Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 19, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 13 of 83 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007 AZ 07-009: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.67acres from R1 to C-G Zone for Queenland Acres by James Prather - SEC of South Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Rohm: At this time we would like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 21 st, 2007, the item A207-009, related to Queenland Acres and begin with the staff report. Watters: Give me just one second here. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is an annexation and zoning request for the property located on the southeast corner of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road. And the property consists of 22.67 acres and is currently zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada County. Here is an aerial of the site. The site consists of 12 rural residential lots in Queenland Acres Subdivision and 12 acres of an un-platted land. There are some existing homes and outbuildings on the property that will be removed upon development of the property. To the north are existing commercial properties. Mountain View Equipment, Boondocks, and a veterinary clinic, zoned C-G and C-2 in Ada County. To the east is commercial property where a Lowe's building is being built, zoned C-G. To the south are single family residences in Bear Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west are commercial storage units and vacant property zoned C-G. The applicant is requesting to annex and zone all of the subject property with a C-G, general retail and service commercial zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is commercial, which complies with the proposed C-G zone. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan for this site. The concept plan shows one 125,000 square foot big box retail building located along the southwest portion of the site. Right here. And one 60,000 square foot building located along -- excuse me -- one 60,000 square foot building with three mid range box retail stores. The plan also shows two 6,000 square foot building pads located along Overland at the northeast corner of the site and one 10,000 square foot pad located at the northwest corner of the site. The site is proposed to contain approximately 207,000 square feet of commercial uses overall. The proposed retail uses are permitted in the C-G zone. Other uses are allowed in the C-G zone as listed in UDC table 11-2-B-2. The concept plan shows access to the site being provided from two full access points. Let's see. Right here and right here. And one right-in, right-out access point on Overland Road. And two full access points on Stoddard. A stub street, South Alaska Avenue, to this property exists and is shown here at the southeast boundary from Bear Creek Subdivision. Staff is requesting that this stub street be extended into the site as a nonpublic street and that local access only signs be installed near the stub street to discourage cut-through traffic. Off-street parking is shown on the plan and will be constructed upon development of the site. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for future buildings planned for this site. The first is an example of a big box retail building. This is of the Target store, I believe, over on Chinden and Eagle, specifically. The second is an example of a mid range box, attached retail buildings. And the third are examples of buildings proposed for the pads along Overland. All of the elevations that were submitted demonstrate an appearance of high quality materials and a mix of materials and colors. No landscaping improvements are required at this Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19. 2007 Page 14 of 83 time, but a 25-foot wide buffer will be required along Overland, a 20 foot wide buffer will be required along Stoddard, and a 25-foot wide buffer to adjoining land uses will be required along the south property boundary upon development of the property. The buffer along the south boundary is required to contain a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and bushes that will result in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of maturity. Internal parking lot landscaping will also be required. Letters of testimony have been received on this application from the following people: Scott Anders. Aaron Neil. And the Bear Creek Homeowners Association. The Bear Creek Homeowners Association letter is accompanied by a petition signed by 236 people. The primary concerns noted are that a transition in zoning is not proposed between the medium low density residential uses and the property proposed to be zoned C-G. The noise created from businesses that are allowed in the C-G zone. The height and size of buildings allowed in the C-G zone, which will block residential views. And the minimal buffer required between land uses. Staff is requesting that a development agreement be required for this property to insure the property develops in a fashion that is consistent with the Comp Plan and does not negatively impact nearby property. Staff is including a provision that limits the types of businesses allowed along the southern portion of the property adjacent to the existing residences. A six toot tall solid fence is also required to be constructed along the portion of the south boundary where no fencing exists. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation and zoning request with the development agreement provisions noted in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Prather: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and staff. James Prather, 707 East United Heritage Parkway, Suite 150, Meridian, Idaho. And along with me this evening is Scott Stanfield of Mason Stanfield, provisional engineers and surveyors. In getting started -- Sonya, if you could go back to the aerial photograph, please. The one that was before this. I think you have another aerial in there that was just a little more -- a little more vivid. Watters: That's alii have. Prather: Then roll it back one. That will be fine. Just to point out again, just tor clarity, where this site is. This is Overland Road, of course, and, then, Stoddard. This would be the water park, of course. Veterinarian clinic. Western Electronics. The mini -- Freedom Storage. This was the application you heard just prior to this one. Then to the south is Bear Creek. And, then, this photograph doesn't show it, but Lowe's is being constructed right now on this property right here. And, then, concurrently Walgreens is being constructed here and, then, there is a bank of retail going in right at this point. This, ot course, being the corner of Meridian and Jacksons and JB's. Sonya, I'm sorry, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 15 of 83 go back to the bubble plan and the site plan and we will pick it up from there. Originally in our submittal we submitted this bubble plan and this is really indicative of what you see here, but much more in generalities. Here is this particular box on this -- on this 12 acres. This is where the mid range box is. This is a 60,000 square foot box which consists of three 20,000 square feet. And this is where these two pads are located right here. And, then, on this one and a half acre is consisting of this pad. I would like to first point out this is a conceptual plan that we have. This is -- we are not running -- this is just for annexation and zoning, as you know. So, staff asked me to come back and try to give them at least two or three conceptual ideas of what we were going to do and we have boiled it down to this -- to this particular template here. However, I must tell you this is not exact, because, one, we do not have any tenants signed on now, obviously. We have a lot of interest in it, but we -- obviously, we are going through the platting, so there is not a particular tenant that we are tayloring this to. As well, this configuration is subject to change a little bit. We would really like to do this footprint, but it may -- I just want the Commission to know that this may change somewhat down the line. Now, as far as utilities being annexed into the city, as you know, Overland Road is being completely improved to a 96 footer by ACHD and that's going on as we speak. If you have gone through this neighborhood you have seen all of the construction happening. Also as well, not only with the 96 foot, they are also peeling up part of -- about 400 feet of Stoddard. Our utilities, basically, are already stubbed in. Our water lines -- three 12 inch water lines stubbed in, along with sewer, coming off of Overland Road and, then, as previously discussed in the other application, we are working with Public Works now in sewering this particular pad and this building down Stoddard into the lift station. Now, I just want to go over -- between Brighton -- this is the developer for Lowe's and myself, we have -- we have put this light in here at the quarter corner. We have moved -- Brighton actually moved the water park entrance from here over to this point, that we could all utilize the light and Mr. Nicholson, the owner of the water park, was