Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 15, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 23 of 49 Borup: Well, there is quite a contrast from the previous -- I mean it's apartment, basically, so -- they are better looking ones and there is many many others that are not as good designs. Rohm: I think the big issue was, really, the covered parking, make sure that you understood that you had to have two parking spaces covered for each living unit and then -- and, then, I think addition of the verbiage of the vinyl fencing to the staff report and as along as you're in agreement with everything else, unless you have other comments, I don't have anything else. Dulin: No, sir. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We didn't have anybody signed up to testify to this application, but if there is someone that would like to, this is that time. Okay. Seeing none, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing. Moe: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002. All those in favor say aye, Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and we did not get any other testimony from the public, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1st, 2007, with the one modification that the applicant will provide vinyl fencing within the project. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002, to include all staff report with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you coming in. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007 (Re-noticed for Modification): AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.30 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 24 of 49 acres from R1 to a C-G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC - SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 07-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots on 19.30 acres in the proposed C-G zone for Gardner- Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision by Ahlquist Development, LLC - SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from February 1 st, 2007, a re-noticed for modification, AZ 06-065 and PP 07-007. Both of these items related to the Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The applicant applied for annexation and zoning of 22.30 acres from R-1 in Ada County to C-G, which is our general retail and service commercial district, and preliminary plat approval of 11 commercial lots in the proposed C-G zone. The applicant intends to develop a large office and retail center on this site that would include several office buildings and some smaller commercial structures. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Franklin Road and Eagle Road in this location as shown on the slide. This site is currently composed of multiple lots within the existing Montvue Park Subdivision and the site contains various homes and associated outbuildings that will be removed as part of this project. Obviously, this site has a very visible location located on the southeast corner of Eagle and Franklin and this development is one that will be seen by various passerbys traveling on Eagle Road. Just a brief context of the surrounding area. To the north, obviously, is Franklin Road and the RC Willey complex, To the east is the Touchmark Living Center, which is the large senior living center and various medical offices and things like that located to the east, which is still under development and construction. To the south is St. Luke's Regional Medical Center and to the west is Eagle Road, a medical office building and, then, some -- some single family homes. We can move on now to the aerial photograph. As you can see, there are numerous existing homes on this -- on this property and this kind of helps show the existing access point to Eagle Road that I will discuss a little bit -- a little bit later. We can now move on to the preliminary plat. As part of this application the applicant is proposing to realign much of the current street system within the Montvue Park Subdivision. That process will create a more direct east-west access through this site connecting to the existing stub street East Louise Drive, which extends from the -- from the Touchmark Living Center to the east and the applicant is also proposing a north-south publiC street connection to the Franklin Road to the north. As part of this application, there will remain part of that Montvue Drive, which exists currently, will remain as a public street to serve these properties which are not currently a part of this project. So, they will keep their public street frontage and access. The process of doing this and realigning the street requires various things which were described at length in the report, but the applicant is working with the Ada County Highway District and the Idaho Transportation District to work out all the details on the vacation necessary to realign the street and to create this -- create this proposal. One of the most important issues that should be Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 25 of 49 brought up is staff's recommendation that the access as proposed to Eagle Road by the applicant not be allowed. The staff report explains it in detail as to why, but we do have an ordinance within the city that controls access to the state highway that specifically prohibits -- even though it's an existing access, that specifically prohibits this access to remain when the subject land is increased in its intensity, and as part of this application we are talking about over 200,000 square feet of office space, which would be considered an intensification of the area. Also due to the proximity of this site to Franklin -- to the Franklin -- or to this -- of this intersection here, to the Franklin and Eagle intersection, the fire department and police department and staff are recommending that this -- this be a right-in, right-out only access, because due to concerns about this left-hand movement coming out of this subdivision and trying to get to this -- to this intersection. Much of this is described also in the ACHD report, which I believe the Commissioners received. The comments were not in my staff report, but I did receive draft comments just these last -- in