Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 21, 2002Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 46 of 65 Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I'm not sure what the sense of the group is, but we are continuing the hearing on these items. Do we have a date? The materials will need, of course, to get back to staff at least 10 days before that hearing date would be -- typically, it's the second meeting of the month. Do we want to put it off to our second meeting in December? Borup: How much time do you feel you would need, Rod a couple of months? The second meeting -- or second meeting in December'? Ralphs: Yes. We will go with the second meeting in December. Borup: And do you have time to get that to staff ten days prior to that? Ralphs: You bet. Zaremba: Let's see. Am I right that that's the 19th? Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we continue the Public Hearing on the three items, AZ 02-024 and PP 02-022 and CUP 02-032, to our meeting -second meeting in December, which is December 19th, assuming that they have all the materials to staff 10 days before that. Mathes: I'll second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Commissioners, do you want to continue on or would you like a short break? Rohm: Let's take a break. Borup: We will take a short break at this time. (Recess at 9:10 P.M.) (Reconvene at 9:28 P.M.) Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 02-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-building office/restaurant complex and Krispy Kreme drive-thru facility in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Business Park No. 1 by Clark Development -- southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Fairview Avenue: Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 47 of 65 Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 building lots on 17.83 acres in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley No. 3 Subdivision by Clark Development-west of North Eagle Road and south of Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning Meeting for this evening. We wanted to give Steve and Billy Ray a chance to relax before they -- that's why we had to have a break was for those two, I think. Item Numbers 10 and 11, CUP 02-036, request for a Conditional Use Permit for amulti-building and office-restaurant complex and Krispy Kreme drive-thru facility in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Business Park No. 1 by Clark Development. PP 02-024, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 building lots on 17.83 acres in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley No. 3 -- oh, wait a minute. Do we have two separate subdivisions here? All right Treasure Valley No. 3 Subdivision. We'd like to open both Public Hearings -- is that correct, Dave? These are two -- this is the same application? McKinnon: Same application. Borup: I mean concerning the same -- McKinnon: Same property. Borup: -- property? That's what I originally thought. Treasure Valley No. 3 Subdivision. We'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If I could direct your attention to the overhead and explain to you, where this property is located. It's directly to the west of the family center large subdivision -- the commercial subdivision with ShopKo and Wal-Mart further to the west. The property is, essentially, these eight acres that are highlighted. This fronts on Fairview, on Hickory, Florence, Olive, and on Eagle Road. They are proposing to develop this and subdivide this into 26 new commercial building lots. Among the 26 commercial building lots there will be two lots within the subdivision that do not have any public street frontage, the two centrally located lots within the subdivision. This is something that's permitted in the I-L zone, given in the I-L there is no minimum lot frontage that is required. This subdivision is in the I-L zone. If I could direct your attention to Page Number 3 of the staff report and go over some site-specific comments that relate to the Preliminary Plat starting with Item Number 2. The western most subdivision access point you have on your map and that's this area that's highlighted on the overhead. That access onto Fairview Avenue has been a limihated a nd i t s hall b e eliminated. T he a pplicant h as I et m e k now t hat t hat would b e o key w ith t hem to a liminate this a ccess p oint. I tem N umber S o f t he s ite- specific Preliminary Plat has to deal with -- Zaremba: Run that by me again. The one that's being eliminated is this one? McKinnon: It's that one right there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Navem6er 21, 2002 Page 48 of 65 Zaremba: And this one is remaining? McKinnon: That one is remaining. This one is being eliminated and that has to do with the original subdivision, with the fact that they were only allowed four access points onto Fairview at that time and the other buildings have already taken up the other remaining access points. I believe t hat h ad -- t hat t ook p lace back w hen I daho Transportation Department actually had jurisdiction of Fairview. Oh, ACHD did? Okay. Item Number 3 in the site-specific comments, Preliminary Plat, the landscaping for the entire subdivision that fronts onto Eagle and onto Fairview needs to be installed with the Final Plat prior to the occupancy of the buildings. The rest of the subdivision