Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 6, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 13 of 46 Moe: That is as per the staff report? Rohm: As per the staff report. Moe: So moved.. Newton-Huckabay: Second.. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 07-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 34 commercial /retail building lots and 1 common lot on 17.84 acres within the C-G zone for Emerson Park Commercial by Kuna Victory, LLC - 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road and 110 E. Victory Road: Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. At this time we'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 07-014 related to Emerson Park Commercial and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a preliminary plat request for the proposed Emerson Park Commercial development. The property is 17.84 acres in size and is currently rezoned C-G. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Victory and Meridian Road at 2910 and 3030 South Meridian Road and 110 East Victory Road... The property is bordered on the north by a veterinary clinic, zoned RUT in Ada County and future single family residential homes in Bitter Brush Point Subdivision, zoned R-4. On the south by Victory Road and the future mixed use subdivision, Tanana Valley, zoned R-8. On the west by Meridian Road and Strada Bellissima Subdivision future office uses, zoned L-O. And on the east by existing and future single family residential., zoned R-4. This is an aerial view of the property. The site is currently being used as a nursery for Victory Greens. This is a re- plat. This property was previously platted as Mussell -- I think it was Mussell Corners Subdivision. All of it is included, except for this lot here. I believe it was Lot 3. This property is currently zoned C-G, general retail and service commercial district, which complies with the Comp Plan map designation of commercial. And the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for 34 commercial building lots and one common lot on 1.7.84 acres of land.. The proposed building lots range in size from .19 of an acre to 1.28 acres in size. Access to the site is proposed from Victory Road via South Emerson Street, a proposed public street within the development. An existing secondary access consisting of a right-in, right-out is located on South Meridian Road just to the west of the subject site on Lot 3, which is not part of this plat. The secondary access primarily serves Lot 3 of the Mussell Corner Subdivision and also serves the proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 14 of 46 subdivision through an existing cross-access agreement. There is also an access driveway at the north end of this site to Meridian Road that is being used for loading for Victory Greens. If you will -- it's just right here at the very corner. And this driveway will be required to be removed and the use discontinued prior to signature on the final plat. Cross-access should also be provided to the property to the north where the veterinary clinic is located and a driveway should be extended to the north property boundary for future connectivity. This is a copy of the landscape plan submitted by the applicant. A minimum 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along South Meridian Road here. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Victory Road. And a ten foot wide buffer is required along Hallerand Drive and Emerson Street. These buffers are required to be installed outside of the ultimate right of way of adjacent roadways. Additionally, the applicant shall either landscape the 30 foot wide Kennedy lateral easement that runs along the east property boundary here with grass and low lying bushes or shrubs, not trees, as allowed by the irrigation district or provide a five foot wide buffer outside of the Kennedy lateral easement, planted with trees and vegetation in accordance with the standards for landscape buffers to adjoining uses, to meet the requirements for a buffer to residential uses. There is an existing structure located along Victory Road, if you can see it here. And it has a zero foot street side setback. Although there is not a required setback in the C-G zone, structures are required to be located outside of the street buffer, which in this case is 25 feet from the ultimate right of way of Victory Road. Staff is requesting that a condition of approval be added., that the applicant apply for alternative compliance to UDC Table 11-26-3, which requires a 25 foot wide buffer along arterials, for a reduction in buffer width to zero feet for the portion of the buffer required adjacent to Victory Road that is in front of the existing structure.. Alternative compliance must be applied for .prior to or in conjunction with the final plat application. And this condition is not contained in the conditions of approval in the staff report. Staff realized this after the report was written. The applicant submitted a concept plan with the plat application that shows how the site may develop in the future. Staff has reviewed the plan and notes the following: The access point to Meridian Road shown at the northwest corner of the site shall be removed as previously stated.. Structures located on Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, adjacent to Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C. A driveway should be extended to the north property boundary and cross-access provided to the Bartlett property here, which is the existing vet clinic. And a buffer to residential uses shall be added along the east property boundary. With these changes staff is supportive of the proposed concept plan. The applicant submitted conceptual building elevations with this application that comply with those approved with the previous development agreement modification for this site. There are several here. Per the development agreement future buildings on this site shall contain design elements as stated in the development agreement and each building shall be generally consistent with the elevations shown. If a future building is not consistent with these provisions, then, the building and use shall be required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval prior to construction and operation. The applicant submitted a response to the staff report and the staff will reply to as follows -- and you should have a copy of that in your packet Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 15 of 46 there, if you just want to follow along with me. Regarding condition 1.1.1, staff agrees that the current development agreement for this site will need to be amended to reflect the current project, because the original DA was drafted for a four lot subdivision and