the last couple of days I did forward them, so they should have been something they included in the packet. Or at least not in the packets, necessarily, but included here tonight. I believe I have a copy of it. I'm trying to see here. If not, I can -- if there is questions specifically about that, I can access that. Let's move on. The one other issue regarding access that staff recognized -- it's a little bit hard to see on this drawing, but there is an area along Eagle Road that due to the creation of this frontage road there was -- as we can see here. When this frontage road was created, there was some right of way that was taken by ITD to create this frontage road here. So, the right of way in this area kind of extends much farther than the general -- general right of way take along Eagle Road. Usually it's -- along this section of Eagle Road it's 70 feet from the center line. In this area it's about 140 feet from the center line. And as proposed by the applicant on their preliminary plat, they recognize this and they propose a new property line approximately 110 feet from center line from -- from Eagle Road and staff is concerned that if, indeed, 70 is what the transportation district is looking for here, staff would like to see that 70 remain consistent along this entire section -- 70 feet from center line remain consistent along this section of Eagle Road to avoid creating kind of a no man's land of right of way that would be maintained by the transportation district, which isn't really what they do. So, we are a little bit concerned about this area. To go into too much detail at this point it's a little bit hard to do. The staff report did describe it I hope pretty well. And I think the applicant will be able to respond to this tonight a little bit also, because they have been made aware of this situation and I believe they have come with -- come ready to discuss it, let's just put it that way. Other than those -- than those issues, the applicant -- let's see here. I have also included in the staff report numerous development agreement provisions that refer to -- the bulk of them refer to the site plan, the conceptual site plan that's been submitted by the applicant for this project. Just a quick run through of some of the ones that are a little bit different than usual. Would be tying applicant to this site plan as proposed. Also specifically calling out the pedestrian crossings that they are proposing across the street. Staff viewed that as a positive element of their -- of their conceptual site plan that we would like to see continued. Also, specifically addressing the orientation of the buildings as they are oriented -- at least these four buildings, oriented towards the street with the parking behind them. That's one thing that staff also mentions in the development agreement. And, then, just some general -- general Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 26 of 49 discussion about the type of square footage we are looking for here. Staff -- as proposed by the applicant, most of this is proposed as office space, with two large office buildings proposed for this area, and staff is supportive of that and has included a provision in the development agreement saying, basically, that this area be -- the bulk of it be used for office space, rather than a retail center. And I think that's always been the applicant's intent, it's just something that staff included in the staff report to make that clear. Other than those issues, the applicant has also submitted some conceptual elevations as to the type of buildings that will be constructed on the site. These are conceptual and are mentioned as such in the development agreement. So, when it does come time to build, staff would be looking for something generally consistent with this, as close to it as possible. Here is another -- another office building example. And, then, here is an example of some of the type of smaller scale retail that would be provided on the site. I think that's everything I will go over now. If there is any specific questions regarding the staff report, I'll stand for those. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Justin. Any questions of staff? Moe: Not at this time. Borup: The only thing I had was -- and maybe the applicant you said would address that -- and that was on that right of way, lTD. Has ITD given any statement on what they expect? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Borup, I have been in contact with both ACHD and ITD regarding this whole idea of a right of way no man's land and what I have been told specifically by ACHD and also from ITD, ITD said, in general, in this area, they look at 70 feet as being their ultimate right of way. But when I prodded them about, well, who -- now would that work, I mean what's the vacation process, why they kind of sent me the way of, well, ACHD is the one who maintains this right of way and so you have to vacate it through them. But, then, when I called ACHD, they said this is ITD right of way and we are not the ones who -- it's one of those situations where there is a little bit of discrepancy, let's just put it that way, between the transportation authorities and it happens every now and then and ACHD is -- is trying to work this out. And I think the applicant, to be fair to them, I don't think they are looking to, you know, slide by any regulations here or anything like that, they are just dealing with the thing that staff would be in the sense of just tell us where line work is and we will work from there. But tying down that line right now has been a little bit difficult, at least prior to this hearing. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Justin. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Riley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Penelope Riley, I'm with Treasure Valley Engineers. Our address is 1204 6th Street North, Nampa, Idaho. I am here to represent Ahlquist and Gardner for their annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat application. I would like to put on the record that I want to thank Justin. He has been Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 27 of 49 great to work with and has gone the distance with us and has been very helpful. And it's much appreciated. I'm not going to go over a lot. There is -- the staff report is pretty substantial, but I'm going to try and hit the highlights. If you have any questions about anything, please, feel free to ask me. First of all, I'd like to address the question of the no man's land on the western boundary of the site. And it's real hard to see that, isn't it. What I have here is the -- a schematic that we put together that shows right of way vacation for the two phases and before I go any farther I do want to let you know that the phase two annexation and zoning and preliminary plat is -- will be submitted very soon. We are finalizing those details. So, the question of the no man's land, as Justin brought up, is this area right in here. What I have put in with highlighted -- with the highlighted area is where the existing access road is now. We have two potential western boundaries to work with at this location, one of them -- it would be on the right- hand side of the yellow strip, the other would be on the left-hand side. We are hopeful that when we go to the vacation and swap process with ACHD, that we will be able to move our western boundary there from the inside to the outside. The remainder area would be landscaped and provided with all the visual amenities that Meridian wants to see on corridors such as this. We are going to ask ACHD to vacate that area and release it, so we can move our property line out. We are not certain at this time if that's what will happen. Regardless of who owns it and who has jurisdictions over it, it will be done nicely, it will be landscaped per your ordinance. Right now we are kind of at the whim of ACHD and lTD. Whoever it is, we will work with them and make it right. That's all we can do at this time and I wanted to assure you of that. Thank you. Just to back up again. Our site plan shows two-thirds of the site being annexed and zoned and platted. For the record, the remainder parcel is not very far away. It should be next in the two or three weeks I will have that submitted. One of Justin's comments was about the treatment of the homes that would remain as this site is being annexed and zoned and platted. Again, that won't be an issue. Those homes will be gone before we are really under construction on this phase. The develop agreement, I did call the city attorney's office today and the woman I spoke with politely informed me that I was way too soon and I needed to call back later. Okay. All righty then. So, anyhow -- she was very nice, but I felt like I was stupid. But that's all right. Just a couple of quick highlights. The exterior boundary of the site will be landscaped per the City of Meridian code. There are some comments in the staff report regarding interior road landscape buffers. We will be doing all of those things exactly as you like them. We have some consultants here this evening to speak to the issues of Eagle Road access and the Franklin Road right-in, right-out, and I will defer to them in just a minute. A couple other items I wanted to address with you. There are some existing trees on the site, There are two items under your conditions of approval, I guess, for lack of a better term, that discuss saving them or mitigating for them, keeping them on site. I think the landscaping for this development will be so nice that it will more than make up for those trees that will be removed. We are still finalizing our site plan and, hopefully, if we can keep some of them, we will, but we'd like to maybe have that condition removed, if possible. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Oh. And I did want to mention -- the applicant will address the number of buildings and the square foot configuration as it relates to the site plan that you see now and some other changes that may be occurring. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 28 of 49 Moe: That was what I wanted to know. Rohm: Well, I think maybe at this time let's hear the rest of your testimony and, then, we will ~- might come back to you for questions. Riley: Okay. The next post up on the staff here is the transportation person. Rohm: Thank you. Mortimer: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ron Mortimer with Horace Engineers, One West Main, American Fork, Utah. Have been working on this site. We did a complete traffic analysis. We have been through with the highway district and the state and there are some real issues related to access that are imperative to the way this project is developed. We have also had discussions with the hospital down here about this access here in relationship to how that ties into the system. This particular project with these land uses, it really is imperative that they do have the appropriate access connection in and out of there. As we have proposed is we have this connection here down to St. Luke's. We also have -- we are proposing a right-in over here -- right- in, right-out and, then, over here we have proposed a full access. We have had some discussions with that and the highway district had said, well, you know, we would consider that, but we really want that to -- we would rather consider a three-quarter access there. They'd like to prevent left turns from turning out here. With the median out here, constructing it in such a way that you can turn left into the site, you could go right in and right out, but not turn left. We looked at that and said, well, if we have a right-in and right-out over here, we can live with that, because any traffic that's wants to turn left here could down here, turn right, and go north or take a left turn here that you'd still have the ability to move around the site as necessary. We do have the connection over here that takes us on over to Touchmark, but if this connection -- if this right-in, right-out was not here, a lot of the traffic would go down here to the signal that we have down here. Now, this is all already in an area that has limited capacity, is signalized intersection. When you look at the thoroughfare on Eagle Road, a right-in and right-out here will not impede traffic and that's why the highway district and the state also concurred with that and said, yeah, we will