Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes " <\. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 53 of95 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that the Public Hearing on CUP 06-001 be closed. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we -- let's see. I should look at it. It's not a recommendation. This is actual. Okay. I move to approve file number CUP 06-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, and the site landscape plan dated August 8, 2005, with no modifications and ask staff to prepare the findings with one change to those. Page two of the findings, paragraph B, paragraph one, third sentence for conditions, the word should be conditional. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by landmark Development - southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 06-002. This request is related to Gateway Marketplace Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is tied down to this site as a portion of a development agreement. The plat is on the 22.85 acres in the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. We have already had some discussion on this area. This also -- this outline should include this slight piece right there, which would be next to where -- this is the Una Mas and the ACHD property that were recommended for approval for the annexation earlier tonight. With this site currently there is the lateral that crosses I believe it's the Milk Lateral, which will be relocated on site, as well as the site is presently vacant. There are a couple of field drive access points to Eagle Road, which staff anticipates changing significantly. The development agreement that is tied in with this site is primarily commercial. The higher the density, the higher intensity of the use for commercial is -- was encouraged at the time. As you can see, it's high intensity commercial in the corner, commercial office, as well as a transitional use, which would be the north-south type of a collector system. But this was done prior to the ACHD roadway system collector being proposed between Ustick and Fairview. With this the applicant's use request for a plat for commercial is consistent, but there is several things outlined in the staff report that staff would like to see changed. One of those would be -- ,° :'.; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 54 of95 I'll start at the southern portion. Cross-access to the south needs to be issued with this plat. With that, the other recommendations on the development agreement for ACHD and Una Mas were to provide from the southerly portions of these properties to approximately where this property turns south, this little jog out would reserved for ACHD to propose a future public street. That public street would be either a jog to the south to access this property and provide multiple points for public access to property or to also facilitate large vehicular traffic to the light, which would be at Allys Way and Ustick. As you can see this site is proposing some larger boxes, larger box products, with loading docks in the rear. Right now this design does not facilitate east-west traffic, which is the main concern with the design of this plat, as well as it overloads the access points on Ustick. ACHD has met and this is a right-in, right-out access point approximately -- I believe it was 400 feet from the Ustick-Eagle Road intersection, as well as there is another access point at approximately -- I want to say 750 feet, but it's getting late and my memory is failing me. This would also -- this one here, the full access point, staff wishes to see a design that would not accommodate large truck traffic making a left onto Ustick across what is going to be a turning lane and two lanes of eastbound traffic, which is why the public road section in this location -- at least designed to public road standards would be something that would be most desirable, as well as to allow the large truck traffic to access the point in this location and be able to exit in a different location. Having that traffic not as a signalized intersection is not in the city's best interest. This application is proposing two access points to Eagle Road. One access point would be a right-in, right-out -- I'm out of light. In approximately this location and the second one would be a full access point at the southern boundary of this location. This access would be a full access, but currently the Eagle Road corridor study does have a median in the middle of Eagle Road, which is also the same thing we had discussion on with the Bienville project to the west of this site across Eagle Road. With this staff is looking for a redesign mainly to address two issues. This application would not meet the standards of the Unified Development Code as more than 70 percent of the Eagle Road frontage would be parking lot, as well as the Ustick Road frontage would be looking at over 1,350 feet of the 1,380 feet of the site as being a parking lot, which staff can site as same issues as what Meridian Crossroads has. The recommendation is to bring back a redesign. I think the applicant has already submitted to us late today a redesign that is already a proposal, but I think that this Commission needs to give the applicant better direction as to what you would foresee in relation to staff's comments in the report. There are not findings for approval. Everything would need to come back to you, as well as this design just does not work with the development agreement requirement for the access frontage road to facilitate that traffic. I know that in the past -- I was not here when this was annexed, but there was significant discussion about the large vehicular traffic accessing Ustick Road and the frontage road being essential to that success of not having the large trucks cross many lanes of traffic without a signal. With that the staff report does outline many changes that we would like to see to reflect some of the concerns that we have had with this design. With that the Una Mas annexation report does have the two points of cross- access. One would be approximately at the center of the project and the other one at the southern portion, as well as they would get their immediate cross-access into the front lot of their site. And, again, this site -- or this access point to Ustick Road is off site Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 55 of95 from their project and so cross-access in this location would be essential. Also talking about the cross-access here, the -- ACHD has made comment that they need additional right of way here for stacking lanes that they would anticipate with this size of a development. The design that I have seen already indicates that there will be a drive aisle of approximately 300 feet in this location and a redesign in order to facilitate traffic accessing that stacking lane, essentially, going both to the east and west, which is something we also need to see in a better scale and more format in order to bring back a better recommendation to this Commission. But, again, tonight staff is recommending continuance of this, so that the applicant can address the design of the plat in relation to the comments and concerns of staff, but I also encourage this Commission to give as much direction to the redesign as possible. Or there is the other option which has the findings for denial already incorporated into the staff report. Staff does not foresee that a denial would be conducive to this application, but a redesign would definitely -- is