several of the provisions will be outdated as the subject plat is approved. Staff recommends that the Commission add a condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit a miscellaneous application to amend the current DA for this site that reflects the conditions of approval for the subject preliminary plat. Regarding condition 1.1.4 and 1.1.6F, a detached five foot sidewalk -- five foot wide sidewalk was required to be constructed along Meridian Road, State Highway 69, as a planned development amenity with Conditional Use Permit 03-071. This requirement was based on previous city code. It has been four years since this property was annexed and approved for a four lot subdivision. According to the UDC, all new developments are required to construct a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along State Highway 69. For continuity with adjacent developments this condition should be complied with. Regarding condition 1.1.5. Staffs recommendation that access be provided to the parcel to the north is based on UDC 11-3H-4B3, development along state highways, which requires the construction of a street generally paralleling the state highway to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting state highways that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or a half mile collector road., regardless of zoning. Further, regardless of current or future land use, staff believes that it is appropriate to have afrontage-backage road paralleling the state highway in this location. Regarding condition 1.1.66 and 1.1.7, when the Mussell Corner Subdivision was approved Victory Road was only classified as a collector roadway and the signal at Meridian and Victory had not yet been constructed. Since that time the street classification for Victory has changed to an arterial street in which ACHD requires 96 feet of right of way for the construction of a five lane roadway with curb, gutter, five foot wide concrete detached sidewalks and bike lanes. As a collector Victory would only have been a three or four lane road. Because of this reclassification of Victory Road and the higher intensity of the proposed use, staff believes that the applicant should provide the 25 foot wide buffer outside of the ultimate right of way, as the entire 48 feet will be used for the future expansion of Victory Road. If the Commission does not require this, when Victory Road is widened there will be no landscape buffer. Regarding condition 1.1.13, staff concurs that this condition be modified as stated by the applicant and adding the language City Council and Idaho Transportation Department. Note. A variance is required to be approved by City Council for the relocation of an existing access point to a state highway. Regarding condition 1.2.2., staff concurs that the existing pond may remain in its current form on Lot 6, Block 2, provided that the pond have re-circulated water and be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. In accordance with UDC 11-36- 9C6, staff requests that a condition of approval be added that the applicant comply with the aforementioned UDC requirement. Additionally, staff would like to request that condition of approval 1.1.6D, which requires a 25 foot wide buffer along the north property boundary adjacent to parcel number 82114050305 Bartlett property be stricken. When the report was written staff thought that this property was a residence Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 16 of 46 because of its RUT zoning.. However, it's, actually, a veterinary clinic, which does not require a buffer. Staff is recommending approval of the subject preliminary plat application with the aforementioned changes to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. That's all staff has unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. That was a pretty good report. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? Tverdy: Good evening. My name is Chris Tverdy. I work for Oaas Laney, LLC. Address 519 West Front Street in Boise. We have done a lot of work in the last hour and a half and so I'm a little bit behind Sonya's response the -- to the letter that we submitted today, so pardon me if I stumble a little bit as we go through here, okay? I think for the sake of getting through the material quickly, I'll go right to the conditions that are listed., because I think that the staff has done a good job reviewing our application and I think there really isn't -- there aren't any issues with the concept of what we are doing here, it's really related to landscape buffers and interconnectivity. So, those are the -- those are the items that I'll address real quickly, but, please, if you have any questions feel free to interrupt me at any time. Starting off, condition 1.1.1, think if you refer to staffs most recently revised letter -- the revision of the one I submitted this afternoon, I think we can kind of just walk down that and that will be most producfive. The first item is condition 1.1.1, which is relating to previous documents and development agreements and we agree with the recommendation that staff is making. However, I do want to make one point of correction and that is that the staff is correct in that the first agreement, development agreement, was entered into four years ago, but - - but as recently as September of 2006 that agreement was amended, which is where much of their landscaping items were agreed to and were constructed within the last year by us and as you see -- we will go through this presentation, but you will see that there is a lot of work that we just completed nine months ago that staff is recommending we tear out and -- or not necessarily tear out, but significantly change and expand. O'Brien: Sir, excuse me for interrupting. Mr. Chairman. Is this -- you're referring to the road work that was done on the south side of the Victory Road., adjacent to the Victory Greens area? Tverdy: It would be the north side. O'Brien: Oh, the north side of the road.. Okay. Yes. Tverdy: Yeah. O'Brien: But the south side of the property. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 17 of 46 Tverdy: Correct. That's exactly right. That's really where the heart of the discussion will be focused on tonight. O'Brien: Thank you. Tverdy: Yeah. But as related to condition 1.1.1, we have no issue with the staffs condition -- recommendation for the condition there. Condition 1.1.4 is focusing on the request to widen the sidewalk that's actually on the west side of the property along South Meridian Road from a five feet wide sidewalk to a ten foot wide one. Again, that project was just completed within the last nine months, related to some of the work that we did around the -- around the property, which was the cause of the -- the amendment to the development agreement. We would like for the Commission to consider leaving that requirement -- or not requiring that condition and leaving it at five feet. We have a few pictures here, but I don't know if this is very productive. Would you like me to pass these across to you on these improvements or is this -- is this good enough if I hold it up like this? Rohm: I think we will have to have a copy of it for our records, but -- Tverdy: Okay. Rohm: --obviously, we can see that. Tverdy: Condition 1.1.5 relates to the north property boundary, the cross-access easement to the north property. Rohm: Can we go back to that for just a moment? Tverdy: Absolutely. Rohm: The picture that you -- you're showing there is the existing five foot sidewalk along the east side of Meridian Road running north-south? Tverdy: That is correct. Rohm: Is that what that is right there? Tverdy: That is correct. Rohm: Okay. Tverdy: So, moving on to condition 1.1.5 where staff recommends connectivity through -- a driveway through to the property on the north. Just a point of clarification. I think staff is incorrect in terms of the location of the vet clinic. It's actually one parcel further Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page Y8 of 46 over. Actually, I know that -- that property, so I drove out there yesterday and was trying to meet the people to the immediate north and it's just a residential place with about three acres of pasture. The point remains, though, we have no issue making that connectivity. We are a little nervous about what that use is ultimately going to be, but we understand through conversations with staff the requirement for that internal connectivity and we really have no issue with that. So, yeah, we agree with that condition. Rohm: So, you're okay with that, even though it's not the vet clinic, it's a private residence, you're still in agreement that you will provide that interconnectivity. Tverdy: Yeah. And., in part, because it will help us tie into the emergency access requirement and it's likely that that will develop into a commercial activity as well and -- and Ithink that only improves the connectivity and the access to the property. So, moving on to condition 1.1.6, subparagraph B, this is the item that's difficult for us, so I wanted to hold up a picture here. So, this is related to the -- what we spoke of earlier, the property -- property's southern border where along -- along there staff spoke of an existing residence -- I mean the store front of Victory Greens. The building's been there a long time. It's been converted into the store. Additionally, as you go down Victory Road, you will see that the -- that there is another existing building that's abandoned and we probably will be doing some rework to that, but the parking lot is in the -- in the area where staff is recommending we add the landscaping. Further down we just -- we just completed construction of the new 2M facility. They moved in in March of 2007 and it would require half of their parking lot to be removed in favor of the landscaping and it just kind of goes down that whole side. Excuse me. So, we are very uncomfortable with this -- with this particular requirement, understanding all of the issues related to the development codes and the change in classifiication of Victory Road.. This work was just completed with this amended development agreement in the last six months and we spent probably 150,000 dollars putting in the sidewalk, the landscape buffering, improving Victory Road and irrigation. And so you can see that that's a pretty major impact to that area of the development and we would strongly request that we remove the 20 foot wide buffer requirement on that edge of the property. The surrounding other edges, as we will see through here, we really would -- will, you know, comply with those fully. But in this case there is just a tremendous amount of rework and it puts some of the existing structures into a noncompliance sifiuation. Rohm: Now, this picture here is Victory headed east; is that correct? Tverdy: Correct. Correct. Rohm: Okay. Moe: And the curb, gutter, and the walk that's shown here, that goes all the way through your property towards the east? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 19 of 46 Tverdy: Correct. Moe: All the way through the other building you said you guys have built as well, that's -- Tverdy: Yeah. This is -- I guess I haven't done a great job explaining, but this is in the right of way, it is not on our property. It's in the Victory Road right of way as -- with it's expanded -- Moe: But, basically, what you're telling me, then, is if, in fact, ACHD came in and they wanted to widen out, then, all that goes away and we basically have the edges. The street, then, would be about where those cars are parked,, then? Tverdy: I think there would probably be a couple of feet, but your point is pretty accurate. .Moe: That's what I'm saying. Tverdy: Yeah. Yeah. Moe: Okay. Tverdy: Section -- or condition 1.1.6 is just a -- you know, redundant with an earlier item, as well as 1.1.7, it's really the same exact issue, just stated in two different -- two different conditions. Onto condition 1.1.13, where there is a requirement -- effectively we agree with the staffs revised comments here, so I guess I don't really need to go on with that. Condition 1.2.2 is the wet -- the wet pond condition and we -- staff agrees with our contention that that existing pond is -- I guess we will meet the staffs requirements here. It's really become a -- going to be a feature -- landscape feature on the property and it's a common lot central to the commercial building that -- O'Brien: Where on the map is that located? Thank you. Tverdy: Condition 2.1. This is related to sewer service to the site. We have had many productive conversations in -- in the last couple of days with the Public Works Department. We were surprised, if you will, with the staff report when we were required to -- steps requiring us to continue the Black Cat trunk from the corner of -- it would be the northwest corner of the Meridian Road -Victory intersection, carry across -- extend across Meridian Road and, then, down the frontage of our property along Victory. We assume that we were able -- we would be required to bore under the -- under Meridian Road and connect to the sewer that's being -- in the process of being installed there. Through a variety of conversations with staff, we understand that that doesn't meet the -- I'm not sure the terminology, but the plan for the sewer system, and they want us to Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 20 of 46 construct that down Victory Road, so -- with avariety -- it's a large cost item, because the -- it's a large diameter system and it's very