Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 5, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 48 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would suggest since the two outstanding items we don't have the authority to address, that we close the Public Hearing and move on. Zaremba: If that's a motion, I will second it. Newton-Huckabay: Consider it a motion. Rohm: That was a motion. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed same? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I would just continue my statement to say that I believe most of the questions from public testimony will also have to be addressed at the City Council level. So, with that said, I would move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 5th, 2006, and the site landscape plan dated October 13, 2005, and I believe we have no modifications, other than make note that there will be the lighting discussion and the tiling of the ditch discussion at City Council. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: In discussion, I would just clarify that since it's been mentioned and discussed, that the public address system is not approved along with this CUP. It's not a part of this CUP. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Newton-Huckabay: Add that to the motion. Rohm: Okay. We have a motion before us and motion to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-059 and CUP 05-053. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Public Hearing: RZ 05-021 Request for a Rezone of .94 acres from R-8 to C-G and Rezone of .95 acres from R-8 to C-N for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation - north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 49 of 93 Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 05-061 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 single-family residential lots (24 detached lots and 24 attached lots), 2 commercial lots and 4 common lots on 11.44 acres in the R-8, C-G and C- N zones for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation - north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Item 22: Public Hearing: MCU 05-004 Request to modify previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 02-049) by removing the proposed mini-storage use and including attached and detached single- family dwellings for Champion Park Addition by Hillview Development Corporation - north of Ustick Road and west of Eagle Road: Rohm: Thank you, everybody. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on RZ 05-021, PP 05-061, and MCU 05-004. All three of these hearings are related to Champion Park Addition. Like to start with -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, there is a fourth issue related to this that is not on the agenda and that is MI 05-015 and I would like to put our attorney on the spot to ask if we can discuss that without it being on the agenda. There, actually, are four parts to this and this one is not on the agenda. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the modified development agreement. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, legal staff -- I'm not quite sure if this came from Ted or Bill, but the understanding that we have is that these miscellaneous applications are an agreement between a developer, property owner, and the city, that they do require to be at a public hearing, but that the City Council is the body that actually approves them. We do not require -- just some more background information -- we do not require a neighborhood meeting before submitting a miscellaneous application to amend a development agreement. They do have to post the site, though, and we -- the city does notice people within 300 feet. So, it's a little bit of a hybrid process. It is not addressed in the UDC anywhere. So, this is something that, again, the legal department has said this is how you proceed with these agreements and modification thereof. So, just so you know. I don't know if it needs to be on the agenda or not. I think you guys can sure -- depending on how the other applications go, it's kind of the last in the line, it just needs to be cleaned up, if, in fact, you're going to allow this Conditional Use Permit and preliminary plat and, then, clean up the development agreement to reflect the new modification, so -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission and Mr. Hood, thank you for directing me back to that. In fact, that is Mr. Nary's position, that it is a matter currently to be addressed by the City Council. We do intend to codify the process and put it into the code, but this is the way we have been following it and it's been working quite nicely. So, if you have any suggestions as we move through to make recommendation to the Council you can, but it doesn't -- we don't need a specific motion from you, therefore, it doesn't need to be on the agenda. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 50 of 93 Rohm: Works for me. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I will get the staff report, please. Hood: So, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there are four applications that have been submitted, as you are well aware. I will try to keep my comments pertinent to the three applications before you. This site is currently zoned R-8, medium density residential, and was approved as part of the Champion Park, previously known as Parkstone Subdivision. It is located on the north side of Ustick Road about 1,300 feet west of Eagle Road. This is an aerial. Again, aerials were flow I think in 2003. A large majority, even more than the lots that are shown there in Champion Park, has been constructed. The city park is pretty much complete. They have a restroom I think still to complete, some of the tot lots, a little bit more of the infrastructure, the parking lots and things like that. So, this doesn't do the overall Champion Park Addition justice, it is the people living out there and so that's just west. I guess I should probably point out Champion Park Addition is just this -- roughly this section of the overall Champion Park Parkstone development. There is a road -- and I'll show on the next preliminary plat -- Leslie Way that aligns with Leslie to the south, coming north through this subdivision that's exists and was platted I think with phase four, I believe, of Champion Park. To the east is the Center Point -- what's been marketed as Center Point, the Kohl's -- just last month reviewed the Kohl's development that will go in approximately this location on that site. This property was annexed into the city and zoned C-G. The city has not seen a conceptual -- or they did not submit a conceptual plan with annexation. All the buildings that go in the Center Point are required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval and will be back before this body. Just another bit of reference on the properties to the east. There is a little RUT out parcel here currently zoned RUT in Ada County. W.H. Moore Company I believe has acquired it. If they haven't acquired it, they have an option. They have actually submitted for -- to also annex and zone this property to C-G. That application is scheduled for February 2nd, I believe. So, that will be coming before you. But I note that just because there is a small portion -- well, it's a residence right now. Staff did not require any land use buffer between the commercial area that's being rezoned tonight here, two lots, and that residence, because we do anticipate that this area, which is in a mixed use area, will also be zoned commercial, so -- to the south Carol Subdivision, some other county zoned, large acre properties. Some of the lots in the subdivision you mayor may not know are being annexed into the city once their septic fails and they need sewer and water. So, I think the last time I looked it was almost like a 50-50 split, some of them are zoned R-2, some of them are still zoned in the county. You also have a couple of other applications tonight on your agenda that are in the area, so I can orient you a little bit on Eagle Road, Ustick. Here is the plat that, again, is on the east side of that overall larger development. Again, Leslie Way has been constructed, is in, accepted by ACHD. The applicant is proposing -- I'll call it a loop road, I guess. It connects, anyways, at both ends to Leslie. On this side -- on the east side of the north-south road are the attached units. They have two 0- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 51 of 93 attached units apiece. There are 48 single family lots total, so there are 24 attached lots on this side and, then, they have 24 detached lots on the north side of the project and so internally. Fifty lots total for 48 residential and the two other buildable lots are the commercial lots along Ustick Road and Leslie right at the intersection there. The first lot -- they are both about the same size. One's just .09 acres and the other -- or just under one acre each. C-G, general retail service commercial and this one is C-N, neighborhood commercial business district. Now, both of those properties were previously approved with the Parkstone Conditional Use Permit as commercial uses. Staff did request that the applicant clean that up, if you will, and get the zoning on the map, so we can -- it better reflects what the land use is that's been approved there. The remainder portion of Champion Park Addition was previously approved with that same Parkstone Conditional Use Permit for a mini storage development. So, that's the other application, besides the plat, is to modify that previous CUP and put in residential where previously a mini storage lot was proposed. Parkstone, by the way, was approved in 2003, just to let you know that -- that they have been working on this project and it was approved by the City Council in 2003. A couple of things in the staff report. Maybe I'll give you a couple of the specs just real quick. The average lot size in this development is 6,887 square feet. The gross density of this phase is 4.77 dwelling units per acre. There is not very much open space proposed with this phase. Primarily there is a micropath that will feed into that Center Point development. There is some land use buffers or some street buffers, excuse me, that do count as open space. Primarily there is a city park and I guess I should jump back to that. Here is the city park. It's just to the west of the subject site. Because the application is -- the applicant is modifying the entire CU, we can count the open space and meet the minimum -- minimum open space requirement for the development and that's why you have the CUP modification, as well as to include this residential. There wasn't any open space required with the storage units before and so they haven't reduced it any, but if you looked at it on its own, they are only about two percent open space. And, then, again, a couple of the conditions, just to -- just for discussion purposes, possibly, or maybe look at the staff report, there is a couple of odd ball conditions. One of them has to do with the lots that are right at the neck of these cul-de-sacs here. I am concerned with primarily these two lots right here that are corner lots and the way that the garage is going to be oriented has a significant affect on their neighbors. We did recommend that they orient their garages towards the neck, if you will, of these streets, so that their yards matched -- the backyard of this person matched the backyard of that person's lot. It also matches up to the side -- it gets the side yard of this guy matching up with the side yard of that guy. If they have their garage access here, then, he's looking at the back of this house and just -- it makes it consistent to have it that way. So just -- I wanted to point that out. There is a condition that those two be oriented that way. This lot right here we did request that it be oriented towards the street due to the right of way configuration and setbacks. If you have 20 feet on the other side for the street and a 15 foot rear, your buildable area within that lot becomes pretty small. So, it makes it easier to fit a house on there if you can have this be your front setback and your rear there and it gives you a buildable pad area. At least that's what I found when planning the lot size a little bit. You may have noticed, too, in the staff report the applicant did not originally submit a revised site plan that basically took off the mini storage and showed what -- how the overall development Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 52 of 93 looks with the residential in it. I did request that. That was in the staff report. I do have that revised site plan. I will scan that in for City Council. I do appreciate the applicant giving me