quite pleased with that, because if you have been in this area in the summertime, this is a very difficult place to get in and out of, because it doesn't have a light. That will certainly take care of that problem. Now, as you're heading west -- this our first full access that was noted earlier by staff. Our second access, which completely line up with Lowe's across the street, and, then, this right-in, right-out, along with full accesses here on Stoddard Road and, again, at the southerly part of the property. These are full accesses. Now, internally we have worked with staff and along with ACHD what you see here we will not change. This is where the full access -- the northerly access will go, that we can have connectivity right along here, in front of these boxes, which will completely line up with Lowe's, and then -- it's not on this picture, but if you wanted to, you could go from Stoddard to Meridian by coming in front of Lowe's, kind of making a little turn and, then, down and, then, out on Meridian to go south. If not, we'd come down here, just line up with the light, and out. Now, one of the -- I believe that some of the neighbors down here to the south demonstrated pretty strongly at my neighborhood meeting, is their concerns about this stub street right here. This is -- the stub street is called Alaska -- I think Alaska Street. Between ACHD and myself and public -- or with staff, we have worked diligently to try to solve this issue and I believe we have done so. I agree with staff, as a condition of this permit, that we -- we would make this a circuitous type of drive path that would come right down here and, then, right out and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 16 of 83 either to Blue Marlin or back down this drive aisle or this drive aisle to the signal. That's what we have agreed upon. The only issue -- and I'd like to mention it for the record. The only issue I have with this is to -- all these folks that are in Bear Creek that are going to use this -- there is two speeds of travel through this -- that Bear Creek will use here, whether it's Bear Creek or anyone else. There is two speeds that people will travel. One, a speed that if they are coming in from Bear Creek to utilize this, any of the shopping here, that will be one speed. The second speed will be if they are just coming through here to get to this signal. That will be a different speed. And that's what I personally am concerned with. It's not the first one, it's the second speed. So, I'd like to just note for the record of my concern on that. However, as a -- as what we need to -- to approve this application, I will agree with Public Works and staff and ACHD on this particular issue. Now, concerning zoning -- and I believe the neighborhood also voiced this at my neighborhood meeting -- is the intensity of the zoning on this southerly part, roughly right back here, that would affect these property owners. What we have done with staff in securing C-G zoning is to agree that these uses down here be restricted. I think as an example one would be drycleaners, gas stations, landscape type of designers like you see here. Sonya, there is a few others. Watters: Fuel station facilities. Prather: I think car wash. The more intensive uses we have agreed not to permit in here and the difference between -- and staff should probably -- is more qualified to go through this than I am, but as part of the C-G zoning, most of the things that are permitted in this zoning are permitted in the C-N zoning that would be the zoning right underneath C-G. And with these exceptions out, we are trying to make sure these property owners here are comfortable with the fact that this is what we are going to be doing, not some more intensive use slip back in down here. Now, as far as the back of the property is concerned about landscaping, I'd like Scott Stanfield to address these issues. We are going to be talking about elevations, we are going to be talking about landscape, and any other questions the staff might -- or the Commission might have on this. Scott. Sonya, can you put up -- can you put up the slides that show the cross- section? Yes. Stanfield: Good Evening. Scott Stanfield, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. Mason Stanfield Engineers, the Project Engineer on this project. What you see before you is an example of an elevation cross-section on the southerly half. I think the immediate concern just driving out there, just getting on the off-ramp off of Meridian Road is seeing the big wall that Lowe's has up and, then, putting yourself in the rear yards of Bear Creek Subdivision to the south of Lowe's. Lowe's finished floor is quite a bit higher than what we need to be. Lowe's finished floor was established by the Kennedy Lateral, which coursed -- used to course through the middle of their large pad. The ground dropped rather quickly to the south and to the west from the Kennedy Lateral. Kennedy Lateral had to be relocated to the south on Bear Creek's north boundary and, then, to the west -- or to the west of Lowe's or to the east of this subject parcel. That required an inordinate amount of fill to fill that corner and provide cover over the lateral, which raised the finished floor three to six feet above the natural ground at the low sight. If Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 17 of 83 you have been out there, Kennedy Lateral doesn't course through this site, so we don't have any reason to raise the finished floor up that high above the ground, nor do we want to, because that's a lot of money in fill materials. So, we are going to keep the finished floor reasonably close to natural ground -- a little bit higher for drainage. But these cross sections represent a five, five and a half foot high height from the northerly neighbors to the south, the northerly portion of Bear Creek looking to the north at the rear of the building and you can see -- you can't really read from it here, but there is various growth rates and tree foliages on both the coniferous to the right and the deciduous to the left and I believe staff wants a mix of plant types. So, at two and a half years you can see its maturity growth there is kind of in the middle and, then, at full growth you can see that it covers the building both in the cross-section and the elevation views to the bottom right of that slide. The idea there is to match the existing ground as much as we can, keep the top of the buildings down low and covered up with foliage. One thing you do not see there, but we have proposed in an elevation view of the Target photos -- thank you, Sonya. Is that right there. That is what we -- we don't really show on the plan view site view now, but we would be willing to entertain that idea, if it pleased the Commission. That is the rear elevation of the target on Chinden and Eagle Road, I do believe, and they have a landscape -- the upper left-hand corner slide, they have a buffer to the left, a tree-lined buffer, and that is a residential boundary. Then, they have a landscape strip and, then, the drive aisle and, then, another grassed area with trees along the rear of the building. It makes a big difference in noises and glare and sound. Our only difference is I believe they are bermed quite a bit more than what we would afford to do, but the end result is the same, two landscape buffers split by a drive aisle and that also really limits the users on what they can do in the rear of those buildings and should help mitigate some of the concerns the neighbors have. So, that's kind of our ideas on the treatment. Again, I know you guys have probably seen the Lowe's going up and the neighbors have seen the Lowe's going up and the topography just won't dictate that in this case. There will be a drive aisle transition between the two users in the front northwest corner of Lowe's coming out of their northwest corner and we will have to ramp down to this site and either put a short retaining wall along the landscape buffer or just transition in a three to one down to our site, but, again, there is no reason for us to raise our site up that high and it would be silly to do so. So, with that I'll stand for any questions, unless James has some other items. O'Brien: I have a question for Mr. Prather. Can I have that overhead view, Sonya that shows the whole section? You mentioned that access from the back -- or, I'm sorry, from right here through Lowe's and, then, in front of Lowe's over to -- over to Meridian Road? Prather: That is correct, Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, is there going to be a ramp or another road built behind those section of stores where Walgreens is that's going to access Meridian Road? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 18 of 83 Prather: We don't see it on this map, Commissioner, but what it does is it comes down in front of Lowe's and, then, at their property line here it drops to the north. It doesn't go all the way to Overland, but there is a cross-over easement there just about lining up to where Walgreen's back door is and, then, it -- from there you can access any of this -- the shops that will be going in here or come down to this point and slip out a right-in, right-out and go south. O'Brien: So, this road is going to be extended, then? Prather: Correct. Drive aisle. O'Brien: Oh. Okay. There is quite a drop off. I just wondered. Prather: You know, we carved -- I have not done this. Brighton, the developer, has carved that down some, but there is a drop off. Correct. O'Brien: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Prather: One other thing I wanted just to put in -- I agree and concur with staff's findings. There is -- only with one exception and that comes underneath the sub title of development agreement, page 11 of the staff report, I think it's bullet number six, which, basically, reads that there will be a minimum of five -- five building sites, just like we have here, and, then, a 15 percent over or under on the sides of the buildings. I would like to -- I'm trying to agree with this, but the more I review it and the more the engineers review it, we are finding that that's going to be a very tough one. That's not very flexible for us. We may have less, we may have more, we may have three and we may have seven, we may end up with five. But right at the moment we don't know what the market is doing, we don't know what tenants -- if I knew exactly that -- what tenant this was -- was going in this particular site, I could tell you exactly the square footage and we would be done with it. But I'd like that one to be stricken from the -- from the requirements for those reasons. I'll stand for questions, Scott and I. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Prather, I have a concern -- and it has nothing to do with, I guess, per se, this -- the intent here, but they are improving Overland Road and they have improved the intersection Meridian and Overland, with the exception of one -- one drawback and, unfortunately, there wasn't enough space to take care of it and that is a right-hand turn lane coming from the freeway to have access to these buildings and it's only a two lane forward with no right turn lane at the -- I guess the gas station at the corner of that to make a right turn and congestion there is going to -- you're going to be backed up to the freeway off ramps and also going over the overpass to access these buildings and I'm concerned about -- about that alone, the increase in traffic flow that these -- this is going to create outside of the number of homes that are already over there with the number of trips that are already going on. So, any study been done on that or has Ada County Highway District discussed that? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 19 of 83 Prather: Commissioner O'Brien, I'm sure they have in their design -- at least I'm -- I may be speaking out of turn, but I'm sure ACHD in their design of that road took that all into account. I cannot testify to that, but I would assume so. What you see now, I'm assuming you have traveled this road. When you go down right now there is -- I believe there is -- the way you see it striped is not the way this is going to finish. I think we are going to have either two turn lanes to the left -- one turn lane to the left, rather, and, then, two forward and, then, one lane to the right. O'Brien: Oh, is that right? Prather: It's not striped the way that -- O'Brien: Oh, I thought it was already striped, they just have it barricaded, because the lights were in. Prather: It is striped now, but it's not the final striping when they get-- O'Brien: I was concerned about that, because that didn't show any right turn lane. Prather: I understand that. That's my way home as well. O'Brien: All right. Thank you. Prather: That's why I'm so familiar with it. O'Brien: All right. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir. Jim Kouril. Before you start, are you speaking for a larger group of people? Kouril: Yes, sir, I am. Rohm: Could I get a show of hands from the audience for those to whom this gentleman is speaking? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: He's speaking for them. Is that what -- Rohm: That's -- that's what I asked. The reason for that is that you're afforded a longer period of time to speak than if you were just speaking for yourself, so -- Kouril: Thank you. Go to the bottom left, the little thing that looks like a -- Mr. Chair, Commissioners, thank you. Staff and Sonya, thank you. We will try and work through it. As we -- Rohm: Could you-- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 20 of 83 Kouril: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Rohm: -- state your name and address. Kouril: Jim Kouril. K-o-u-r-i-1. My address is 374 West Davenport Court, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. As we spoke about earlier, I represent 236 signatures on a petition that you have all been provided in your handout. The petition were signed members, residents, in the Bear Creek Subdivision and Strada Bellissima Subdivision and the signatures were presented on the petition because, like myself, these are all people concerned with the possible zoning changes in and around our neighborhood. We believe it will affect our home values, there will be increased traffic, which has already been discussed earlier. It will affect our quality of life. A little bit of background of Bear Creek. Bear Creek is a planned community. There are 354 homes there and the homes range from 300,000 to roughly 900,000 dollars. We have pedestrian walkways and we have the nice park that the city has provided. We have lighted streets, lighted walkways, planted medians. We have separate entrances that have plantings and we also have street trees. Strada Bellissima is a newer community. There are currently 64 -- approximately 64 homes in that area. Values ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 dollars. They have lighted streets and walkways. They also have plantings. The unique thing about that neighborhood is they have a tot playground area that the neighborhood has provided. It has been discussed earlier, the Queensland development and I'll just give it to you from my perspective or the neighborhood's perspective -- that the C-G zone would allow the developer to place 200,000 square foot buildings in the development, with 65 foot walls. Only a 25 foot buffer adjacent to the property; the neighborhoods. It is adjacent to a low to medium residential neighborhood, which is very unique in the City of Meridian. The impacts are visual, noise, traffic, and there is no transitional zoning. The issues I'd like to cover are the land use and zoning, traffic access, the values of our homes, visual pollution and noise pollution. Land use zoning -- the current land use has been shown as an R-1 and it is proposed that it be a C-G commercial zoning. And, again, we are talking large buildings, big box stores, 200,000 square foot buildings, with large walls and a minimal buffer. There has been no consideration of the -- Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, page 106, which states: Redevelopment of this type of area is to be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and the transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the property. No transitional zoning has been proposed as a buffer between the low to medium density residential neighborhood and the commercial zone. Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, page 109, Goal One, Action Six, identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses to allow uses such as office and other low intensity uses. The issue on the land use again is the transitional zone and in that example I have highlighted some of the transitional zonings in the area, but it is not shown with the Queensland proposal. It is too intense of zoning adjacent to a low and medium residential neighborhood. Some examples of transitional zonings. The one on the left-hand side -- or, pardon me, my right, that is around the area of Strada Bellissima, that subdivision. This location here is the Schuck's store, which is on Calderwood and Meridian Road, which these transitional zonings -- this particular one Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 21 of 83 protects the residents of Meridian Greens. This type of transitional zoning protects the south side of the residents of the Strada Bellissima. We are asking that you judiciously apply the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan guidance on redevelopment. Carefully considering the intensity of the existing use. The underlying zoning, the surrounding land use, the location of the property and transportation issues in the decision making process on the land use for this development. In consideration of this guidance and the adjacent land use, permit only commercial N or lower zoning. Again, the city's own action item requires that transitional zones be established as buffers between commercial and residential uses. Vehicular traffic from a C-G zone -- Mr. Prather discussed it earlier and we have both actually talked outside of this meeting about it. However, Alaska Way will serve no purpose. It is not a through street, it is still a stub street. Traffic dumped into the parking lot -- and you saw from the example given earlier, there is no clear route. There are safety issues with people zipping through the parking lot