Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes• ~ Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting '~~ ` December 14, 1999 50 Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval or recommendation to City Council for annexation and zoning of 20.05 acres from M-1 to I-L by Albertson's, Inc. incorporating the -staffs notes of December 3. Hatcher: Second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 10 ACRES FROM RT TO LO FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY-EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: Hawkins: Commissioner's, Iwill address both the annexation and conditional use permit application in my comments. The staff memo dated December 3, 1999 on this application details staff requests. They are asking to annex both of the lots shown on the screen. This is immediately west of the recently construction Eagle Partners site. We have Green Hill Subdivision immediately to the north. Recently annexed property to the south for the Hubble Engineering site. As mentioned in the staff report, this whole subdivision is fairly organized. The Magic View Subdivision that is in this Comprehensive Plan process, they seem to have consensus that they want to move from the current single family residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan to some kind of commercial office use. I would point to that there has been that those discussions going on. We have met since the submission of the application staff that is, with the applicant. A couple of the key points in the report to point out, the page 3 of the report number 10, a minimum 35 landscape buffer required along the north property boundary, that is basically a continuation of what the Eagle Partners site has and again there is a road that is coming through the site here. Here is the site plan. The applicant has asked that on the western lot, only 20 feet of landscape buffer be on the north side next to Green Hill Estates. Item 12 on page 2 deals with the subdivision. The subdivision and zoning ordinance does state that a road dedication can be considered as subdivision of property. So, we have this road coming here through from Eagle Partners and then aligning with existing Allen Street here with a line. Some discussion we had regarding this requirement that they go through a platting process. Staff is certainly open to another alternative there. We did discuss that. Maybe the applicant can address their feelings on that further. In terms of the conditional use permit they are proposing 3 one story buildings that would be this as a one story, this is a one story, this is a one story, this would be a 2 story here on the south part of this western most lot, which I believe they are calling B. Certainly in terms of the request for a restaurant which was proposed as a ancillary restaurant, the applicant is still uncertain as to what would be the size or what the restaurant would be and staff are asking that you give us the opportunity to make that call as to whether or not is should come back as a conditional use permit to you. It is a concern and we know it is for the commission too in terms of the future restaurants coming in to these locations without the restaurant ..~, • Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 51 being identified or how big it will be so we are simply saying that a conditional use permit if required, would like an opportunity to send that back to you. I think the other conditions are pretty clear. That's it. Borup: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Seel.: Good evening. My name is Jonathan Seel. I work at W.H. Moore Company. 600 N. Steelhead Boise Idaho. As Brad as mentioned to you we have met with them and if I could take just a few minutes I'd like to give you a little brief history. As you well know, ACHD has talked about extending that road down from Eagle Road down to Magic View. As Winston Moore said (inaudible) that property he went to ACRD recently and said we would like to get an idea of specifically what you had in mind in terms (inaudible) width of it, how much right of way your going to take, what the radius is going to be, so on and so forth. As a result of that, ACHD say well, the best way to be able to formulate that is for you, Winston Moore, to go ahead and submit an application, provide a conceptual plan, put your road in as you like and that will trigger the whole process. Well, that is what we did. We presented the conceptual plan which as Brad said, would be an office building one story there on the westerly portion (inaudible) below it, a restaurant on the easterly southerly portion with an office above that. The reason that I bring that up is because one of the conditions in here which is item number 14 on page 4, is that a development agreement will be required as condition of annexation. As we talked to Brad about this and also Shari Stiles, we would really like to avoid that. As we mentioned this point, what we are submitting here is a conceptual plan. We don't know what type of office it is going to be. We don't know exactly what type of restaurant it is going to be. What we are prepared to do because Shari raised a few concerns. She said well, under an LO for example, you can put a C store in. That is a valid concern. We don't intend in doing that and what we are willing to do is put a condition here that this will be their office or office and restaurant. We will put that in the condition. If for some reason, which I don't know why, we were to come back to you and say to you we would like to put a c store in here, then all bets are off and we start the process over again. I think that would address the concerns of the development agreement and still give us flexibility. What our concern with the development agreement is, our experience has been historically, development agreements are very structured. Because this is a concept plan, we don't know exactly how these offices are going to look or potentially how this restaurant will look, or whether or not we will even have a restaurant for that matter. What we are really trying to do is address the concerns that the city has, but at the same time not have the development agreement. I think one of the things that that speaks to is if you look on page 5, item number 5 at the bottom, it talks about no details for hours. of operation are provided while the office use shall be (inaudible) so on. It talks about specific hours of operation and so on for the restaurant. Again, we don't know that. That is where Brad came up to it. What we would like to propose is to simply leave item number 2, which is on page 6. And again that says it simply we would potentially come back or if staff asked for a conditional use permit for the restaurant, if we did propose a restaurant. I think number one, we are asking for the elimination of the development agreement. We are will to put in that it will be office or office and restaurant. I think that addresses your concern. This is a Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1999 52 concept plan as we see it. We would also like to modify item number 5 on page 5 and 6 and then I think as Brad also spoke to you, we would also like to do is avoid the subdivision process as possible. Our experience, and I know Kent is very familiar with this, is for example the Boise we've been able to deed that land to ACHD and we could potentially do lot like adjustments or something like that, but we would really prefer to avoid the subdivision process. I think you've got enough work to do all ready without adding