lots that front onto Florence, onto Hickory and onto Olive, those properties are allowed to put their landscaping in at the time of development. The reason for that is so that you have a unified front on Eagle and on Fairview that all the landscaping is in at one time, so you don't have partial landscaping and then landscaping, partial landscaping, especially on the heavy traffic streets that Eagle and Fairview are. Item Number 4, if I could address that really quick. There are some sewer lines that currently run north, south, and the applicant is going to abandon those sewer lines that run north and south through the subdivision. Instead, they will bring the sewer lines in across the back to service the lots that now front onto Fairview and the applicant's agreed to do that. You should all have a copy of a fax from Steve Arnold to myself concerning Treasure Valley Business Center Subdivision, that they have reviewed the Preliminary Plat and they agree with the findings and the conditions of the Preliminary Plat and that Steve is here tonight to answer any questions that you might have. Onto the Conditional Use Permit. Borup: If I could back upjust -- McKinnon: Yes. Borup: You say the sewer line would be servicing lots three, four, and five, the existing ones? McKinnon: Right there. Borup: How are they being serviced now? McKinnon: They are currently being serviced through the sewer lines that run north- south from Florence to Fairview. The applicant will build a new. sewer line that runs east and west coming from Hickory towards Eagle -- Borup: Okay. McKinnon: -- and they will hook up when that sewer line comes across. That way these buildings can be built across where the sewer is right now. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 49 of 65 McKinnon: Sorry about that. If we could go to site-specific comments for the Conditional Use Permit. Item Number 2 is important to point out, because Lots 30 and 16 are the two lots that have no frontage, would not be allowed to have any signs per the Meridian Sign Ordinance, it does not allow any off-premise signs. The applicant is required to apply for a Planned Sign Program, that all the signs on this property would be uniform in nature, and through the Planned Signed Program, the city can permit off- premise signs. It would allow for the off-premise signs for those two buildings. Item Number 3, bike racks will be required for installation at each building prior to occupancy. Finally, Item Number 6, which is something that Bruce brought up and was a concern to some members of Council, if I understand correctly. The applicant needs to work with the Meridian Police Department, the Idaho Transportation Department, and the Ada County Highway District to put a Traffic Control Plan on the grand opening for the Krispy Kreme Donuts Shop. Borup: They plan on being mobbed? McKinnon: In fact, Bruce has done some research on the Internet concerning the fact that it will be mobbed. Those donut stores in some of the openings served in excess of 16,000 donuts per day during the grand openings, with 75 vehicles in the drive-thru lanes an hour -- a three-hour wait for donuts. It's not just a donut store it's somewhat of a cult donut store. Once you're hooked -- Zaremba: The media coverage that they are able to get -- I mean they will announce it on the evening news when this thing is ready to have its opening. McKinnon: In one of the articles that Bruce took a look at -- he has got copies of -- had to do with a grand opening in Rochester, New York, and it was the single largest news- generating event of the decade in Rochester. That was just based on the number of media -- media stories that were generated from the grand opening. That was in excess of 150 stories just from one grand opening of one store. Borup: What does that say about Rochester? Rohm: What was the second one? I was curious. Borup: World Trade Center. McKinnon: We thought it would be important that they come up with some sort of Traffic Control Plan, especially with the amount of traffic that we have got on Eagle and on Fairview. I have talked with the applicant Billy Ray Strite, who is here tonight, and he informed me that they really don't have any major concerns with the recommendations in the conditions of approval. He's here again tonight to answer any questions that you might have. With that, I'd ask if you have any questions of staff, Bruce, or myself and I'll turn the time back over to you for a Public Hearing. Meddian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 50 of 65 Borup: Okay any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to come forward? Anything you would like to add? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record Steve Arnold Briggs Engineering. I guess it's nice to be able to say tonight that I have no issues with the staff comments and I'll just stand for questions. Borup: Questions of Mr. Arnold? Zaremba: Yes. Am I right in assuming that the driveway near the Krispy Kreme on Eagle Road is going to be a right-in, right-out only? Arnold: That is correct. Zaremba: This driveway here. Amold: That is correct. If it's allowed by ACHD, it will be right-in, right-out. Zaremba: If a driveway exists at all -- they are still considering that? Okay. Let me ask about this driveway. Is that a right-in, right-out? Arnold: That will also be right-in, right-out. Zaremba: I was concerned that on the plat that I have it shows a left turn lane out of that -- so both of those are right-in, right-out. Arnold: Correct. Zaremba: That solves any problem I had. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, just to address the one traffic lane that was -- the driveway, I guess, that would be about 180 feet south of Fairview on Eagle Road. That's been in discussion with Idaho Transportation Department, because that is a state highway and Billy has appealed the decision of ITD. ITD has requested that that be removed, it was appealed, they took action on the staff level at ITD to recommend approval to their board for permitting, and I believe that the action to approve or deny the appeal will take place on Tuesday of next week. If you reference the Ada County Highway District's staff report regarding that driveway, it's Item Number 1 under the site-specific comments. It states to the effect that whatever Idaho Transportation Department says you have to do on there, you do it. That would be the same opinion of staff, that whatever they say needs to happen should happen. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Is there a fallback provision of -- if you can't have that driveway, what would you do with the traffic to the Krispy Kreme? Meddian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 51 of fi5 Arnold: The traffic of theKrispyKremewillutilizethe driveway on Fairview and the internal streets, Hickory, Jewell, and up Florence. Zaremba: Aim them towards Florence. Arnold: There is going to be cross-access throughout the subdivision, so there will be plenty of access into the Krispy Kreme. Zaremba: T he I ittle b wilding b ehind --what would b e b ehind t he K rispy K reme,that looks like a drawing that would be for a small restaurant with adrive-up. Is that what you're conceiving there? Arnold: I would have to defer that to Mr. Strite on the Conditional Use. Borup: Any questions from any of the other Commissioners? I have got some. One thing that still concerns me is cross-access with the existing parcels. This is where the office supply store -- is this the motorcycle store? Arnold: You mean Snake River Yamaha? Borup: Is that what's there? What we have got here, is this -- oh, that's the carpet store there? Where is the car wash? Down over here, the other side of the street? Okay. Trying to keep that -- so there is -- is there access off here onto this street, then? I assume there is. Or do you know, Steve? Okay. Billy, is this your area? Go ahead. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite at 1010 Allante in Boise. Mr. Chairman, the access, if you will -- there was four accesses granted to this subdivision by plat. The lot that you made reference to on the corner, the carpet shop, has two accesses, one is at Hickory, which we are sharing with the our development to the south, they share an access with a lot common to them to the east, and then there is another access that's common to two lots - Borup: An access here you're talking about? Strite: That's correct. There is another one that's common to the two lots to the east and the third one, which was originally approved was common to ours, as well as the -- Borup: That one? Strite: -- the Office Value. That's correct. However, Office Value chose not to use that, they placed apole -- a power pole line there, and so we chose to eliminate that access point. The fourth access is that that's shown to the east of that, which is, in fact, is a right-in, right-out. As I mentioned in -- and Iguess Iwill -- you can put it on a public record now. We were told by the staff at Ada County Highway District that the median is scheduled for 2003, which would force right-in, right-out on any of those access points. Also told that -- and I believe it's the 2006 plan, that Hickory will be signalized at Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 52 of 65 the time that it's extended to the south to Pine Street, it becomes signalized. In effect, what's going to happen is all four of those access points, which you now have on Fairview, three of which are open and the fourth one we are suggesting would be the easterly, will all be right-in, right-out, basically, so -- Borup: Why don't we have some access to the existing parcels? Strite: Mr. Chairman, those parcels are already developed and fairly heavily fenced. The side of the two -- I can only speak for the two. I, quite frankly, didn't pay much attention to the carpet shop, because we are, in fact, using a common access with the carpet shop. The two shops to the east both have service areas in the back and they are chain link fenced. Borup: What do you mean by service area storage area? Strite: There are service and storage areas behind the buildings on the south side, which would be our north boundary, and they are fully fenced. The fact is, I think one has concertina wire so yes they have alittle -- Borup: This building has paving clear down most of theirs. Strite: Yes. You can get around it. You can get to the south side of all three of those buildings from the north. There is a common access between the two lots to the east and there is a common access between the two lots on the west, as well as an access from Hickory, which takes you all the way east, if you will, to the end of lot -- well, lot two, because they actually have a fence there, but -- Borup: My concern on not having that is just