and maybe trying to beat a light or to beat traffic. Mr. Prather and a representative from Lowe's or Brighton corporation has told me or reported earlier that they don't want the stub road. Through traffic invites traffic into Bear Creek and it promotes -- it can promote crime. I don't think posting a simple sign that says local traffic only will suffice. It's technically not a street legal sign, like a stop sign. The stub street location, Alaska Way, sits right about here. Again, there is no direct route. Unsafe driving conditions. It's a very poor design. And if you were to sit down and actually count the homes in this area that would -- are the closest to the stub street, you'd count about 40 homes. So, if it does continue all the way through, it's only going to benefit about 40 residents. Again, in consideration of the city's Comprehensive Plan, we ask that you permit only the N zoning or a lower rezoning. We are asking that you support Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima in keeping traffic out of our low to medium density residential neighborhoods, especially on a road that has no purpose. And we ask that you send this message also to the Ada County Highway District. Home values -- Bear Creek residents have sizeable investments in their property. We pay taxes like everyone else, but we have a nice neighborhood and we have nice homes and pay a slightly higher tax. Increased traffic and noise and visual pollution related to the commercial zone will negatively impact the values of our homes. And to maintain the property values we are asking that you deny the C-G commercial zoning. Again -- and I'm going to keep harping on this, because it is -- we all talk about, you know, guidance that the City Council has provided and, again, the Comprehensive Plan is to have a commercial N or lower rezoning to protect our property values and adjacent residential developments. Also, with commercial -- and we have all been to some of the large commercial projects around. You have increased noise. Increased noise is not compatible with a low to medium density residential neighborhood. There is noise from delivery trucks, loud speakers, back-up alarms, drive-thru facilities. And one other noise that wasn't mentioned up there is noise from increased traffic going to these -- these commercial projects, these box stores. Again, we are asking -- a solution to that is a commercial N or a lower rezoning. Visual pollution. This example is the Lowe's example. This is a C-G zone. There is no transitional zoning. It is not compatible with the low to medium density neighborhood. The high walls of the building block views. They shade the property. Lighting outside 24-7 will create visual pollution. A minimal 25 foot buffer is not adequate to screen the developments, residences, from projects Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 22 of 83 like this. Again, this is another view of that same project. There is no adequate visual barrier. The walls are towering. It's visually ugly and distasteful. And there is no consideration of the homeowners adjacent to the low to medium residential. But I would like to add that last Thursday I did meet with a representative from Brighton Corporation. He came out to my house and he looked at that and literally apologized to me for what has occurred. I am working with them hand in hand to have them erect an eight foot decorative concrete wall, along with plantings, that will help protect the view. Go to the next one, please. Thanks, Sonya. I guess I see a little bit of humor in this, because I have the same picture as it seems like everybody else, because this is an excellent example, if a C-G zone is allowed, of what residents would like to see. It should be noted, though, in this example that I'm providing and was provided to you earlier, is this more than a 25 foot buffer and I would ask that you take that into consideration if you do approve it and you do like this type of a plan. Some other examples -- and this is what we get to look at right now and you can see that the elevation of Lowe's has been raised. The big issue with this is that the landscape plan that was originally submitted was not an accurate plan. The landscape designer said that the plan was -- had an existing six foot wood fence, but as you can see there is no existing six foot wood fence there. However, this got raised five feet and it becomes an eye sore now. This is an example of over near Wal-Mart of what the residents of Bear Creek would suggest seeing if it is a C-G zone. The barrier is raised up. There is a nice block wall, not a wooden fence, because we all know that the block's going to stop the sound a lot better than a wooden fence. Again, in your Comprehensive Plan we ask that you permit only a commercial N zone or lower to prevent the visual eye sores that can be caused by a C-G zone. Employ Goal One, Action Item Six of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and provide transitional zoning between commercial and residential zones. Don't allow another big box and be considerate of the Meridian taxpayers and residents. Now, the big box issue I would like to add that Mr. Prather did stand up here and state that that was a conceptual drawing that we were provided. He could change it. Well, I joked with him on the side and said how do we know you're not going to have a large Wal-Mart and a large Sam's Club sitting there and he told he wouldn't do that to us and I believe his word. However, I have to watch out for my neighborhood and our investments and we don't want to see a large box store there. In summary, allow the rezone only to be a commercial N. There is nothing that says you have to allow this C-G zone. Granted, that area is commercial, but there are different levels of commercial. We are asking that you not jump from a residential R-1 all the way to a highest commercial. If anything, we are asking that you just take a small step and go to the lowest commercial, the neighborhood friendly zone. We ask that you give careful and informed consideration to this issue that's been presented to you tonight and I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Kouril, I only have one question. This property is shown on the Comprehensive Plan future land use as commercial. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 23 of 83 Kouril: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: But you're saying it's not commercial. Kouril: No. I apologize if you misunderstood. What I'm saying is that it is correct that it is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as commercial -- commercial zoning. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not say it has to be a commercial C-G zone. What we are proposing is that it does stay commercial, but it be a commercial N zone, which is the neighborhood friendly business type of zoning. Newton-Huckabay: I understand. Kouril: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of this individual? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Rohm: Thank you. Kouril: Thank you. Rohm: Scott Stanfield. Oh, you have already testified. Is there anyone else -- there is nobody else that has signed up to testify, but if there is anyone else that would like to testify that has something other than what Mr. Kouril brought up, please, come forward and you will be heard. There is nobody else that's come forward. By the way, that was a well put together presentation and well appreciated. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and respond to the testimony? Stanfield: Scott Stanfield once again. Just a couple items real quick. Newton- Huckabay, she made a comment about it being on the Comprehensive Plan as commercial. And Mr. Kouril is correct, too, there are various levels of commercial. That's why we would agree to Sonya's recommendation in the development agreement to limit the southerly portions of this to a C-N type designation and that is clearly spelled out in the proposed conditions for the development agreement. So, I believe that addresses the concern. Mr. Kouril even indicated he would like to see a C-N type designation. We don't want to do it blanket, but, again, the south half we think provides that new transition and that could be done, again, through a proposed development agreement. The buffer strip, we never proposed a 25 foot buffer strip. Even the current site plan shows something in the order of -- can't read it, but I think it's the mid 50s. To do the dual buffer strip I believe we would need to make that closer to 60 feet. So, we would agree to continue to work with Sonya on providing that dual buffer, because it's in the best interest of everybody. We are not associated with Lowe's. This is a completely Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 24 of 83 different project. We don't have the same conditions that Lowe's has. But, again, the topography and the constraints that Lowe's had -- a completely different product. So, we don't want to get lumped into what -- with what Lowe's is doing. The noise was mentioned again. I think the dual buffer with the mix of trees will help mitigate that concern. Again, visually we are not doing what Lowe's is doing, providing upwards of the 60 