allow that. They did ask us to increase -- reconstruct the radiuses here to get a little bit better flow. We also proposed to put a deceleration area right here in addition to the lane. We also want to set back, so even though right now the state has no plans to carry a third lane through there, we think that that will eventually need to be done and so we are also recommending that they put a setback in addition, so there is an additional right turn lane. So, this right turn lane that kind of runs parallel here, that if that is continued on there is enough room to build a right lane and still provide that. So, we are recommending that that setback takes place, so that there is enough land set aside. The same is true over here, that along here we set this back so we can get the full improvement along Franklin, in addition, that we have a right turn pocket that allows traffic to move out of the through movement and decelerate and turn into the site. Those movements are really critical. Otherwise, we are going to overload this intersection down here and the cues will have an impact Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 29 of 49 on the hospital's ability to move their traffic currently as it is right now and into the future. The friction created by this right-in and right-out, because of the spacing, is going to be minimal to the site. They won't be able to cross because of the raised median out here and it will be signed accordingly, so that the traffic can flow easily in and out of the system. And the same with this one here, because there is not a driveway to the north across the street, there is not going to be a need for any kind of left turn in here, so this full area around here will be allowed for the left turn pocket on Franklin and we will use this area back here. We are set back far enough to where we don't think this will ever be a problem today or in the future for this left turn. It will be a little bit difficult for vehicles to make a left turn out of here, but we are prepared to build such an intersection so that movement is not permitted. But it really is imperative with these types of land uses and the adjacent property, that this access system be set up and connected in such a way that it flows cohesively and the way it's laid out, too, is we are hoping with the land uses that we benefit through here through this cross-access that they can coexist without having to get in their car and drive down the road, that it's going to be convenient, those that do have to drive, can use this access connection, but for the most part those that have connections back and forth business-wise will be able to do it by -- be able to walk back and forth as support services to one another. We also have recommended that they do set back an additional ten feet along here, so that if a future expansion is needed, that that can be accommodated. Right now there is two left turn lanes and, then, a shared through right combination and we say, well, it's -- if development continues to go along through here and the hospital, they may want to come in and expand that, through it in there, and so we are recommending that they set that property aside with the hospital, so that can be accommodated at some future point that there is not a land dispute creating a problem congestion there. I think that summarizes kind of the recommendations of the traffic. We did identify that as we do these improvements that none of these are going to cause a degradation in the traffic system. It's a highly congested area there. There was the comment that some of our analysis does not replicate exactly what's happening out there, partially because of that because the cues are so long north and south of there, that they regulate how much traffic can actually come through our analysis area on an hourly basis, you know, that the system can't put enough traffic through, so when we do our count and our analysis, those volumes are being metered by what's happening at the interchange and what's happening on the roadway. So, yeah, that is something that they made a comment to and that is true, that as we look at this intersection here, the congestion that's occurring there as the ends of the pipe on those ends been opened up, the traffic would get there a lot faster, but because of the way they come off the freeway or the way they are to the north, they can't do that. But we are recommending that we completely set things back along here, so that all future expansion can be accommodated, even to the point where Franklin Road, if it's widened to seven lanes, would be able to be accommodated, too, if that's needed into the future. We want to see that setback provided. That's kind of a summary. Did I miss any points there? Okay. Oh. Over here. This connection here gives the impression that you're looking at a public street. This will be a public street. This will be a public street. And this is a connection that goes through a parking lot. We are going to redesign this. This is a conceptual. And you will see it as just one of these parking ways here. There will be a connection there, but it won't be a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15,2007 Page 30 of 49 thoroughfare as a public street. The highway district does not want to see a public street come down and tie into a private street right there, so the public street -- this will be private. These are the public streets up here. Rohm: I think that should have been a public street when it was constructed in the first place. Mortimer: I'm sorry. I missed that. Rohm: I said I think that that should have been a public street when it was constructed, Mortimer: Oh. Yeah. Yeah. I don't disagree with that. Rohm: Did you say you wanted full access on -- Mortimer: We had that request, but we would be -- we would be satisfied with three- quarter access. Rohm: I think a full access would be real tough. That intersection is always congested. I mean not just at 5:00 o'clock, it's congested every time I have ever been there. Moe: I'm kind of curious what's the distance between there to that entrance? Mortimer: I think it was like 350 feet, something on that order, if I remember. It might have been pushing to 400, but it was