trying to prevent future problems of congestion. That should be part of what we are trying to do here and in these places, then, I guess they could go across the parking lots and come down here, around or they can go back out onto Fairview, because they have got entrances here. Then they have got to fight the traffic on Fairview and back into here. Strite: Well; Mr. Chairman, if I could, those three lots are already developed. Borup: I realize that. Strite: And we don't have any control over what they -- Borup: That's why I was curious on what their sewer --one of the reasons I was curious on what their sewer situation was. Strite: Well, again, without being repetitive, we don't have much control over that. Those have been constructed and they are in place. The idea of asking for cross- access -- I mean I think -- I think you bring up a good point. However, cross-access to the most immediate, which would be the easterly lot, would have to be in the service Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 53 of fi5 area. As I just mentioned, that is actually fenced off and is a secured area, both east and west on the south side. My guess is they would not be too interested in any cross- access in that location. The lot to the west, if you will, as I just mentioned, does have a common access that we are sharing. Contrary to that plan there, that access has been moved northerly such that the existing carpet shop access is utilized by this project as well, so there is some -- Borup: When you say common access, are you talking about Hickory or -- Strite: The one at Hickory. That's correct. Borup: I guess I'm not getting it. Zaremba: You're saying it's impossible to have a connection in this area. Strite: Commissioners, nothing is impossible, it's just whether this development can go to a previously developed parcel and ask that owner if we can, in fact, utilize their parcel is probably questionable. We would have no objection in attempting that, but if -- certainly, if I was in their position, I guess I would -- unless there was a substantial benefit, it might be questionable as to whether I would concur with such cross-access. Borup: All the Krispy Kreme people might want to go buy some office supplies. Zaremba: And the office supply people might want to go to Krispy Kreme. Strite: Well, I suspect that after reading these things from Bruce's -- that Bruce provided me, there is probably a likely chance that they will be doing that. Borup: Well -- and it depends on, I guess, what other businesses go in here. If you're sitting here at Krispy Kreme and want to go to the office supply store, you're not going to fight here, come clear down here, turn around and try to get back -- you know, you're going to go across the street the Office Depot. Strite: Well, either that or you'd go south and get right onto Jewell and drive right around the corner and come in at Hickory. Borup: I guess that could be -- really, I guess what I was kind of getting to is if any of these parcels later -- I understand what you mean, that they -- you can't force them to do anything now. If they chose to in the future decide they would like access into here, then there is something we can have as part of the requirements here that would allow that or require that or - Strite: I think I can ask that -- Mr. Chairman, the Development Agreement is quite clear that there is cross-access to all lots in Treasure Valley one, two, and three. In fact, you have that ability if they were to come back and it's in the Development Agreement. Meddian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 54 of 65 Borup: So if by their choice they would like to, then, it would be redesigned here of whatever need to be or whatever they chose to do? Strite: Certainly. Yes. I mean that's conceivable, because of the Development Agreement does speak to cross-access, about the subject -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if you wanted, you could place an easement in there that could be covered with landscape at this time and if it ever wanted to be opened in the future, you would have your cross-access in place. Borup: Would the easement a ccomplish a ny more than just h aving across-Access Agreement already? McKinnon: It wouldn't accomplish anything more, but it would be something that -- I guess it would just be a duplication of effort. The difference between across-Access Agreement and actually having the easement in place are two separate things. Strite: I think that that might be a little difficult to do, because until such time as a use is established that you just mentioned on those two -- I'll call them the northwesterly lots in this particular application, we don't have users yet, so we don't know the configuration. What we are attempting to do here is provide enough lots and enough flexibility in the subdivision to allow combinations thereof or single uses - Borup: You may haves user that wants to combine lots. Strite: That's very conceivable and that's why we are making it into the greatest number of lots possible. It's still self-supporting, so they can, in fact, combine lots. The configurations you see beyond the Krispy Kreme, which Dave has already mentioned, have -- we already have a Certificate for Zoning Compliance and, as I was mentioning, we are about to pull a Building Permit. I was talking to Don this morning and that's the only building in