to it and we think that this would still get you to where you want to, which is 2 lots. It is a subdivision as we both know. I think, other then that, you talked about the birm and the 30 feet and the 20 feet, 30 feet being on the lot, the easterly lot, 20 feet being on the westerly lot. We would like to suggest that too. Other then that, I think we are agreement with every other condition that's in here. So, I'd be glad to answer any questions. Barbeiro: Mr. Seel. You would not object to a condition that a restaurant not be a 24 hour restaurant in that area. Seel: I think what I'd prefer to do and I guess I won't directly answer that question, but what I prefer to do come back for a CU and that is what we are saying here because we don't know what the restaurant is going to be. I know where you are going with this but I think if we come back under conditional use permit then you have the flexibility at that point. Again, I think it is giving you the control that you want and I can understand the concern and I can understand the concerns of neighbors to the north. I don't personally visualize it would be that, but at the same time I don't want to box us in. I am trying to give us some flexibility, but still get the cities a second bite of the apple to say okay fine. Here is the conditions. You can have a restaurant but this is what you've got to do. Barbeiro: Inside of a development agreement, those can be pretty wide open at the same time, as they could be very narrow. Why wouldn't you enter into a fairly general broad development agreement. Seel: I guess because we don't see any purpose of that. Again, we are submitting a concept plan. We are saying we are going to do office, with the possibility of restaurant. We are willing to agree to night to put that condition on that. This will be office with the possibility of office restaurant. If it is a restaurant, they can have the flexibility of coming back and conditional use permit. LO is allowed. It conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. This is really no different then I think a lot of other things where if it is zoned that way, you don't have to do a development agreement. You have the flexibility to be able to put an office building on it if it is zoned for office or what have you. I think we view this as not a necessary thing. We are willing to give you the condition. I think what Winston Moore is concerned with is that if you box him in so much, his only choice at this time, and this is not meant to be a threat, but he would have to withdraw the application. We are trying to get ourselves some flexibility. We don't know what the market conditions are going to be a year from now. They can change. I thinks as you are probably aware, he has primarily done office over his development life, so to speak. He does good quality office and that is his intention here. He is will to define it with those perimeters. I don't think you need a development then. Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 53 Borup: Any other questions? Mr. Brown. Brown: Jonathon, just why have you chose to only have 20 feet where the one building is versus what you have on the rest. Seel: Well I think our feeling is, with some of the landscaping there, with the office, quite frankly you can start to maximize the site to a degree, but you still get the buffer between that and the neighbors to the north. Where as on the easterly portion, you've got the street. ACRD apparently is going to take all of that right of way to the north of it. We could continue that birm through. We don't deviate from there. Brown: What is your landscaping have in that 20 feet, I guess then. Is it birmed? You have a travelway instead of parking which I think is better to have the travelway there. Seel: I am not sure what you mean by a travelway. Brown: Well, you have the access to the parking stalls being that way instead of the headlights going into the subdivision. I think that that is a better way of doing it, but you have the noise of the cars driving there. What isthat-elevated at all. Is there a birm there? Seel. Yes. I think our intention is just to go ahead and do a type of birm there that will be somewhat a visual barrier, somewhat of a sound (Inaudible) and also would be esthetically pleasing. We just felt that in that area, 20 feet would be an acceptable size birm and still give you as you say, as people are pulling in, we've designed it so they are not pulling in where their headlights are going to be shining into the residential area. They are going to be, when the headlights are on, will be shining toward that. I think was their desire there. Hopefully that answers you question. Brown: My concern is similar to my fellow Commissioner's, Ihave aproblem with approving something in a concept and then allowing you the freedom to do anything in the LO that would be allowed. I think that a development agreement even though can be real restrictive, can be worded that it gives you a lot of flexibility and doesn't limit you but lets us stay with what we are looking at. I mean we are looking at an office -the other option that I can see that you can do is similar to what you have to do when you make an application to Boise, is that everything-every building be a conditional use. That is the other way to go that gives the city-we feel comfortable annexing it. We will look specifically at each one of those buildings as it comes. Seel: Well, I guess I'm not -I am having a difficult time understanding why we need it because- Brown: Because you have residents that are so close. Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1999 54 Seel: Right, but my understand is that the residents also fought very hard and Billy Ray Strite is here and he can speak to more of this then I can because he was involved in this. Wanted to have office there. That was their desire. They wanted to stay away from the retail. I can fully understand that. Brown: I live one street over, so I know well too. Seel: I think the thing is that this is LO and this conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and they talked about a mixed use project here. We are proposing office and we are doing this type of thing and we are willing to define within that we will do office with the flexibility that if there is a restaurant, we will come back for a conditional use permit. My own personal opinion is that I have to believe that that gives you what you want. It gives you your protection. It is no different then if you are zoned in a particular area of a city. If you are zoned for that you are allowed to build that. You don't necessarily have to come in for a conditional use permit if you are zoned for that. So I think that we are attempting to do this, but at the same time we do want to avoid that. Our experience has been with a development agreement that, yes, it can start off that way but it kind of picks away at this and if that is the case, again it is not meant to be a threat, our only option is to withdraw it. Part of the thing was to get the road in and get that formulized and to allow us to start marking this project. I think you are getting this. This is what we are attempting to try to give you here. Your protection. So we don't come back for C store and don't come back for something else that you don't want and that the neighborhood does not want. We are saying office with a possibility of a restaurant and I think that the other thing that should be pointed out, I would think the city would want to encourage restaurant in here. As you develop this