Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission JUly 7, 2005 Page 33 of 110 (Recess.) Item 14: Item 15: Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: AZ 05~019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.9 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Dorado Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC - NWC of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road: Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: PP 05~024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 commercial building lots on 10.9 acres in a proposed C~G zone for Dorado Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC - NWC of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05~031 Request for conceptual approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for approximately 110,000 square feet of hotel, commercial, retail and restaurant uses (some with drive~thru windows) in a proposed C-G zone for Dorado Subdivision by Kimball Properties, LLC - northwest corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene this evening. Let the record show that all Commissioners that were here before the break are again with us. And I will open public hearings for AZ 05~019, PP 05~024, CUP 05-031, all relating to Dorado Subdivision, northwest corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road, and just to repeat a comment that we made last time, the file number for PP 05-024 was mistakenly reported as PP 05-020 on some paperwork, but 05~024 is the correct number. And we will begin with the staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an annexation and rezone application that comes along with a planned development for 10.9 acres immediately off of the '~84 inter ~- off ramp and it's immediately west of Eagle and north of Overland. The EI Dorado Subdivision, Bonito final plat, is immediately south of this project. That is a mixed use regional, as well as this designation is mixed use regional by our comp plan. The aerial photo shows that it is completely bare at this time. There was a house that was located in the southwest corner of the property. That has been removed. As well as there was a flood plane issue that was on the northeast corner of the site. That has been -~ they have done the work on that in order to bring that up to elevation and compact it in order to put building footprints and such on that. The preliminary plat for the site shows 16 commercial lots and a proposed zoning of C- G. This rendition is the original submittal for the site. This does show some inaccurate landscape buffers on this. The landscape buffer for the 1-84 interchange would be 35 feet, as it is an entryway corridor to the City of Meridian. As well as Eagle Road is an entryway corridor and is 35 feet. And Overland Road is an entryway corridor and requires 35 feet of landscape buffers. Overland Road was recently redone by ACHD and the existing accesses -- there is one point immediately across from the main entrance -- one of the main entrances into EI Dorado. This is a full access, right-in, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 34 of 110 right-out and left turn lane. There is a right-in, right-out access closer to the Overland, Eagle Road intersection, as well as the applicant is proposing an alternative style off ramp, I guess you could say, from Eagle Road that would be a right-in only, there would no right out off of this subdivision from ~- onto Eagle Road. The request is for approximately 110,000 square feet. A hotel, retail, commercial, restaurant uses. This site being, in this proximity, it is a mixed use regional designation, but the mixes of uses, with the hotel and retail and restaurant, that is primarily what we would expect to see on this site and we are not looking for or asking for an extensive mix of uses on the ~- for this site. The site plan that you see in front of you is the site plan that is referenced in the staff report as being submitted on July 5th. Is the detailed conceptual ~- detailed approval, detail planned development that has been submitted. As you can see, they will landscape and provide the off ramp from Eagle Road into the subdivision. The hotel would be located in approximately the northwest corner of the subdivision. This is -- I believe they had indicated that this is a Marriott Travel Lodge. There are three uses in the -- off of Overland Road that are requesting drive-thrus to be approved. One is a bank right off of the intersection of Overland and Eagle. This bank would have a drive- thru as well. These are drive~thrus that would not need a Conditional Use Permit in the future for the drive~thru. These projects would just be required to submit a certificate of zoning compliance. As you can see, this detailed planned development does not follow the lot lines that have been submitted and this is very common for a commercial development. Staff would almost expect to see a permanent plat or a final plat come into our office that would reflect these changed lot lines when we actually have this come before us in the future if the uses are established more permanently. The applicant has indicated that the hotel would be located where it's proposed, as well as the bank in the corner have already been fairly secured in their locations and should be platted accordingly. With the planned development, this would be required to provide an amenity. The applicant has shown a plaza unit in the center of the parking lot, center of the subdivision. Staff is not supporting that amenity as it's presented and located. The director and myself met with the applicant this afternoon and gave them several proposals for locations of the amenity, which would potentially be in the center of the two restaurant retail uses in either this location or in the southwest corner. We feel that with the size of these restaurants that they are most likely going to have seating waiting lists and such and an amenity that could be provided to pedestrians, people waiting to be seated, is more beneficial to the site, than having a random amenity in the middle of a parking lot with no pedestrian accesses or feasibility for actual use of that. That is noted in the memo that you received dated July the 6th. The other issues with the site are currently -- this is ~~ immediately west of the site is Overland Way Subdivision. It is an Ada county R~1 subdivision. We do not anticipate this subdivision to be maintained as residential in an extensive time in the future. This would ~- this subdivision is designated as commercial in our Comprehensive Plan and we anticipate it to develop as such in the near future. The applicant has indicated that several developers have purchased these home sites. They are all populated with single~family residential homes and are approximately one to two acres in size. With that, there is an existing residence that is a single family residence, as defined by our staff ~- the staff report, which the landscaping ordinance does say that the matrix for commercial to residential districts, it requires a 25 foot landscape buffer. The memo that you have in front of you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 35 of 110 does detail that Lots 1, 2, 3, 15 and 16, respectively, as I have described them here -- let me go back to the plat -- would be these five lots right here would border that residential use and some creative conditioning has been drafted and is in front of you to try and reflect the -~ not only the protection of the residents that's on the one lot in Overland Way Subdivision, but also to facilitate the commercial development of this site. The condition does read that they will not be required to actually install the 25-foot of landscape, but that it should be acknowledged that each one of these lots would have to come back for a detailed Conditional Use Permit for the uses located within the scope of those lots and that's so that this board can determine in the future if the use that is being proposed for those lots is going to interfere or could an alternate landscape proposal be developed in order to mitigate any type of commercial impacts on the residential lots and also the -- there is a condition that is in the memo that was delivered that says that if this property here is annexed and it would most likely, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, be annexed as commercial, that all of those conditions for Lots 1, 2, 3, 15 and 16, would become void. So, that the developer would not have to come back and get a Conditional Use Permit on those properties, if that property is developed and annexed in as commercial. The last thing I would like to cover is that in discussions with the applicant and with the submittal of this detailed Conditional Use Permit planned development, staff feels that the development agreement may be waived and the recommendation is to remove the annexation and zoning comment number five for a development agreement, with the addition of the conditions that are stated in the memo and of the amendments of the conditions from the staff report, staff feels that the concerns of staff can be met through the planned development conditions and, therefore, eliminate the stuff of the development agreement. At this time I will stand for questions if you have any. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: Just one of curiosity. Why -- you had mentioned the lots and the buffering. Why did you leave out 13 and 14? Guenther: Lots 13 and 14 ~- 13 is the more square one here against ~- the property here, the applicant has indicated, is owned by Winston Moore, which is the developer, and the property immediately south of Mr. Moore's property and north of Mr. Sasser's property, is under contract with Winston Moore as well. That's the reason for making this -- these Lots 13 and 14 be eligible for the five foot landscape buffer, as we know that this will develop as commercial. Borup: Okay. Guenther: And so, therefore, that's the reason for that. Moe: I have no questions. Zaremba: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 36 of 110 Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. First off, I would like to apologize for the -- if we can get the conceptual plan back up -- for the delay in getting this to you. In this concept plan originally, I think as we are faced with oftentimes, you know, we are trying to get approval for something, we know what we want, but we are not sure what it's going to look like. And as this started to develop, it became apparent that I think this is a pretty fair approximation of what it will ultimately look like when it's developed. And so with that, that's why we submitted it here within the last week. So, we apologize for any confusion this evening that might have been created in the process. So, having said that, one of the things that I would like to point out -- I think a couple things if we mention in here. We have a -~ right here, just to give you a little bit of overview on this project. This is a Marriott hotel. The Marriott hotel is a town place suites. It's essentially one of those where someone stays for a period of a week, two weeks, almost like a small apartment type of thing. It was approved by corporate a couple of weeks ago. With Marriott, once it's approved by corporate, that pretty well is a done deal. So, that became -- in fact, if you can flip over to the rendering on the Marriott, we can kind of show you. And kind of jump back and forth here a little bit, but -~ right there. So, that's a rendering of generally what it's going to look like. We think it's going to be an attractive project. It was an attractive project. It will be an attractive project. We think it's something that the city and the community will be a real asset for, so we think it's a real plus. The other thing, if we can flip back to the concept plan, and I apologize for moving back and forth, but I'm trying to kind of show you -- over in this corner we have signed an agreement with Sterling Bank for this location. Sterling Bank, if you are familiar, has about seven billion dollars in assets. They have got about 135 banks currently. They consider this to be an excellent location for their project. They are looking at about a 4,500 to 5,000 square foot building here. They are looking at doing some very extensive construction on it, including possibly clock towers and what have you. So, we think it's going to be real attractive. The balance, as we go through here right now, we are talking to a very ~- a group of restaurants. We are not at the point where we can share those, but it looks like at least some of them will materialize and we are quite a ways down the road. So, we feel very confident. The same situation with potentially the balance of these. At this point it's a little bit more un- established. So, that will develop over time. As we mentioned with ACHD, they have allowed us a right-in only here. This is a right-in only and it's dictated by location across from EI Dorado Business Campus and, then, of course, this is a full access itself, dictated by its location across from EI Dorado Business Campus. As I mentioned, we have got the landscape through here and I will talk about this landscaping in a minute. If I could flip over to the one that shows the subdivision for -~ there is another one there. There. I think it's been mentioned and I know some of the neighbors will get up here. It's very obvious that this is a residential subdivision -- this is our project right here -- that borders our project. I think the interesting thing with this -- and maybe some of the neighbors will disagree. This is at least my -- my humble opinion on it -- is that, you know, for example, we came to you for EI Dorado Business Campus, we border Thousand Springs, we recognized that Thousand Springs was going to be a residential subdivision, would continue to be open, there was no reason for it to change. However, I think this one here -- and, again, in my opinion, is a residential subdivision in transition. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 37 of 110 As he mentioned, Winston Moore has bought this -- he has made -- clarification. He has made an offer on this with Bill Urris. I believe he's going to accept it. They had a very good face-to-face conversation. And Mr. Sasser I know owns this -- at least I know he's operating it -- or it's being operated as a business or what I understand he may be moving back into that and may live there forever, but at least as of right now that's the case. Over here Ron Van Auker owns these three. So, these other two right here -- or the five here are owned by the individuals. So, I think, as you know, this right here is all vacant land. I think Mr. Van Auker, I believe, owns this over here and I think the plan is for this ~- because it's mixed use regional, it would developed as that. In fact, if you look at the staff report, you will see where they acknowledge over a period of time ~- we don't know how soon, but I think within a reasonable period of time you're going to see this all go away and become a development. So, I think with that, that was the reason why we see it as a transition, why we came in -- if we could flip back to -- I'm sorry, I keep -- the one that shows ~- thank you. This is why we asked for, in this particular case -~ this is where the 25 feet of landscape buffer is going to be or was supposed to be requested and the reason why we asked for the five feet -~ if you look at this, what we have done is we have taken the 25 feet and drawn it around this so you can see it, if you look at these two particular lots, the depth of these lots, if you take your 25 feet, if you take a 25 foot drive aisle, if you take your 20 feet of parking, a sidewalk, 35 feet of buffer there, you can build a 32~foot wide building. I don't think there is going to be too many people that want to build a 32-foot wide building. What -- here, the problem we have had here, again is this drive aisle is dictated by ACHD in its location across the street here from EI Dorado. If you do 25 feet here, you, basically, impede this drive aisle coming in. As I understand it -- and I'm not a traffic engineer, but you need approximately 150 to 200 feet for cars to come in to get out of the way, to go towards their parking, so you don't have people backed out into the street. So, right here we -- right now we have it -- we'd almost have to either move this drive aisle over, which would be a domino effect on everything else that goes through there. Up here it's not quite as big a problem. So, what we -- what we are willing to do ~- and at least we would suggest -- and I know the homeowners have some concerns, we are not sure what those concerns are, but I suspect ~- I can take a reasonable guess. You know, we can look at, for example, a fence, we can look at six, seven, eight foot fence as well. We can add some additional landscaping. We can also -- even though we don't own this, we can add landscaping here. We are willing to do that if necessary. We are also willing to do that through here. If you flip over to the aerial, if you will see here, again, there is, for example, Mr. Sasser's house, there is Mr. Urris. This is the one Winston has purchased. If you can see, there is approximately 180 feet from there to there and if we were to build a building over here, we would probably -- that's another 75 feet. So, you're almost 300 feet of buffer from the house. I understand people live in their backyards, too. So, also in this particular case, the building right here, you have got a large shop here, so it has mitigated -- some of this is mitigated. But, again, I recognize that this is a home, I'm sensitive to that, but I think we have got some factors here that potentially mitigate it. If you can take ~- there is a photo there that shows the back of his property. Right there. That's a view of Mr. Sasser's house in this case. This is probably where one of our buildings would sit ultimately. This house is back here. There is some pretty mature pine trees that I suspect have been there for awhile. We can, again, add more fencing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 38 of 110 and stuff, but I think you have got a far substantial buffer. What we are willing to do is go along with the CU for here, so, in essence, the people here, as they continue to live, have had a second bite at the apple. They can come back ~- we will be coming back and asking for approval for this. But what we are simply saying is -- is I'm not sure that that 25 feet is necessarily critical. Again, that's my interpretation and that there is may be other ways that we can mitigate it or reduce the impact that we may have potentially on buildings out here, whether it's through say higher fences. So, anyway, if we can put back the concept plan. Okay. The other thing, in addition, then, to allowing us the five feet -- and as I say, we are very open to other ideas, as I say, the fencing, a couple other things in the staff report that we would request ~- over here we are asking for 35 feet of landscaping, which we have no problem with. However, we have a right turn only in here. What we are asking is in this particular case that that be reduced by the distance of what will be the drive aisle. We have to work that out with ACHD specifically how long that will be, but I suspect that would be about 14 feet. Again, what we are willing to do is put trees or other things up in this area or down in this area or through here, to, again, I guess give you an alternative for reducing that landscaping in that particular area. The other thing, this plan right now shows a sidewalk right here. We don't. As you know, over in EI Dorado we had to do 35 feet of landscaping. We did a meandering sidewalk through that 35 feet. As I understand it, in the staff report what they are saying is in addition to 35 feet, if the sidewalk is five feet, they want that five feet added on top of it. That's new to me. But I guess, apparently, it's been done. Again, what we would ask, if they modify it, that we do a meandering sidewalk through here, that that could be part of the 35 feet buffer, so -~ the other thing that I just want to clarify and it may just -- there is some confusion and, hopefully, I'm not going to muddy the waters, but, you know, we are looking at -- it's a conceptual plan. We are looking at this as possibly some slight changes in it. We don't see material changes in this. We don't see material change in use, but I got a little concerned when Joe was saying this is exactly what it's going to be. Again, what we are trying to do is come up with what we think is the best thing and I think as Commissioner Borup said, I heard him earlier, you know, we so often fall in that dilemma, we have to give you something very specific, but we are not sure what we are doing completely yet. I don't mean literally, but on the plan. So, I just want to -- I think I want to get that clarified. We believe this is generally what it's going to be, but, for example, this could very well be one building or something, you know. So, I just want to clarify that. As far as the amenities, as we mentioned to staff, they have asked it here, if we could provide them with some details. Unfortunately, at this point we can't. What we can do is we would visualize some type of covered seating area. It might be in here. Anna even suggested here. We might be able to incorporate something somewhere in here and we will work with staff between now and City Council and we will come back with a specific design and plan for that, so we can address that. So, I think, in closing, I think, as you well know, because we have been here before, we did this with EI Dorado, we sat up here in front of you and said we will build a quality project and I think we did. I think it was something that, you know, everybody could be proud of. I think Winston Moore went well beyond what would be expected in that project. We will do the same here. We think this is a quality project. What we are asking for is some flexibility as far as these considerations and ask you to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 39 of 110 modify the staff report with those. And with that I would be glad to answer any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Borup. You look like you were about to speak and I was calling on you. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Okay. Well, I'll probably have some more later, but just at this point we do not have a preliminary plat; is that correct? Seal: Yes, we do. Borup: We do? That-~ Seal: That's the preliminary plat right there. Borup: Right there. Seal: Yes. Borup: Which doesn't ~- that doesn't jive with your building locations at all, though. Seal: No. Because what we did initially -- and we can -~ we can modify that. Borup: I thought there was a new plat that was ~~ Seal: No. And then we -- yeah. And the same thing we had here at EI Dorado. And if you go back and you look at, for example, EI Dorado Business Campus, we came in with all these -- we have done lot lines all over the place. We have done adjustments. We have had to spend 15,000 dollars to re-subdivide a couple lots that we didn't anticipate. So, what we are trying to do is provide ourselves some degree of flexibility in our design, so if we have to move things around or something, we can move the lot lines around and we are not having to come in for a re~subdivision down the road. Borup: You had mentioned that you have got probably four ~- four or five of them that are already -- pretty done deal? Seal: Yes, we -- they are not a done deal at this point, but they are close. So, you know, the old saying, it ain't over until it's over. But we feel confident enough that we can present a plan tonight that we think is going to be a pretty good representation. I don't think you're going to come back five years from now and look at this and say, wow, this really didn't look like what we saw before. So, that's why we are willing to submit that. Moe: But, then, at the same time you do take exception to some of the staff comments in regards to the preliminary plat for, you know, site specific conditions; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 40 of 110 Seal: As far as landscaping? Moe: Landscaping. Right. Okay. I have nothing. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Did you mention everything that you had concerns with as far as the staff report in your -- Seal: Yes. I think in the additional memo I think we addressed everything. Borup: Okay. Seal: So, my really concerns, I think, again, to kind of summarize, is the five feet. We are willing to live with the CUs on those particular lots. We are asking for the five feet. We are willing to provide other things to, as I say, as alternative, so to speak. We are asking for the stuff as far as the driveway coming, the right in, and the 35 feet there and the meandering sidewalk in the five feet. Borup: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Seal? Seal: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: When you said additional memo, you're talking about ~- Seal: Yes. Yes, I am. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Seal: I know it's got more confusing. Newton-Huckabay: Just to make sure I'm looking at the right document. Zaremba: No further questions. Seal: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Signed up to speak is Becky McKay. Okay. Not signed up, but you're welcome to come and speak. I didn't look at Item 16. You are signed up. Sasser: Commissioners, My name is Gale Sasser and I own property at 1546 Loder Place, which is the one that's parallel on two sides of the proposed development. So, anyway, I guess my biggest concern with this proposed development ~- we are in favor of it, by the way h is the -~ is the landscape barrier around the perimeter to five foot. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 41 of 110 The entrance to the development will actually be coming and, then, the cars could be turning and the headlights are going to be basically shining right on our house. Now, they showed the mature trees on the east side. Now, on the south side, which is where our bedroom is in our house, a very minimal amount of trees, so we are really not protected by the ~- by the mature trees and -- but that's my major concern and as we attended the preliminary meeting with the W.H. Moore Company, which ~~ a neighborhood meeting to address our concerns, the only concern that I had and that I brought up to Mr. Seal was that very thing. Noise and lights. And his response to that is what do you care, you live by the freeway. So, that was somewhat shocking, but -- but that's what he said. Anyway, I'm in full agreement with the staff's report and recommendations of the ~- maintaining that 25 foot landscape area around our perimeter. Other than that, I have no issues. So, basically, that's all I have. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah. Mr. Sasser, in regards to the property on the south side, would you be looking at wanting some screening and whatnot, some additional fence screening and such for that? Sasser: Something to protect us from the lights, yes. Because we are going to be extremely vulnerable. Our master bedroom is on that south side, so all night long we'd have car lights, you know, shining in the bedroom. Borup: And that was the same question I had. So, like a six foot fence would ~- would help? Sasser: Yes, a six-foot fence and some landscaping to buffer it a little bit. Moe: Okay. Sasser: That's alii have. Zaremba: I do have a question. And certainly we have the obligation to protect your right to live there as long as you wish to and to not have this disturb you any more than possible, but thinking to some day where it might be desirable on your part to change the use of your property into a commercial, might you ~- I'm just thinking of how would your property develop into a commercial property, which is envisioned eventually in the Comprehensive Plan, not that anybody's going to push you to it, but eventually. Wouldn't you want to actually have cross-access into this property, which would mean not only not 25-foot landscape buffers, but maybe even holes in the buffer that would provide you drive aisle access and cross-easements with this property? Sasser: That's a possibility that ~- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 42 of 110 Zaremba: I mean that's way in the future, but I'm just -- I'm throwing that out as a - 25- foot landscape buffer all the way around you might make it very difficult to develop your property, at least in coordination with this one. Sasser: Sure. I have had nobody approach me on that. Zaremba: Okay. All right. So, it's too early for you to have an opinion. Sasser: I really don't have an opinion. I haven't seen really much. I got the first information at noon yesterday on the proposed plot and staff report, so -- as you have as well. Zaremba: Thank you. Sasser: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Don Hutt is it? Okay. Then we will have Becky McKay. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm here representing Don Hutt and Gale Sasser. They came to my office around the first of May and brought in the site -- the preliminary plat of this project and were asking questions and asking me to tell them what the ordinance said and what their rights were, because this is a residential subdivision and they had some concerns. I e~mailed Anna on May 12th with some questions and concerns, because they had been down to the Ocity-planning department and there was very little information as far as a site plan or uses in the file. They said that they were very concerned about the lack of information that had been provided; they were concerned about the height of the buildings next to them that a lot of the residents have lived there for a long time. They wanted to be assured that the livability of this neighborhood would, obviously, be maintained. They were concerned about traffic circulation, size of the buildings, parking area. Anna e-mailed me back, she said the staff has the same concerns. I forwarded this e-mail on to Jonathan Seal, this was May 13th. He never called me. Never e- mailed. Nor did they contact Mr. Hutt or Mr. Sasser, which really disturbs me, because I'm in the same business as they are and when residents ask for additional information or have concerns, we typically take the time meet with them. I normally don't come here to testify about other projects, but it bothered me that the comments at the neighborhood meeting were made such as, well, you already live by the freeway and that the hotel is non-negotiable, when they were trying to find some middle ground. Mr. Hutt indicated I am not opposed to the project. Mr. Sasser indicated he's not opposed to the project. They are just very concerned about the possibility of construction or service traffic going down Loder Street. If Mr. Moore purchases clear to Loder, they don't want that residential street being used for commercial uses. The lighting impact. The landscape buffering. The other question they had was why weren't the other two parcels included that they have optioned and within their subdivision. A new site plan was submitted just on Tuesday. Staff report was written. I read through it, it was outdated as soon as it was e~mailed to me, because the new staff report came out. I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 43 of 110 read the addendum, then, also the staff showed me some adjustments that were made to the addendum. In my opinion, if I came before this body and was bringing staff site plans in two days before, the staff was adjusting their site plan, I would expect to be reprimanded. I would -- I don't think you would tolerate that of the rest of us and I wouldn't think that it would be tolerated here. I think you have to consider that these poor residents, even if this does transition, which it very well may, probably will, they still have to live there and those buffers - 25-foot buffers for more intensive commercial uses against residential, are important. They are there for a purpose. Very rarely -- I have never asked for a waiver on them or on the entryway corridors, because the landscaping, the esthetics of our project, are very important to the city, to the community, and I just want you to take those things into consideration and that's what Mr. Hutt asked me to, please, pass onto you. Do you have questions? Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. That covers everybody who was signed up. There is opportunity for anybody who didn't sign up to comment if they wish, though. Come ahead. Arnold: Members of the Commission, for the record, my name is Steve Arnold, I'm with Stanley Consultants. I submitted the application and I was not prepared here to speak tonight. I, actually, came here from a movie, was not anticipating to speak, but in defense of what we submitted, we met with staff, we did -~ we discussed the application. Because the commercial application such as this, are not the typical subdivisions with commercial applications, such as the Lochsas, the Bridgetowers, that has ~- they go in there with an application and they have commercial uses that are planned or permitted at intersections or corners, there is some issues that, you know, these things ~~ you're not adjacent to neighborhood properties ~- I guess in response to the 25-foot buffers and the variances from those buffers, yeah, I mean if we were coming in with a subdivision next to a residential neighborhood, Magic View being one of them, you know, at the northwest corner of Eagle and the interstate, you know, the Commission has held with the buffers or, for that matter, the EI Dorado Subdivision, the same developer of this project did EI Dorado, and they -- they did a buffer along Thousand Springs and they will provide that. You know, the buffer that we are providing here or the buffer that's being recommended, in my opinion, is temporary. You've got a use that is proposed to be commercial use. If you go in there and you start putting these large buffers on these properties adjacent to these current residential pieces, we all know they are going to transition to commercial. You know, if I was representing the property owners of those residential uses, I'd say, look, are you going to live there for the next ten years, 15, 20 years. If you're not going to live there for the next 15 or 20 years, start thinking about the long-term solution. The long-term idea is you're going to transition to commercial. Do you want these 25-foot buffers adjacent to another commercial use? Do you want to segregate your property and isolate it? A couple issues there is buyers get issues providing services, emergency services, and police services. As soon as you start putting these buffers -~ I don't have a light pen. You know, as soon as you start putting commercial -- these bufferings around these residential uses -- I'll be quicker. You know, if you're looking at doing commercial buffering around here or, for that matter, around here, what you start doing is isolate these units in there. They start Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 44 of 110 becoming their own unit. Most likely, the buildings stand up front in this area, parking goes in back, and it becomes an enforcement problem. You start having issues with police, because now you have got this wide buffer around this area that police can't see, you know, as they enter this area. They can't see as they enter Loder Street. That becomes an issue. You know, the idea of what we submitted -~ and let's go on with the buffers and I think Jonathan spoke to those, but the idea of what we submitted to you and why things have transitioned so much, is when we submitted it, we told the planning director, you know, we have dealt with subdivisions, I mean commercial subdivisions such as this, the Meadow Lakes, the Gemtone, the Treasure Valley, you know, the Bonito, which my client is -~ at the other corner. As you start getting things platted, things change. I mean your tenants you don't have lined up, so what we submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission was a flexible schedule. We had extra lots, basically. We don't think we are going to use them all. But you can't increase lots when you go to final plat. You can decrease them through density reduction. So, our anticipation or our expectation is that, you know, this lot configuration will change. The conceptual plan that we brought with us will basically stay the same. We don't know exactly what tenants are going there. We don't know exactly what uses will be there or where the drive~thrus will be. But we know there is going to be drive-thrus, we know there is going to be commercial uses that go in there. Our thought with this conceptual plan is, you know, we will submit it to you, you guys mill it over, is the commercial use here adjacent to what is going to be commercial use, is that acceptable. Granted, there are existing residential uses. What can we do as an alternative solution towards the requirement to provide the 25~foot in the alternative conditions? What can we do to provide something that will buffer this area and this area against the existing residential use? You know, I don't know if it was brought out, but this use here currently is a mortgage company. You know, we expect that it's going to change uses. You know, what can we do in the short term that will suffice in keeping that residential use buffered from the new use, you know, in this area. Our solution was some sort of solid fencing and five foot landscape buffering, you know, and that's what we are here to negotiate, whether -- is that sufficient. If that's not sufficient, you know, what is? What do we need to do. You know, we all know that this area, bounded by, you know, a principal arterial, the interstate here to the north, a principal arterial to the south, and Eagle Road over here, it's going to transition. What should we do that would be sufficient. And the idea of the application was to leave flexibility for not only the applicant -- so I know your staff's busy. You know, I have submitted these revised preliminary plats to you guys many times before. What our intention is to do is to try to give you something that gives us and you flexibility. You know, here is conditions, here is what we want to place on our plat, and here is how we -~ here is how we mitigate any impact to existing residential use. That's the intention around the conceptual PUD. And if I understood staff incorrectly, that's my fault. You know, my intention was to come here, so that we could submit something that was flexible enough that you guys can act on it, but, you know, if we needed to reduce units we could. And I'll stand for questions. Zaremba: I guess my confusion is that I don't remember ever seeing -- and maybe I'm just not remembering, a conceptual preliminary plat or a conceptual CUP. We do ask for conceptual designs when somebody is only bringing an annexation. That helps us Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 45 of 110 determine whether they are asking for the right zone or -- or not and, then, we do treat them as conceptual. But I have not been on this Commission forever, but my instinct is that a preliminary plat and CUPs are -- I don't remember ever seeing a conceptual one. I guess I'll have to ask other Commissioners and staff. I understand the reason for it if all we are getting is an annexation and a zoning, but it seems to me this is something that's going to get recorded and needs to be -- Arnold: Commissioner Zaremba, if I may interject there, you know, we are -~ the plat here is fixed. That's -- this is the number of lots that we are proposing. We submitted an area map that showed, basically, you know, we are going to have a hotel in this area and that should be in your packet. And we would have restaurant and retail uses in this area and other -- you know, a bank and perhaps other office, drive-thrus, in that area. That's the only thing that's conceptual. We are going in for a fixed, you know, C~G zoning. We are going for a fixed PUD -- preliminary plat with a fixed number of lots. The only thing that is conceptual is the actual buildings that are going there. And the problem with going in with a specific CUP and a specific lot layout is we always change. Now, I have not had one preliminary plat that is -- that is commercial or office or retail in Meridian that stayed the same. You know, I keep coming back before you. You know, the Gemtones, the Treasure Valleys, the Meadow Lakes, they all change and we had this discussion with the planning director and she said, well, come in with the number of lots that you need, you know, the maximum number that you expect. And we don't expect to final plat this with that number of lots. Come in with the anticipated uses, you know, the retail, commercial, banking, hotel, and we put that on a map and that's been submitted -- and submit that. You know, the number of lots that you end up with are probably going to be different. You know, we are going to lot line adjust this as we get uses come in. Instead of bringing you a new preliminary plat re-platting what you have already seen and creating additional work for these guys, which they see Jonathan and I too much, you know, we are coming in with something that's flexible enough with your existing ordinance that allows us to adjust things and final plat it as we know we have tenants to occupy the lots. That's the whole idea and that was the intention that we met with staff earlier on to try to figure out, now, how do we do this so we don't create a bunch of work continually. You know, we are just doing this ~- you just review -- you didn't -- but the City Council just reviewed another final plat for Bonito Subdivision, because the tenants changed. You know, we want 20,000 square feet, we don't need 15. So, we had to lot line -- we couldn't lot line adjust, we had to replat and do some other things and this -- the whole idea around this is you need to know the uses that are going to go in, but we don't know, you know, roughly-- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Arnold? Arnold: I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. I think we are starting to repeat the point. Is this applicant response or public testimony or -- because we are starting to drag on here. Zaremba: It's been a little flexible. You answered my question, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 46 of 110 Arnold: I'm sorry. Zaremba: Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Arnold? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: All right. Assuming Mr. Seal wants to speak again, we will give him the final word. Moore: Commissioners, Winston Moore, at 11655 Thomas Drive in Boise. Nary: Mr. Chairman. Moore: Just two or three quick things. With respect to the neighbors, we are certainly going to do for these neighbors what we have done with all the neighbors in the past. We are going to respect their wishes and their rights and it sounds to me like about the only consideration there is the -- perhaps the width of the landscape buffer. If you folks or the neighbors insist that it's 25 feet, that's, obviously, what we will do. Respectfully, I think that a narrower buffer with a fence would accomplish a lot more than a flat or slightly mounded 25-foot buffer. The buffer doesn't do anything for sound. It certainly doesn't do anything for headlights. And so my -~ if the neighbors would agree and we won't solve that at this meeting, probably, but I just want to repeat, we will do whatever these folks really think we should do. And I'm of the opinion that the fence would be a lot more satisfactory and beneficial to them than just a landscape buffer. Mr. Borup asked about how -- I believe about how many business that we are pretty well along in our negotiations with. I can tell you that the Sterling Savings Bank on the corner, we have a letter of intent from them. We are drafting right now at their request the build to suit lease agreement. We are going to build their facility for them. Design it. I mean in concert with each other. We are going to own it and lease it to them. That one's done. And, then, just -- I think I have a pointer here. All right. This is the bank, of course. We have a letter of intent and these people are anxious for us to go beyond that for a restaurant. we have a national restaurant right here with a letter of intent. And some of these the community is going to be really pleased to see that they are coming to Meridian. This is an Italian restaurant with a -- frankly, a Blimpy as part of it. This may or may not be. They tell us it will be. We don't have anything in writing yet. I'll just name some names. Panda Express, which is, as you know, a Chinese restaurant. So, we are pretty well along with a lot of those negotiations. And I think that you will find a year or two from now that when you go back and superimpose what we have built on this, there isn't going to be that much variation. Just one more quick thing with respect to the plat not being exactly fixed as the way it will ultimately be. This is, essentially, what we did at EI Dorado. I think what Silverstone is doing. If you come in sincerely with what you think you're going to need, but it never works out that way, unless it's a residential subdivision. It just ~- things change and that's one of the reasons I think you allow in your ordinance for lot line adjustments. So, we are not -- we are coming in with something that's vague and nebulous. This isn't going to be, in that context, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 47 of 110 significantly different than EI Dorado and Silverstone, which I don't think have been a problem for you. It's just -- the neighbors -- again, I have not met these folks, but we have every intention of cooperating with them. If you have any questions for me. Zaremba: Thank you. Moore: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: We will give Mr. Seal a couple of minutes. Mr. Moore took some of the ten. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Yes. Nary: Before you finish that, Mr. Arnold's testimony went well beyond your normal three minute testimony, to it basically being an additional presentation, and you had already had your rebuttal testimony. It's unorthodox, but your testimony to preserve your record, your might want to be assured that those people have an opportunity to rebut that. His testimony should have been part of the initial presentation, not in the middle of all the other testimony. I think you have a risk of having a defective record without allowing those people to have that opportunity to rebut what he had to say if they wish to, before you get to the final word from Mr. Seal. Zaremba: Okay. We will do that. I appreciate that advice. Mrs. McKay, as a spokesman for the others, do you care to comment on the further things that have been added? Okay. She does not have anything to add to that. So, Mr. Seal, we will ask you to conclude. And briefly, please. Seal: Very briefly. It's not really a rebuttal. I think for one, to Mr. Sasser, I apologize on that comment, because I meant it one way and, obviously, it come out another way on the freeway, so I apologize. And, Becky, I guess I learned something about communication tonight. She was under the impression that I was going to call her. I was under the impression that if she wanted to she would call me. So, that's where it stood and, unfortunately, instead of getting together and avoiding all this tonight, we didn't, we are doing it here. So, I guess I bear some responsibility. But had I known I certainly would have gotten together with the neighbors. That's always been my style. Apparently, this one just got muddied up, so -- and, obviously, at this point if the neighbors want to get together, we are glad to get together with them if they have any concerns. That's always been our style and will continue to be our style. So, maybe that's a little bit of my fault, too. So, I bear some responsibility. As far as Mr. Sasser, we can certainly address his concerns with the lights, we can go with the six or even a seven foot fence. So, I think we can address his concerns with the lighting if necessary. It sounds to me like that's really the only issue there. So, however long he stays there, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 48 of 110 we can address that. If he'd like to, we would be glad to sit down with him and get that worked out and stuff. So, with that, I will sit down. Zaremba: This was kind of an off-of-the-wall question that I asked Mr. Sasser, but would you see any interest in preserving the ability of cross-access between what eventually might happen on his property? Seal: I think I would -- let me put it this way: I think we would certainly look at that. You know, I don't think we -- you know, I think, as you well know, Winston Moore is not an unreasonable person. Zaremba: Sure. Seal: And if there is something, we could certainly take a look. We would be glad to look. Zaremba: I think the reason I asked that question -- Seal: I think it's a reasonable question. Zaremba: We are talking about 10.9 acres. Seal: Yes. Zaremba: And even a residential development of that size would be required one or maybe even two stub streets to the neighboring property and ~- Seal: Yeah. It might be a win~win for all of us. Zaremba: We will assume that the rest of it some day, who knows when, will be commercial, the cross~access is appealing to me. I don't know about anybody else. But even if the 25 foot landscape buffer were the eventual result, I still think there should be holes in it that would allow some cross-access, so -- Seal: If there is cross-access, that would all go away, the 25 feet. At least that's the way it's got to ~- but we -- you know, we will certainly work with them and if there is any interpretation on the neighbor's part that we didn't want to, we apologize for that, that's never been our intention, but, apparently, that seemed to come across, so -- Zaremba: Let me ask a couple of things that are probably ACHD issues, not ours, but just in looking at your concept. They have made the requirement that you put a six-inch high median strip on Eagle Road. Seal: Actually, what you have got is is you got the draft staff report. We had that modified. Apparently, you didn't get that. --.. -.-------....----..- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 49 of 110 Zaremba: Okay. Seal: Because you can see, there is no point in it to have a median there, because when they turn in they are pretty well locked in. Zaremba: I am agreeing with you. That doesn't seem like an appropriate place to put it. However, it would make sense to me to put the same thing on Eagle Road. Seal: There is one on Eagle Road right there. Zaremba: It already exists? Seal: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry. Seal: Yes. There is one there. We had to put that in with EI Dorado Business Campus when we did Farmers and Merchants. Zaremba: Next would be a discussion of the sidewalk. I guess some of the sidewalk already exists, but this little portion up here that goes out, the peninsula or the spit, makes me pretty uncomfortable. My thinking would be if there is a requirement to provide a meandering sidewalk, that there should be a cross-over where the traffic is going the slowest and not bring pedestrians ~~ I would even try and remove that portion of the sidewalk. Seal: Yeah. I think we probably -- you know, we would be looking at some type of meandering sidewalk. It might be across here, which would probably be a little bit safer, and, then, have it meandering through here. Where it goes from there, I guess you're on your own. But, yeah, I think that's what we -- Zaremba: I'm not sure those are our staff issues, that's probably ACHD's staff issue. Seal: You know, we certainly can accommodate or take a meandering sidewalk down to some point. Zaremba: We are all thinking the safety of any pedestrians that may -- we do need to preserve the need for pedestrians, even though they are not going to walk across the freeway, there may some day be bus service and a sidewalk is how they would access it. So, it sounds like we are thinking in the same direction, so that's good. Seal: Okay. Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 50 of 110 Zaremba: Oh, I did have one other question. And that is probably a question for maybe staff, but while you're here, I'll ask you if you know this. My recollection is that 1-84, as either an entryway corridor or something -- aren't there design review requirements along 1-84? Do we need to mention submitting for design review anything that faces 1- 84 or exactly what is that -- Guenther: We don't have the design review for that type of an issue. Normally, that's addressed during the submittal of elevations and this board would either ask for a height reduction or additional landscaping, something to mitigate if you felt that it was going to impact the -- the appearance of the entryway corridor for the city. You have seen the elevation for the hotel and if you're comfortable with the way that's going to look or if you would like to see more detail submitted to the City Councilor back to this Commission, that's something you could ask for as well. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: And we don't have design reviews, but -- Zaremba: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I thought I heard that somewhere. Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if there are some concerns or some assurance that this Commission is seeking, I know the staff originally had thought a development agreement wasn't necessary, but that's certainly another option is to have a development agreement to address those concerns on the buildings that may be oriented towards the freeway. Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: And maybe just an idea in concept, but on ~- speaking of the amenity seating, would you agree that ~- as staff's contention that, really, to be feasible and usable it needs to be more central to the other buildings and the location where it is now probably isn't real practical? Seal: Yes. We think that's a reasonable request and I think as we start to develop this, I think -~ I think that's a possibility. There are a couple of spots that would probably work better than this and let's put it here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 51 of 110 Borup: Okay. So, that would be a desire to get it closer to the building in order to be usable? Seal: Sure. Borup: And the other, I don't know if it's really a question or a comment. It appears to me that the ~~ and maybe this isn't really pertinent, but the hotel rendering and the footprint don't really seem to match each other. Seal: Well, they don't entirely, because it's a rendering, it's just kind of a general one. What we were trying to do is give you what it's going to be -- Borup: So, that was not ~- that rendering -- Seal: It's not a construction drawing or a specific rendering for this one. That's their general. So, it's going to look very close to that, but it's not going to be that Borup: I mean the shape of the building wasn't even close. Seal: No. That's was going to be -- but you're going to see what -- the kind of construction, what the appearance is going to be. It's an approximation. Moe: We know it's going to be a hotel. Seal: We know it's a hotel and it's going to be a Marriott. There you go. Borup: And it could be that architectural style. Seal: And it could be that architectural style. Other than that, we don't know. Moe: One question I have. I'm a little bit -- number one, I love the development, I think it's going to be a great -- a great great add to the city and whatnot, but based upon, you know, getting the changes and whatnot in such short time frames and we have got -- we still have some issues in regards to the buffers and whatnot and the fencing and whatnot I guess I'm -- I'm somewhat reluctant to try and structure this thing, you know, for me tonight, to go ahead and make the conditions and move it on. I guess I'm going to ask you do you have any problem if we do a continuation to try and get some of these issues resolved in regard to the screening and the buffers and whatnot with the city, along with the courtyard, but basically just trying to clean up some of these issues. I'm not talking a long continuation, but I just think just enough time to get some of the things worked out. I, myself, would like to see it come back to this body prior to it going to City Council, so that at least I know what it looks like before it goes to Council. Seal: Obviously, we can't say no to that, but our preference would be is -- and I think ~~ I talked with staff about that today, because, quite honestly, I had some concerns about this point and I apologize for bringing this in at the last minute, but we also are very Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 52 of 110 anxious to get started on this project. I know Winston is typical chomping at the bit to get started. We'd like to get the infrastructure started here as soon as possible, which is once we get approvals and we start moving forward. So, P&Z -- the next P&Z hearing is two weeks away, which, then, we have already gone from just an annexation rezone to a PUD, and if we postpone it a month, we have lost a month and a half. So, I would ask if at all possible if we can give it the old college try and try to get this cleaned up and get it to City Council. And staff at least has indicated to me that they can do that. So, I'm kind of relying on staff with that respect. So, if we could, I would appreciate it. Obviously, we can't tell you no, but that's sure what I'd like to do. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Maybe to continue what Commissioner Moe said -- and just to see if I got it clear in my mind the things that you had concerns with. The notes I had was, really, the staff comments on the 25-foot buffer to a five foot and your preference is five foot. And, then, the landscaping on Eagle Road to include the sidewalk within that and make allowances for the access road. And that's -- you know, I didn't see anything else. Seal: On the CUs, we are agreeable to that, on these lots, and so, you know, again, somebody could come back. I think, again, as Mr. Sasser said -- and I'm -~ hopefully, I'm not misstating him, but it sounds like if we can address his concerns with lighting here and I think we can do that between now and City Council, I believe that's his primary concerns, and we will sit down with him, we will meet with him and stuff. So, I don't see any -- I don't see a lot of things that we need to really address. I understand that we got a memo, we have got a staff report, but I think when you ~~ Borup: How about a development agreement? Are you okay with keeping that or ~- Seal: No, I'd rather not. I think that the PUD and we go through with the certificate of zoning compliance and what have you and we talk to them, you know, in my opinion, again, I don't -- I don't see the need for that. Borup: And what's the concern? Seal: Well, I think it just adds another level of complexity to this. We have to deal with that. We are -~ you know, we are really showing you we are going to have 35 feet along here. This is an off ramp. These will be restaurants. This will be a hotel. I'm not sure where the concern is as far as what might go here. It's obviously going to be quite a project. This is bordering, for example, residential or a residential street or something that where I think you would have a level of concern. It's a freeway off ramp. So, I would prefer to stay away from the development agreement. I think it's just ~- it's something, in my opinion, that I'm not sure is necessary. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 53 of 110 Borup: And staff did delete that in the new thing, but they left the condition ~- or the conditional use in there. Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: It's nice of Mr. Seal to save me some work, but that's just not really necessary. The other thing, I guess, I would remind the Commission -- and I guess the City Council can choose what they want to do -- you know, the recent project that this Commission and the Council saw regarding the Majestic, had the same issues that Mr. Seal is saying, but it was oriented to the freeway and that was the only assurance that the Council could have. Subsequent now is to have a development agreement, to have some opportunity to have some opportunity to visit what the designs of the building are and the orientation to the freeway. It is on a collector street, I understand that, but the front of that building faces the westbound traffic of the freeway and so it mayor not fit ~- right know, I guess, without having a lot more information, there isn't -- there isn't a way to determine whether or not it's going to be a distraction for the freeway. But that's just a method in which to do that and the Council can, then, choose to do that or not, but just to remind you that we have just revisited -- we just went through this about two months ago, so -~ just about four months now, so -- Seal: Is the certificate of zoning compliance of concern? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton~Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: You're going to have to humor me for a minute here, but it often seems to me when these hearings start to run over an hour, that the homework really hasn't been done. We have met with the staff and we are doing work that the applicant should have been doing with the staff sorting out issues that we really shouldn't have to be sorting out at the Commission level, in my interpretation, and I -- and my little brain starts to get very confused about this point when we are making all these changes. I would not feel comfortable moving this onto City Council. I think this work -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- should have been done by the applicant with the staff prior to this hearing. Seal: Well, in some defense, I know Joe, you know, not to make excuses, but Joe was sick with pneumonia, so we did have some difficulty hooking up, obviously, when he was not available. Again, we apologize for that. We didn't purposely delay it until the end, but there was some circumstances there that I think were beyond our control, Joe's control, my control. In fact, to the point where Craig can attest to it, I called down Friday, said where is the staff report, we are running out of time. So -- oh, we have had some situations here. Again, I certainly would ask if we could move it onto City Council. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 54 of 110 I appreciate the fatigue level at this point. But we are -- if you say -- we'd at least like to get the infrastructure going and get that process done. It's your call. Zaremba: Let me ask one more question. I just ~;. I'm trying to find the second amenity and -- we have talked about one of them. A PO requires two. What is the second one? Seal: I think when I talked with Anna and I think Brad might have been in the meeting, we recognize with something this small, you know, to try to create something with a covered area, you would have some seating, you could sit back, as the two amenities, but we kind of combined the two. Zaremba: A covered seating area near one of the restaurants? Seal: Yes. And, then, have seating, maybe have a fountain, maybe have some landscaping or something like that. So, is it probably at the level of like EI Dorado Business Campus with 80 acres, where we are talking ten acres -- and, in fact, I think Anna made the comment one time, this is too small, almost, to be a PUD with all those amenities. So, I think that's the thinking and Joe may disagree or agree, because I can't remember if Joe was in that meeting or not, but, anyway, that's our thinking. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Further questions? All right. Thank you very much. Seal: Thank you. Zaremba: Just to express an opinion, it's been mentioned that many of the commercial plats have come back for realignments and readjustments and to me that's a normal part of the process. You do kind of expect that to happen and, to be honest, the Winston Moore projects have been a benefit to the city and they have -- every one of them that I have seen has gone well and neighbors have been treated well. My instinct on this one is that almost everything that has been talked about can be resolved, but I think -- I feel like what I think hearing other commissioners say, we don't feel it is resolved yet and my feeling would be, even a short period of working together with the staff, even if it was just two more weeks, again, it goes back to our discomfort with passing things along to the City Council that weren't pretty final when we made the recommendation. The City Council has asked us not to do that. I think everything can be resolved and, again, I trust the word that they will get together with the neighbors and solve what they can solve, get together with the staff and solve what they can solve, but I would ask the question of staff, would a two week continuance be enough to resolve issues that you feel may still remain? Guenther: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to this type of an issue -- I believe that all of the issues have been resolved tonight. You have to keep in mind that Mr. Seals has already agreed that all of these properties here will come in for a conditional use, which is why the buffer for the 25-foot should be a non~issue, because it will have to be addressed in the future anyhow. Therefore, that buffer, as long as the conditions in the memo are incorporated into a complete staff report for City Council, I have to do that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 55 of 110 anyhow to make the amendments prior to the City Council meeting. So, if you're comfortable with the minutes that have been on the record, have the memo, amending the staff report, that all will be incorporated into one complete staff report prior to City Council and -~ so, therefore, if you made the recommendation tonight, as we have discussed, it should be complete going to City Council. There should be no breaks, there should -- there should be no more discussions between staff and the applicant, because everything has been ironed out and they have agreed to what has been presented to tonight. One last point of clarification is that with a planned development we do see a detailed planned development and you had asked that question before. Typically with just an annexation and zoning we will see a conceptual plan, but this came with a plat and a planned development and the planned development should be a detailed planned development and that's what we only flushed out to this extent earlier this week and, again, I -- Zaremba: Even though it didn't come as early as we all would have liked, you feel satisfied that it's ready to move forward to City Council? Guenther: I feel satisfied that I can get a staff report addressing all of the concerns that we have discussed, all of the agreements that have come down with this meeting tonight, and prepare that for City Council. If you would like, I can include a copy of that with your next packets for your meetings to make sure that I didn't miss anything. Unless you wanted to table it out to that time and adopt the Findings and Conclusions at the meeting on the 21 st, whichever way you feel most comfortable doing it, we can accommodate. Zaremba: Okay. Any need to re~insert the development agreement to get a design review or is that going to happen anyhow? Guenther: That is up to the Commission. Staff doesn't feel that -- that a development agreement is going to change very much. The original development agreement was taken out for the fact that with the lack of the detail for the original submission, that staff had recommended that all lots become conditional, therefore, at that -- with that type of a condition, a development agreement would be essential. With removing that and becoming more detailed and calling out the specific lots, requiring the conditional uses, staff feels comfortable with eliminating the development agreement. Zaremba: Okay. Works for me. Commissioners? Borup: Well, I -- a question I had earlier, when you had mentioned two weeks to work out issues, my question is what are the issues? And I don't know of any, other than what -~ the couple that we have discussed and I still think those things need to be discussed by this Commission before we proceed on, in my mind. Zaremba: I can agree that most of the things that began as issues have been resolved. I guess my question is do we want to see them in writing before we make the recommend or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 56 of 110 Borup: But which ones would ~- I'm not even sure what you're referring to. Zaremba: Well, the developer's going to work with the neighbors and the staff to solve their concerns. Borup: Oh. Okay. So, maybe we need to make a -- maybe we need to have that discussion and make a recommendation ourselves. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: You're talking about a 25-foot buffer. I'd some discussion on that item before I want to vote on something. Zaremba: Okay. I personally don't have a problem with a fence line and a smaller buffer. I think some day we are going to want to punch through and make interconnectivity and the bigger the buffer is, the less coordinated the neighboring developments are going to look. Borup: And I agree with that. I mean I think you got to look at -- you got to look at the projects in this location, this size of the adjoining lots, the Comp Plan designation and those ~- Zaremba: Or, actually, the point on that is that if those lots have to come back for a CUP anyhow, we can discuss them and that may be -- you know, that may not be tomorrow that they come back for the CUP, but the situation on the neighboring properties may have changed by the time we -- Borup: So, you're saying that those last -~ their last -- you're saying that it can be amended ~~ so, you're feeling that it wouldn't even need to be amended by us at this point? Changing the 25 -- page two. We just mentioned ~~ the staff report mentions 25- foot landscape buffers on those locations and, then, the next paragraph says it can be amended. But, again, for if we are looking for lights and separation and privacy, a six- foot fence would do more than, you know, one tree every 35 feet. Zaremba: Or we would have to call it alternate compliance or something like that. Borup: Right. And they mention that, that they would do some landscaping compliance, get some denser landscaping with the fence. Zaremba: Sure. Borup: The only other thing I ~~ that still in my mind is the development agreement. If staff feels that's necessary, I mean I would agree, based on past experience with -- with the previous projects that they have always been first class, but, you know, 25 years ago we used to buy lots on a handshake with not even a written agreement and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 57 of 110 sometimes it's just good business to do things properly, whether -- you know, it has nothing to do with whether you trust the person to do a good job or not. Hawkins~Clark: Chairman Zaremba, could I just add one point on that? Zaremba: Brad. Please. Hawkins-Clark: On the development agreement issue, the city attorney made the reference to the Majestic Theater. I think the main difference there is we did not have a planned development. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins~Clark: You know, I mean the Conditional Use Permit is going to run with the land and if you ~- you want to see some conditions that run with the land, put them in a Conditional Use Permit. I think that's the big difference. If you didn't have a Conditional Use Permit, then, definitely a DA. I think that's just ~~ unless there is something I'm not seeing, but I think that was -- as far as the clarification on some of these projects, you know, it's just as effective of a tool to carry conditions with the property. Borup: Oh, I may have misunderstood. Are we looking at a conditional use on every building or just the western boundary? Zaremba: Just selected properties. Borup: Okay. That's what I thought. That's what I thought. Guenther: Yeah. It's just the select properties. And there is even a condition in there that they don't have to construct the landscape buffer along that property line in order to start building other buildings. So, they can come in and get their hotel certificate of zoning compliance after they file their preliminary plat and not have to do 25~foot landscape buffer until those lots develop. Once those lots develop, then, they come back to this board and through reviewing the detailed site plans for those buildings, you will determine if the five foot landscape buffer with a fence is going to be appropriate or if you'd like to go with the 25-foot landscape buffer and, therefore, that 25-foot should be a non-issue at this time, because you're going to see it again. Zaremba: Or even if the neighboring property has changed use. Guenther: There is a clause in there that says if the neighboring property changes use, all of those conditions go away. So, if this property -- Mr. Sasser's property is annexed as a C-G property, all of the conditions for Lots 1,2, 3, 15, and 16 are void. Zaremba: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 58 of 110 Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: Again, it doesn't really make a big difference to me either way, but I was under the impression that those northern-most properties, the hotel, those restaurants, don't have a conditional use, that there aren't any conditions placed upon them, because of where they are located and oriented. So, I don't know whether or not there is any other thing besides zoning compliance to have some assurance as to how those are. This is a major entry corridor to the city, I agree Mr. Moore has always built first class projects, so that's not -- it's a concern with Mr. Moore, but this is an ongoing, a long-term project, so -- but there isn't another method that I'm aware of for those locations. The CUs are all on the bottom, on the southern portion of the property, not on the top. Unless I misunderstood. Zaremba: No. I think that's the way I understood it. I'm agreeing with you. Nary: The development agreement process that we have implemented since I have been here is significantly faster than the previous process. Actually, most of the time the developer is the one that makes the process to take longer. Normally, if the City Council approves it on a Tuesday night, most times we can have that to the developer within a week. And so the process from our end doesn't take very long. Sometimes the developer can take up to 18 months to sign the development agreement, but that's in their ballpark to get that done. We can get it to them fairly quickly. So, if it's a concern about a delay in the development agreement, that hasn't been our experience in the last eight months. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05- 019, PP 05~0 ~- it's 24, not 20; right? Zaremba: Two four is the correct number. Newton~Huckabay: ~- 24 and CUP 05-031. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Do we want any discussion of a motion? Zaremba: Well, my sense is we all think this is a good project. The question is do we want to noodle the details. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 59 of 110 Borup: The only two things that I'm contemplating on is if we want to mention recommendation on that landscape buffer and a development agreement. Beyond that, the staff report I think handles everything else. Well, it handles that, too, but -- Zaremba: Well, Mr. Nary's point is that a development agreement that would allow some design review on the properties that don't need to come back for a CUP -- I mean we have agreed that the southwestern properties are all going to come back for a CUP. On the northern properties that don't come back for a CUP, a development agreement, for design review, since they face the freeway and our entryway corridor, I think is a reasonable request. Borup: And that's the things that -- you know, I'm really looking forward to this. I'm looking forward to, you know, want to eat, go out there and you drive around in circles for five minutes deciding what food you want, but we will have to see how soon that happens. Zaremba: Well, I was going to suggest that they contact Cheesecake Factory. It's a national chain and it's outstanding and we need one. Borup: I don't think it hurts to add something like a development agreement. It's not going to really impede the project. That's just -- that's just good business, it seems to me. Zaremba: I'm on board with that. Are we ready for a motion? Borup: Do we need to mention anything on the landscape buffer or just leave it as in the staff report? I mean five feet with some alternate extra landscaping and a six foot fence to me handles things real well. Zaremba: That would satisfy me, but I think the staff's point is we can decide that when we see the CUP. Borup: Okay. And see if anything changes between now and then. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: All right. Newton~Huckabay: Don't forget your meandering sidewalk. Zaremba: Uh~huh. Borup: That's right. That doesn't ~- that's back in the original staff report; right? Guenther: I'm sorry, which portion was that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 60 of 110 Borup: The sidewalk. Guenther: Yes. That's in the original staff report. That hasn't changed. Borup: What page would that be on? Is that on the preliminary plat? Guenther: Preliminary plat, site-specific comment number three. Borup: Number three. I went over that too fast. Guenther: From what we have determined, the sidewalk on Eagle Road and Overland Road were constructed within the existing right of way and which is why they would not be included with the landscape buffer. Borup: The existing ones you say are? Guenther: Yes. They have already built those sidewalks in there, which is why the property line doesn't start until -- on the other side of the sidewalk on -- and that's why the 35 feet is referenced on that. Borup: So, with this concept submitted, we don't know where that 35 feet starts, is that what you're saying? Guenther: It starts at the back of the curb. On the ~- Borup: But you don't know whether it's drawn that way or not. Guenther: No. And that's why this isn't a condition. On the ~- Mr. Seal referenced the EI Dorado Business Park. With that one they didn't build attached sidewalks, they built meandering sidewalks, which were incorporated into a 35-foot landscape buffer. But when ACHD did the north side of Overland Road, they attached the sidewalks, which is an ACHD build issue. So, therefore, that was incorporated into the right of way. Whereas the sidewalks on the EI Dorado development were incorporated into the landscape buffer. Borup: See, in my mind, south of Overland is where you're going to have some ~~ going to have some pedestrian traffic. North of Overland I don't see a lot of pedestrian traffic heading over the freeway. I don't see a lot of ~- Zaremba: Only enough pedestrians to maybe assemble for a bus stop. Borup: On Eagle Road? Zaremba: Yeah. That's a logical place for bus service. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 61 of 110 Newton-Huckabay: Wasn't the question just if we would allow a meandering sidewalk? Moe: I guess I would -- Borup: This would be a change of the staff report. Yeah. Moe: And based on your comment about not much walking, you've got two hotels on the north side of the freeway and a lot of restaurants on the south side, I can anticipate you're going to have walking over there at times. Borup: Over the freeway? Moe: You bet you. You bet. I wouldn't. Zaremba: There is no pedestrian lane on that bridge, is there? Moe: There isn't? Zaremba: I don't think so. Moe: Well, maybe not, then. Zaremba: I don't think there is a sidewalk. Borup: That's what I was thinking. Newton~Huckabay: Are we going to do a meandering sidewalk or a straight sidewalk, guys? Zaremba: My assessment is to the north the sidewalk isn't really going to go anywhere. There does need to be a portion of sidewalk to accommodate public transportation, but it's not necessarily going to connect across the freeway to anything. So, it doesn't make any difference to me whether it's meandering or not, necessarily. Guenther Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: The issue at hand, I believe, with the meandering sidewalk is the fact that this sidewalk right here on Eagle Road has already been built. Zaremba: Right. Guenther: If you put this curb cut in here and this drive aisle goes right in, this deceleration lane into the project, they are going to have to eliminate the existing sidewalk, so they are going to have to tear it out in order to put this type of drive in. And Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 62 of 110 like what Mr. Hawkins-Clark just mentioned, when they have to redo the sidewalk in there, this portion -- they may relocate the sidewalk in the landscape buffer at this location. Borup: That was my assumption, that the existing sidewalk would stay, and, then, it would come off of that and then -~ Zaremba: The new sidewalk can be counted within the 35 feet. Guenther: That is correct. Zaremba: It doesn't have to be in addition to the 35 feet. That's what Mr. Seal was trying to clarify. Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: Where did he go? I lost him. Borup: That was my assumption. Zaremba: Okay. So, adding this -- this entryway is going to cause a reconfiguration anyhow and if they put a meandering sidewalk into the landscape buffer, it's within the 35 feet, anything new they put in. Guenther: And as Mr. Seal stated earlier, this section for Eagle Road north of that access point does require alternative compliance and they are going to provide additional green space within the development in order to mitigate the loss of the roughly 14 feet of the drive aisle and the meandering sidewalk. Our ordinance currently says that if you have 35 feet you can't count that sidewalk. So, if you have 35 feet with a meandering sidewalk, it all of a sudden becomes 40 feet. So, you can't count the sidewalk in there anyhow, because these are seven foot attached sidewalks on Overland Road, where there is five foot detached meandering sidewalks on the EI Dorado ~~ on the south side of Overland Road here. Borup: That EI Dorado has 35 feet or are you saying has 40 feet? Guenther: Our ordinance says that you cannot count the sidewalk. Borup: Unless we make an exception. Guenther: Unless you approve it as an alternative compliance, which is what they are requesting here. Borup: Okay. Are we ready? Zaremba: Certainly. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 63 of 110 Moe: Go for it. Zaremba: Please proceed. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-019, request for annexation and zoning of Dorado project, with two sets of staff reports, one for public ~~ both for Public Hearing July 7th, one with a transmittal date of July 1 st and the second with ~~ what was the date? I guess July 7th. Today. With all staff comments, with -- Zaremba: Might say -- just to say as modified by the memorandum. Borup: Yes. And I want to eliminate one strike out, though. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I thought. Isn't that under the zoning? I got too many pieces of paper here. Okay. Oh. Okay. No, I do not have any other modifications on the annexation. End of motion. Moe: I'll second. Borup: Did I hear a second? Moe: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We have three in favor and one opposed and one absent. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of continued Public Hearing PP 05~024, request for preliminary plat approval of 16 commercial building lots on 10.9 acres, proposed Dorado Subdivision, to include all staff reports for Public Hearing of July 7th, with -- I lost that again. Today's -- today's memo, the one that had a strike out; right? To eliminate the strike out on page two, under special consideration preliminary plat, the development agreement -- in other words, that would be included. I believe end of motion. Anything else that needs to be there? Guenther: Mr. Commissioner, were you going to include ~-