deep, I think. In the neighborhood of 30 feet deep, which will -- as currently designed, it will require a good portion of Meridian Road to be tore up and with sewer placed in and, then, recreated which, obviously, is a very large ticket item. So, we have been working hard to try and come up with a good resolution to this and., ultimately, we can see a path to accomplishing this and, really, what we are asking for in the -- in this -- this condition is that Meridian City Public Works engaged in engineering, value engineering efforts, with us to place that sewer line on the south side of Victory Road and that will, of course, require us to work with the property owner on the other side of the road to -- to make sure that we have got good easement and good location of that, but that could significantly reduce the cost to install that. So, we are not disturbing Victory Road or at least disturbing it as little as possible. And, then, secondly, because the capacity of that sewer main is significantly oversize for what we need., we would -- we are asking the city to engage in a reimbursement program with us and I think staff acknowledged today that they are willing to carry forward those conversations provided appropriate approvals. That is a really fuzzy and nebulous item for me and it kind of gives me a pit in my stomach, because I feel like I'm signing up for dollars that we really don't know the magnitude of yet and that's really where the engineering discussions need to take place.. But to move forward with the project and the discussions, we are okay with -- in principle of funding the creation or the implementation of that sewer main provided that there is a reimbursement program. Moe: You lost me. I want to make sure I understand this. You said earlier that the Black -- that to pick up the Black Cat trunk line at the northwest corner of Meridian Road. Correct? And, then, bring it across. But, then, you talked them talking it to the south side of Victory Road? Tverdy: Yeah. I might have misspoken, but let me just -- let me just clarify. Moe: Okay. Tverdy: The northwest corner of the intersection --okay. So, it's on the opposite side of Cloverdale -- Moe: Right. Tverdy: -- not Cloverdale. Moe: Victory. Tverdy: Victory. Meridian Road from our property. Moe: Right. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 21 of 46 Tverdy: So, the path that Public Works would like that to take -- and I'd love them to jump in here and help me, just so I don't muddy this up, horizontally -- Moe: Horizontally. Tverdy: -- or across the intersection to the south side of Victory Road and the reason for that is because there is a significant amount of installed water mains or whatever on the north side of the road already. Moe: But at the same point you'd still have to tie in underneath Victory to get to that to put it onto your property at that point. Tverdy: Correct. Moe: So, you are going to go through all those again. Okay. Tverdy: Yeah. You can see why we would prefer to go just directly across Meridian Road and that's what's clearly best for our -- our particular development, but it really doesn't meet the plan that's laid for the Public Works. Moe: Okay. Tverdy: I think I did that justice, but I'm not a hundred percent sure.. Okay? Moe: Well, actually, that whole issue is kind of muddied up for me, because the original property -- you know, the original project that happened on the corner, I can remember back in some of our hearings it was discussed at that time, that, eventually, who ever is developing this property was going to have to bring the line over, so -- Tverdy: Gosh, I wish I would have been there for that one. I would have had a head start on that. Moe: So, anyway -- okay. I think I know where you're at with that. Tverdy: Okay. And, then, the last condition is 3.17 related to the emergency access and I think, you know, we are on the same page with staff in terms of, yes, we will provide that access point and we will tie it into the stub street to the north property and we see the value there. So, that was a whole lot of material lightly covered in just a -- in just a little bit and Iguess Iwanted -- the only additional comments I have is that we are pretty proud of this development. There is a lot going on on this corner with the 2M project, the Double D facility on the corner. And, then, the Victory Greens business there. The Victory Greens business owns one parcel and, then, leases the majority of that acreage from my company. Over the course of the next several years we will develop this in phases, working in concert with Victory Greens business, so that, you Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 22 of 46 know, I'll successfully, you know, coexist. However, it is clear and Victory Greens understands that the long-term development plan is to -- to turn this into a very clean, light, industrial, commercial, retail, business park. O'Brien: So, basically, they are going to be moving out? Tverdy: That's right. And,, you know, there is a lot of steps in between now and, then, to work through, especially as we start doing the big earth work here., but we are clearly in sync with them on that. Moe.: Mr. Chairman. So, if I might, I want to go back through this list one more time just -- as what I think what was said., okay? How is that? Tverdy: Great. I apologize if I went too fast. Moe: No. You did fine. Basically, condition 1.1.1 you basically agree with staff. Tverdy: Correct. Moe: Condition 1.1.4 you want to keep your five foot walk, not have to go to the ten foot. Tverdy: Correct. Moe: 1.1:5 you agree with. Tverdy: That's correct. Moe: 1.1..6 you would rather not do that. Tverdy: That's right. Moe: And., then, 1.1.6E -- okay. That goes back to the 1.14; right? Tverdy: Uh-huh.. Rohm: Can we go back to this 1.1.68 for just a moment? It seems to me that the buffer that staff is asking is actually north of this existing buffer, if you will, and it -- less the variance for the existing structure that's east of the Double D. Is that correct? And it seems to me that if -- if you could do the buffer east of the existing structure and have that added to the existing buffer that's there now, you're not tearing anything out and it's -- it's just -- it will be an expanded buffer, but, nevertheless, there wouldn't be an area that has no buffer at such time that Ada County does their road widening. Are you following me? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 23 of 46 Tverdy: I -- completely. Let me add a few comments to that, okay, and then -- staff commented about excepting out the area around the existing structure and that was a new one to me. So, I was just kind of absorbing that as you were talking, but let me use my pointer here. There is no -- basically, from this corner all the way to the end, the -- there is no landscape buffer on -- except for in the right of way with the highway. So, from this point to the edge of the Double D property there will be no interior landscape buffer, because that's not part of this discussion. Then right here is the location of that store firont and that's the area that staff is recommending we except out, if I understand that correctly. So, when we do any future development on that location, then, of course, we come back for Conditional Use Permit and that's where we discuss that particular location. But, otherwise, I think that that's your understanding so far. Moe: Uh-huh. Tverdy: At this edge of the building, however, this is -- this is still -- I don't know how to describe it. It's kind of a driveway and where the Victory Greens open air store front is, if you will. They have a lot of plants and whatever. So, that's kind of retail space for them today. They are using that space. As that continues down, then, we run into the parking lot for this building right here. The parking lot would be in the -- we would have to remove that parking lot to place the 25 foot landscape buffer. Then, we get to the driveway and., then, this is an existing building. This is the 2M building that we just finished in March. They just took occupancy in March. This parking lot would be, I don't know, roughly cut in half as well, so we would have to tear that out. And., then, we get to the end of the developed area. And so from this point to the side, I think that's where we could discuss the larger area. But you can see more than half of the frontage there we are going to have to tear out some existing -- Rohm: Basically, it's already developed. Tverdy: It is. Rohm: And all you're doing is replatting, if you will. Tverdy: Right. And I guess I want to underscore -- at the expense of sounding like a broken record, but that work was just completed.. Rohm.: Got you.. Got you. Tverdy: Just completed. Rohm: Got you. Thank you. Now, back to you, Dave.. Sorry for the interruption there. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 24 of 46 Moe: You're fine. Okay. So, I said 1.1.6F, you take exception to that as well, right, because that's the same as the 1.1.4. Tverdy: That's right. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Same as 1.1.7. .Moe: Yes. Same thing. Tverdy: That's correct. Moe: Then, on 1.1.13, you are in agreement with that -- with the city. Tverdy: Yes, we are. Moe: And same thing on 1.2.2. Tverdy: Yes.. Moe: And, then, 2.1, discussing a reimbursement agreement, you're in favor of that. Tverdy: Yeah. And just that -- the commentary related to the engineering work, the value engineering work that needs to take place, which is probably not needing stated, but -- anyway. Moe: And., then, 3.17 you're also in agreement -- Tverdy: Correct. Moe: -- with staff. I'm uP to speed on those. Thank you. Tverdy: So -- Moe: I have no other questions. Tverdy: That's all I have to present. We have much more material, but I think maybe we would -- it's just backup material, so I'd kind of stand for any questions. Rohm: I think we have pretty much handled the questions as we have gone along, but thank you for -- any other questions of this applicant? Thank you. Tverdy: Thank you. Meridian Planning 8 zoning September 6, 2007 Page 25 of 46 Rohm: There is not anybody that has signed up to speak to this application, but if someone so desires, now is that time. There is no one coming forward, so that's -- no additional testimony. Moe: Mr. Chairman, ask staff a question if I might. I'm just kind of -- I'm a little unclear on what the deal is with the amended DA that was done. Hood.: Commission, Commissioner Moe, I did work on the amended DA for this project here in 2006. The driving force behind that was the -- the new 2M building and the current development agreement or the previous development provision that said all uses need a Conditional Use Permit before you can get going. So, we did work with this company on doing a development agreement, rather than sending them through the CUP process. There was a concept plan and some elevations that were submitted with that. I do not remember reviewing landscaping plans at all. It's a little bit odd that the CZC for the new 2M building got through our office and we didn't say, hey, construct the landscape buffer outside of the right way. I know that wasn't part of what was asked for with the original development agreement modification. Looking back now I should have said, hey, there is this other provision that no one's talked about that we need to update now, but we didn't. That really wasn't what was on the table at that time. We could have brought it up and we could have addressed it, then, but we didn't. Again, I'm a little concerned that the CZC got through the process and they just finished work here this last year and we didn't get the landscape buffer where it needed to be, but, you know, like Sonya said earlier today, she didn't even realize this was in the right of way until she really studied the lines to show, oh, there is the 25 foot wide buffer and sometimes you look at that and you don't see, oh, it's in the right of way, it's not on your property and so -- again, I don't know the whole history behind that. What I would recommend we do, as -- as hopefully a solution, is the alternative compliance that staff recommended for those encroachments in that are there and where there aren't encroachments, then, provide -- and maybe not the full width buffer, because if we are only going to have five or ten feet for three-quarters of it it doesn't make sense to have 25 feet -- where you can put 25 feet in. Maybe it's a ten foot wide most of the way and when you have the existing Victory Greens office encumbrance., parking lot encumbrances, those types of things, we can allow those to encroach into the buffer or reduce the buffer width there. But where it is -- where you can get a good buffer, let's make that look really nice and meet the intent of the ordinance somehow, so we aren't left with just nothing. So, I think there is some compromise there. The alternative compliance section is done at the staff level, so it would help to have some guidance from the Commission as to what we should be looking for if, in fact, that's where you go and ask them to apply for alternative compliance. I don't think it makes sense to just require a full 25 foot wide buffer, because this site is -- a majority of it is redeveloped. Now, if they knock down the nursery and somefhing new is constructed where that house office is today, they should have to comply, because, you know, they are razing it and new construction should comply with the ordinance, but I think in this case we can Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 26 of 46 work with them on finding something that works for both the city and the applicant, hopefully, where we can provide an adequate buffer. I don't know if that totally explains the history, but that's my perspective from being involved in this for several years now. Moe: That's -- I appreciate that. I guess the only other question I would have for you -- again, (realize that the -- the Meridian -- you know, the Meridian Road side as far as where we have the five foot sidewalk there, you do want to see that go to a ten foot. Hood: I can let Sonya answer that or I will -- I will answer it. The code requires a ten foot. Moe:. Okay. Hood.: You're going to have Double D that has five foot and they are probably not going to develop for many many many years, so where ever it goes you're going to have still a stretch of it that's still only going to be five feet. The code requires a ten foot wide buffer and I will just leave it at that. I mean -- or a ten foot wide walkway. So, staff is really obligated to require that. If you allow the five foot sidewalk to remain, I will sleep at night -- tonight just fine, so -- Newton-Huckabay: But will you, Sonya? Sonya: I will sleep also. Thank you. Moe: We are worried about that. Rohm: Before we go forward, I want to -- I want to have both of those pictures entered into the record., so we need to have both of them up here, please. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: With the landscaping that's in the right of way on the south property line, it also has a sidewalk, so if we don't do any landscaping, there will be no sidewalk. Is that -- Wafters: When Victory widens and -- well, that -- if Victory widens this sidewalk will be constructed with the widening by ACHD. Newton-Huckabay: No? Wafters: No. Okay. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 27 of 46 Hood: The sidewalk should be constructed with the subdivision plat and, in fact, I'm sure ACRD has a condition that they have to construct the sidewalk as part of this. That's pretty standard. Newton-Huckabay: I was talking about the one that's already there. Hood: Oh. Okay. Reconstruct it you mean? Wafters: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Hood: Yeah. It will be reconstructed. Sorry. I didn't -- Rohm: So, that would be Ada County Highway District would reconstruct the sidewalk? Hood: Correct. Rohm: That's real important from my perspective. I just want to make sure we have one. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I didn't want to impede the alternative compliance on the landscaping, because some parts of it you just couldn't put sidewalk in with it all -- for example, right in front of the Victory Green's office. Rohm: Yeah. I'm not sure how close that building is to the road right of way. Newton-Huckabay: There is two -- yeah, there is two of them right there that are -- Rohm: Right up to it. Newton-Huckabay: -- right up there. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, and the other Commissioners, I -- you know, in that case they may actually have to condemn -- and maybe that's why this -- this mile hasn't been widened is because there are a couple of buildings that are pretty close, so that may jump the cost of a project up significantly if they have to condemn a building. But generally what they would do is they would., you know, neck that down or they wouldn't have -- if it was supposed to be a detached sidewalk, they would attach it for just a short stretch to get around the house or something. I don't know what exactly they have up their sleeve as far as that, but it would be a continuous sidewalk. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 28 of 46 Rohm: Good. Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, excuse me, if I might add one other thing, in light of the applicant's statement about the property to the north being an existing residence, not a veterinary clinic. I have my site switched. I'd ask you to remove the condition of approval 1.1.6D that requires a 25 foot wide buffer between land uses. If we could just let that condition stand that would meet the UDC requirements. Newton-Huckabay: That was the one you added during your presentation. Wafters: I asked for it to be deleted. And it's actually in there and needs to stay in there. Newton-Huckabay: Needs to stay in there. Wafters: Thank you. Rohm.: Because it's not commercial. Right. Wafters: It's residential. Rohm: Thank you. Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing on this project? Baird: Mr. Chair. I'd just suggest before you do that we might want to give the applicant an opportunity to rebut or address anything that has been discussed. There hasn't been any other testimony, but there has been some discussion and I want to make sure we have a complete record. Rohm: And I sure want to give them every opportunity. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and respond to any discussion of the Commission and staff? Basically, we have been discussing all of the different changes that you have requested and staffs inserted their comments and, basically, this is your opportunity to respond to any discussion amongst the Commission. and additional comments from staff. So, if there is anything that you heard that you take exception to, this would be your time. Tverdy: I would like to comment on a couple of items. First, I really appreciate the effort that staff is putting forward in working with us on this -- on this southern border, because I realize it's a real irregular situation and we can absolutely live with the commentary of adding that landscape buffer and working with staff to redo our plan to show that buffer being where it's -- where there is room to do it, where we don't have to tear out a parking lot and, then, as we go forward with some of these developments we absolutely agree that if -- if, for instance, a building is removed and there is one building on the project that's the Old 2M building, that is an example of that where we would Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 29 of 46 remove that, then, we would add the landscape buffer in there. So, I think that's a fantastic suggestion and we can -- we can fully support that. The last comment that staff -- that Sonya made about adding back in the condition on the north boundary of the property where this -- where she previously removed the requirement fora 25 foot buffer, we have no issue with placing that back in as well, just want to comment that the large majority of that small slice of property -- we are talking right there -- is going to be taken up by the interconnectivity road, but there might be a little bit of space on the edges that would -- that would facilitate some sort of landscape