you are going to want to keep people in here. Your going to want to keep them off the streets. The same thing with the city of Boise. People drive 3 miles to a restaurant instead of trying to stay close by. I think that is another plus. Another sale pitch for this. Borup: What your saying then is it would all be office buildings except for the one restaurant and you state you'll come back for a conditional use permit on the restaurant if it goes in. Seel: Yes, their feeling is if there is a need to come back for conditional use permit we are prepared to do that. In fact, if you look at item number 2 in here, what page is that? That is page 6. It says number 2 at the top of the page. Be required to submit a separate CU application in the future if a restaurant comes through as a tenant improvement. To my that is very specific to what you want. You then have that opportunity to take another bite of the apple. It speaks your questions. If it is a 24 hour restaurant and you don't like that, then you can put conditions in. At this point we don't know what kind of restaurant or size it is going to be. Again, we are really trying to do is get some kind of flexibility and still give you the comfort that you want. Barbeiro: If you were to follow through with the plan using LO and no development agreement, you could put 4 restaurants here. Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 55 Seel: That is not our intention. (inaudible) If you want to do a development agreement, we are not trying to give that to you. We don't see any benefit for that. Again, Winston Moore is not a restaurant developer. We think this is just some that is a ancillary thing that will benefit the whole project. His intentions is office and it could all be office but we certainly don't see any restaurant on the westerly portion. If anything the easterly parcel on the southerly end would be the only place where a restaurant would be viable. We are not thinking that way. We are trying to give you what you want, but still not get boxed in. I think it is a win, win situation. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with what Mr. Seel is proposing if the conditions are written such -again I concur with him. When your at a conceptual level, it is extremely difficult to try to nail down specifics. I that if on this particular situation we were to put in the conditions that these be 4 office buildings with the option of the southeast building be modified to a restaurant under any other conditional use submittal, then one, we have protected the neighborhood above the city that these be office buildings only. If they would like to put a restaurant in at the specific southeast building, then they submit a new conditional use to change that to a restaurant. Then we deal with it accordingly at that time. If we get to look at this again, it is conceptual we still have you know final plat and- Borup: In my mind that sure seems to cover any concerns. Commissioner Brown, you still got a concern on that. Brown: (Inaudible) office on the other side of me too, on the other corner. I can definitely say from polling the neighbors, they are not real pleased with that office, even though it is a office. I went down to the engineers office and told them instead of a C store this is the best thing that can in here. Well, the reason that I say that is because of without seeing the building, it becomes very difficult especially when they want to reduce what staff is recommending for bufferings..You don't know what that building is going to be, even with the one story, the building that is built on the other side of this subdivision it was to be a two story. Well, if the two story with a garage underneath, and all of the windows are facing into the neighbors backyard and that is a problem. Borup: Unfortunately, you missed out on all the testimony a year or two ago. I think they were all most unanimous that they wanted office building. Brown: I didn't miss out because I was here. Seel: Commissioner Brown, in all due respect other than office, I don't know what you'd put here. Brown: I think that office is great. I think a medical office is even better. Seel: See, the point is, we don't know if it is going to be medical office. We don't know if it is going to be standard office. If you start putting in the agreement, okay these are the kind of uses you can and these are the kind of uses you can't, we are back here • Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 56 again. We don't-we want to avoid that now. Like I say, at that point it just behooves us to withdraw the application. Again, I emphasize it is not a threat. It is just that we don't know what the conditions are going to be. As every one here knows, conditions change from year to year. Five years ago, you probably would never thought that this would be what it is today. Thinks do change. I think part of the thing is also getting this road going and this road is a critical element in this whole project. Hatcher: One issue that Kent brought up that I had over looked that does concern me is with my suggestion, we don't get the opportunity to govern the design and Zook of the building. I know that W.H. Moore has historically done fairly nice buildings, but we don't have any protection with the general condition of approval as to what you are ultimately end up putting there. It could be a (inaudible) box, I don't think it would be in accordance with any of us sitting here this evening. Right now I am scratching my head thinking of how we can possibly look at a balancing out. Seel: I think you get back to it again is your trying to define it as a very specific thing. I don't know how we can do that tonight and still give ourselves the flexibility when we don't know what type of tenants are going to be there. That is my main concern. Again, I keep coming back to it is going to be office. It is going to be quality office. I don't know how you control the quality of the office. Maybe Brad can speak of that. It will be office. Yes it will be quality office. W.H. Moore's standpoint, you know that. How do you do that then other then doing a development agreement (inaudible) define the construction and how it looks and everything else, then if it changes because of the type of tenant and it is a deviation from that but still (inaudible) quality, we are back here again. That is want we want to avoid. I understand what you are saying, but I don't know how you solve it with out defining it. You knew when the Chevron was coming in and you could define that. Okay this is what I want to look at. This is what it is going to be so on. We don't know that now. We have a concept plan. Hatcher: Has W.H. Moore looked at any type of possibilities or even a schematic design or potential materials or.. Seel: They are in the packet. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise. First let me make comment to Kent's suggestion on the 30 foot (inaudible). There has been a few of you who sat through the more than 20 hearings on the Chevron, Idaho Power Credit Union. Let me suggest to you that the neighborhood suggestion and Ada County Highway District's suggestion for 30 foot of set back was primarily to buffer the neighborhood and rightfully so from the impending which was not the applicants request but the Ada County Highway District request. Let me suggest to you that any place else in the City of Meridian, yellow zone requires a side yard or rear yard of 5 feet, not 30. A (inaudible) yard of 20 feet between residential and LO. Therefore, we thought that the best solution here was to go from the 5 feet, which I believe could be pursued to the 20 foot transitional yard and that is what we are proposing. I also like to suggest to you and Kent is probably very familiar with this thing. There was a concern expressed by • ` ~ Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1999 57 the neighborhood that this street would continue if you will, due west to Locust Grove. I think that now you have an opportunity here, Ada County Highway District has consented to make sure that this road does in fact turn south and align with Allen as it was proposed to do under alternate B onto the impending rezone, annexation of the C store. Relative to Mr. Barbeiro's comments, I can suggest to you that we have submitted architectural plans, the elevations of which I think certainly address the concerns. I think even further, maybe what you need here, and all due respect here to Kent's comment that all these buildings should go through condition use. Keep in mind, the whole reason we are here on the conditional use permit here tonight is because we have 2 buildings on the lot. That in fact gives you the hammer. Number two, these buildings still have to go through zoning compliance, once it gets it zoning compliance, if in fact the staff feels as through these buildings are not what you see in you packet before you, I would suggest at that point of time, we come back to you as a commission. I think that is the hammer that is needed by the commission. I can tell you throughout 20 plus hearings, all we heard was the neighborhood wanted office here. I think this is a great use here. There is no question, no denying that. Your Comprehensive Plan suggests mixed use office preferable. In the yellow zone there are a few accepted uses via condition use. I think that if we are prepared tonight as Jonathon has all ready explained to you, to suggest that condition use with reference to accepted use, that being the restaurant, would only be in the southeasterly building as commissioner Hatcher has ready mentioned. I think that again it gives you the hammer and the only appliance that you need to pass this on to City Council. Again, I'd like to suggest to you that this road is probably the major reason we are here tonight, and certainly the applicant is prepared to construct these office buildings and I think in compliance with the Condition use the conditions that are imposed and I would ask that you act favorable upon it. If there is any questions relative to the architectural part of it, I would be more than happy to answer those. Hatcher: Could you enlighten me on the proposed materials. I. am looking at (inaudible) or less here and can't read any of the text. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hatcher the material pallet suggested in those submittal packets basically brick and stucco - Hatcher: Stucco or effuse? Strite: Effuse, excuse me. Brick, effuse and glass are the primary pallets. Hatcher: Would you classify these as the same design and construction level as the ones down on River that you have done? Strite: I would suggest that if you are comparing them in material pallet, yes. Hatcher: One other thing was, clarification if I might be mistaken, we keep talking about a 20 foot buffer. We talking about the north buffer against the neighborhood? .' Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 58 Strite: That is correct. Hatcher: Discussion has been 20 foot but the site plan that was submitted is scaling out as a 30 foot buffer. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hatcher after receiving the comments from the staff, we met with the staff I believe it was on the 11th and we were asked to resubmit and answer the questions in their report-I think if you ~qo back to their report there is a request or response to all the conditions by the 12t . That plan was submitted on the 12t . There was amiss-scale there and staff brought that to our attention. I think you will find in the plan that Brad has before him tonight that it is 20 ft. The one we submitted on Friday. Anyway, its dimensioned. I have a copy of that plan that was submitted to the staff on Friday. That was in response to the staff report that all conditions be responded to prior to 12/12. Hatcher: Was there any need for the additional 10 feet? Strite: In our belief yes. Hatcher: And, how so? Strite: We felt that 12 feet was not sufficient between the parking and the building. We wanted to soften the building so we added 3 feet to each one of these sidewalk, landscaped areas between the buildings and parking on both buildings 1 and 2 on the site (inaudible). Borup: You said you added 3 feet to the site around the building? Strite: Mr. Chair. What we did was between the parking on building 1 and building 2 is we added 3 feet to each one of the sidewalk landscaped areas between the building and the parking on the north side, south side and the north side of building 2. That actually totals 9 feet, but I am not sure where the extra foot will go, but we will find a spot for it. Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Strite? Do we have anyone from the public who would like to address this Commission? Allison: My name is Rich Allison and my office address is 916 E. 1St Street, Meridian. Most specifically what I'd like to speak to is the road itself that is being constructed for the benefit of serving the Magic View area. Currently we have approved today 180,000 square feet of office space located in this area with buildings under construction. We have limited access today on Magic View only with minor access with the new road if you cut across the Chevron station past Idaho Power Credit Union office. We really need this road to serve the entire development, most specifically that 180,000 square feet that is being built today plus the two stations that exist, the McDonalds and the Idaho Power Credit Union. This would add about another 120,000 to 180,000 square Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 59 feet, I guess about 82,200 square feet in addition. In order to properly serve the area we've got an easement that now goes in 300 feet with pavement and regular roadway and it ends. We need this to continue around to Allen Street to serve all the additional office and other things that have all ready been approved. That is what I wanted to speak to. Borup: Any questions? Anyone else. Hurel: My name is Chuck Hurel. I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. I recognize a lot of you and you recognize me. I know we have gone through a lot of this before and I applaud the developer for some of the things they are trying to do here and they are right. We requested as the neighbors to the north that this be developed in such a manner that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and to be fair to everybody to have a office space rather than a 24 commercial adjoining our properties. One of the things that keeps coming up is the 30 foot birm-30 area right of way with the birm on top of it. In some of the past meetings where partners develop their property and that 30 foot right of way was discussed and a birm was discussed. I think what we had in mind and what came to past are two different things. There is now about a 3 foot high birm in place that does nothing to stop and lights coming from McDonalds, out of the credit union into the back yards and in through the windows of the existing residential properties. Somewhere along the line of what was drawn up I think there was suppose to be some kind of protective barrier in a