feet and we will agree to that condition to that dual buffer. Surrounding land use. We have C-G on pretty much three sides, so we feel with the development agreement restrictions to C-N to the southerly half, transitioning to a C-G to the north really is a good transitional use. And with that I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: I guess my first question is because the previous testimony included a number of pictures of the Lowe's that's under construction, can you give us some sort of a feel for the difference between the total elevation of your proposal, as compared to what was depicted in the Lowe's building? Stanfield: In Lowe's? Yes, sir, Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission. That ground on Lowe's is -- was, again, filled three to five feet above the natural ground. We are going to be substantially closer to natural ground. So, the Lowe's finished floor - - Mr. Kouri! showed a good -- a good view that you can see from their backyard where you're pretty much looking at that finished floor. You're level with the finished floor. That will not happen at our site. We will be more indicative of what you see on the two slides and the top left and top right, because of the natural terrain. And Lowe's -- you don't see it in the pictures, but they have a 25 foot landscape buffer. It's not built yet. And, then, they have a drive aisle and they don't have a provision for the dual buffer and we had agreed to the dual buffer on our rear elevation. Rohm: Is the height of that southerly wall, as far as from ground level to the top, is it -- is it shorter than the Lowe's building? Stanfield: The wall height? Rohm: The wall height. Stanfield: It's kind of hard to predict on our site, because we don't know what the user would be and we realize the C-G and I think even a C-N zone allows a 65 foot wall. This is a six foot story building and we are not proposing that. Rohm: You're not proposing a six story building. Stanfield: No. And I think Lowe's wall height is somewhere around less than 30 or-- pius or minus 30. So, you take the Lowe's height and you drop it three to five, maybe six feet and, then, you're indicative of our potential top elevation. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 25 of 83 Stanfield: Each user has their own treatment that they do on the buildings. Some-- some buildings will have a parapet wall, a false wall along the top to hide their HVAC system, some will leave that exposed. So, that comes into play with the fixed wall height as well. But, again, we are sitting down quite a bit lower. Rohm: Last question. That dual buffer that you depicted in your presentation, are the trees that will be planted adjacent to the building itself are -- is the caliper of those trees going to be one to two inches or are you planning on putting in some larger trees to __ up front or -- Stanfield: We haven't gotten that far yet. I think that the UDC and the landscape ordinance specifies a minimum caliper two inch. Perhaps James could be more specific. Rohm: Okay. Prather: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, James Prather. On that particular issue I'm a big landscape proponent and it would probably be the equivalent of 36 inch box trees, depending on whether they are deciduous or whether they are evergreens. But they will probably be in the neighborhood of three or four, if we can get them in there and keep them alive. Rohm: All right. Thank you very much. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I have got a couple of questions. You spoke of -- in regard to the C-N zoning in regard that you guys had planned to be looking at -- Sonya, could you go to the site plan, please? First I'm going to ask you a question, Sonya. In regard to the report -- I guess I haven't read through this. In regard to the C-N, is there conditions that the southern portion would be -- would be built into the C-N zoning? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Mae, actually, staff recommended the C-G zone for all of the property. However, staff did compare the uses allowed in the C-N versus the C-G zones. Fuel facilities -- they are virtually -- very close to the same uses. Fuel facilities are conditional uses in the C-N zone and permitted in the C-G. Building material, garden equipment and supply stores, such as Lowe's, are conditional in the C-N and permitted in the C-G. Vehicle washing facilities are conditional use in the C-N and permitted in the C-G zone. Those are really about the only differences. Also, the C-N zone, buildings over 7,500 square feet require design approval. Moe: That's kind of where I'm going with this, is -- is based on your conditions here in regard to the comments that he made he wanted to get stricken from the -- from the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 26 of 83 report itself, at the present time you're looking for a minimum of five buildings on this site and whatnot, if we are going to stay to this condition, it would -- it would behoove to stay at the C-G. I mean if you're going to go a C-N, you're going to anticipate a few more buildings in there, simply because of the square footage that you got to deal with. So, I guess what I'm saying that I would find it hard to believe that you're going to have a big box building right there on the south end that would be a C-N type building. I would be curious to see what that might be. But anyway -- Watters: Excuse me, Chairman, Commissioners. Retail is allowed in both zones. You know, staff's conditions basically, you know, support the C-G zone, but reflect the conditions as in a C-N zone. Moe: Thank you. She answered my question there, so you're okay. Stanfield: That was an easy one. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple, Mr. Chair. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: The first one -- I mean the concern of where we would want to put loading dock facilities -- you know, you have indicated that your preference is not to stick two -- not to be committed to this layout design and with some conditions I would possibly be okay with that, like, for example, if you were to exceed this bullet point, the 15 percent shift, then, maybe it kicks into a conditional use or something, but we will discuss that in a minute. I prefer not to see loading docks on the back of the buildings. On the southern piece of it. Are you looking at possibly putting them on the sides, such as they have done with Target? I think that was the big -- Prather: Certainly, Commissioner. Sonya, go back to the slides of the Target in the back. Newton-Huckabay: Right. And the middle one you can see where there was -- Prather: Can you go to the other set? It will show it a little more clearly. Here you can see -- we are actually looking south. This is how -- now I'm not saying we are building a Target, I'm just saying this is how we are doing it. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Prather: If this is their loading, they load from -- from the north going south. It is not in view of any of the back. So, what you see on the back of Target is what you see right here. You just see the trees. They have only outside of maybe an emergency door, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 27 of 83 that's all the business that they do on the backside of this and that's what we are agreeing to. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Prather: And staff has put as well in here -- and it was mentioned earlier, that there will be a design review on every building over 7,500 feet. So, they have plenty of coverage over us and what we do. Now, going back to the site plan, Sonya, just for a second. That -- the loading would probably come right in here, because that's how we could bring trucks in loaded. Now, these buildings are a little more complicated, especially because of this stub road. These will have to be loaded from the back, if it is built in this manner, where there are mid range boxes. They can load from the -- they can load from the side. I know they are roughly about 100 feet wide here. They can load from the side and still be out of view. The only thing we would have to work out is if this road does go through the traffic that will be in here. Newton-Huckabay: My largest concern would come with a larger retail, because you're going to be getting a lot more -- Prather: They will load for the side. Newton-Huckabay: -- a lot more semi traffic and that's the same with stocking it and whatnot. Prather: It will load from here. Newton-Huckabay: And I may have just completely missed this, but is there a block wall along the south? Prather: There is not. There is a five foot solid vinyl fence currently. Newton-Huckabay: Can there be a block wall? Prather: Well, in the staff report -- forgive me. It's four feet. The vinyl fence is four feet, as Jim noted. In the staff report we agreed to putting in a six foot concrete wall along this southerly border. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Prather: Now, how that actually comes about, they have a fence there now. We would have to put a parallel fence in and it won't be -- as Scott mentioned earlier, this won't be bermed in the back, because there is no -- there is no reason to berm it. If we were to berm, then, we are only going to berm up to the property line and putting a concrete wall down just half a berm really doesn't hold. Which we, actually, don't really need to. So, we were agreeable to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 28 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Watters: Excuse me, Chairman, Commissioners. I just want to clarify one point that Mr. Prather just mentioned. Staff did request in the development agreement that the applicant construct a six foot tall solid fence where none currently exists along the southern boundary of the site. We did not discuss -- or I did not require a concrete block wall, as the staff report sits right now. Newton-Huckabay: It would be my preference to see a concrete block wall. Whenever we have done it in other places in the city I think it adds that finish to -- to a development and -- Prather: Commissioner, we concur. Newton-Huckabay: I'm okay with the C-N zoning. You're kind of limited by gas stations and mortuaries and I don't think you're going to want to put either one in there. Siddoway: Just for clarification, though, they are not being -- you're not being restricted to C-N zoning, just the uses are being restricted. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Siddoway: Because C-N zoning comes with several other setback requirements and building size requirements that they wouldn't be held to as currently written. Watters: And, excuse me, Commissioners, Chairman, if I could just add one more point to that. That's only for the buildings proposed south of that northern access point on Stoddard. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Watters: The pads along Overland would be allowed to develop according to the C-G district. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Watters: Per the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: So, we would exclude the uses on the southern portion that are not -- that are in the C-G zone that are not in the C-N zone, but not apply the design standards. Watters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, design standards are required for all buildings in this development as a condition of the development agreement. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 29 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: Then I don't know if this is a question for you, but I have to chime in that I don't really get the whole Alaska Street myself. You have one, two, three, four, five, six accesses into this piece of property, if you don't include the cross-accesses over to Lowe's, and I just don't -- I would be in support -- I mean maybe an emergency access with things -- the Fire Department can unlock, but I would concur that the Alaska Street is really not -- Stanfield: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I agree and my client agrees. He's stuck in the middle between what the neighbors don't want and what ACHD and the city staff wants. That's why we kind of made that circuitous, we did not want a direct route. The direct route is going to cause more problems. But our preference would be, really, to block that off and just have it pedestrian or as you indicated we could put a pedestrian, widen with grass creet, and put bollards there for emergency. I think that would really be our preference, because we do have so many access points and we have an ingress-egress with Lowe's and I believe even Lowe's has an ingress-egress to the east with the Walgreen's. So, there is a lot of ingress-egress points and that's really not needed, in my opinion, from an engineering standpoint. But it's up to you folks and ACHD. Newton-Huckabay: All right. So, we will talk about that. Thanks. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Siddoway: I have one. There is a proposed condition in -- for the development agreement that says that you must construct a multi-use pathway through the project. I'm wondering if you have provided for that in this concept or if you have given that thought at this point. Prather: Do you want to comment on that, Sonya? Watters: I can. Prather: We have, Commissioner. Stanfield: Not on this site plan, but-- Prather: It doesn't show here, but according to the staff report they also put it in there that it would come in on -- it will come through whether it is a crash gate here or not, it will come through and either come up straight to Overland Road this way or come back through here and, then, go up back exactly -- and the planter is right here, the ten foot wide multi-pathway to get to Overland Road. Siddoway: So, you can comply with that condition, then? Prather: I can. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 30 of 83 Siddoway: The photos that we have seen of the landscape buffer near Target is the -- has the -- the buffer, the access drive, and followed by other additional landscaping up against the building. On the site plan it appears that you have the landscape buffer strip at 25 feet or 20 feet -- is it 20 feet, Sonya? Watters: Twenty-five. Siddoway: Twenty-five. Twenty-five feet. Then, your access road. And, then, it looks like just the wall of the building. Could you comment on that and whether you can accommodate the additional landscaping on the other side of that access drive? Prather: Commissioner, this -- from the back property, back to where you can just basically see the wall in the back here, from this point to this point is exactly 60 feet. We have no problem extending -- I think this site plan showed it at 54. There is no problem with extending that to 60 to do exactly what you see here. And that's what we intend to do anyway. Siddoway: Okay. Prather: Basically a double -- a double landscape. Siddoway: You mentioned that you're amenable to the addition of the concrete block wall? Prather: Yes, Commissioner. Siddoway: And I support that. My only concern is that I have just seen problems in the past where you have got two fences or a fence and a wall that abut one another and the stuff that goes on in between those and I'm just wondering -- I don't know if the -- if we can -- this may be a question for the homeowners, but I don't know if we can get the homeowners association to agree to replace the fence with the wall, so that the fence can -- the homeowners fences can abut that wall. Prather: Well, they will be -- I mean that -- you're correct, Commissioner Siddoway, it will cause maintenance problems, it will cause a lot of things. But the homeowners representative Jim just mentioned that he believes the homeowners association would agree to take down or have us take down that back southerly wall and, then, replace it, and, then, but it up to each one of their walls coming out. And I think that's a good idea, because that just -- that right away takes care of that future problem. Siddoway: I would be more comfortable with that. And, then, a question for staff. One of the bullets says -- for the development agreement that the internal building shall not be subject to the eight foot pedestrian walkway requirement to the perimeter sidewalk. Can you clarify what that is? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19. 2007 Page 31 of 83 Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, the internal pedestrian sidewalk requirement is taken from the design standards. It's a pathway from like say along Overland Road to the entrance of the building. So, basically, saying these southern building lots wouldn't have to extend a pathway clear from their front, you know, building entrance clear to Overland Road. Siddoway: And one last one and, then, I will let you take over. There is a bullet -- if you could go to the site plan. It says that the pad -- the building pad proposed at the corner of Stoddard and Overland should be situated so that the parking is evenly dispersed as shown on the concept plan. I'm just wondering if they chose to move the pad closer similar to these, I wouldn't find that offensive. I'm just wondering what the thought was to require the parking to wrap all the way around. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, I would not find that offensive either. The point behind that was that, again, with the design standards, no more than 70 percent of the parking should be located between the front of the building and the street, so that was the point, just trying to restrict it from having a sea of parking in front of it. Siddoway: Okay. Watters: Staff would also like the building to be brought up closer to the street. Siddoway: So, if they chose to bring the building up to the street, they would not be in violation of that condition. Watters: It should probably be reworded. Siddoway: That's alii have at this time. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Sonya, can you go back to the berm? So, that fence on the upper right, is that sitting on top of the berm or is that down -- is the berm kind of curved? And if that's the case, will the fence -- the new fence is built on top of the berm, which, in effect, elevates the height. Newton-Huckabay: There will be no berm. O'Brien: Be no berm? Prather: Commissioner O'Brien, there will be no berm. We would -- we would put the fence -- block wall right at the property line where it is now and, then, just transition right into that. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 32 of 83 O'Brien: Thank you. I just wanted that clarified. Thank you very much. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you very much. Prather: Thank you. Rohm: Any last discussion before we close the Public Hearing? Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-009. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, before we attempt a motion, I'd like one point of discussion, and that's on the extension of -- is it Alaska Way? Street. I, actually, would support the connection. I don't think it's going to encourage cut-through traffic. I think it will just serve the residents of that subdivision to be able to access it without having to go out to the street and around. It's not a deal killer anyway for me -- either way for me, because I don't think that it puts a lot of traffic out onto Stoddard, but I don't have the concern that it will have a lot of cut through. I think that it will be easiest to go by the residents of that subdivision that want to access the stores there and return home. Just a thought. I don't know if there is any additional thoughts. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just would like to -- I think given, one, that it gives a pretty direct route to Boondocks and Roaring Springs and you can pretty quickly get to a stop light. I just think that you're going to encourage a lot of -- a lot of traffic to go -- because it's going to make it easy to get into the water park and the Boondocks area and -- Siddoway: But just for this subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: You know, with only one teenager per car these days there is going to be, you know, three times the cars going through, and I think if it were a walkway, with the bollards, to encourage possibly more foot traffic through Bear Creek and -- I just -- it just doesn't -- that Target that we have been taking about has the very same thing and I -- I know, I, myself, personally have used that cut-through to get out onto -- driving off of Eagle Road into the Target parking lot, behind Target, up to Alaska Way, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 33 of 83 through Mahogany Park and back out onto McMillan driving my kid over to school at Centennial High School, because traffic gets so bad. And I'm in good company. I mean that's how -- I mean people want to get somewhere fast and you find ways to do it and I think that streets like Alaska Way, although they have all the good intentions, for those four years, so people that live around it, I just don't think that there -- I don't think they meet the spirit of what -- the person who says you will have this road intended. And I very strongly, if I were living there, would feel exactly as the neighbors of Bear Creek do. If you give me a walkway, that would be great. It would be wonderful if those 40 people would walk over, because I suspect they will use these stores and you can walk over there and get what you need and at the end of the day we have reduced traffic all the way around. And I just -- I can't -- you can argue until you're blue in the face with me, but I think that that is -- there is just no need. Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your input. Before we move forward, I would like to get staff's response to that, if, in fact, you have a specific reason why you want to see that or if it's just because there was a cross-access requirement out of the subdivision to that property when the previous subdivision was developed or is there a compelling reason that the city would like to see that road extended. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, it's the city's goal and ACHD's goal to provide stub streets to adjacent development for interconnectivity to reduce the traffic on the adjacent, you know, arterial roadways and, you know, this stub street was planned with the Bear Creek to -- in the future connect to this property and there has been a sign on the stub street saying that it would be extended in the future. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional discussion? Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to make a comment. The fact that the sign's there doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. Rohm: And I think there is general support for your position. Newton-Huckabay: I mean -- and I don't think that by not having it limits connectivity to -- I mean Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima and all of that whole area has been built up under a Comprehensive Plan. That is one of the most interconnected areas of the city. It's very -- very interconnected, which I think is great, and I just -- I just think that -- I would love to go knock on the doors of those people who live right next to those stub streets in other developments and ask them how well it's worked for them. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to make a motion, please? Newton-Huckabay: We have a couple more issues that -- Moe: Yeah, I do, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 34 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: The bullet -- page 11, bullet six, development of the site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual building elevations and site plan submitted with this application. Individual buildings within this development shall be limited to 15 percent over or under the sizes shown on the concept plan and the minimum number of buildings allowed on the site shall be five, as shown on the concept plan. The applicant was not in favor of that bullet. Moe: You have, actually, got the same question I have got. I was curious, if you don't mind, I'd like to find out from staff why that was put in there. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the condition was put in there so that, hopefully, it would limit the site to one big box store, rather than -- you know, there was five buildings -- a minimum of five required, so that we wouldn't end up with, you know, a couple of huge stores out there. That was the main, you know, reason behind that. And, then, the 15 percent over or under, you know, just -- you know, allows us some tool to enforce the concept plan for future development that comes in, so it doesn't change drastically from what the neighbors have seen. Moe: Thank you. Siddoway: And for clarification, if it were -- if things were to change and they needed to do something different that was more than a 15 percent modification, they could propose that, it would just have to come back as a modification of the Conditional Use Permit; is that correct? Watters: That is correct. Siddoway: So, there would be a new Public Hearing. Watters: It's a development agreement modification. Yes. It would be a Public Hearing at City Council. Siddoway: At City Council. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: With that said, I'm in favor of leaving the bullet in. Moe: So am I. Newton-Huckabay: I was concerned about taking it out, so -- well, I have had my little rant on Alaska Street. Rohm: I think you echoed the feelings of the majority and that's well stated. Newton-Huckabay: So, recommending that as just with emergency access? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 35 of 83 Rohm: I don't even know that it needs an emergency access. I think just the public traffic -- the foot traffic. I don't even know that you need the __ Newton-Huckabay: The walkway? Rohm: Yeah. Just the walkway. Moe: I guess what I would say is I would rather have the emergency access point, along with the walkway. I'm not in favor of putting a road in all the way through either. I just think it's going to be more of a hindrance than anything else. The problem I had tonight when we were all discussing all this traffic, you know, we are all concerned about the cut-through traffic, but the applicant was discussing how great it was going to be to get from the western side of this property all the way out to Meridian Road as well, because he's got access all the way through and I realize we have got to get access from property to property, but I see cut-through traffic all through here and I have seen Stoddard Road and realize everything is being redeveloped and there is going to be probably a light on Stoddard and whatnot, but I see traffic that goes all the way south almost to Victory it seems like every morning. So, there is a lot of traffic there. I'm going to anticipate with that Alaska Street over there -- over a couple months after that was in there, there would be a lot of people that realize where they can cut through and go in and get to the freeway that much faster. So, I definitely would like see that not be there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: You're on. Siddoway: Chairman, I'm just pointing out the bullet that begins on the -- it's the sixth bullet that talks about the building pad and the parking wrapping around. We will need to modify that language; so that they are allowed to shift the pad up the street if they so choose. Newton-Huckabay: Sonya, may we -- do you have suggested rewording for that? Watters: Chairman, Commissioners, you know, this -- we have a couple options. It could be stricken entirely. You know, all these lots are going to be subject to design review, which a provision of design review is that no more than 70 percent of the parking be located between the front of the building and the street. We could do that or -- I guess the reason staff made the comment we did was because we liked the layout that was there, it -- you know, it's much less than 70 is the reason for that comment as it is. The Commission may decide which way they'd like to go on that. Newton-Huckabay: Well, in lieu of wordsmithing, I'm in favor of striking it. Watters: Or you could also -- another option is just to have them bring the building up to the, you know, buffer, the front buffer. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 36 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: Or you could say as shown on the concept plan or to move the building -- Watters: Closer to the street. Newton-Huckabay: Closer to the street. Watters: As the other two pads are shown. That might be a better option. Newton-Huckabay: Similar to the ones on the east side of the property? Watters: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Construct a six foot tall concrete fence -- Siddoway: Concrete wall. Newton-Huckabay: Concrete wall. Along the southern boundary of the site. So, construct a six foot tall concrete wall along the southern boundary of the site. Now-- Moe: What are we doing with our landscaping in regard to the dual buffer and whatnot? Newton-Huckabay: Where is that? Siddoway: I don't know that it's in there. I would just say that they need to widen it to 60 feet to include -- page 11 of the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I see it. Siddoway: See it there? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Siddoway: Construct a 25 foot landscape buffer between residential uses on property zoned C-G. I would just say to -- it would need to be a separation between the property line and the structure of the 60 feet, to include the 25 foot minimum buffer and access road and, then, additional landscaping. Newton-Huckabay: Can we refer back to the presentation sample -- I mean in my motion? Siddoway: It's part of the record. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Separation between the block wall -- concrete wall and the structure -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 37 of 83 Siddoway: Yeah. The structure. Newton-Huckabay: -- of 60 feet. Okay. And we have expressed our desire to eliminate Alaska Street and -- okay. Do we even have the authority to eliminate that requirement on Alaska Street? Baird: Madam -- or, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you certainly have the ability to make a recommendation to the City Council. ACHD is the road authority. I don't -- you know, the folks with planning may have a better idea about -- you know, if City Council follows your recommendation, how that fits with ACHD. Anybody over there want to chime in? Newton-Huckabay: I don't recall my ever saying -- that I want to eliminate an ACHD requirement, so -- or making that recommendation. New ground. Baird: Certainly between now and the time that this gets to City Council we will have an answer for that question and we will have some feedback from ACHD. But there is nothing to prevent you from making that your recommendation this evening. Newton-Huckabay: I will go ahead with that, then. Moe: It doesn't surprise me at all. Watters: Excuse me. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was your intent on the 60 foot setback -- was that your intent to apply to all buildings along the southern boundary? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Watters: Rather than just the big box? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Yes. That's the way I understood. Watters: If you could include that in your motion if you would. Siddoway: I supposed one of the details that you're thinking of is that those -- those smaller stores -- he said they would have to load from the rear. So, maybe between those loading areas they could still provide that landscaping and still do the 60 foot setback, but just thinking about whether we are requiring a continuous landscape buffer on the north side of that access road, which would block off any ability to do loading, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I'll take a stab at some wordsmithing on that and you can jump in. Okay. Rohm: You're on. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 38 of 83 Watters: Excuse me. Can I make one other comment quickly here? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Watters: On the DA provisions there is one other requirement -- I'm not sure if you caught it or not. It was a requirement for the six foot fence to be constructed in areas if there was none existing. You will want to go ahead and strike that, if you're -- Mae: Yeah. We've got that one. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. We got that one. Watters: Thank you. Sorry. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2007, with the following modifications: I'm going to start with the landscape. On page 11 of the staff report, bullet ten, construct a 25 foot landscape buffer between residential uses and property zoned C-G, we are changing that to construct a total of a 60 feet -- 60 foot separation between the agreed upon block wall and any structure, which includes the 25 foot landscape buffer, and the landscape buffer against the new -- the structure and with a concession for an access to loading for the smaller retail establishments that may be built on the southeastern portion of the property. Then on bullet point 11. And on -- also on page 11, bullet point 11, will be changed to read: Construct a six foot tall concrete wall along the southern boundary of the site to assist in providing a buffer to the residences in Bear Creek, et cetera and so forth. And, then, on bullet -- Siddoway: Do we want to clarify that that wall is to replace the existing fence? Or do we just leave that? Newton-Huckabay: And is intended to replace the existing fences along that northern Bear Creek property line, if allowed. Now where is -- here we go. Page 11, again, bullet four, the building pad proposed in the corner of Stoddard and Overland Road should be situated so the parking is evenly dispersed around the front and rear and sides of the building as shown in the concept plan or situated closer to Overland Road, similar to those depicted on the east -- east property map. And the C-N zoning is already in here. South. Siddoway: Not C-N zoning. Just restrictions to the uses. Newton-Huckabay: Restrictions to uses. Rohm: How about the access? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 39 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. And the -- sorry, I can't find that one. On page ten, bullet point five that starts with the public stub street Alaska Street in Bear Creek Subdivision, along the south property boundary shall be extended as a nonpublic street into this site. I would like that to be changed to not extended as a public street -- or a nonpublic street and strike the rest of that comment and in lieu of that to have an emergency access cut through only and pedestrian path. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of -- I can't even remember which one we are on. AZ 07-009, to include the staff report and the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Folks, thank you for coming in. At this time we are going to take a ten minute break. (Recess. ) Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-012 Request for Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a C-G zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene - 150 West Maestra: Rohm: At this time we'd like to continue the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and I'd like to begin by opening the Public Hearing -- continued Public Hearing from June 21 st, 2007, of RZ 07-012, related to Valley Shepherd on Meridian and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for rezoning of approximately 22.7 acres of property currently zoned R- 8 to C-G and that's general retail and service commercial. The request is prompted by the applicant's desire to construct electric signage on site, which is not principally permitted within the existing R-8 zone. The Valley Shepherd property is located on the west side of South Meridian Road approximately at the half mile mark between Overland and Victory. As you can see, it's the large property here. It is currently under construction for a church. To the north and west is the existing Bear Creek development. We will go back to the zoning map here. Bear Creek over here. To the east residential properties within the county still. A little bit of light office there in the middle, though. And to the south Strada Bellissima, also part residential and some light office along the highway there. The property is actually designated public/quasi-public on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Public/quasi-public areas are designed to preserve and protect existing private and municipal, state and federal land. This category also includes churches and public lands. Staff believes that the