the ten copies I requested in the staff report. And I just wanted to give you the overall -- the overall look of the development and, finally, I think there was a letter submitted to the city on January 3rd by W.H. Moore regarding the change of use on this property. So, I did -- I wanted, first of all, just to make sure that everyone did get a copy of that. It primarily -- and I think Jonathan was here just a minute ago, so I think he will speak to it. But primarily the concerns are the landscape buffer or a land use buffer, what used to be commercial now going to residential, they don't think it's fair for them to have to put in that land use buffer and, then, having additional residential nearby here, disclosing to those people that, in fact, we have a commercial zone, don't complain about out future uses. We are commercial first and, then, this gets modified. Just to paraphrase -- and he'll do a better job than I did, but that's, basically, what the letter said. Staff is recommending approval of all four of the applications with the conditions listed in the staff report and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thanks, Craig. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Yes. Zaremba: I would just answer the question. I do have the letter from W.H. Moore, January 3rd, 2006, and I assume all of us do. Rohm: Good. Okay. With no questions for staff, at this time I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward, please. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. We are representing Hillview Development on this application. If I could just put the boards up here. As Craig indicated, this was part of a larger planned development that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council approved two or three years -- two years ago, I guess. It seems like longer, but time flies. In this particular project we went under planned development, which allowed for 20 percent exception, even though this was designated medium density residential, it did allow us for some deviation of the residential use and allowing some different use components as a planned development. We have some -- an office component here. We have a commercial component here. And, then, more of a neighborhood commercial component here. and, then, we had approximately 7.45 acres of mini storage located here along this east boundary. We also had this neighborhood park located in the middle. Everything else was detached single family dwellings, with the exception of this pod, these are attached patio homes. So, we had a real good mixture within this development. We had the Discovery Elementary School over here to the west of us and as Craig indicated, that is mixed use regional, so that will be the new Kohl's department store, plus we assume it will be other retail uses along the eastern boundary. Now, one of the things that my clients looked at -- they met with a couple of architects, they talked to some different mini storage Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 53 of 93 developers, and they came to the conclusion that they felt we needed to come back with this application and convert this back to a residential use. They wanted us to go on the record stating that in their -- all their purchase agreements in their CC&Rs, they will be putting clauses in there stipulating that every buyer, purchaser, builder, whomever, recognizes the fact that the retail use or commercial use along the eastern boundary will take place. So, no one could ever say that, you know, nobody told me that was going to happen. Also, Mr. Moore's representative has indicated that they are going to put a sign up which will face the subdivision stating that, you know, this is just notification that this is a commercial use in the future. So, by utilizing those, we feel that, you know, people will be informed if they purchase a lot or purchase a home in that -- this pod right here. We have got a mix in here. Our access point is the same as we would have had for the mini storage. These -- there is 24 attached units. These are zero lot lines that you see here. And, then, the rest of these are detached. The attached range from about four to -- 4,000 to 5,500 square feet. These detached ones are around 7,000 and something and I think they are all the way up to 12,000. We have got a good mix of lot sizes. This is a loop through that comes in right here in alignment with this existing street. This was a platted lot -- or planned to be a platted lot in one of these future or other phases and the developers kept that and, then, that's where we punched the street through. We have got a buffer on both sides of this future street to protect, obviously, these lot owners giving us a landscape buffering where that street intersects. Sewer and water are available. Pressure irrigation. There is a big pressure irrigation pond located there. We worked with the parks department in conjunction with this neighborhood park to install their improvements in lieu of getting some reimbursement and, then, getting some credits for some of the other improvements that we made at the site. The parks department was wonderful to work with. They were very pleased as far as information that I have had that, obviously, they got a turn key type situation and it was done substantially less cost than had it been a public-type project, because the developers just basically piggy backed that onto their improvements with their contractors. We think that this is probably a better fit with the neighborhood park being there. ACHD has reviewed it. It's just staff level, since all of our collector roadway is already in and we are just making a connection to existing streets. I don't have any additional curb cuts to Ustick. They had indicated in the staff report that it will generate approximately 72 additional vehicle trips per day, changing from the mini storage use to this residential use. Staff has asked us to request rezone of these two lots. That's consistent with what they have done in other projects. They claim that there is confusion when we have say a residential zone, like an R-8 that we have here and, then, someone comes in to build say a Starbucks and they are told by the realtor, well, that lot's a commercial lot, but all the zoning that they see on the map is residential, but it's approved for a commercial use under the planned development. So, they have been asking us if we come back with any subsequent applications on any of these old planned development projects, that we rezone to the appropriate use that was approved under the planned development. Do you have any questions? Rohm: The buffer along the west line, where your mini storage was, the Winston Moore letter asked about you providing some buffer there, as opposed to their development. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 54 of 93 McKay: The burden upon them? Yes. My developer has spoken with one of their representatives. I did receive a copy of the letter. Jonathan and I had a discussion earlier. My client is in agreement that they will install vinyl fence consistent with what they have got throughout their whole project and consistent with what they have got here. Mr. Moore's property comes clear up to this point. So, we already have some existing residential lots -- larger residential lots that will back up to it. So, that fencing would be a continuation down here. My client will not be requesting and wants to go on the record that the city should not require any additional landscape buffering of the Winston Moore project in order to accommodate this project. You know, everyone will be informed that that is a particular use that will take place there and, you know, they will go in with their eyes wide open. But he will not be asking -- if they come through with a conditional use, gee, we need a buffer now. So, I don't know how you put that in the record, but that's what we would prefer. Maybe Mr. Seal has some ideas. I think he wanted to chat about that also. Rohm: I think when that application comes in we will discuss that at that time. McKay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Seal: Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. I want to thank Becky and the developer for their cooperation on this and their willingness to put the fence in and also put the language within the documents to acknowledge that, in fact, there will be some type of commercial developed into the west, as she says, so people's eyes are wide open when they come in. So, whether they come here or not, they certainly are not, I wouldn't think, justified in saying, gees, we wouldn't have bought this home if we had known what was going on there. I guess I would like to say, though, I think in Mr. Moore's letter -- and I won't go through it, but I think we have really addressed it here this evening, he does talk about the buffer and I think, personally, it's important that we do talk about the 25 feet. I guess I'm a little uncomfortable tonight saying that, fine, when we come with our conditional use permits at that point we will talk about the 25 feet. Again, we acknowledge that there is residential. The residential, as everyone has discussed, is coming in after the fact. So, granted, it not be the burden of us to be able to put the buffer in there. I think part of the buffer -- the intent of that is, typically, in my opinion, your retail typically -- or commercial comes in after your residential. As a result of that, you need that protection. We found that in EI Dorado Business Campus and we found that in other projects we work with. In this case, we had the residential, whether it's built before or after our project, they know up front that there will be commercial development there. As a result of that, I don't think that we should be able to carry the burden and I think the developer, as Becky said, is willing to forego that also. So, I would like to go on the record and at least suggest or ask that we get the approval tonight where we will not have to come back and fight for the 25 feet later. People change on the Commission, people's memory's do, and I really -- whether it's a year or two years, six months down the road, really don't want to come back on every CU and have to -- have to argue the fact that we don't need the 25 feet, because Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 55 of 93 of what's happened in here. So, I would really ask that and Mr. Moore -- it's not maybe explicit in his letter, but I think it's implicit in his that that's also what he's asking for. Rohm: And I think that makes perfect sense to make that a request, but, you know, I can't speak for the balance of the Commission, but from my perspective, I think the only time that we can specifically address that in an answer format is at such time that your application comes before us. It's all well and good that your adjacent property has offered up their willingness to forego that buffer, but their willingness and your desire is not the same as addressing our Comprehensive Plan and code and I can't speak for the balance and/or for staff, but it just seems to me that the time for that response is at such time that your application comes before the Commission and I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just saying that the answer to that question comes at that time, not now. Seal: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if I can -- and I appreciate what you're saying and I'm not up here to try to argue, but I would ask if it is possible to do it now, because, again, I appreciate that, but it makes me very nervous. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, unfortunately, we cannot do that now. Sea/: Okay. Baird: As I understand it, each use as you bring it forward on the commercial property was going to require its own CUP. Seal: Yes. Baird: And that's the time to address what's necessary to buffer, for lack of a better word, or to make those uses compatible with adjacent uses. Certainly what's on the record today will be reiterated at such time that your company brings forth those CUPs and we will certainly -- I can't speak for the Commission, but I think they will be sympathetic to your position at that time. But we don't have anything noticed tonight, the matter is not before the Commission. Seal: Sure. Baird: So, I would advise them that we can't go there tonight. Seal: Just a suggestion and just to throw this out, can we -- is there the opportunity to modify the development agreement to reflect that there will not be required 25 feet of landscape buffer along the west property line? And I know that that's not addressed tonight, I'm not looking for that to be addressed, but is that another option, too, where we can do that as a blanket adjustment versus, again, coming back for