buffer. So, we knowledge that. Rohm: Good. Thank you. That's perfect. Tverdy: I think that's -- those are the -- any other comments that -- Rohm: I think that captures it. Tverdy: Okay. Rohm: At this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. PP 07- 014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Any final comments, Commissioner Moe? Moe: I'm confused. Well, basically, going through the letter and, then, the comments back through, I'm glad to see that we can probably work something out on Victory Road in some alternative compliance to take care of that issue on -- what was that, 1.1..6.. I'm glad to see that the applicant has somewhat agreed to most of the items that the city wants to change here. In regards to the pathway going from the five foot to the ten foot, I'm struggling on that one a little bit, simply because of the fact the five foot one is in there and so, quite frankly, I would just as soon see it stay that way. It's landscaped, it's done, and I think that I'd just as soon see it stay that way, so as far as that I would just delete that. Other than that, I think that -- you know, between the five foot walk or the alternative compliance on Victory Road, all the other items were pretty much agreed to per staff comment. That's the way I see it, unless someone can tell me otherwise. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 30 of 46 Newton-Huckabay: I have -- I agree with the sidewalk and that if there isn't some that isn't constructed I would encourage it to be tapered into the ten foot, so as other properties connect into it, it would match up. Does that make sense? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Regarding alternative compliance on the south side, I'd like to see at least ten foot where ever possible on the -- on the landscape in the right of way. If not, 15. I think 25 would be too much to try to modulate through there. So, that would be my only preference on the -- on those pieces of sections that could be landscaped is to go with ten foot, 15 foot buffer. And, then, also we would put a requirement if any building was razed it would come into compliance. Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Mr. -- one question if I might. Your -- your minimum ten foot, would that be something you would want to put in a motion to that or not -- or them working with staff to review it or is that just kind of a comment of yours? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I thought the staff had asked for a preference on that. Was wrong? Was I wrong? Moe: No. I'm just -- Newton-Huckabay: So, I -- no, that was just my preference. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I have no other comments. Rofim: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Well, I get kind of torn sometimes on these issues of flexibility and being consistent with other areas around town, but I'm glad that we are able to work with -- able to work with the situation, so it's not awin-lose thing, but awin-win. I think as we develop this thing I agree with Commissioner -- fellow commissioners about making the transition as we go -- making it compatible with what's already been built and not disturb that., because in going by there quite frequently I think it would be a -- quite an expense to redo all of that and I think it would make a mess out of it. So, I think that we should just go along with -- with the way it is and, then, develop it as we go, make sure that the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 31 of 46 buffers meld into the existing landscape and I don't think I have any issues. I think you covered them already, so that's all I have. Rohm: Good... Thank you. I guess the only comment that I would make is I think from the staffs perspective having more time to digest these changes or requests for adjustments to the staff report prior to the day of the hearing would be appreciated. It puts a lot of strain on staff to make sure that any -- any applicant's request don't encumber some other UDC ruling and it's tough for them to put things together for us and, then, by the same token for us to respond all at the same time. So, in the future we'd appreciate it if -- if you have got these kind of developments to address issues, give staff more time to work with it. That's my only comments on that. But having said that, it appears as if there is a compromise here that will work for both our staff and for you folks in the development community and thanks for coming in. Newton-Huckabay: Who wants to make this motion? Rohm: I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was going to make this motion. Newton-Huckabay: Since she opened her big mouth. After considering all staff, applicant, and public -- oh, before I start, if I just speak to the letter and staffs response -- staffs response to the letter, make a comment that we are striking condition 1.1.4 from the staff report and -- Moe: And modifying -- Newton-Huckabay: And., then, we are going to modify condition 1.1.66 and recommend alternative compliance. Moe: That's what I thought we were going to do in your comment of minimums or whatever. Newton-Huckabay: And that's to be worked out with the applicant and city staff. And my request for the ten to 15 foot is where it's not going to look silly. I don't want to make it look -- I don't want it to look stilly, but I would like it to be as wide as possible. So, that's kind of -- and condition 1.1.6f we would be stricken from the report? That's the ten foot wide along South Meridian Road. Moe: Yes. Same thing with seven. Wafters: Excuse me, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Can you clarify how wide of a buffer that you would like in the areas that aren't. encumbered by existing building or parking lot? Newton-Huckabay: I'd put ten to fifteen feet. You want one or the other? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 32 of 46 Wafters: Please. Newton-Huckabay: Fifteen. Wafters: Fifteen? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Wafters: And could you also add in that -- in your motion alternative compliance must be applied for prior to or concurrently with the final plat application, please. Newton-Huckabay: With the final what? Wafters: Final plat application. Thank you. Moe: I guess the others -- Newton-Huckabay: 1.1.7 is striking -- Moe: Yes, I .believe so. Then, on these others staff is going to concur with what they said. Wafters: Excuse me. Commissioners, we don't want to strike all of condition 1.1.7 if -- believe that's what you said. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Oh, yeah. You're right. Wafters: Maybe modify it to require a minimum 15 foot wide buffer outside of the ultimate right of way where no existing -- where no buildings exist or parking lots, something to that effect. Newton-Huckabay: Where no building or -- Moe: Probably need to put something to revise this condition -- Newton-Huckabay: 1.1 -- Moe: All the conditions that the staff concurs, just per the applicant's response -- or the staffs response to the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: On what -- on 1.3 and 1.2.2? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 33 of 46 Moe: .2 and 2.1. Same thing, actually. 3.17. They are going to work with staff on all these. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Moe: That should do it. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Here we go. Moe: That's easy. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 07-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 6, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval -- and most of these are being made from the letter and response from Oaas Laney on September 6th to Sonya Wafters. Condition 1.1.4 will be removed. Condition 1.1.66 the Commission recommends alternative compliance for -- with the applicant and is instructed to work with staff on the details of that and the alternate compliance must be applied for prior to or in concurrence with their final plat application approval. Rohm: That's 15 feet? Newton-Huckabay: That's down one more. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Condition 1.1.6E will be removed. Condition 1.1.7 will be restated as the applicant will be required to put a minimum 15 foot buffer outside of the right of way in areas where no building or parking lots exist. Moe: On East Victory Road? Newton-Huckabay: On East Victory Road. Condition 1.1.13, staff is in agreement with the applicant's response in the letter previously mentioned, dated September 6th. Condition 1.2.2 staff is also in concurrence with the applicant's response in the same letter. Wafters; Excuse me. Could we back up to condition. 1.1.13? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Wafters: Staff was recommending that that condition be modified as stated by the applicant and the language added City Council and ITD. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 34 of 46 Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Watters: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. And staff is in concurrence with the applicant and, then, goes on to add that they want to have added -- language added City Council and ITD and note that a variance is required to be approved by City Council for the relocation of existing access point to state highway. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Condition 1.1.2 -- Moe: 1.2.2. Newton-Huckabay: 1.2.2. Staff is concurrence the pond may remain and -- but it must have re-circulated water and be maintained so that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground in accordance with UDC 11-3B-9C6. Condition 2.1, staff agrees with the applicant's response and staff will work with the applicant to draft a reimbursement agreement that will go before Council for approval, as outlined in City Code 9-4-19. Condition 3.17. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's response. They agree that the condition be modified to require an emergency access driveway to South Meridian Road at the northern portion of the development, rather than specifically at the northern end of Colleran Drive. This change is based on the applicant's proposal to potentially relocate access to the highway as stated in condition 1.1.13. If the relocation occurs a new driveway may serve as both an emergency access and access for the development. Construction plans for the access drive shall be approved by the Meridian fire department. I believe that is the end of the motion. Hood: Oh. One question. We talked about modifying the development agreement to reflect this current project. Staff would still propose -- and the applicant I think concurred with that, but that wasn't part of the motion. That was regarding condition 1.1.1 is where it was brought up by the applicant, but if the City Council also finds favorably of this application, I think the development agreement should probably be cleaned up, since it probably makes reference to a four lot subdivision and these types of things, just to be cleaned up to kind of lump this all into one document that is comprehensive. Newton-Huckabay: Would you like me to read staffs response on the record or -- Hood: You can reference it. You can come up with your own. I mean condition -- guess the point is is that the applicant should submit for a development agreement modification prior to final plat. That way we can have the development agreement again Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 35 of 46 reflect the approvals for the subdivision on a project. Again, that's just the cleanest way to go. If it doesn't happen you have got a preliminary plat that would -- Newton-Huckabay: Let's go with condition 1.1.1 will be modified as stated in staffs response to the letter from Oaas Laney dated September 6th that starts with staff agrees that the current DA -- DA for the site will need to be amended to reflect the current project, et cetera, and so fourth. Does that cover it? Hood.: Yes. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Moe: Second.. Rohm: That was a good job. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 07-014, to include the staff report and the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Proposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And we are going to take a short break here, about ten minutes, and we will be right back. (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: PFP 07-003 Request for a Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6 acres located in the C-G zoning district for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Carmen, LLC - 1351 & 1375 E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: At this time we'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening the Public Hearing on PFP 07- 003 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a combined preliminary/final plat request for proposed Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision. The property is six acres in size and is zoned C-G and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. In 2002 approval of a preliminary/final plat for the subject site was approved by City Council. However, the final plat was never recorded. The applicant is requesting approval of the same plat Council approved in 2002. If you look on the map here, the subject site is located at 1351 and 1375 East Fairview Avenue. .It's located on the southeast corner of North Stonehenge Way and East Fairview Avenue and west of North Locust Grove Road. The property is bordered by county