birm more then 3 feet high. Something with a birm 6 or 8 feet high with a wall, either brick or venal wall to stop the lights. I can tell you right now, not only my property exists, but as people make the turn, if they've got their headlights on, and they make the turn to the east on that road, I will guarantee you that if the birm is the same size as it is down at Eagle Partners, those lights are coming in through my windows and I am going to be a very unhappy camper. I know my neighbors are going to be too. What I am asking here is that we are talking about a 30 foot right of way and a birm that is something substantial and that it is truly a sound and light barrier-not just something cosmetic-a couple of trees here and call it good. The same thing, I think, on the westerly property needs to be addressed as I can see the access to get around to the back side of the northerly building there as people come around back side of that. If that birm is not created high enough with enough definition and some thing, some obstruction there to keep the lights out of the peoples windows, it is going to happen and they are going to be unhappy campers. Anyway, that is kind of my main concern here. I was really glad to hear that the planning of this seems to be in compliance with the way most of the residents are thinking. I though great. This sounds like a great Italian restaurant. "Ancillary". Anyway. I applaud Winston Moore and the company for the fore thought that appears to be going in here and I just hope that they will work with us and the city with complying with our needs. Thank you. Borup: Any questions? Hatcher: In regards to the existing conditions on the birms and headlights and stuff like that, are those birms currently on the southern property line of the subdivision or is it further into the lots where the development has occurred. • Meridian Planning and~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 60 Hurel: Its on the new development. It is not on the existing property. Hatcher: The land is being allocated for the new road and the landscape buffer between the backyards and the street still have not been improved. Hurel: Right. Hatcher: There is still opportunity to fix this problem of headlights getting into peoples houses. Hurel: In this part of the development, I don't know where we can go with Eagle Partners as far as what has happened down there or as Mr. Strite said, maybe somewhere along the line we still have a hammer with the conditional use permit that was granted them because there is a lot of light, not just from headlights but also from the existing building-the new Chevron building. We can do brain surgery underneath those lights. It is not a good thing. Borup: I have one question. You made a statement that you'd like that buffering to be substantial. Do you have a definition of what that means. Hurel: Substantial would mean at least enough to buffer the sound and the light, whether that birm becomes 6 to 8 to 10 feet tall with a fence with some kind of a brick wall on top. Borup: Your saying a 10 foot wall with a birm on top. Hurel: I've seem them. That's substantial, yes. Borup: Do you have a definition that might be within the realms of reason? Hurel: I see other neighborhood along thoroughfares that have buffers. Not necessarily freeway. Franklin Road, Eagle Road. There are some very nice separations between - not necessarily commercial properties or - Borup: I don't think there is any place in Meridian that has 16 high foot buffering. Not in this town. Hurel: Okay. If there is going to be END OF SIDE 5** Hurel: Other types of buildings. . ~ Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 61 Borup: Is it your understanding that what is there now is completed. Are they doing any more landscaping at the St. Luke's street---are they completed? Brad your statement said there was a chain link fence and that was - Hawkins: Correct. Yes they have received final occupancy. Borup: I mean as far as what is being done to that buffer area. That is completed as far as you understand was there going to be anymore when the street was lightened the rest of the way. Hawkins: No, they were required to have 35 feet wide and because of the off set of the fence and that ditch in there, that actually turns out to be like 32 or something. In terms of the width, they actually comply there at Eagle Partners. I was out there. I certainly can agree. One thing to consider is you plant things that in 10 years are going to mature to provide the buffer. If you plant things to provide a buffer now, the trees will never survive in 5 year. They will choke each other out. The only way you can do it is with a fence. Hurel: That is correct. But do we have to wait 10 years for a buffer and what is chain link fence do for - Borup: Was that the final agreement? Do you know. The streets don't need to be widened and approved. What's there now is the first phase of that street and then- Hawkins: Well, they had to get a license agreement with the Ada County Highway District because that is 108 foot right of way. The landscape plan only required a 35 foot wide landscape strip. Borup: (Inaudible) additional buffering coming when that road was widened out to its maximum capacity. Maybe we don't know the exact answer to that question. Hawkins: The fencing my understanding is to be non-combustible. (inaudible) agreeable that that is the part of the reason for the chain link fence. You certainly could do wrought iron. There are other options. Borup: That is not going to keep the lights out either unless it is a solid wrought iron. That is what I have seen in other areas. Get some ivy growing in on there and it can fill in, in two years. Any other questions? Anyone else? Trueax: Rod Trueax at 3091 Autumn Way which is actually right here. Based on the proposal that has been presented, I guess as a resident living in that area, 2 years ago we wanted them down 1 block, but barring that in general, I am in agreement with what is proposed. I have only 2 concerns. One is the restaurant and the possibility that it could be a 24 establishment. Definitely would be opposed to that, however, not opposed of having a fine Italian restaurant in there. The other point, if we could go to the side that had the road layout, just with the station in there, based on the city's Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 62 performance with controlling that birm, Chuck kind of alluded to that, it is more like a 2 foot tall birm and I think that is flat pushing it. The fence was put behind the birm so it has no altitude at all. When it was brought up at hearings before, what they would provide was the birm on a 30 foot spread and so on and so forth, and the privacy fence. I am sorry, but chain link fence does not count as privacy fence. In meeting with non- combustible, brick and mortar is pretty non-combustible or use to be anyway. I would even though we don" really care for that because it blocks what to be a good view, in light of the Chevron and other parking lots, I think we would probably welcome a brick fence at point of time. The lights are not blocked at all unless you are lying down in the back yard or in my pool, you are going to get lights. That is just the way it is. My point would be is if there is some sort of birm provided in this area and some privacy fence which would be "light blocking" so when there is traffic coming down this, the people living here have some opportunity of survival at night. And some opportunity to enjoy the property that they bought 10 years ago. Based