on that magnitude. Rohm: That isn't much. Mortimer: Well, if you have room for a double left here, I mean that gives you -- because you can stack from here, that gives you about 700 feet of stacking area for left turns in here. But we would be happy not to allow left turns out of there, The left turns coming in, because of the way the signal cycles here, there will be opportunities and most people will probably come back on Touchmark coming through this way, but we wanted to allow this, so they are not having to come all the way around, come down to this signal down here, and kind of backtrack in, we are very conscious of trying not to overload this system here with anymore problems with the signal than we have, if we can work around that. So, a three-quarter access would be fine. Rohm: It's certainly more palatable than full access for sure. Mortimer: Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 31 of 49 Moe: I just want to make sure the -- that I understood you on your -- the other comment on the -- on the road going to the south right now tying in with the northern one, you're saying that that will go away or is that -- it will go away-- Mortimer: It will be a connection, but it's not a road. It's a -- it's a -- kind of drive aisle connection through. This portion down here will stay like it's constructed right now and as it comes into it, it will just be absorbed into this. It will be -- you will be able to drive from this point straight to this point here, but it will look like you're driving through this development here cohesively, rather than a public street. Rohm: What would it take to convert that private -- Borup: St. Luke's. Rohm: St. Luke's to -- would the construction have to change or just the designation? Borup: It probably -- it looks to me like it's got the right of way it needs. Rohm: Yeah. It's -- well -- Borup: I mean it's at the side. Rohm: Would the applicant like to speak to that? Mortimer: We don't have -- I don't have the information on -- I think there is some representatives from the hospital, but I don't know if that roadway is built to the standards of what the highway district is a public street, since it was built as a private street. We haven't investigated that. When we met with the district, through, they told us they did not want this private -- or this public street coming down tying into it and so - - and I agree with you. If it went the other way, if that was a public street, then, it would be easy to make this tie in. Without that we are kind of in a Catch 22. Rohm: Certainly. Mortimer: But we will have a connection there. So, there is a cross-access to the keep people off of Eagle Road. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Borup, do you have other questions of the applicant? Borup: I don't think for the applicant. Well, maybe while you're here -- I may have misunderstood a little bit on Eagle Road access. I understand the staff's comment, but how I read ACHD is saying they are allowing that. I thought you had mentioned they did not. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 32 of 49 Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, ACHD actually doesn't control access or permit access to Eagle Road, so it doesn't matter what they say in a sense regarding that specific access pOint. It's ITD that controls that access. Borup: I understand. And ITD hasn't done a report yet. Mortimer: Yeah. We have a letter from ITD-- Borup: Okay. Mortimer: -- saying that that's granted on Eagle Road as a right-in and right -- they will permit that as a right-in and right-out. I think there is something in the staff report that mentions that. Lucas: Just a point of clarification. There is a letter from ITD in the staff report saying that -- that they would view that as an option. I mean I don't know if it's -- they are directly giving the permit, because they haven't applied for the permit yet, as far as I understand. So, I think they did get confirmation from ITD's traffic engineers that they viewed this as a -- as a viable access point to Eagle Road and there is -- and I think that's -- that has been ITD's position as far as this is concerned as far as I know as staff as I have talked with them. Borup: But I think you said, then, they would need to apply to City Council for a variance? Lucas: Commissioners, that is correct. The staff report -- I didn't condition them to apply for a variance, because -- Borup: You said you didn't want one. Lucas: I'm not going to put a condition requesting someone to have a variance. We looked at the code. The code clearly says that they can't do it. If they want to do it, they have to apply for a variance. The staff report doesn't say that, but the applicant -- this isn't new to the applicant, so they are in the process, from what I understand, of submitting for that variance. Borup: Well, I certainly agree with the ordinance, but I don't see any -- another viable way for this property to be developed without it either. As long as it's a right-in, right- out. Rohm: Yeah. The fact of the matter is that private drive into St. Luke's property, if, in fact, everything had to come in to either that location and funnel through the parking lot to the north or off of the Franklin Road access, it's going to create more problems than it solves by appearance, And that doesn't seem to be the right answer either. So, in my Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 33 of 49 mind making an application for a variance for a right-in, right-out onto Eagle Road is the most expedient answer that will minimize additional congestion down the road. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would agree entirely. I guess the thing that -- the point I'm concerned about, then, is -- or the question is if, in fact, it was in this -- for this application, in fact, it is noted that -- that that is not to be there, how do we, then, go forth as opposed to -- in an approval mode, we would be denying them that access point and, then, they'd have to turn around and go after a variance at that point, would they not? Rohm: Well, I think that it would be -- we could recommend approval conditional to the City Council granting a variance for that right-in, right-out, and only with that provision. Moe: Well, there are other issues that we need to kind of walk through on this, so we can -- we will go onto that after that, but -- yeah. Rohm: Okay. Riley: Mr. Chairman, if I might address the question of the variance application. I wanted to hear the discussion this evening before I submitted the variance application. So, it will go in tomorrow. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I think that there -- was there someone that was going to speak about the buildings themselves in regards to the site and that's -- Ahlquist: Mr. Chairman, Tom Ahlquist, with Gardner-Ahlqiust Development, 1263 West Woodshire Court in Eagle, Idaho. On behalf of my partners, who are out of Salt Lake City, Cam Gardner and Christian Gardner, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you. My partners have been developing for 30 years down in Salt Lake, have done much of the development in Salt Lake, including the Gateway complex and about 300 different projects there. They are excited to be in the valley and this is our first project with them together, so I think we bring a lot of quality here and we are very very excited about this corridor, working with the City of Meridian, and what kind of quality we are going to bring to this project. I also want to start by thanking Justin. He has been amazing through this process and, certainly, I'm the rookie on the Ahlquist-Gardner development team and he has been more than helpful to me while maintaining strict profeSSionalism and we greatly appreciate that. Land acquisition on this corner has been -- if I started telling you stories, then, we would be here all night. It's been crazy. But I'm happy to let you know that just as of last week we were able to acquire that last L-shaped piece of this and purchased it last week. So, that application will be coming. And that will clarify a lot of the -- the south end of this development. It will allow us to vacate those roads and maintain an access point with St. Luke's that is acceptable to them and we are very sensitive to that road and to that light and actually have a Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 34 of 49 representative from St. Luke's here tonight, if you would like to talk to them about -- about that. They have been very generous to work with us and on this project, because it certainly impacts both of us. As to the buildings and the quality of the buildings, we are -- if -- looking at the elevations, a lot of the elements that were used in the Gateway, which is the three block development down in the middle of Salt Lake City, a lot of those elements will use in this -- this Meridian Gateway project here, including a lot of the same stones and different features, architecturally. We are excited to attract Class A tenants. We have a team of folks that are out nationally attracting tenants right now to come to the Treasure Valley to take some of our Class A space. In addition to the office buildings that we will be building there, we will attract some restaurants and outside retailers to support the hospital and this area and some of the other uses that we have in there and we have also talked with a couple of hotel users and we are looking forward to a very high end hotel, perhaps the highest end hotel in the valley in our project. We are very excited to have the whole project. As of a couple weeks ago I was nervous what was going to happen with that southern border, which is very important in negotiation with St. Luke's, with roadways, with the light, but we look forward to developing the entire corner and making this really be one of the hallmarks of the City of Meridian and are pleased to be working with you. If you have any questions for me in specifics about the buildings, I would be happy to answer them. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, are you satisfied with that presentation? Moe: The only thing I'm a little bit concerned about -- Justin, you -- in regards to the -- can you go back to the site plan showing the buildings. When you spoke earlier about wanting to make sure that the building frontage was based on, you know, Franklin, as well as Eagle, are you concerned at all about this building right here possibly moving up so the parking is behind it or are you -- are you satisfied with the way that is? Lucas: Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, after looking at the site plan, we responded to what the applicant -- applicant gave us and they did create this -- we see it as an entryway, if I can get my pointer to work -- into the subdivision off of Eagle Road. You can notice that they did place those two buildings up in those corners, so when you drive in you drive with those buildings on either side, which I think creates a nice entryway into the project. This building up here, from what I understand, is proposed to be quite tall, up to five stories in height, and locating a building of that size right on the intersection of Eagle and Franklin definitely is something that can be thought about, but when it comes to the height and bulk of such a building, locating it in that location, staff's not really one way or the other, but we didn't see it necessary to require that, I can just put it that way. Ahlquist: Mr. Chairman, I may comment on that. It will make it really straight forward. We can't put it on the corner. We would love to put it on the corner. There is ACHD property that was -- somehow went through the hands of ITD to ACHD and our only option is to have a licensing agreement for landscaping and parking on the far corner and so we have worked through that issue with them. So, that pushes our building back to where it has to be and we can use that for parking. We still think it will give us, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 35 of 49 because of the height of the building, give us a grand entryway and kind of a center piece building here that we think will be very nice. I might speak a little bit -- you know, it's been a Catch 22, this little no man's land, and we will get that worked out. We have had multiple meetings with both ITD and ACHD and, basically, we -- it was -- it was obvious that we needed to start the process with you all here tonight to, then, be able to go back to the table and get that worked. We are hoping that as part of our vacation of these roads up here that that land washes out and this -- to everyone else, we go through our final platting, it will just appear as is shown here, with a landscape buffer that all looks uniform and we are confident that we can work through those issues. Rohm: Thank you. Very nice project. Nice project. Ahlquist: Thank you very much. Thank you for letting us present tonight. Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application at this time? Bell: Good evening, Commissioner Rohm and Commissioners. My name is Matt Bell, I'm representing St. Luke's, address 190 East Bannock Street, Boise, Idaho. 83712. I would just like to reiterate what Mr. Ahlquist and his team has said. We have worked party hard and pretty closely with their group and are very supportive of this when he came to us and said this is what he'd like to do. We were pleased it wasn't a big box store, just because of the compatibility of the uses and what we had kind of always feared would go on that corner. Very pleased with the development and the way he plans to develop it. As for the access to our private road, I can plead a little ignorance. I wasn't around when that happened. It was a decision of ACHD, the City of Meridian, ITD at the time, you know, I think unless there is some compelling reason to make it public, I don't think St. Luke's is at this point willing to do so. That roadway is designed to handle the traffic that we generate. We have a little bit excess capacity on that roadway. This development probably will consume pretty much all of that excess capacity. And we have -- as you all well know, we have got a settlement agreement with the Montvue Subdivision. We will be working with Dr. Ahlquist on updating that coming to a resolution, because it does include all of the parcels, but we certainly want to work with him and make sure that we can have a cohesive and collaborative intersection, traffic through put, all of those types of things. But, you know, as to the public-private roadway, I just don't know if I'm in a position to speak to it, other than to say, you know, that -- our site -- our campus was planned for medical uses. Reasons for private roadways were discussed and established way back when and unless there is compelling reason to do so, I don't think there is much we can do about it at this point. Rohm: No. I agree with that. Thank you. Bell: One thing I would like to say regarding the right~in, right-out along Eagle Road, if this project is denied that right~in, right-out, I think it does make our intersection fail and I'm coming from a perspective of patient safety, ambulance safety, things like that. If that intersection fails, you know, I think we have significant concerns from a patient safety perspective about access to our hospital and emergency services. So, we would Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 36 of 49 strongly encourage that right-in, right-out. Any questions for me about, you know, our involvement? Rohm: And thank you and there are some us that were on the Commission back when that was -- that private drive was developed and there was a lot of stuff that went on back then. Thank you. Bell: There sure was. Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application before we close the Public Hearing? Okay. Seeing none, could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-065 and PP 06-007. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-065 and PP 07-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Discussion? Do we have comments-- Borup: It seems to me like the only issue is the Eagle Road access, is what I wrote down. Rohm: Well, the Eagle Road access, making it a requirement that they get a variance from City Council for that, but, then, we also need to address the three-quarter access on Franklin, if, in fact, the Commission feels that that's viable as well and those are the only two things that -- Moe: Well, I, myself, I guess I would tell you that the right-in, right-out onto Eagle Road I think is -- in my opinion is almost imperative to be done. I happen to agree with the St. Luke's representative. I think you're going to really put a real strain on that intersection down there if, in fact, you don't do something up there. So, I don't have a problem on Eagle Road at all. In regard to Franklin, I'm just the opposite. I'm very concerned about the traffic going west and so allowing a three-quarter entrance on that I'm very concerned on how that will be. I would rather see it be a right-in, right-out only up there as well. Access into this is tough all the way around and, quite frankly, you don't have -- you're going to have to have both of them to be even fairly viable, The project's very nice. I think it's going to be definitely great for the city and I guess I would wish we could do better on the access, but I think as far as my opinion, I think both of them in right-in, right-out is that best I can think to do, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 37 of 49 Borup: Well, I think it could work if it was restricted from midnight to 5:00 a.m. Other than that, I agree. Rohm: And it's not as if there is not access through the property to the -- to the east. And they could gain a left turn in through the Touchmark properties and get that access off of Franklin Road and I agree with the two of you that probably nine times out of ten the best access turning into the left off of Franklin would be okay, but if it got congested, it could back it up a half a mile and take the rest of the evening to break that congestion up. So, I'm pretty sure that right-in, right-out, is probably the right answer for the Franklin access as well. Okay. With that being said, could I get a motion? Moe: Go right ahead, Keith. Borup: Well, how did we decide to handle the Eagle Road access? As the staff report - - staff report says to abandon it. Rohm: Maybe we could get some directions from staff. If, in fact, we were to make a motion moving this onto City Council recommending approval, but with changes to that access off of Eagle, do you have some verbiage that you would suggest? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, indeed, you can make a recommendation to allow that access to exist there. And I think in your motion you can just state that very thing, that, you know, from the Commission's perspective the access to Eagle Road is imperative. That's what I'm hearing, at least. And, you know, you can recommend that the applicant go through all the necessary procedures to make that access happen and part of that procedure would be to get a variance application approved through City Council. The City Council is the only body that can actually grant that access and so they would be the final decision making body, but you can definitely recommend that the Commission believes that that access is a positive and good for this project. I hope that helps. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nary, do you have a particular place where that should be inserted or can we just make that as a statement as an addition to the staff report? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's probably the most appropriate. You could certainly make it part of your motion as a recommendation, but - - I mean that's about all you can, since that's, really, the Council's decision. Borup: The staff report is 1.2.4 is where it's mentioned. Moe: Well, in the development agreement it talks about it, that on -- I think it's the 11th bullet point where it talks about it being abandoned. Borup: And, then, they put it in their required conditions also. That was the 1.2.4 was -- but I guess that doesn't matter if we -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 38 of 49 Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, I think maybe a clarification to those conditions would be something to the effect of -- I believe the conditions read, you know, abandon all access. You could say: Unless approved through a variance by the City Council, abandon all access. That may be something if you wanted to modify that language that you could add that I would include in the staff report that goes to the City Council. And, if not, you really don't have to modify it, because staff's recommendation would remain the same if you chose not to modify those conditions. The City Council, really, would be the one making that decision. But will modify those if you so choose. Nary: Mr. Chairman? And the only other thing -- I guess maybe it's, obvious, to the applicant, I mean there are standards for the variance that they have to meet for the City Council to grant it. So, a recommendation from this body is certainly a positive, but it doesn't necessarily mean that meets the standards. So, I think if you want your opinion known, I think Mr. Lucas' suggestion is probably the best way to do that. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-065 and PP 07-007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 15th, with the fOllowing modifications: On condition 1.2.4, to add: Unless variance is granted at City Council. I don't know if we need to go into anymore detail than that. And, then, at the end of our recommendation, that this Commission recommends -- highly recommends a right-in, right-out access on Eagle Road. We feel it's necessary for traffic flow and safety and viability of the project. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-056 and PP 07-007, to include staff report and the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you all and you have got a great looking project. Thanks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: At this time we are going to take about a ten minute break before we continue and -- but before we -- before we do that, I'd like to turn the mike over to Caleb and he's got a presentation here for just a moment. Hood: Of some sorts. It's one of our long-time Commissioner's last Public Hearing tonight. Keith Borup has served with the city longer than I have been here. Somewhere in the neighborhood of ten years, I understand. I personally have appreciated you being on the Commission helping me along in my four years that I have been here working for the city. I think you have done a lot of great work sitting up there as part of that body Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15,2007 Page 39 of 49 and we are sure going to miss you and do appreciate the -- all the many hours you have spent up there making the tough decisions. You're going to be missed and thanks again for your hard work. Borup: Thank you. I have enjoyed it. Rohm: And as one of the fellow Commissioners, when I first came on the Commission, Commissioner Borup was the chairman and I have to say that I learned a great deal from him and I will miss him greatly and I value his input throughout the length of time that I have been on the Commission myself. Moe: It would be my turn now. Actually, I have had the pleasure of serving with Keith on a couple different boards and it seems like he'd leave and, then, I'd end up following him into the next one and whatnot and I, too -- I have learned quite a lot through -- through watching Keith and I do appreciate all his help in getting me to understand just what this position was all about. So, you will be very much missed, no doubt about it. Borup: I will be thinking of you guys late Thursday nights. Rohm: Anyway, thank you. We are going to take about a ten minute break. Hood: And we are -- just because you are our snack guy, we did -- we do have a little treat for you as well in the break room there, so -- it's nowhere near the amount of -- the hunger pains that I have had throughout the hearings and your little black bag coming to the rescue, but there is a little treat back there. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Will be back in ten minutes. (Recess. ) Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from March 1,2007: AZ 07-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.42 of an acre from R1 to C-G zone for the property located at 1970 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from March 1,2007: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And, let's see, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-002 and RZ 07-003. Both items related to the Hartz Music Shop and begin with the staff report.