this particular phase that has been designed and is reality. Borup: Okay anything from any of the other Commissioners? Strite: If I could make one final comment that we have no problem with stafFs conditions and I will go on the record as saying that. Borup: Okay thank you. Strite: Thank you. Borup: And I see no one else here, unless Mr. Yorgason had a comment just here for the entertainment? Yorgason: I'm all commented out Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 ' Page 55 of 65 Borup: Okay. Commissioners, what would be your privilege? Zaremba: Well, on the whole I think it's a good project, good plan. Like the Chairman, I'm a little uncomfortable without having that one area up here with some access between the two uses, but that's probably the only thing I have an opinion about. Borup: Well, you can't go back to another owner, but if the opportunity is there, we are not shut off forever. Zaremba: This is either for staff or for the applicant. Did we end up not having a sidewalk along Eagle? There is no sidewalk along Eagle. Borup: Because it was internal in the project. Was that -- Arnold: Steve Arnold, again, for the record. For Treasure Valley No. 2, they made a provision for both phases of the subdivision and for the Krispy Kremes and this project to t he n orth, t hey g ave s tall t he d irection t o e liminate t hat s idewalk, s o t hat w as t he direction of the City Council. For the second phase, I should say. Borup: Okay. Thank you. The sidewalk on Jewell and Olive. I guess Olive would be the sidewalk pedestrians need to take. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Could I ask a question of the applicant, please? I'd like to talk about the pressurized irrigation system just a little bit. When the Plat Number 2 came through, we talked about a pump station being located on the southeasterly corner of that plat and that there was going to be some dry line put in with the Primary Health Building. You guys were working on design for -- for not only Number 2, but also the service lines and everything for Number 3. When Number 2 went through, the recommendations for the condition was that prior to the issuance of the second Building Permit Number 2, the irrigation system would be operational. I was just kind of wondering what your time line looked like for PI extension of up into Number 3 where Krispy Kreme is going in? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did have conversation with my engineer this afternoon. That design is at or near completion. I believe that design is -- the pump station included the rest of this Phase 2 and 3, which we are reviewing this evening. I believe that should be into you in the near future. I don't know if that answers your question, but we are going to be doing it in -- Freckleton: I guess my only concern is that we don't get too far into development of this subdivision -- the lots in the subdivision without having PI available. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 56 of 65 Arnold: And I guess in response to that, we are planning to have irrigation -- we are planning to have the landscaping in and pressure irrigation in the landscaping before spring. That will be taken care of. Freckleton: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Do we need to know anything about a Phasing Plan for this or not a concern? Freckleton: Single phase. Zaremba: One single phase okay. Borup: Which is really just the one road coming through? Oh, they are already there. Yes. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman -- sorry. The plat does have a note on it, Note Number 4 talks about across-Access Easement -- Cross-Access Agreement will be required among all the lots within this development. I think that, you know, that is making reference to all the lots within this proposed plat, not the existing lots in Treasure Valley Subdivision No. 1. I would make a recommendation that that note be revised to include Lots 3, 4, 5 in Treasure Valley No. 1. Borup: I would like to see that added. Arnold: Again, for the record, Steve Arnold. I'll stand up here awhile this time. I guess I don't see any issue putting that in there. It's kind of a blanket easement that we are placing on it with the lots in the sub, but as Mr. Strite mentioned earlier this evening, there was a blanket easement placed on Phase 1 of the subdivision. What we would be doing is just duplication. I know that Mr. Priester at the County Recorder's Office kind of does not like to duplicate his notes. Like I said, it's already been established through the first phase, but if you want us to place it on this, we can do that. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, my only concern there is that this is a re-subdivision of existing lots in that original subdivision. I think just by reference would cover it, that, you know, the intention is to include those existing lots and not negate that original easement agreement, so -- Zaremba: I agree with that. Borup: I think Mr. Priester could get over that one little extra note, couldn't he? Zaremba: Has anybody even asked this current property owner whether they'd like to have access -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 57 of 65 Arnold: Mr. Strite did have discussion with that right-in -- or that driveway on our western boundary, the previously proposed one. In his conversations, he asked and they said no. Borup: No, he did not want any cross-access? Arnold: They did not want that driveway there and they didn't need the cross-access. They have already got access out onto Fairview. I guess that access point at that location it does not give them any additional value. Borup: Well, I agree on the access point, but I think Mr. Zaremba's question was whether there had been any discussion on the Cross-Access Agreement for the interior of the project. Amold: And I guess I can't answer that. Strite: Yes I don't that the reference was made in my discussion. Borup: So the answer is, no; there hasn't been any discussion that we know about? Zaremba: I would be ready to move this on, but I might suggest that that question be asked. I know you have had some conversation with them and before this gets before the City Council, maybe you can ask that question and if they would like to have the internal cross-access, I certainly would strongly be in favor of making that happen. Amold: Okay and, again, I think with that note, they -- Zaremba: If they flat said no, then, it couldn't be done anyhow, no matter what we said. Borup: I think normally that's a benefit to all parties. Zaremba: Well -- and ACHD has been requiring it. I'm surprised they didn't make some kind of requirement. Borup: Well, it's an off-site matter. Amold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, typically what ACHD would do if it was a plat, they would do exactly what you're seeing before you tonight, it's across-access among the lots. In the past, their attorneys have felt that legally they did not -- they do not have the authority to go out and force cross-access between two lots. I have been in the middle of that d iscussion several times, but u sually if t hey -- if their attorneys found that they are going to have to force the cross-access, they have got to go purchase that and they are not at this time willing to do that. What you do is something like this, you're doing a blanket cross-access where it still leaves everything open in the future, which is already covered by the phase one of the plat. I think with that note there I think your concerns would be well addressed and between now and our City Council Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 58 of 65 hearing we will approach them and see how their opinion is of that. I can tell you right now, typically when they have got existing access and they have got existing structures, it's no. When their access starts getting taken away or other issues arise, then they will be coming to us and say, well, we want to work with you here. I guess with that note that you will have in place, that will help facilitate -- Zaremba: It will ease it along. Borup: And that's what I see happening somewhere down the road. They are probably okay right now, but that's not the only thing we are trying to address here, we are trying to answer a few of the concerns in the future. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton Freckleton: The question I have got in my mind, I guess, if there is an existing Cross- Access Agreement, does the Snake River Yamaha have - or, excuse me, the Office Value folks have legal rights to not allow the access? I know there is -- like Bill said, I think there is kind of an impound area where they are chain link fenced, but upfront, if I remember correctly -- I'm going from memory here. Their front driveways and everything out here basically end in a landscape area that runs right up and down here and then they have a driveway approach. Why couldn't there be a driveway connection right here, other than you would have two driveways approaching side by side, which wouldn't be a good deal, but at least you could have cross-access. Borup: You said there was across-Access Agreement recorded on the original plat? You're saying the original plat included these lots. Amold: It included those three lots and -- Borup: So there already is an agreement? Arnold: It was the same type of note. It was across-access among all internal lots. Borup: So if that's already on there, how can they prevent it from happening? That's a very good point. Amold: Again, that would be -that would require us to go to their property and eliminate -- or add access or take out landscaping. Borup: But they have already agreed to that. Arnold: I guess it is a note on the plat. I don't know how we can legally go onto their property and affect their landscaping, when we don't need the access. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 27, 2002 Page 59 of 65 Borup: I don't know that there is any landscaping there. I don't believe there is along their east property line. Zaremba: Even if there is, the city could require them to remove it, if it's in the way of an access that they have already agreed to. Wollen: If they are in violation of the Cross-Access Agreement, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, then I believe it would be their responsibility to remove -- to remove the encumbrances to the access. Borup: Either remove it or allow it to be removed. Wollen: And Ithink -- I don't want to get into financial responsibilities, but, you know, if they had violated prior agreements, then I think it would come down to a situation where they could demand that this applicant, you know, pay for it. Borup: Makes sense to me Arnold: Again, that's something that we can go approach the neighbors with Zaremba: So hopefully it can be worked out on a friendly basis where access is easy but it sounds to me like it can also be forced if necessary. Borup: So do we need a little stronger direction from the Commission? Zaremba: Well, that particular spot on the plat needs to be redrawn or reconnected anyhow, because the driveway that we see in our drawings is no longer an issue. You know, 99 percent of this I'm happy with, but if we just take this little corner and say, okay, there is one change, there is no driveway here, there is another change, and there is some access here. That's a very small portion of this to be redrawn. I don't know whether that falls into the category of a major change or a minor change. I would be happy to move it forward, knowing that that was going to happen. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission that would be considered, in my opinion, a minor change. They have requested -- if you're comfortable with moving it along, staff wouldn't have any objection to that. Steve, I have got one question for you. Could you guys get us some copies of the revised plat, with the elimination of that, and the moving of the Hickory access? I know that that was one that was also moved and if you could wait to get that to us until after Tuesday, so we know what's going on with access to Eagle. Arnold: Okay. McKinnon: Those are all -- you guys have all discussed that tonight and you know what the options are. If you would like to see it again, you can. If you feel comfortable with it, staff would feel comfortable moving it along to Council. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 60 of 65 Borup: That's assuming you have the revised plat prior to Council. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: A revised plat will show the elimination of the Fairview and a design for access into that parcel. Can we do that? We understand at this point the design is preliminary anyway right? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I kind of feel like I'm siding with Steve o n this a l ittle bit, w here w e h ave g of a n e xisting I ot. I k now t hat t here i s a n agreement in place. I don't know the legal issues. I know we have got Nick here tonight and he might be able to shed some light on it and he has already. We haven't read the agreement, we don't know what the agreement states, and so whether or not there is a way for them to close off access -- I think that they need to address the issue. I would appreciate a report back from them, something written, saying -- Borup: Are Cross-Access Agreements different from parcel to parcel or do they normally have the same wording? McKinnon: You know I'm sure they have a model type of ordinance that -- on what type of enforceability there is into it. There could be a million different variations on that. It would be nice to have them take a look at it and actually have an opportunity to address that issue with Office -- is it Office Value? Arnold: Yes. McKinnon: Address that issue with them. Borup: If they are not enforceable, I think we need to look at the whole -- the whole situation. Why have an agreement that's not enforceable? We go ahead with these things assuming that they are and there no expiration time on them either, is there, and if people can just ighore them, because it's inconvenient for them, I don't think that says a lot for what we are trying to do. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I agree with Mr. McKinnon, the idea about -- Borup: Reading it first? Wollen: Yes reading the Cross-Access Agreement before making any statement on it. The one thing that may be troublesome is if there is a violation of this prior agreement, then it is -- is it Office Value or whoever those -- Borup: It could affect all three lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 61 of 65 Wollen: Yes but it is -- it is those -- those lots that are in violation of it and not this applicant. I, would fear holding this applicant to something that they really have no control over and it may end up -- it could end up in a civil lawsuit. Borup: Well, I don't think -- I mean they are not in violation of it until they refuse to do it, are they? Wollen: Well, if they have put up permanent impediments -- and I don't know what that - - what that looks like, but it is -- there may be -- I mean they may refuse to knock down these impediments and that might lead to the civil action here. Borup: Well, right now I think there can be access to the east without disturbing existing fencing or anything. As far as the areas to the south, I'm not really sure -- I don't remember what that looks like myself. That doesn't mean this applicant can't still design something showing the intention of an access, does it? Wollen: I don't think there would be anything prohibiting -- Borup: I mean that to me would just be logical, if you have -- if there is an existing agreement in place, the next one coming along, you're automatically going to design something to connect, whether the other parcel shows a connection or not, a stub or not. Wollen: But this is, again, all presuming that this agreement is worded as we think it's worded. Borup: Right. Right. I understand that. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one other observation. If there is an agreement in place and both parties, agree to not having cross-access, I'd hate for the city to jump in and say you're going to have to have it, if they don't want to have it. Nick brought up a great point, you know, this project itself is not in violation. What the applicant has presented to us tonight is not in violation and we have got it on record that -- you know, Mr. Arnold has said that there is access and if they want to provide access, well, we will have to let them have access. I guess it kind of puts the ball into Office Value's court to say do you want this cross-access between the two right now. Borup: And lagree, Ithink -- I'd like to see this project designed so, again, you know, there is not going to be a building there or, you know, a lot of landscaping that you don't want to tear out later. I mean some way to accommodate for future access, whether it's two years or ten years from now. Arnold: Chairman Borup, I don't believe that anything that we put here is going to prohibit anything like that in the future. We have got to design this site for cross-access amongst all our internal lots and I think what you're seeing here tonight will allow the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 62 of fi5 Office Value or Snake River, should they choose to utilize that note that we are going to place on the plat -- Borup: Well, that's what it looks to me, like taking a couple of parking stalls. Arnold: Yes they come through a parking stall. Again, we would, I guess, tend to side with staff and your attorney tonight that - I mean that places the burden back on us to go to them and say, hey, we are knocking down your fence. It would be -- as minor as it could be and cause a little bit of a civil dispute between the two parties. That we would prefer not doing, just like to leave option open to them. Borup: Well, I don't know that we asking to tear down a fence and make the actual access, Ijust -- I just want to make sure it's going to be available. Rohm: Well, I think the question should be asked. I think going to Office Value or -- Borup: Whoever owns the building. Rohm: Yes. Whoever owns the building and just say, hey, what are your thoughts on providing that -- the right to create this cross-access? I would presume that the owners of t hat p roperty, w hen t hey p ut i n t heir s hrubbery a nd w hat h ave y ou, t hey p robably wanted to keep that nice and clean and all the way across, because there was no development on that property to the east. Now that this property is being developed, it seems like it only would make sense to now open that cross-access up. It would be mutually beneficial to both parties, but seeing how they had already made the initial investment, just thinking out loud, they may say, yes, you can put the cross-access in, but it's going to be on your dime and as long as you don't care, then the cross-access will take place. That's seem like workable. Arhold: In response to that, I mean I have already agreed that we are -- looks like it's the direction of the Commission that we will have conversations with them and see what kind of input they have. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Close the Public Hearing? Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on these two Items, PP 02-024, and CUP 02-036. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second to close both Public Hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we need discussion before formulating a motion or are we -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 63 of 65 Zaremba: Let's see. Probably the only thing I would discuss on the CUP one is stafFs suggestion that the applicant work with the police and -- on the grand opening. I think it was stated as a suggestion and I would make that a requirement. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the Site-Specific Comment Item Number 6. It's in there. Zaremba: Okay. Yes stated as a requirement orjust as a suggestion? McKinnon: Shall. Zaremba: All right. Borup: So it's all in there. Zaremba: Want me to do it? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, CUP 02-036, request for a Conditional Use Permit for amulti-building office-restaurant complex and Krispy Kreme drive-thru facility in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Business Park No. 1 by Clark Development, southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Fairview Avenue, to include all staff comments. Rohm: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, PP 02-024, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 building lots on 17.83 acres in an I-L zone for Treasure Valley No. 2 subdivision by Clark Development, west of North Eagle Road and south of Fairview Avenue. Again, to include all staff comments, with the following additions, that the applicant will provide a new plat that states on it -- restates on it the Cross-Access Agreement and shows the elimination of what is the driveway of the western portion of this onto Fairview with the potential of showing cross-access into the piece of property to the west and which reflects the outcome of next Tuesday's decision by ITD on the driveway on Eagle. Did we need a note about the pressurized irrigation or is that -- okay. I believe I'm done. I'm sorry. I intended to say Treasure Valley No. 3 Subdivision. I may have said something different, but that's what I meant. I believe that's everything. Rohm: I will second that motion. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?