on 200,000 plus square feet of office space, that sounds like an awful lot of traffic. I would question how long it is going to be before this 3 lane plus a turning lane out in this area is going to be blown back into this area. How much of this they'll have to give up. Plus, for the fire department, this looks like a rather nasty corner here. I would just recommend that there be some consideration for birm-with a pond there I think it is going to be tough to put a birm there. It looks like there are some obvious compromises here that need to be spelled out and due to the lack of performance on the birm and the privacy and everything on the previous agreement, I would like to see that as part of the condition and be spelled out rather specifically. Not just the width, but also the height of the birm and the I think that asking that it be compatible or comparable to that down at Thousand Springs which is just down the road a mile, which has 8 to 10 foot birm height plus fence on top of it is rather typical and should be a reasonable request for birmage in that area. There is a lot less traffic in that area then there is here potentially. Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else? You have a conclusion. Strite: I think it probably appropriate that I bring this up since it seems to be the topic. Most of you on the commission probably understand that that ground up north does not belong to this developer nor is it part of this application. However, what I would suggest to you is that the ground west of the roadway, parcel A if you will, we would have no problem with putting in a 3 or 4 foot birm and provide a fence on top of that. However, I would suggest to you again and I think it would be a condition that you may want to impose upon Ada County Highway District who owns the property to the north that they propose what ever they like. We made a number of overtures to Ada County Highway District and Eagle Partners presentation, none of which was agreed to. I think the only way that this is going to happen is that the city take a more active role then the developer. Borup: Do you remember what was finally agreed on. Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 63 Strite: The final agreement was a 3 to 4 foot high birm with landscaping. That was the way it was written and that was it. The fence that was put there was at the request of the ditch company. And that is a chain link fence. Borup: That is why it is non combustible. That was the final agreement between ACHD and - Strite: That was the final agreement that came from the City of Meridian to the developer. What happened between the City of Meridian, Ada County Highway District is anybody's guess. We met there approximately 12 times. We went up and down, back and forth. It went from 20 feet to 30 feet. As you recall the road went on a southwesterly direction (inaudible) the parcel, cutting this parcel in half. It went all over the board. All we asked for was the approval. We provided 35 feet. We in turn would landscape whatever Ada County Highway District would allow us to do on a license agreement, which I mentioned. That was done. What you see is what you get. What I would suggest to the commission is perhaps that the condition be stated such that Ada County Highway District, whose position it is to take care of that ground, do so. It is not the position of the developer. Ada County Highway District is buying the ground that goes all the way from here to here to here. Any part of that is the developers (inaudible). So what happens to that area has to be done by Ada County Highway District and my strong suggestion to this commission is to make a condition on there back to Ada County Highway District who will be hearing this I believe its tomorrow night that something be done with that particular ground. I think Mr. Trueax brings up a very good point. Right now at the westerly end of the present development there is a small retention fund. This roadway has to be drained. Ada County Highway District informs us we had to have a retention pond at the curvature of this road and that is why it is shown there. Perhaps that is not the size, but the roadway was designed by them. The retainage pond showing as concept only knowing that some area at that west end of the curvature of that road has to take the drainage from that new roadway. That is not to say that the birm can't run to the west of that, but again I think I want to stress upon the Commissioner's here that it is not within the purview of the developer. It is ACHD's purview. I would like to certainly go on record as saying so and if you'd like to make that a condition I would be more then happy to take that to Ada County Highway District tomorrow evening. That is all I have. Borup: When you were referring to that you were referring to parcel B. Strite: That is correct. As I say, on the other end on the westerly end, we have total control of that. We will provide the birm and the fence. We don't have a problem. Borup: Commissioner's. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I have a question for Brad. In 20 feet, how high a birm can you get. Hawkins: I believe that would be 3 to 1. Between 6-1/2 and 7, right. Meridian Planning a~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 64 Borup: That is a maximum he's talking. That gets hard to mow. Would that be a maximum? Hatcher: Is there any way that the City Planning Dept or this Board or anything can go back to what is all ready been built incorrectly and get that to what was agreed upon. Hawkins: Certainly. I think what would be a good example, the Fred Meyer complex on the Locust Grove side, if you go look at that, it is about 20 feet. There is no sod and it is a pretty good size buffer. You can do things with plantings, large shrubs, there is ways to do it. There is no mowing required at the Fred Meyer birm there. It is pretty dense. Borup: What is there now. It is sure not what I envisioned when we were talking about the buffering 2 years ago. Hatcher: I am not thinking the plant material that is or isn't there. I am talking about a 2 foot birm being built when it was agreed- upon that a 3 to 4 foot birm supposed to be built. Borup: That's what we don't know what was agreed upon. Is there a way to get a copy of that? Hatcher: I know that. I was wondering if we had the ability to correct an error and then address the ACHD land that-we'd want to do it all in one. Borup: Your talking a birm only or a fence on top the birm. Hatcher: I'd like a fence as well. Borup: What happens to that area between, if you do an area with a birm and fence on top, what happens to that area between that fence and the neighbors fence. Hatcher: You have a 6 foot privacy fence at the property line the birm is kind of secondary. My big thing that I am looking at is headlights, distraction and sound. Borup: I was concerned about a hide out for the kids. We all ready testified earlier what they do when they have a closed in area like that. We'd be creating the same thing. I don't know what the solution is. Between the fence on top of the birm and the neighbors fence. Hatcher: I am not talking 2 fences. I was just thinking (inaudible discussion with Borup) Strite: Billy Ray Strite again. On the southerly boundary of the neighborhood, north of that particular property line that is shown on the view foil, there is a 25 wide canal in there. I believe it is 2 canals actually. The neighborhood fences are probably some 25 feet north of that particular property line. The fence that was placed on the