definitely a practical option. And at that I will stand. Rohm: Thank you, Joe. Any questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come forward? Borup: Just one, Mr. Chairman. You made reference to the frontage road, but I don't know if there was a lot of staff comments on that. Are you anticipating that there would be a frontage road along Eagle? I think that was part of the Eagle Road corridor study. Guenther: Yes. Borup: And it was discussed at the time of annexation. Guenther: Yes. The discussion on the frontage road has also shifted significantly with the incorporation of the ACHD collector road east of this site. Borup: That's that I was wondering. Guenther: Which is why the -- and, originally, the development agreement indicated that this transitional use would be, essentially, the frontage road for the entire area, but that was -- this was done prior to ACHD making any type of condemnation or purchase of that property east of the site, as they anticipated the collector road system to be at approximately the quarter mile and that's a third of a mile. So, what staff has taken the liberties of is to ask for a redesign in order to accommodate north-south vehicular traffic as a commercial collector, which wouldn't have parking on it in this type of a location, which would not be a public road system or, essentially, a backage road and to provide the east-west connection to what the ACHD collector road system would provide, which would be that backage road and the light to Ustick Road. Borup: So, you're saying with that design you would not require a frontage road? Guenther: With the conditions outlined as for redesign, we feel that the backage- frontage road can be accommodated. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 56 of95 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Would you -- let's see. For a visual -- yes, that one is fine. The aerial. Perfect. A couple of questions. Orient for me the -- Una Mas property is not as long north and south as this property? Is it shorter? Guenther: Yes. The Una Mas property comes right to that point, as well as the ACHD property. This one incorporates -- it appears to be about 80 feet more to the south, which is why staff would foresee that a public street in that area could cul-de-sac or come into some sort of approved ACHD turn around, because of that type of development, and the discrepancies in the property descriptions. As well as we don't foresee public road access to Eagle Road. So, if off of ACHD's new collector, as we have asked Una Mas to leave a right of way space at their southern portion, the continuation of that would not, actually, be along the southern portion of this one, right? It would be up just a little bit? Guenther: It would be -- and, again, this portion is missing a piece, which would be this long skinny one, which would be a portion of their southern border and, then, this jog to the south. I would -- keep in mind that the conditions listed in the report are recommendations -- they are not conditions, they are recommendations for redesign. They are listed as conditions, but they are not -- typically they are conditions of approval. This is conditions for redesign or denial. So, they are still very much open for conditions or revision. Zaremba: What you just said about the narrow strip -- clarify for me again -- does Una Mas and this property share a common border or is there a little strip in between. Guenther: Yes. There is a common border. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: And it would be, again, this little strip right here. Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Are you just trying to determine if a road can go through to Eagle? Zaremba: Well, you're anticipating where I'm going. It makes sense to me if Bienville has a road that comes out there, that this road from ACHD's collector ought to come out and there should be a signalized full access intersection there that serves all properties on both sides. It completes my bypass idea. We already have the bypass up here. I'm Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 57 of 95 sure we will have a bypass there. This isn't as neat, but it's somewhat of a bypass. This would make a bypass on this side. And it would be signalized here and here. I would like to see it signalized there. And it requires this one to focus their traffic there as well to meet that warrant, I would believe. Both sides have to be feeding into it. But it appears that what staff is asking for could lead to that, as long as it wasn't cul-de- sac'd. Guenther: Well, typically, ACHD is going to look for a full road section. The Bienville section is not a full road section, that is, actually, only a commercial drive access to Eagle Road, which isn't going to facilitate a light, even if it has the vehicular traffic. ACHD has specifically said on both of these sides they don't want any public roads within a quarter mile of Eagle Road. And this is approximately a quarter mile and when it was talking about the ACHD representative, he says absolutely no closer to Eagle Road than that. And again -- Zaremba: But it would be right on the margin of the quarter mile; right? Guenther: It would be -- no. No. No. I'm talking quarter east-west of Eagle Road, not a quarter mile south of Ustick. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: They want to maintain no public roads within a quarter mile of Eagle Road, which means that when Sadie Creek came through here, their public road ends about in the middle of their project, where this one the public road would end in the middle of the project. It would not approach Eagle Road. The Eagle Road access points would be commercial access points. Apparently Eagle Road is planned for a full median at the quarter mile, with an allowance for a u-turn design. When I met with Wade Christensen from ITO, their district engineer, on Tuesday, that was the design he was recommending at a minimum -- or at a maximum in these two locations they may get right-in, right-out, but they would not foresee ITD giving access permits for full access points, as well as it would be a miracle if ITD gave a light and it would have to have a very strong recommendation from our City Council to have that light, as well as ACHO would have to accommodate a public street to that point and ACHD specifically has said they will not. So, I'm sorry, I've gone off of track here again. Newton-Huckabay: With that said, that it validates, basically, statements that were made on the other one. I think that we -- if we move forward, our recommendation should be just as we have done on the west side of Eagle Road, on the east of Eagle Road that we push for a full access to Eagle Road, because the properties to the north on the corner have got it already. If I remember right, you can get -- or you will have it eventually. Yeah. Because you can go back behind Lowe's and out beside the church and out and if I remember right from our hearing on the Kohl's, you're going to go up behind Kohl's and meander around and out to the street and if I remember right there was talk of a light. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 58 of95 Moe: I don't remember the light discussion. Newton-Huckabay: It seems to me like there was -- there was no commitment there, but I think there was a desire. Rohm: Yeah. I think at this time it's appropriate to have the applicant come forward, please. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Joe, if I could have you cue up my presentation. My name is Tamara Thompson, I'm with Landmark Development Group, 1882 Taluka Way in Boise, Idaho. The site is located at the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle, which -- Guenther: Is this your development? Thompson: No. Guenther: Which disk did your have? I haven't seen a disk. Did you hand it to somebody else? Thompson: No, I handed it to you. Guenther: You didn't give it to me. Thompson: Maybe I thought I did. Guenther: Is it this blue disk? Thompson: No. It's this one. These later hours you get all rummy. Anyway, we can go forward. We have 23 acres on the southeast corner of Ustick and Eagle and we are proposing to develop a commercial, retail, restaurant, and office development. The exact mix will depend on the conditions at the time of development. With our site plan -- Guenther: We got a new computer and it doesn't appear to be the fastest one in the building. Thompson: We have complied with all of the necessary landscaping easements and setbacks, so we have the 35 feet along Ustick and Eagle Road. The property was annexed and rezoned in early 2004, I believe it was April of 2004 that everything was finalized, so we are just coming back for the preliminary plat at this point. At that time of the annexation and rezone a development agreement was entered into with the city and the property owners have relied on its content, including the concept plan, which I understand you didn't necessarily get to see before City Council approved it. So, this is the site plan as we submitted it and from what -- the aerial that we were looking at just a few minutes ago, it, actually had the notch coming out like this and it, actually, cuts into Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 59 of95 the property, instead of out of the property. So, this line right here is where the Una Mas southern property line lines up. Back in October of '05 we held a neighborhood meeting and the Una Mas folks to our east were pretty much the only ones that had any comments at that time and due to the sensitivity of the new office uses that they are proposing, we have worked with them to come up with some mitigations for their concerns. Along our truck docks, which -- let me -- can you go to the next one, please? This is the revised site plan that we just submitted today based on our meeting that we had with ACHD and Una Mas yesterday. It shows some -- ACHD wanted a longer throat here on our -- the last one we -- basically, you came in and you could go east or west. This one they wanted a longer throat of at least 200 feet. It worked best with the Una Mas site plan, if we can get that back to 350 feet, and that's from center line to center line. So, we have pulled that down and we got rid of the large mass in here and put a cluster of pad buildings at that point. In order to mitigate their concerns with the truck dock areas, we have agreed that along the edges of -- if these, in fact, are recessed truck docks, we don't have -- we are currently marketing to high quality national tenants that some do have recessed truck docks, some don't. Some just -- you know, somebody like Pier One, for instance, just has a roll up door at grade level and they don't get the big tractor trailer trucks. But somebody like Michael's, for instance, does the recessed truck dock. So, we are showing worst case here where every single one does, but depending on how the tenant mix comes out, they mayor may not have them. So, anyway, for the ones that do have the -- have the truck docks, we have -- we have agreed to a solid wing wall that comes out to help mitigate the sound and the visual, you know, so you're not hearing the backup buzzers from the little forklifts and that kind of stuff. We have also talked to them about the -- the backs of the buildings, making sure that those have some sort of architectural elements on them, as well as color bands or a split face block band or something like that, so that they are not just a plain back of the building, but they are -- the people that are in there, those office complexes, actually, are looking at something other than just a plain back of the building. Although, it will be a back of a building where we are not proposing carrying rock and towers and that kind of stuff along the back, but definitely giving them some interest with color. The landscaping along the property line -- we have put two cross- accesses that work for both their site plan and our site plan across here. City staff is asking for a third one down here, which is not a problem. That one can be added also. As far as the landscaping along here, we have talked to them about putting a three foot berm with some ten foot trees at the time of planting on that, so that there is some height there, so that they can -- to give some blockage. Let's see what else we had. And, then, the other one is in the staff report already, where we have to -- any dumpsters have to be confined to trash enclosures. We did meet and so I think we have accomplished what staff wanted for the cross-access. Like I said, we have got -- we have got two here, we can add this third one here, and, then, we have another one to the south at this location. The report still has in it the frontage and backage road, which at the time -- well, from the first time we talked to ACHD they asked us to -- to use their road, instead of adding another road at this location. Also, with that concept plan -- I was not involved in it at that point, but I have talked to the -- to the team members that were and they don't remember that being basically a road that went through there. The north-south access could meander through parking lots, which this one definitely did, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 60 of 95 where you can meander through the parking lot to get -- to get down here. That transitional use, as people remember it, was, basically, because this was residential up until earlier tonight and so that transitional use was meant for a buffer against -- against that use. But, in any event, that staff report as it references frontage or a backage road, I believe that both ACHD and city staff now have confirmed for us that that is to move to the Allys Way, so that the reference to that in the staff report should be eliminated or changed. That was one of the big issues. I think the second big issue is the language in the staff report where it calls out the clustered retail. With national retail tenants that we are -- that we are looking for, the high quality tenants that we are looking for here, we have looked -- we have looked at how we could -- I mean what staff is recommending is, basically, pulling these buildings forward to here where you would have parking on both the front and the back side have access on the back side and the front side. Essentially, what that does is it eliminates these pads and you still have all that parking along here, but you don't have -- have the break that the pads allow and -- I mean retail tenants right now are -- are being extremely picky. They have a 25 page list of what their site criteria is and I can tell you we are not going to get the quality tenants that we would like to get if -- if we have got to go to something outside the box, if you will. There is issues with loading, how you load those types of buildings. Basically, what -- how I envision it is it would, basically, be something like the Boise Town Square Mall where you have got loading areas on different sides of it, but we don't have the sides that accommodates that, so I don't know how you have loading areas