every CUP? Rohm: And, again, as counsel has suggested, that at the time that that application comes forth, that's probably the exact route we will go, but we can't at this time respond Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 56 of 93 to an application that's not been made and I think that that's where we really need to leave that. Seal: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chair, may I comment just a moment? Rohm: Yes, you may. Zaremba: Okay. And it's to the last question that you asked, which I was going to ask. I agree that we cannot make any statement about your property at this time, because it's not the issue in front of us. Seal: Sure. Zaremba: We may be able to give you a consensus that we agree with you, that we understand your neighbor, who is this applicant, is cooperating and agrees with you, but to expand the question you just asked a little farther, this applicant is asking for a miscellaneous modification of their development agreement. Can we, along with that modification, change this applicant's development agreement to say that this applicant agrees to waive any request that they would make for a buffer. Is that possible? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think there would have to be a separate application made, miscellaneous application, on behalf of the commercial development to change their development agreement and it may be possible to have them -- both Ml's heard at the same time -- I don't know if one can be delayed for the other one to catch up. I see Craig jumping up and down. He might want to add something to that. Hood: Well, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to jump in or anything, just a little achy or something. But I think that that is something -- I mean you have a Conditional Use Permit and you do have a miscellaneous application that they have proposed to amend the subject site's development agreement. I don't know what provision is in there now talking about land use buffers between this property and that property. I'm going to guess there is probably nothing. It's probably silent as far as the development agreement. You could -- you being the City Council, because, really, that MI is not before you tonight. The City Council could amend it to say that the Council recognizes the fact that the subject applicant -- the subject applicant being Hillview -- does not desire a land use buffer along their western property line. I mean there is no condition there, it's just an acknowledgment that they don't necessarily want one. It still leaves the question -- and it really is on their property. There is code -- I mean our code requires it, so with that miscellaneous application, an alternative compliance request is going to have to be there. I mean if it's not 20 foot as required and if we are going down to five or ten or whatever it is, that there be some nice landscaping in there and we get the intent of the ordinance met. I mean even if the two sides agree, we are looking out for future people that live there, because the developer is out of the picture and people Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 57 of 93 are living there and they are calling the city to complain about the noise of the commercial. Even if we disclose this to everyone, they are still going to maybe want to complain. So, to get the intent of that landscape buffer -- I'm kind of going down another track now, but -- but I think what we could do, Mr. Seal, is you have an application before the City Council to do just that, amend your development agreement on February 2nd. Seal: Yes. Hood: And I think that is a great opportunity to bring up this other point to them and I think we could probably modify that section at that time and propose some additional -- whatever you're going to want to see along there and not deal with each CUP. I think that is something that we would want to have spelled out, rather than doing a lot-by-Iot, case-by-case basis, let's spell it out for the entire -- Seal: I think that's very fair. Moe: I would just like to add one more thing, based upon your project and the Kohl's project, and that is is that on that side of the property you still have not aligned your roadway through that portion there and I'm a little bit concerned on -- as far as buffer between this applicant and where your road alignment is going to end up out there, just how close is it going to be to the property line and I guess I'm going to ask the applicant tonight are they aware of that as well, that the -- that your project's roadway on that side of the property has not been aligned yet as to where exactly it's going to line up with that property line. Seal: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners -- and Becky can certainly speak if she disagrees with what I'm saying, but we talked, I explained to her at this point we are committed on the back-age road to the north property line of the Kohl's project. Beyond that as we develop it, I have got the agreement from ACHD as it's in the language in there, that we can modify the location of that back-age road, so long as it ultimately ends up at the north property line at a certain point. In other words, our back-age road will start here. Right now we have to take it up to here. We can take it anywhere we want in here, so long as we end up here. And I believe I explained to Becky and if she didn't, she can certainly speak, that that road could alter this way or could very well come up along here, but it will depend as we develop the -- as we develop it. I would think, personally, if it was me, I would rather have the road here and the properties over here, so that to me would be the best case scenario, most realistic one is it will come up here and there will be some type of commercial development along there. So, I don't -- in my own personal opinion don't see either one as a terrible detriment, whether it goes either way, but, again, I believe that's where everybody is -- Moe: I guess I bring that up just, again, because as I heard you talk earlier, you're speaking of vinyl fencing on that property line, vinyl fencing and a roadway right next to it, it seems a little loud to me, but I just want to make sure we are all aware what's going on in that area. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 58 of 93 Seal: Yeah. Anyways, otherwise, I think, you know, we certainly don't oppose this project. We think it's a good use and we are certainly in favor of that, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments and I hope you understand. Seal: I do. And I wasn't sure how -- how it would be handled, but if you don't ask, you don't get. Rohm: Okay. And thank you very much, sir. Seal: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Is there a Tom Davis that would like to step forward? Davis: Mr. Chairman and Commission Members, my name is Tom Davis. I live at 2740 East Ustick Road, Meridian, and I am just west of the two commercial lots and I have a question that, all right, if you go from an R-8 to a C-G and, then, from an R-8 to a C-N, what type of businesses can be put in there and what would be their operating times and their business hours. I am just to the west -- just to the west of that road that goes in there and if there is a neighbor -- if it's going to be residential behind me and across the road at Carol Subdivision, it looks like to me that both of those lots should be neighborhood businesses and not commercial right there, because on the backside there will be all those -- this is proposed with more residential and straight across is Carol Subdivision and, then, of course, to the west it's all residential. But my concern is if the lots are going to be commercial, what businesses they can put in there and what would be the operating hours of those businesses. Newton-Huckabay: We will get an answer for you. Rohm: That's a question we will ask the applicant to come forward and try and respond. Thank you. Becky, you're on. McKay: Mr. Chairman, first of all, to answer Commissioner Moe's question, Jonathan and I did discuss that roadway. I knew it was going to go up north. He said they don't have an exact alignment. Obviously, in looking at all the projects that Mr. Moore's company has done in the valley, you know, they always do it very nicely. I would not anticipate that they'd stick the asphalt right up against the vinyl. I think that was the picture you were getting in your mind and, then, cars, you know, possibly running into it and so forth. I'm sure that they would take far, you know, greater care to - esthetic-wise to make it look good. I also think that Mr. Hood's suggestion that, you know, maybe there is a statement that, you know, we recognize the fact, you know, in our -- one of these documents and that we -- the developer is basically stating that he does not require the standard 25 foot buffer and, then, if they come through, you know, with some application and the Commission thinks five foot is appropriate, then, so be it. You know, I don't know. But, like he said, the application that they have is not before you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 59 of 93 tonight, so you can't make a determination. Secondly, Mr. Davis -- Mr. and Mrs. Davis still reside in the existing home on the property there. They are located right here. The original -- right there. And they were planned for -- at some point in time for redevelopment as office. So, that's the long term, but they still do reside in the home and it's a very nice home. In the original development agreement the uses on these two commercial lots required a Conditional Use Permit. The staff, I think, in their conditions of approval is still recommending a Conditional Use Permit be required on the one I believe adjoining Ustick, but that a Conditional Use Permit would not be required on the one north of that, which is the C-N or the neighborhood commercial and to explain to Mr. Davis, the C-N is like a less intensive commercial, whereas C-G is, obviously, more highway-type commercial. So, C-G could be like a convenience store or something like that. Now, if the commission deems that in order to protect Mr. Davis and, obviously, allow for future input on operating hours and intensity of uses, that a conditional use is still appropriate for those two lots, then -- I mean I'll leave that up to you and to staff. We have reviewed the staff report, we are in agreement with all of staff's conditions. We don't have any users at this time. I think they will probably be more neighbor-type commercial uses, you know, maybe a little deli or something like that, but we just -- we just don't know. I don't have any idea. And since I don't have a user, I can't tell you what their operating hours are going to be. Rohm: Becky, is there a development agreement attached to this application? McKay: Yes, sir. There was a development agreement entered into with -- yes, sir. Rohm: When it came through the first time? McKay: Yes, sir. With required conditional use permits for any commercial use. Right, Craig? Is that correct? Hood: Yes. McKay: Yes. Rohm: And if we were to just tack on a CUP for the development of either one of these lots, even though they are in the C-N or whatever, we could do that as part of that development agreement? Hood: Actually, what you would need to do, Mr. Chair, is remove the condition that I have placed on there, because I actually, like Becky mentioned, let the C-N lot out of the requirement for the CUP, but still required this C-G lot to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval. Rohm: And don't get me wrong, I'm not big on CUPs. I don't think that every single property that's developed needs to have a CUP, but just to keep the flow of this project and address the neighbors' concerns, it may be in keeping. But I, actually, look for your input in response to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 60 of 93 McKay: Commissioner Rohm, if you left that condition intact that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for either the C-N or the C-G lots, that would just be consistent with your original development agreement and not consistent with what staff has written as a modification. Now, I don't know if Mr. Davis understands that no use could take place unless application was made to the city and a Public Hearing was held and which they would address the use, the landscaping, the operational hours. That's what they are getting. I just thought I better clarify that. Rohm: And thank you. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: Well -- and, Mr. Chairman, I would add additional clarification that we aren't, actually, being asked to approve a commercial use on these properties; they were approved for commercial use to begin with. We are cleaning up the paperwork to specifically identify them as the zone that's called commercial use, because there was a time when the director of the Planning and Zoning Department and this Commission took a whole project and zoned it to one zone and, then, said there were exceptions and as Mrs. McKay alluded to, when people that wanted to build a commercial property as part of a use exception to a residential zone; they had difficulty getting loans, because the underlying zone was not satisfactory to the loan companies. So, this was already identified as being commercial property. We are just cleaning up the paperwork, essentially, so -- but I would comment, you -- when this application originally came you very strongly defended the mini storage and I think most of us agreed that at the time it was a good buffer to what was anticipated in the Winston Moore property. I'm still of the opinion that they would be heavily used, but I'm certain you have done the financials to determine that housing is more important, but I hate to lose that. McKay: I think, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I think one of the detractions from it is that it's tucked in there. Some of the mini storage developers that kind of took a look at it wanted Eagle Road exposure, but they didn't want to pay Eagle Road prices. So, you know, it makes it difficult. Mini storage does not bring a premium per square foot dollar and so that's kind of one of the problem that they had and it is about 7.45 acres. So, it's small compared to some of the ones that are say ten between 12 acres that we have seen in the valley. At the time I did defend it, I thought it was a good buffer and a good use, but in driving out there and looking at that beautiful park and trying to picture mini storage buildings that aren't as esthetically pleasing as residential dwellings, I kind of changed my mind. We are not always right. So, thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify before -- on this application? Okay. Does the Commission have any additional questions of staff and/or applicant? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 61 of 93 Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any questions, ML Chair, but I would I like to make one comment if I could. Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Very quickly. Regarding the buffer between uses, I'm of the general opinion that the buffers between uses isn't at the -- what's the word I'm looking for -- convenience of the developers, I think it's part of the city code that if there should be a buffer between land uses, there should be a buffer between land uses. So, I'm hesitant to be part of these that says, well, we just agreed, because it works best for you guys not to have a buffer between land uses, because the order of what you're going to put there didn't turn out the way you originally thought. So, I just want to make sure that I'm not giving the indication that I'm in agreement that we don't want to have a buffer between land uses, because I'm of the opinion that there needs to be a buffer between land uses, whether the person purchasing the property is aware that there is commercial development next to it or not. So, I just don't want to have that blanket idea that this entire Commission is in favor of eliminating that land use when those properties come through for development, because I do think down the road that's going to be one of those situations where why don't we have a buffer between land uses. So, I had not put my opinion out there on that and I think there was a lot of time spent discussing it, so that's the end of my comment. Rohm: And thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Borup: The only comment I had to that, it was brought out, but I don't think it was mentioned specifically, but this property was originally zoned C-G. When the Winston Moore property was approved, it was approved C-G, so there was like zoning next to each other. Now, this -- the application before us tonight is going back and asking for a reduction to the R-8. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Borup: But at the time that the C-G was approved it was -- they were, obviously, compatible. Newton-Huckabay: That's assuming you're talking about applying ordinances that suit your -- you know, suit your desire, rather than the intention of the ordinance. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Or is that not right? Hood: I just wanted to -- yeah. I just wanted to clarify. That's been zoned R-8 and the mini storage was approved as a use exception as well. So, they did have a residential Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 62 of 93 zone. It's been residential next to C-G the whole time, as far as zoning goes. It's the uses that are changing, so I just wanted to clarify that. Borup: Okay. Rohm: All right. We pretty thoroughly discussed this. At this point in time I would entertain a motion to possibly close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on RZ 05-021, PP 05-061 and MCU 05-004, and we don't make comments to that fourth -- correct? Rohm: Right. Let's just deal with the three that are open before us. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on RZ 05-021, PP 05-061 and MCU 05-004, all referring to Champion Park Addition. All those in favor say aye. All opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Now, discussion. Does anybody want to add to Commissioner Newton- Huckabay's comments of a moment ago before we entertain a motion? Zaremba: I would only comment that, in general, I support the land use buffers between changes of use, particularly along residential zones, but in this specific case I'm also sensitive to the fact that there was no difference in the use along this border. If we approve a change to that use, I certainly can be swayed that the property to the east should not suddenly be burdened with the requirement that they did not previously have, because it was C-G to C-G use before. So, as I say, while I generally support the idea of the land use buffers, I can support in the future considering an exception because of how this case has developed. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: And I'm glad we share all opinions. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask one more question? Zaremba: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Given the fact that we can't -- we can't make any adjustments to this application speaking to the land use buffer, is that -- am I correct in saying that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 63 of 93 We are just expressing our opinions, I think we should move forward with a motion. Rohm: I think so. Newton-Huckabay: But I'm looking at Craig for validation on that, because I don't want to -- but we can't -- we are not -- we can't attach any land buffer statements to this application officially. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I should probably explain that a little bit more, maybe, what the actual ordinance requires. It requires the land use buffer to be installed by the higher intense use. That would be the C-G -- the Center Point property, not the residential putting in the land use buffer. It is a Conditional Use Permit. I mean you could require a lot of things on this applicant with their MCU. I don't think that's where you're going, but you can address something off site. So, I don't know if that answers your question or not. But, again, the ordinance requires it to be installed by a higher intense use when they are adjacent to a residential use. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup, do you have any comment? Borup: No. It makes sense. Rohm: Commissioner Moe? Moe: No, I do not. Rohm: Okay. The only additional comment that I would make is the changing of the zoning for the two commercial lots on the front of this property are in keeping with the direction we, as a zoning commission and city, want to go, so that when they are developed, the properties can be marketed as a commercial development. That being said, attaching a CUP to those specific lots, so that there would be opportunity for public input at the time that those lots develop won't hurt the fact that they are being developed commercially and so even though the staff report does not specifically say that a Conditional Use Permit be required for both of those lots, I think just because of the testimony heard tonight and the agreement of the applicant that there is no objection, I think that it would be in keeping to add that to the motion to require a CUP for both those lots at such time they are developed. That's just my thoughts on that. Okay. Go ahead. Hood: Mr. Chair, that's all I was going to say, is I was going to reference that -- that's the fourth bullet on page nine of the staff report talks just about that, so there was discussion, if you wanted to change that, what you're doing, essentially, if you remove that bullet is you're changing it back to what the DA requires now and that's that both those lots come in for CUPs in the future. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 64 of 93 Rohm: Okay. So, just the removal of that bullet item? Okay. All right. End of my comments. Anybody else have any final thoughts before we call for a motion? Having none, I would entertain a motion. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I would -- I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 05-021, PP 05-061, MCU 05-044 as presented in the staff report for the hearing dated January 5th with the following modifications and that would be on page nine of the staff report, removing the fourth bullet which starts with the applicant is also requesting that pages four, five, et cetera, et cetera, be removed from the staff report, which would, again, then, require CUPs both of the commercial zones on the south portion of the property. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just a discussion for a second. I agree with removing that fourth bullet, but is that -- is that subject repeated as a condition? I'm not finding it. I just want to make sure it doesn't appear in two places and we fail to remove it from both places. I don't see it as a condition, but I could be missing it. Rohm: Okay. Well, I think it's suffice to say that it is the intent of the motion to remove that from the staff report -- Zaremba: Where ever it appears. Rohm: -- where ever it appears and we will just leave it at that. Zaremba: That works for me. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, it's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-021, PP 05-061 and MCU 05-004, to include the staff report with the modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Thank you very much. Let's see -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: We have two more hearings before we get to the subject I think most of the public is here for this evening. You mentioned we won't be opening any public hearings after 11 :00 o'clock, which gives us ten minutes to make it to those last Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2005 Page 65 of 93 subjects. Do we want to acknowledge that we won't be hearing those or do you want to amend your earlier comments and keep me here until tomorrow? Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, we can get both those items done before 11 :00 o'clock. Newton-Huckabay: We can? Guenther: Grace at Fairview Lakes we don't have a staff report. This was a technology glitch. The operator actually entered a 2005 number and so when I reran all of our reports it did not show up. This operator actually entered it in wrong and before I -- Item 23: Public Hearing: CUP 05-055 Request for modification to existing Conditional Use Permit for a 40-unit congregate care facility in Phase II of Grace Retirement Center in a R-15 zone for Grace at Fairview lakes by Grace at Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Rohm: Just to keep the ball rolling here, I'm going to go ahead and open up CUP 05- 055, referring to Grace at Fairview Lakes, and open up with the staff report. Guenther: Please continue this item to the 19th where you will have a staff report. Rohm: Okay. Could we get a motion to that effect? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded to continue CUP 05-055 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of January 19th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 24: Public Hearing: CUP 05-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new facility for Ada County Weed, Pest & Mosquito Abatement Operations consisting of a main administration building, a covered vehicle storage building and 2 storage buildings in an I-L zone for Weed & Pest Control Campus by Ada County - south of East Pine Avenue and west of Locust Grove Road: