to you that would be acceptable, because what we want to do is have something that's acceptable to the city and it's acceptable to us, that we can just move forward. 50, with that, I would stand for questions and comments and -- Borup: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Jewett -- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Has there been any -- any discussion with ACRD as far as an acceleration lane or anything? Jewett: I looked at the staff report and -- Borup: I didn't see anything, that's why I was wondering if there was any verbal discussion. Jewett: They have a trip per day and I guess the trip per day did not warrant an acceleration lane, but I understand that Chinden -- well, ITD. Borup: Right. That's true. Jewett: And when I did the original subdivision, we did negotiate with ITD and give them additional right of way based on their future widening. So, I don't know what impact or what ACHD can comment to ITD and sometimes they make recommendations. In this case they didn't. I'm assuming when additional development happens out here and this becomes more of the central focus road, that might be something that comes in. So, again, we have granted -- and you can see it here, we have granted this additional right of way here. Notice how it's wider? We have granted that right of way, so if one needs to be built, it's there. Borup: Well, I'm beginning to feel -- I mean that the plan that you submitted is probably appropriate and sounds like the neighbors would rather have some limited office than -- in there, rather than all multi-family. But it sounds like the traffic is a concern and, you know, how are these people going to get out -- out of Jericho. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup? Borup: Yes. Hood: Could Ijust -- Borup: Please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 101 of 117 Hood: -- do my little pitch? I guess I didn't realize that we were going to get this detailed in the specifics, so I would just like to touch on that -- that one point of how people are going to get out of not only this development, but the folks that are here this evening and Arcadia. If this -- and Jim touched on it. This is at the half mile. This is a third of a mile, this is a third of a mile, and what you can't see off the screen is Meridian Road, which is at the third of a mile. This is the half-mile. Jewett: This is the half-mile. Hood: No. This is the half-mile here. Because when this -- when ITD -- when this develops, ITD is going to approve an access point here and it's going to align and this is where we are going to get a signal. This is where the people are going to come. They are going to come in here and it's going to connect up with Jericho Road, all this traffic is going to want to go to the signal, because that's how you can get on the highway. Jericho here I envision not having a lot of people that are going to try to get out there, because it's not signalized and it won't be, because Locust Grove is signalized and it doesn't meet the warrants for the offsets for a signal. Borup: You're saying future development of the property to the west will solve that? Hood: Exactly. And if you approve -- and I'm not saying that no office may not be appropriate here, maybe there is -- it's the scale more than anything. That's my personal opinion. Now, I think that might plug us far the Comp Plan and the neighborhood center in this location and I --that's why I disagree with Jim a little bit, that I think -- I mean there is a lot of ground here and the commercial can go, you know, in this -- and it can float. I mean, he's right, it's not an exact location here, but this is the main entrance to the subdivision and if the neighborhood center went somewhere in here and that develops with residential ar multi-family and, then, that all kind of feeds out to there, that's -- again, I'll leave that alone. That's my plug for the Comp Plan and how that envisions, but that's haw I, in the future, envision people getting out onto the state highway and entering this square mile in that general location anyways. Jewett: And I would agree with staff one hundred percent, with the exception of his dimensions. This is the Holy Apostle Church, which is one 40-acre parcel. This is Zamzows, which is a 40-acre parcel. Maybe I'm wrong. Hood: I guess regardless -- Jewett: Maybe I'm wrong. Hood: Regardless, this is -- this is where the access is going to be. Jewett: And I would agree with that. Hood: And it's approximately ahalf-mile, closer than what this is and this won't be signalized. So, that was my only point. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 102 of 117 Jewett: I don't argue the quarter mile. This is the quarter mile, because that's what we owned originally. We owned this 40 acres, which is the quarter the mile. So, that would be the half mile and I could be off on where the other parcels are, but I agree with you, this would be the only logical center location of a neighbor center and what I'm saying is that radiating circle would be in this area, which would cover the front or the westerly half of our property. Zaremba: And along that same line, with the neighborhoad centers being flexible, they are also flexible in width. The state highway there, Chinden, same day, as Caldwell develops more and Star and Canyon County in general develops, is going to be a major corridor and not too distant future will lank