anywhere and, then, you know, trying to get pedestrian customers through there, just isn't a safe situation. I don't know how well this shows up, but this is our vision for how the front of those major tenants would look, where we have got some -- some nice pedestrian areas with some outdoor seating areas and, you know, with different facades and tower elements and, you know, you can make that so -- in my opinion this isn't a strip retail. Strip retail to me is something that looks all the same across and, then, you have got different tenants that go in it, but you can't necessarily tell where one building starts and stops, where these look like little townhouses, if you will, where they are all different colors and architectural styles and architectural elements where they flow together, but they are not necessarily the exact same. So, anyway, this is -- this is what we have put together as an architectural vision and we have always added architectural guidelines to our application -- or we submitted that at the time, so that there is clear materials and that type of stuff that we would like to be used. So, I believe we have addressed staff's concerns. We can revise the preliminary plat and landscaping plan according to -- to the new plan that we have. Mr. Kissler, who is going to -- he owns all of the property at this point and my client is looking at buying the northern 17 acres from him that -- Mr. Kissler is ready to go. He's outgrown his Norco building on Fairview and needs to build another one here and he's -- he's ready to go. So, he's in a little bit of a hurry. So, we would -- we would like to just add conditions, basically, to take care of any concerns that you have and be sent onto City Council with your recommendation. But if we can't do that, then, being continued is the next best thing. So, with that I'll conclude. Actually, can I see one more slide? Here is -- this is the staff report and I'm sure we are going to get into traffic, so maybe I'll just talk about it real quick. Back in 2004 -- and you probably can't read this -- but the B -- or the A down here -- it says ACHD approved accesses. The B says ITD approved accesses. And so we have got A's here and here Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page61of95 and we have got B's here and here. And the property owners always thought that this was approved and so, you know, come -- now that we have the new ordinance and everything -- and Mr. Kissler actually does have letters from ITD that -- back in 2004 -- October of 2004 granting him the two accesses at the locations that we are showing on the site plan. We have formally submitted to them for right of way application and I should know tomorrow. They had their executive permits committee today. So, I should know tomorrow how that all went. One more. And this one you really can't see, but this is -- I had our traffic engineer do half -- this is Eagle Road and I had him go a half mile in each direction to show what currently is approved on the north side and what's being proposed on the south side and from the intersection going north at 700 there is right-in, right-outs for both the east and west sides. At the quarter mile mark there is a full access point for both east and west and, then, at the 1,700 feet, which approximately is 400 feet from that one, another right-in, right-out was given to the west side. And, then, eventually, where this new light is going right here, which your memory does serve you correctly, it does connect down through here, which, hopefully, eventually, will come through. This -- this road -- Mr. Moore is -- I think his property only goes to about here at this point, so he can't make that full connection, but he will be building that road. And, then, on the south side, at approximately 700 feet, which is consistent with here, is a right-in, right-out. This one on this side has been pulled back a little bit further to 860 feet, just because there is -- just to accommodate for the extra stacking here, so that it, actually, wouldn't just completely stack up. And, then, this and the -- what Bienville is proposing do line up at the quarter mile mark. And, then, like you said, you can't get to the half mile point on the east -- I'm sorry, the west side here. And, then, this is the new Allys Way, which I believe is scheduled to hook up to the half mile point here and, then, eventually, they like to get it down to Fairview. So, just to kind of show you how the entire system should work. With that I will be quiet and answer any questions that you'd like. Rohm: I think you have made a very nice presentation and I think that everything that you have said is in line with working with staff to move forward with a project that could gain approval by the Commission or a recommendation for approval, but the bottom line is we don't have a staff report to support things that have been presented tonight and I don't think that we want to write a staff report tonight. Thompson: And that's fine. But we would like some solid direction, if that's -- Rohm: And I think that maybe after having heard your testimony we might be able to have discussion amongst the Commission and provide some kickback to staff in terms of some of your comments and give the staff some direction, but I really think that -- that before we can act on this, it will have to go back to the staff level and be given due consideration with a staff report that we can hang our teeth on. And so I seriously -- I think you did a great job, but, I'll tell you, without having polled the balance of the Commission, I think that we are going to have to at least kick it back to them for a complete staff report and if there is some comments from the Commission to help direct that, they will be coming. But thank you for your testimony. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 62 of95 Moe: Mr. Chairman -- don't go anywhere yet. Thompson: Okay. Moe: It's now question time. Thompson: Okay. Moe: In regards to the -- the roadway on the south side. Go back to the -- Thompson: You want the aerial or the site plan? Borup: That's good enough. Moe: Right there. I just kind of want to make sure in regards to the roadway on the south, would it be your intent, then, it will line up with Una Mas, even though they are a little farther to the north and, then, just on the boundary would you be doing the sweep up and into their property? Thompson: Well, what staff has explained to me is they are looking for half of a 42-foot right of way. So, on this bottom portion they are looking for 22 feet that just trims this corner, basically, and that's it. Borup: Where is the other 21 feet coming from? Guenther: The Red Feather future -- the future Red Feather Estates development. Thompson: Yeah. There is another third party in this that -- Guenther: Yes. That is true. There is -- the portion that is south of this property -- get back to my staff report. This property right here is all zoned C-G, but we don't anticipate that all coming in for general commercial or office and, therefore, multiple access points for residential developments would be preferred. So, if they are proposing some sort of residential development here, they would need access not to a collector road system in only one location, but multiple locations to facilitate north and south direction -- directed traffic, as well as into their commercial projects. Borup: So, Una Mas was also a 21-foot -- Guenther: Yes. It was half of a 42-foot wide-- Borup: But going right down that line there. Guenther: Right. And