like Eagle looks now. There isn't any reason why Meridian shouldn't be capitalizing on the potential commercial -- the same as along Eagle. Instead of kicking at the traffic, let's figure out a way to get them to stop and spend money. This area, you're near where a neighborhoad center is going to be. I can be swayed by our argument that this is maybe even on the end of an expanded neighbor center and the office use makes a good transition. I -- my take is that I would like to see probably staffs recommendations for acceptance of what you have proposed. I could be convinced to go for that. Anybody else? Mae: I concur. Newton-Huckabay: You know what we could do, we could -- Zaremba: Yeah. Because he hasn't -- he hasn't established those and I think we do need to have him have some time to think about that before we make a recommendation for the City Council. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would rather see -- Zaremba: But I see several ways to justify it. One, just by the fact that Chinden is there, but also, you know, the 20 percent use exception, if you consider the whole almost 30 acres as one development and I'll have to say it just makes sense to me to do it. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'd rather see something like they have now, than a whole development of four-plexes right there. Moe: Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: I'd rather see it all in office, but Iwould -- Zaremba: What I'm looking for is a consensus of the recommendation of staff. My assumption is we are going to continue this for whatever we want staff to do. Rohm: I think you stated it very well, Mr. Chairman -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 103 of 117 Zaremba: Provide conditions for approval as proposed. Rohm: Yes. And I'd just expand on that just briefly, because I want to move on here. I think the applicants make some good points and three things that I have written down here that I think are appropriate is we understand that you would like to have the property use match the taxing body. Number one. Number two, the R-15 is the least desirable of the adjoining neighbors, but you don't want -- you don't want the large four- plex development. And, then, the community center adjustment, sliding to the east, seems to accommodate both. You don't have the huge number of four-plexes, you get some commercial, and you keep your community center intact. So, that seems -- Zaremba: I think the one suggestion I might make -- and staff can review this -- is that the office portion actually be zoned L-O and I think we have had some discussion, but it's easier for the eventual builders to get their loans if the zone under your property matches, as opposed to having to explain our use exception and, you know, the portion that is proposed to be residential, if that's R-15, that's fine, but I would actually make the office L-O. Just on the surface of it, is that supportable by staff? Hood: Definitely. When you see the use exceptions, it's tough to look at the zoning map and you see R-4 and you remember that it's office and so zoning it appropriate to the land use definitely helps. Anyway, so just if the applicant knows that at least by City Council we will need to have a legal description -- a revised legal description for the -- that matches the plat for L-O -- L-O property. Zaremba So, we are thinking R-4 for the school, R-4 for the five existing residents, R-15 for where the multi-family is proposed and L-O for where the -- Mae: Commercial. Zaremba: -- commercial is. And, otherwise, the project looks pretty similar to what you propose. Any other conditions that we want to suggest while we are on the subject? Rohm: I think that's a pretty good list right there. Moe: I guess I would just request -- when do you anticipate that that could all be put together? Hood: I guess that question's more for me, since we are looking at this application. I have a plat and a CUP, so -- and the Public Works Department has also looked at it. I hate to give myself just a few days, so maybe the 16th is the next hearing and I know that agenda is pretty full. I think the 7th -- does July 7th work on your calendar? So, I think within that time frame if -- if I don't need anything from the applicant, I can proceed and that gives me -- if a fire comes up and I have to put that out, that that gives me enough time to get -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2p05 Page 104 of 117 Zaremba: Just in the process, I wouldn't say we are really delaying anything, because the can't act until the sewer gets to them anyhow. So, we aren't necessarily delaying something. They can start tomorrow. Jewett: Actually, the sewer is there today. Zaremba: Well, some amount of sewer is there. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 05-018, Public Hearing PP 05-020 and Public Hearing -- Moe: Do we not have to close the public hearing first? Zaremba: No. We are continuing it. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Rohm: And Public Hearing CUP 05-027 to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of July 7th, 2005. Moe: Second. Rohm: End of motion. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ Q5-022 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Touchmark Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley -south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road: Zaremba: All right. We are already -- I will open the hearing for Public Hearing AZ 05- 022, request for annexation and zoning of 1.3 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Touchmark Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, south of East Franklin Road and east of South Eagle Road and we will have the staff comments. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is an annexation and zoning of 1.39 acres from RUT to limited office district, near the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin. It's, actually, east of Eagle Road in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 14 of 110 Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. -SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Zaremba: So, I will reopen the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-018, PP 05-020> CUP 05-027. These three items relate to Westborough Square Subdivision on the southeast corner of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard. And we will continue with staff comments, please. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this is 29 acres, approximately, bound on three sides by public streets. To the west is Jericho Road. To the north is Chinden. And to the east is Locust Grove Road. There are currently five single family homes on this site that aren't in the 2003 aerial, that have recently been constructed on these five residential lots to the west of Westborough Subdivision. There is also a charter school and a city well lot on Locust Grove, that are all part of the subject application. Recently the city reviewed and approved some development applications, specifically Saguaro Canyon here, which extends southbound to McMillan. Arcadia Subdivision is another residential subdivision. And Tustin is at the corner of Locust Grove and McMillan. These are all single-family residential products -- or projects. This is the first multi -- mixed use project that we have reviewed in this section in this area. On June 2nd, these applications were before the board and after some public testimony, the board did recommend that staff change the Findings of Fact for a recommendation for approval and I have done that and included some conditions for approval, that the -- that 22 acres of the proposed 29 acres be zoned to R-4. Now, that area includes the five existing homes and the school site and the well site. So, a good majority of the site is zone to R-4. The remaining approximately six acres in this location at the southeast corner of Jericho and Chinden, to basically be split in half -- and I'll get to that here in a second, with the west half being zoned L-O, office, and the east half being zoned R-15. The R-15 area includes -- and this is the preliminary plat, so it's a little bit hard to kind of make out, but this line here basically represents the split between office -- six office lots over here and on one lot there are ten four-plex buildings. I want to go to this site plan. It's a little bit easier to look at to kind of understand what's going an with the landscape plan, but you can see that Jericho Road is here and there is one access into the site that's shared by bath the office and the multi-family, which feeds in this location and kind of does a loop around. The applicant is required by the Ada County Highway District to improve their half of Jericho Road to one half of a 40-foot street section and construct curb, gutter and sidewalk. The six office buildings look like this. Here is the elevation of the office buildings and I had them in reverse order, so I'll go back to the four-plex. Here is the four-plex elevation. They are two stories high and each unit has two bedrooms. And I guess with that I'm just going to touch on -- since this is the first time with conditions and I did want to touch on a couple of the conditions. For the annexation and the development agreement, I guess prior to -- before this goes to the City Council, staff has recommended that the applicant submit a revised legal description. One for the new L-0 -- originally this was all proposed as R-15. To better reflect the land use, the Commission recommended that this be zoned L-O. So, we would need a new legal description for that, as well as the remaining R-15 -- or the proposed R-15 to be zone R-15. With the preliminary plat there were conditions by staff Meridian Planning & Zoning Commisslpn July 7, 2005 Page 15 of 110 that we require land use buffers between different land uses and there are inadequate land use buffers between the proposed office and the multi-family, so 20 fact wide landscape buffer between the office and multi-family, as well as the existing single family -- between single family and office there is also a 20 foot wide buffer. That goes for the existing church as well to the east. There is not a sidewalk shown on any of the plans either. That was another condition of the preliminary plat, that sidewalks be constructed. And also the sewer flow meter be installed to measure the true amount of sewage being lifted. The Conditional Use Permit conditions, if we could touch an some of those. One was to provide a walkway or some way for the residents here to get to the amenity proposed in the northwest corner, a little patio plaza area is proposed here and there really isn't a good way for the residents to access that amenity. It's kind of off on an island and so that was something that staff believed that an additional walkway or some way to get to that amenity seemed appropriate, as well as another amenity -- active amenity. There is quite a bit of open space, something like 37 percent is green space an here, but there really isn't another true active amenity on this site, so staff -- site specific condition number two on page 24, kind of left it open, but any additional amenities required by the Commission or as may be required by the Commission. Also, in the staff report I did ask the applicant to clarify the 100 square foot of private usable open space that's required by ordinance for each unit. That hasn't been addressed anywhere and I'm not sure that -- it looks like there is some patios and things, but just to make sure that that hundred square foot is being met for each unit, as well as the open space and just to clarify what the actual percentage of open space is, exclusive of the landscape, the land -- street buffers and any other impervious areas, like planters within the parking lots and things, but open space. There is a condition in there that we do need to have new plans to reflect the requirements prior to City Council, specifically the land use buffers, so you're going to have a pretty significant impact on the site plan as shown here, and so at least ten days we have requested that a revised application be submitted to staff that shows these changes. And, finally, I just wanted to make note that we did receive a letter from an attorney's office representing the Dunwoody Homeowners Association and some homeowners in Dunwoody Subdivision, which is just to the south, oh, about ahalf -- a quarter mile south of this subject site. It's off of this map, but they are in this general location and have a road that comes out to McMillan, in opposition, they believe that the project is too dense, to summarize a three page letter. That's basically what they say. So, staff is recommending approval, based on that action of the Commission an the June 2nd meeting, with the conditions included in the staff report and I will stand for any questions that you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners? Moe: I have no questions of staff. Zaremba: I would comment that I think you did an excellent job of incorporating the essence of the first part of this Public Hearing, which was continued to tonight. I didn't see anything that was missing and you incorporated conditions as we expected for what the project would be and I appreciate your extra work done an that. I guess if there Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 16 of 110 aren't any actual questions, it would be time for the applicant to come forward and express your wishes. Jewett: Jim Jewett, 516 South Capitol, Boise, Idaho. I'm in agreement with -- with the staff report and staffs requirements and conditions. I'll just kind of clear up a few things that -- what we will do after reading the staff report. I guess I would ask for one clarification, too. I'm saying into the land use buffer between the L-O and the -- and the apartments and if I'm understanding, you could have -- the code requires that buffer to go on either side. It could be a combination of both. Hood: It, actually, does say on the side of more intense use, but I think we could work with the property line split down the middle, as long as that land use buffer is provided, I Jewett: As long as there is a combined 20-foot. Okay. And then -- now you mentioned also a buffer to the church. Is that the same 20-foot buffer? Hood: It would be the same, yes. Jewett: Even though the church is not in the city limits? Hood: Yes. They are based on land use and, actually, the table has different zones, county zones, as well for -- Jewett: We will endeavor to make this change to insure that we have the 20-foot buffers between those uses. And after the second amenity -- and as I look at the plan this afternoon, will go into this area or this area and put a tot area. A tot lot area. I hope that would be sufficient as an additional amenity. That would only be used by this neighborhood. Of course, I don't think the people in the L-O would want to go over and use a tat lot, but the neighborhood is -- and, then, as far as looking at provided same pathway connection between here and here. We will endeavor to try to find an identifiable pathway that is clear that could be utilized through there. And we will show that in the plan that we come back with, probably the ten days before Council. Otherwise, we agree with all the conditions that he's mentioned and would stand for any questions. Zaremba: Thank you for all of your consideration of that as well. Discussing the amenity that's up in this corner, that would, essentially be on the corner of Jericho and Chinden and anticipating to be -- Chinden to be very busy, are you adding any bushes or anything like that that would do some sound deadening and -- I'm just thinking if this is open patio, with free distance to Chinden, it may not be a very pleasant place to sit. Jewett: Actually, that's a very good question and I will answer that. I mean in talking with my landscape architect on this, what I wanted him to do was in corporate our signage into some berming, with this patio courtyard area below that, so that actually -- the screening and the landscaping and the sign would all buffer the street noise in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 17 of 110 street. Sa, we would create a courtyard using those other amenities, so we didn't have the sign out here and, then, have a courtyard, we are all incorporated. Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Yau were ahead of me. Commissioners, any other questions? Borup: No. I think we covered quite a bit last time. Zaremba: Yeah. We did very thoroughly. And it appears that we don't have anybody signed up to speak on this item, so that doesn't require any response from the applicant either. Hood: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Where did that voice come from? Oh, Craig. Hood: Sorry. I just remembered that I did ask the applicant about the hundred square foot of private usable open space. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Yes. I failed to ask that question. Jewett: And I -- we haven't actually addressed that. I wasn't really aware of it, but when we get through the final plan we would have addressed it, but in looking at the plan, there is a patio area identified in all these, I just need to go and make sure that they are all private and they do contain a minimum of 100 square feet. Zaremba: Are any of these second floors? Jewett: No. That's one -- yeah, that's one thing we designed is no second floor. Zaremba: Okay. Jewett: They are all a townhouse unit, so there is always a downstairs. Zaremba: Okay. Jewett: There is no stacked units with one on top of the other. 50, we will create that private -- here is one unit, there is one unit, here is one unit and here is one unit. This takes access from the side, this takes access from right here, this one here, and this one from the other side. So, we will create that 100 square foot or aten-by-ten-patio area minimum private area for every unit. Zaremba: Okay. Even if you didn't sign up, there is an opportunity to speak if you wish to. Seeing nobody wishing to do so, Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 1 S of 110 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-018, PP 05-020, and CUP 05-027. Zaremba: We have a motion. Is there a second? Borup: Second. Zaremba: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, before you begin, I would make one comment and that is on page 24, item three, do you want to make the statement that the applicant has agreed to do a tot lot? Moe: Basically, he's already said he was going to, so I wasn't going to worry too much about that. Zaremba: Don't need to add it in here? Okay. It's on the record. Moe: Yes. On the record. Zaremba: No further comment. Moe: I guess I would ask one other question. May I go ahead and do all three at once or do we need to do these individual? Borup: Should be individual. Moe: Individual? Well, having said that, then, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean these are recommendations. If you want to make them together -- if you're going to make individual changes to the recammendations that have been agreed to or you want to make Hate specifically, like Commissioner Moe stated, like Mr. Jewett indicated, he would be building a tot lot, if you want that to be included in the Findings that are being sent to the City Council, that that will be included as the amenity or whatever staff wants in the recommendation that's going forward for Findings, but you can certainly make the recammendations as a group. That's fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 19 of 110 Moe: Okay. Having said that, then, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-018, PP 05-020 -- or, excuse me, 020, as well as CUP 05-027, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July the 7th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office June 30th, 2005. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and second regarding all three items. Those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from June 16, 2005: 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 13: Continued Public Hearing from June 16, 2005: CUP 05-029 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 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: Zaremba: Okay. Now, I would like to reopen the continued public hearings for RZ 05- 008 and CUP 05-029. These both relate to Walgreen's on the corner of West Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. And we will begin with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Just to briefly refresh your memory, this was a rezone and Conditional Use Permit for a Walgreen's located on the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Cherry. The Public Hearing was continued on this item primarily because the proposed driveway to Ten Mile Road, a portion of that, about two-thirds of it, lies off site and the city did not have consent yet from the property owner that owned that flag lot to construct that driveway for the Walgreen's -- a shared driveway for the Walgreen's and Mr. Vance. I did speak with the applicant -- actually, I played phone tag. I did not speak with her. I understand that they do have a verbal agreement with Mr. Vance. They, however, do not have a written agreement yet and they believe one is forthcoming, but it is not here yet, so with that being said, I think I'll leave the staff report at that and if you have any questions, I will stand for them. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: No. Not of staff. Borup: I guess not -- either of them or -- well, I'll wait until -- Zaremba: Would the applicant come forward, please?