right into that -- that kind of angle that she showed you just now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 63 of 95 Thompson: Yeah. And, like I said, that doesn't bump out, it comes in this way. It's not exactly -- Borup: No. It comes out over here and right down this property line, I believe. Thompson: Right. But I'm saying that that corner isn't part of our property. Ours has a little notch out of it, not added to it. Borup: I think it does. Your property comes clear to here. Thompson: Oh. Yeah. Zaremba: That is not in the right place. Thompson: Yeah. here. You're right. This line isn't in the right place. It is, actually, over Borup: Yes. Thompson: Sorry for that confusion. Zaremba: Well, staff's last explanation about Red Feather -- is that what it is? Guenther: It was annexed as Red Feather. Zaremba: It's even stronger that this ought to be a real road that comes across there. Borup: Your point was that it needed to be residential access -- Guenther: Yes. Borup: -- coming from a non-public road, then, according to ACHO. Guenther: It would be a residential collector accessing a public road. Borup: But you said they didn't want a public road accessing Eagle. Guenther: They don't want a public road accessing Eagle anywhere within a quarter mile. The quarter mile would start here and move to the east as a public road. Borup: Okay. Just traffic to Allys or whatever it's going to be called. Guenther: Yes. Yes. Facilitating public road access to Allys Way or Allys Street or whatever ACHD is calling that. Newton-Huckabay: So, if they turn left, they are turning into the parking lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 64 of95 Guenther: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: They need to have a road there. Because they are going to use it as a road. Borup: It's already been approved two years ago as a road. Guenther: I know. If I may -- Borup: On the other three corners. Guenther: The problem with it is that ACHD had brought to us a recommendation that we could do a public street. The applicant is showing here correctly that Mr. Moore, his development here, has -- this is a public road. ACHD allowed this access point and light to be a public road. If this Commission so chooses to have another quarter mile public road, they should petition ACHO to have them connect that road. Currently, as staff we are getting everything from ACHD saying they don't want any public road connection to Eagle Road. And ITD keeps telling us they don't want any -- any access to Eagle Road in that location either. So, we are, as staff, very much torn between what we are getting from other agencies and what the Commission is telling us, which is why I would really like more direction from the Commission as to what they want to forward onto the Council, who is also getting ITD and ACHD -- Zaremba: My comment would be that I agree with both of them everywhere except here. I don't want to say I'm generally in favor of accesses all over the place, I agree with them that there should be a median down the middle of Eagle and that there should be very limited accesses. This one intersection has the potential to be far more heavily used than even Fairview and Eagle is right now and I think the need to have some kind of a bypass system -- and I appreciate this drawing, because it's an illustration of what I was trying to say in words before. There is a way around here. This is going to be signalized. Newton-Huckabay: It is signalized. Zaremba: This is -- yeah, it is now, as a matter of fact. This is going to be signalized. And I agree, I think Winston Moore is going to connect across here and that justifies this being signalized. I would, actually, have rather seen this be a continuous connection and a public road, but I think the same thing needs to happen on this side. There needs to be -- it's not circular, but there needs to be this whole bypass concept in that area around this intersection and in spite of what ACHD and ITD are saying about this one spot -- I have to say, I design transportation systems -- I have done so in every major city and run transportation systems and managed transportation systems, I work with their infrastructures, I have seen good ones and bad ones. I have been doing it for 30 years. I do not have a professional engineering degree, but it's a side line of what I have to do to get transportation systems going and this intersection needs a complete Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 65 of 95 bypass all the way around it. That's my personal opinion based on 30 years of doing that kind of work as a necessary component of my real work. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I think the other important point is if this -- when this annexation took place and access points were approved by ITO -- and I don't know if ACHO was involved in the same -- well, they were for Ustick. That was in 2004 and I think the owner of this property had the expectation that what was approved then is what was going to be approved now and went ahead with the design with that expectation. I don't know how they can do a complete turn around in that length of time. It just doesn't seem fair to the property owners to me. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may just real quick. I remember this project when I was at ACHD on staff and ACHD does not comment on annexation applications as there is no development associated with them. So, the access points to Ustick Road were never reviewed or approved by ACHD when this came through for just annexation. So, when a development comes that's when they will approve access points. The other point is they can only comment on ITD roadway. They aren't going to say that a public street can or can't enter Eagle Road at a certain distance, because it's not their roadway. If someone constructs a roadway to meet their standards, that's all they can do, and ITD is the one that actually gives the permit to access the highway. So, it truly is up to ITD and respecting Commissioner Zaremba's take on this, also respecting our code, newly adopted code, but the spacing of that, just getting a signal and working with ITO for several years myself -- not 30, but just that quarter mile and, then, the speed limit of that, the spacing and the timing of those lights on a highway where they are trying to keep the speed limit 50 miles an hour or thereabouts, I just know they are not real keen on that. Now, that's different than -- being a full access is one thing. Being a signalized access is something different. But I just wanted to clarify that ACHO has not approved any access points for this project when it was annexed back a couple of years ago anyways. Borup: And I may have misspoke. I think the applicant said ITD's approval, but -- and I'd like to see that letter. Guenther: In 2003 the applicant made -- Mr. Kissler, actually, was the person who signed the application to ITD for all three access points. The report that I have received on Tuesday from ITD's district engineer was that they did not approve them at that time and the letter you have dated February 6 from ITD also indicates that any desired access still requires a permit. That has not been issued. So, every indication from ITD that I have says that even though they have put it on their site plan to the City of Meridian, that it was not approved at the time of the annexation. Meridian Platllling & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 66 of 95 Borup: So, that approval letter would have been a good thing to submit with the application. Guenther: Well, they should have had -- there should be an access permit with their application. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Even with that -- excuse me. Even with that being said, I think that it's this Commission's position that there be access to complete that loop, regardless of what the applicant's existing rights are anyway and so, if fact, this Commission wants to make recommendation to ITD or ACHD to have access, that's what we are here for. So, that, notwithstanding, I think we can make those kind of recommendations and see where it goes from there. So, that's just my thoughts on the roadway. So, with that being said, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I was just going to recommend that we just wrap up this conversation and to make those decisions -- Rohm: That's kind of where I was going with that. Newton-Huckabay: Clarify what the applicant needs to bring back and -- Rohm: I want to go to another subject for a moment here. Newton-Huckabay: conversation. But that's not in line with my suggestion to wrap up the Rohm: Well -- and you're not running this. Newton-Huckabay: I will be. Rohm: Not for awhile. Okay. With that being said -- Moe: When did we go to a dictatorship? Rohm: The applicant has asked that we consider their proposal to have their commercial building pushed back away from the roadway and indicated that staff report had asked that they be pulled out more into the middle. Just to find out where we settle on that, how do you feel about the applicant's comments about reasoning for pushing it back? Is that something that you can live with? Guenther: I still don't believe that it addresses the gateway corridor standards of the ordinance, which says that no more than certain portions of that area must -- may be allowed as parking lot, essentially. It's not the City Council's intention when they adopted those standards to have nothing but a few trees and, then, see parking lot Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 67 of 95 again. And that's where they were going when they adopted those gateway corridor standards. Rohm: And I agree with what you're saying and I'm kind of thinking that these pads that are out along the roadway break that up somewhat and that kind of mitigates the concerns about the main building being pushed back to the back lot line. And I only throw that out as a comment, not as a conclusion. How do you feel about that? Guenther: Again, until I see some calculations that show how that actually relates to our ordinance, I have to speculate that it -- this is what I see. Their new site design appears to have better accommodated that, but, again, I haven't fully reviewed it, I haven't even seen it in a large scale format. Rohm: And that's exactly why we are going to continue this, so that the applicant can make their changes to accommodate the gateway concerns in the UDC and work with staff to something that is acceptable or can be forwarded onto the Commission with recommendations for approval and I think that that's enough said about that. Borup: Aren't we looking for recommendations? Rohm: I think that -- Borup: Do the rest of us get to make them, too? Rohm: Oh, absolutely. Borup: Okay. Baird: Mr. Chair? Borup: Do we have public testimony? Baird: That's exactly where I was going. Rohm: We can go there next. At this point in time -- let's see. Newton-Huckabay: Where would we be without Mr. Baird? Rohm: Jon Rosin. Rosin: Jon Rosin with Hansen Rice representing Una Mas. 1717 Chisholm Drive in Nampa. It's getting late. Commissioner and Commission, we'd like to just make a couple of brief comments. We have been working with the applicant on this and we agree with pretty much everything that they have said, as far as the larger trees in the landscape buffer between the two, kind of giving us a visual barrier between the back of their building and our office space. The screen wall hiding the trucks, we are in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 68 of95 agreement with that. They have said that they were going to have -- you know, carry the -- you know, some type of an architectural element or the colors, mosaic block, whatever it might be, to come around again to kind of dress up the back of the building. The only other thing that we would like to see or have as part of their development application is some type of CC&Rs or something that addresses that if the back of the building is a truck dock, if any of you have ever driven behind the back of truck docks, they are not sightly, typically, trash, cardboard, and whatever stacked on the back. We realize that there is code enforcement in place that can be -- you know, can help with that, but we'd like to see something more formalized between our -- between their development and our development, so that we have something a little bit more stringent for us as a mechanism to keep that looking as nice as possible. And those are the only comments that we have at this time. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in this application? Strite: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. First of all, thank you very much for taking the time here. As you probably know, we were the culprit that developed the original annexation plan and concept plan. I spoke to Mr. Kissler today and, obviously, he has concerns with moving ahead. We are presently working on his office retail section on the southerly five acres that he would retain after the sale. I'd like to make a point to Mr. Zaremba. And I think it was an excellent one. It kind of draws me back to Bridgetower and the way that they circulated their roads around the backside of the Bridgetower and it's exactly the same situation here. If we are able to pick up this southerly portion -- and, once again, I think only having seen this tonight, I think the dynamics have changed dramatically based on what you have approved tonight west of this site and east of this site. In my mind, if we could all get together here -- and it sounds like Mr. Zaremba is on track -- certainly I feel the same way and be able to take a connected road off of Eagle -- which, incidentally, Mr. Kissler believes is deeded and I'm trusting I can find that letter, because I know that Commissioner Borup was here at that time. Having said that, if we could continue that to the east, tie that into that road that's going to go north, I think it's case closed. What I think should happen tonight -- and I think the chairman has made it rather apparent -- that this be deferred. However, in doing so, can you defer this with a condition that perhaps we pursue a potential loop road, if you will, or whatever semantics you'd like to use and give us some direction in that respect, and, then, they, in turn, can sit down with the adjacent neighbors to the east and I think come up with a plan that would satisfy everybody. And that's all I have. Rohm: Any questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Strite? Strite: Yes, sir. Borup: I assume you're talking about this is the building you're working with? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 69 of95 Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that is absolutely correct. That's a Kissler building. It's a five and a half acre site. Borup: Now, the road -- the proposed roadway, then, would parallel this line right here. Straddle it I mean. Straddle this line here and, then, out to Eagle. Are you looking at a new site design to accommodate that of some type? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, yeah, I think that -- and that's the reasoning for the deferral. I think we might want to go back to the drawing board, reconsider the configuration of his building that would still allow that access. In the development agreement you probably will recall that the backage road system was designated either private and/or public. So, I'm not all that certain that the road that's going to be eastbound, if you will, that would connect to that connecting road, would necessarily have to be an ACHD approved right of way, at least as I remember the development agreement. If I would have been asked to show up here tonight at 5:00 o'clock tonight, I would have that development agreement with me, but I'm almost certain that the verbiage was private or public. Borup: I think that's probably correct. But now we have got that road kind of into three - - three properties, four if you count the ACHD. Strite: Well, I'm not certain that we are concerned so much with -- with the right of way, quite frankly, and I'm not all that certain we couldn't live with a public road there. I'm just suggesting that my recollection of that development agreement gave us the option to be either private or public. Borup: Yeah. That makes sense. Strite: And if you would just allow us that opportunity to really explore that, I'm sure that Tamara, as the representative with Mr. Kissler's, could come back, along with the neighbors to the east, with a plan that I think would be acceptable. Zaremba: Well, I certainly -- Mr. Chairman -- certainly would say that I think the ACHD proposed new collector on the east end satisfies the backage road requirement. Strite: Absolutely. Zaremba: I felt that that was an important requirement, but I think here we have a step up from that. We have a collector proposed, which would be on the back end of these collective properties. I just want to see a connection east and west. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I -- again, I think the total dynamics have changed from what we have seen tonight. I'm even including the west side, since we are able to align this with Bienville. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 70 of 95 Strite: And would ask that that be thrown on the table. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: In regards to the Una Mas property and some of their concerns tonight when we discussed it, if we do continue this, are there materials that you will be bringing forward as far as what will be the screening and whatnot around the back side of the other buildings? Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that's not from me. I'm not involved in this project, only as representing Mr. Kissler. Moe: Okay. Strite: But I would suspect that Tamara would, absolutely. Rohm: What a guy. Moe: Thank you. Strite: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Tamara, if you would, please. Newton-Huckabay: Is there anybody else? Moe: Pardon me? Newton-Huckabay: Is there any other public testimony? Rohm: Before we ask you to come forward, is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Moe: I knew I was right. Rohm: Okay. You're on. Moe: Again, same question as far as either materials or basically are there going to be any renderings or anything that -- to look at at all, other than what you propose tonight on the front side, I mean as far as type of materials and whatnot you're going to put on the back with the screen walls and whatnot in the truck dock areas? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 71 of95 Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Moe, we haven't designed the buildings at this point, because the site plan is conceptual in nature. I could bring back something for you as far as what we think, you know, will happen on the buildings, but, typically, major tenants are block buildings with stucco and different types of brick and that kind of stuff and so on the back what I would propose is that it be a -- an integral color, split face block, that -- I don't know how high we would need to go. It depends on if it's recessed or not, but is it -- yeah, 12, 15 feet. Yeah. Probably an integral color, just because if they get tagged at all, you want to be able to sandblast them and not have to keep painting them and that kind of stuff. Moe: Well, you had made a comment earlier in your presentation that you were going to be doing something to the back side of those to take care of the office area -- Thompson: We definitely are. Moe: -- along with the landscaping changes for the larger trees and whatnot back there. I just want to make sure that, indeed, the office project would not be just looking at the back side of ordinary buildings and trash. Thompson: Yeah. That's our intent. But, you know, at this time we have not designed the buildings and -- but they probably will be some sort of block building with stucco and brick added. I did want to add I do have the development agreement and it does say private or -- it says a private -- public or private backage street is what it calls for. Moe: Again, you said that they are meeting tomorrow, so I would anticipate-- Thompson: No. They met today. And I tried to no end to get ahold of them, but they did tell me they thought that they would go into the evening hours and so I should know tomorrow. But I will get you the 2004 letter. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment to Ms. Thompson, if I may. The drawing or sketch or -- not really true elevations, but the front of the big boxes, I very much liked the village look to it is what I would probably call it, where it's not all the same thing all across. I thought that was great. I probably would suggest, if it were to work out, that what's displayed up there is not your newest one, I don't think, but -- Thompson: No, it's not. Zaremba: But you did have -- let's say these five are probably fairly similar. Thompson: He's going to cue it up. Zaremba: What I would suggest -- are you changing it? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 72 of95 Thompson: Yeah. He's going to get that up there for us. Zaremba: Back one. There. That perhaps another 20 feet be added, so that -- you would lose a few parking spaces, so that this roadway is not absolutely straight, it comes out a little bit, goes back a little bit, but that this center space sticks out like another 20 feet. I mean in some of -- Thompson: And add more hardscape out there? Is that what you're looking at? Zaremba: Well, just make the building a few square feet bigger. Borup: Or the plaza effect like you were showing -- Thompson: Yes. Borup: -- would do the same thing. Thompson: Yeah. That's what I was thinking, that you add more sidewalk -- Zaremba: Oh, yeah, more sidewalk with tables and stuff. Thompson: -- so you can have more plaza area. Okay. Zaremba: Just something so that it's not -- I think the fear of the strip mall is that it -- from one end it looks like it's straight across and I would just show some variation to that. Guenther: Chairman Zaremba, like I say, most of the site design considerations in the staff report are reflective of the old design. What I was anticipating incorporating into this one would be more -- of a future staff report would be more of the design criteria of the buildings that you haven't seen yet, which would be mostly reflective of the same thing as you saw off the Kohl's site development. So, you will most likely see more of those conditions in a future staff report from staff. So, I think maybe this discussion would be a little more premature and best saved for the next time we hear the application. Zaremba: That's fine with me. We are just trying to focus on what needs to change between now and then. Guenther: And I think that mostly we are looking at the site instead of building design at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Wouldn't it -- can I just make one comment that if there was less parking spaces against the street. I think that's visually unappealing to me is if you have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 73 of 95 a pad with a bunch of parking places and that kind of what -- I think that's what I think the parking could be more internal to the project. Zaremba: Let me visualize on that same subject. The northern boundary of Crossroads Center, I think it is -- in other words, the Fairview side, as I drive along there I'm not aware of as much parking as there really is against Fairview, because I think there is a pretty good line of screening shrubbery. I'm more aware of it as I drive north on Eagle, that there isn't as much screening. And I am aware of the parking that's there. But I suspect that along Fairview there is the same amount of parking, but it's screened somehow in a different manner. Either that or I'm just forgetting what I see, but -- Thompson: Well, along Eagle on the Crossroads, they have used their 35 feet as a big detention-retention area. Zaremba: Oh, yeah. Thompson: You know, so -- and we are not -- we are not proposing that. We are proposing underground kind of French drain type thing. So, we are not going to have areas -- you know, so we can actually have landscaping in that area instead. I think what you're seeing is they just -- they do have kind of a blank area where they just kind of have a swale in there without -- without a lot of landscaping in there. Ours shouldn't look like that. Zaremba: Yeah. That's-- Thompson: Especially when you have a big 35-foot landscape area. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I did have one design comment. I think it's been addressed a little bit, but that's, again, Eagle Road, to get -- I think to get aways -- the parking lot and the percentage that staff was talking about in the report, I'd like to see another building along there. Perhaps make these buildings not as deep and a little bit wider, just spread them out this way and maybe get another building in there and I think that would -- that would serve a lot of the purpose, I think, with -- I assume that's what Joe was talking about, to get -- Guenther: That is correct. If not, some sort of a corner L-shaped building in here in the intersection that would be possibly multi-tenant or something along that line. Something that could provide an intersection type of screening to the commercial development. Borup: I mean -- and they have done -- they have accomplished that up here -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 74 of 95 Guenther: And as I said, this site plan I didn't have until 4:00 o'clock today, so -- Borup: Right. Yeah. But the same idea down along here. Guenther: At this point -- Borup: So, that would be my recommendation for the new design. Guenther: It might be at this level to continue it at this time and give me a shot at that. Borup: Well, hopefully, it will be in the design for you to look at. Guenther: Yeah. Rohm: Before we take a motion to continue this, I'd like to go down the row and have each Commissioner, if there is anything specific that you would like to have the applicant and staff consider, this is your opportunity for -- to bring up your points of interest. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I may have failed to mention this before, but I certainly would like to see a roadway connection along the -- Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I think everything has been stated that I was concerned about. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing more to say on this application at this time. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Well, let's see -- no, I have nothing more to add. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Other than is there any input from the applicant on how much time they would need on a redesign? Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take an opportunity to present this Commission's concerns to ITD and ACHD in order to -- because they -- ACHD still has not made a comment on this application, which I have only gotten brief staff comments. If I can bring this recommendation that Chairman Zaremba has as a Commission recommendation, I will present that to the ACHD and ITD staff that I have been in contact with and get their comments for you specifically related to that item. ! Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 75 of95 Borup: I think if you could present the engineer study -- or the traffic engineering study that was presented, that would help in making that presentation I would think. Rohm: Okay. All right. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if it would be appropriate to make a motion within the discussion of this, I would move that we direct staff to move ahead with presenting our concerns to ACHD and ITD if necessary. Rohm: Yeah. I think that's appropriate. Zaremba: That was a motion. Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Okay. Moe: We haven't set a date for a hearing or anything. Borup: No. He's doing a different motion. Moe: Oh, we are going to do that. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we direct staff to work with ITD and ACHD on the interconnectivity -- Zaremba: Traffic and interconnectivity concerns. Rohm: -- concerns and -- Zaremba: And the need for a bypass for this intersection on all four corners. Rohm: With our desires to see that interconnectivity. All those in favor say aye. Oppose same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Guenther: Mr. Chair, you might also ask that we forward that recommendation for consideration to the City Council, since they are the deciding body. And we will have the director present, along with ITD and ACHD recommendations. Borup: That's what he meant. He was intending that. Zaremba: That's included in the motion. '- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 76 of95 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: So, are we ready to continue this one? Rohm: Yeah, I think -- Zaremba: I think the interests are known. Rohm: I think that the date that the staff would like to see this continued to would be the March 16th date. So, if someone would like to make a motion to that effect. Just first that -- do you think that you can work with staff and get a -- Thompson: I can get things turned around fairly quickly. That's much more time than I need, but I don't know what staff needs. Rohm: I think that -- Borup: They need ten days. Guenther: We are looking at -- from March I'm looking at least another seven projects and I had six tonight and one continued, so if you want a sane staff member, you should probably at least give me a month. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and you would need to have it ten days before the next hearing, because if it's that far revised, it needs to go out for comment again from the other agencies. Guenther: That is correct. Rohm: I'd entertain a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-002 related to Gateway Marketplace, to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue the Public Hearing on PP 06- 002 for the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.