Eagfes Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 65 Partners ground, I believe, is 3 feet inside and guessing 3 to 5 feet south of the property line that you see on this particular sheet. Keeping in mind that there is a small ditch just north of that and then there is a large ditch toward the back. Borup: So the double ditch-They run parallel to Green Hills. That is a different situation. Strite: Mr. Hatcher, maybe the thing to do and we can control parcel B, is if we can build provided the ditch company, and I want to make that caveat right now, provide a solid wood fence, and I think that is more appropriate, along the north boundary of parcel B. It would be rather duplicate, but we can still birm on the inside obviously. I want to stress upon you again, I think it is to the credit of the City is going to have to go to Ada County Highway District and suggest what has to be done with their parcel. Borup: If we can do any thing, then now is the time to do it. Hatcher: Correct. As large as a development that this is, throw out the concept of now necessarily a wood fence, but something a little more permanent that is going to be around as long as this development is going to be. It might have to be a 6 foot wood fence, maybe a 4 or 5 foot masonry fence. Something tall enough to stop the automotive headlights, that is going to be a permanent fixture that not going to degrade over a time. Borup: Well, masonry fences do that too. You talking about putting it on top the birm? Hatcher: Possibly. There is so many different opportunities here at this time. That large of a birm it could be a meandering fence that goes along with the birm. Strite: Mr. Chair, if I might. You also must understand part of this is in the ditch company right away and we are subject to what they will allow us to build. Generally there are no permanent structures (inaudible). That is why I thought wood might be more appropriate because if they come in and tear it out- Hatcher: It can't be flammable. Strite: They have allowed us to put fences as long as they are on our side of that right of way. That is why I was suggesting that maybe do it within 10 feet of the 20 foot, raise the birm, put the fence up and then the back side is going to be basically controlled by the ditch company, which it is today anyway. Borup: You could see a birm there with a fence on top. Hatcher: Six foot fence on top of a 3 foot birm. Strite: Midway in the 20 feet so that the back side of which is part of the right of way of the ditch company can be done. They are going to let the weeds grow anyway. . Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 66 Borup: With the birm there they should be able to control it. Strite: I would certainly think so. Again, that is something you can make a condition as approved by the ditch company and then we'll do what we can. Borup: I think the concern from the commission is very much the lights on the street. Lights is more of a concern then noise. Hatcher: I think they are equal, but light is more prevalent. Borup: Your not going to stop the noise. Hatcher: (inaudible) but die to the distance that we are talking about it is kind of a mute issue. Strite: To shorten this so other applications can be heard, we would recommend that a condition be placed on the application that we work with the ditch company on parcel B. Parcel A, I would strongly suggest that a condition be placed on Ada County Highway District to resolve it to the neighbors satisfaction. They are going to have to purchase the right of way if in fact they purchase it doesn't seem to be a big problem. Borup: Any other questions Commissioner's? Hatcher: We could move that we could continue on with this project but to address the issue with ACHD how do we go back and put requirements on them. Borup: On the previous parcel or on this parcel. Hatcher: Both. Borup: Mr. Brown have you got a suggestion on that? Brown: No, but I've got one comment. I know you don't need the exercise but there is really no need that that property be sold to them. It could remain as a part of that parcel. I don't see a purpose in it. They would have it as a easement. They do it in residential- Attorney: Mr. Chair, Mr. Brown I think that I read in here that they have all ready made an agreement to purchase. You'll find that in their staff report. This is going to become a public rights away and they are going to purchase it. The purchase agreement is an off set to the impact fees. Brown: If they purchase the right of way, but that area that we have a concern about, you could still keep that in your ownership. Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 67 Borup: They can still do that. That is what happens in residential subdivisions. Strite: Perhaps it might be most appropriate that you make that recommendation at Ada County Highway District. We certainly have no control over it. I went through this as you know for 4 years on Eagle Partners and I lost on every count. I would think the city has a little more clout then I do. You might make the suggestion to Ada County Highway District take some precautions to satisfy the neighborhood concerns. They certainly have not done it to date and I'd be the first to admit that. That is not the subject tonight. The application before you has to do with Magic View Subdivision and Winston Moore, but I think certainly (inaudible) is a condition that Ada County Highway District take a strong look - Brown: Doing it that way you can grant to the highway district. They are still going to maintain their easement. That part is not any different. That would give us the ability to require the same fencing that we are talking about-the entire distance of the project. Strite: If that is in the (inaudible) to recommend to Ada County Highway District certainly we would be amenable. Borup: Thank you. Are we formulating here. Hold the public hearing open in case we want someone to come up for additional information. What ever your pleasure is. Discussion then if no one is going to make a motion. Looks like Commissioner's what do you see the concern here? One the restaurant and building uses I think we've kind of covered that. It looks to be like the main thing is the buffering. Hatcher: The buffering and whether or not we have a development agreement and we don't. Borup: Right. I don't know what we can do about the other parcel with ACRD cause what is there now is sure not what I envisioned a year or two ago. Things may have changed after I left this commission, it usually does, but- Brown: We can request the staff that they go and look and see what was previously approved and bring it back to our next meeting and we can address it and have them take some to the highway district at that time. We can also make it a part of this motion that they talk about it, but I think that we can handle this entire site as a part of this. Hatcher: We need to address this entire site tonight. Borup: I don't know what we can do about the previous. De Weerd: It is not part of this application. By doing it tonight they can bring that recommendation tomorrow night at the ACHD hearing then. If we have desires, we need to let them know. Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Meeting December 14, 1999 68 Hatcher: We should have staff confirm the original requirements where incase there is a violation. Borup: We got two wishes. Let's get the development agreement out of the way first. Kent feels strongly about having it, or semi strongly. Brown: I think it gives the developer the flexibility that he needs and at the same time protects the city. I would feel reluctant in approving the annexation without a development agreement. Borup: Any other comments? I guess I am not seeing the need, if it is restricted town office building. Anything other than an office building its going to come back with a CUP anyway. Barbeiro: Is that entirely true because of the way that the developer has described it. If there are two buildings on one lot it would come back, but if he should later decide - Borup: No. That would be the condition we would annex it. That would be one of the conditions. Barbeiro: Can you elaborate. It would be two buildings or- Borup: No, no. Anything other than office building would come back before us with a conditional use permit. Barbeiro: I thought one of our concerns was - Borup: The restaurant. In other words, if the restaurant goes in, it comes back before this commission. Barbeiro: While the discussion about the 24 hour restaurant, it seems very feasible in- Borup: Well, whether it is a 24 hour or 6 hour restaurant, it still comes here. De Weerd: You did not place that condition on Walgreen's, which had a building we had no idea -it had the basics, it had the materials like you have in front of you and a plan, it's a shell. If it is anything other then that, they are going to have to modify the agreement. Hatcher: I feel comfortable with conditions tonight, based upon what has been submitted. The only clarification that I would want is these submitted elevations do show a 2 story building and I am unclear as to what do the four buildings would be proposed as 2 story. Borup: It was not on your first plan. It was on a later plat that came in. Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1999 69 Hatcher: And, we have on record what the materials are. Borup: So, question on the birm. What Commissioner's feel needs to be there. The buffering birm, or whatever the buffering. Hatcher: The biggest, tallest birm possible. Borup: Let's start with size distance. The first plan was showing 30 feet. The second one was 20. Staff recommends 35, I believe. We have 3 choices there or anything else. Hatcher: Requirements are only 20 and if we put a fence on a birm, requirements are only 20, proposal only 20. We have 20-30 feet of ditch, between the residents in this property and I think what is being submitted is adequate. Borup: Are you saying we can get a 5 foot birm. De Weerd: Five foot with a 6 foot fence. Borup: Eleven feet. That would take a pretty tall car. Okay are we ready for a motion. Brown: I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Anyone want to start putting things together for - Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval to City Council for the annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for the proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company with the recommended staff comments, the construction of the suggested 20 foot landscape birm or landscape buffer with 3 to 1 ratio for the birm with a 6 foot fence on the crest of that birm- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, 3 to 1 is the recommended maximum if it is going to be mowed and maintained-the grass. You can go steeper then that such as Locust Grove along Fred Meyer. That is probably 2 to 1 but it is not grass covered. It is bark and ground cover. Hatcher: If we are talking only 10 feet-let's go with the designated height-designated birm height of 5 feet with a 6 foot privacy fence at the crest of the birm- Borup: That may be more than necessary. Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1999 70 Hatcher: That is what we talked about. You think it is over kill? Five and six. Borup: It is your motion. I guess I could see 4 and 4 and a six foot fence is a pretty good-but Hatcher: I am not opposed to that. I'll amend it and say 4 and 6 and I think we need to address this project in hold in regards to the maintenance of the easement that would be turned over to ACRD, so that these requirements would be placed on that land as well. I am not exactly sure how we would do that. Borup: It is your intention that birm and fence be along the whole northerly property line. Both the parcel they control and the one ACRD does at this time. Hatcher: That is correct. Borup: And as stated, I don't know why your commercial development would be any different than a residential, but that can stay as a common lot within the project maintained by the owners. Unless ACHD has some policy that prohibits that. Hatcher: I think we should make that a condition of approval and force ACHD's hand. Did I cover everything? Attorney: If I was to clarify your motion your asking that condition 14 be deleted, there not be a development agreement. Your also asking that condition 10 be modified to a 20 foot buffer. Hawkins: And note number 12 on page 3. You need to do something with that regarding the subdivision. Hatcher: Yeah, number 6. Number 6 we reduced to 20 feet. Bare with me. (Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioner's) Ten would be modified from 35 to 20 and 12- Borup: Kent your saying on item 12 because it referenced the development agreement. That is the only modification there? That is the motion? Do we have a second? De Weerd: Second. Borup: Okay, motion and second. Any discussion? De Weerd: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear discussion from the silent partner over there, Commissioner Brown. Borup: On the development agreement part? He just.. Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting • December 14, 1999 71 Brown: I thought that it was clear. I think that the applicant is asking a little more of us then-development agreements are usually every city in Idaho, it is a state law. It does allow flexibility doing-it requires them to negotiate with staff (inaudible). I will not support this motion. De Weerd: Brad, is it typical that we have been requiring development agreements in all of our applications or is that not. Hawkins: Annexations and rezones has been the standard. That's the only applications the state law allows you to do a development agreement. Only rezones and annexations, but it is an option. It is not mandatory, but legal department has been highly recommended that they be adopted. De Weerd: And why is that? Hawkins: We have some internal conflict in staff about whether they should or not. I think the primary reason is when they annex-potentially they could turn around and sell off one of the lots or sell both of them or -so when you say you put the development agreement on, even if they sell it off this plan gets thrown out and someone else comes in. They can't just put anything on there. They are still bound because a development agreement is attached to the land so regardless of- De Weerd: But in this case, aren't we approving a conceptual along with this annexation and zoning? Borup: But it is not coming back before us. De Weerd: But staff would be making their decisions based on that, right? Borup: Well the two options to have the control is to have the development agreement or conditional use permit on everything that goes in building by building. That would be the two choices that would still give the city the same control essentially. We have not been talking about a conditional use permit here. I think that is what we have normally done in the past. It has either been a development agreement it has been a conditional use permit on all future. De Weerd:_ Mr. Chairman may I ask Brad what the internal conflict -Does staff agree with it-the development agreement concept or is it the city attorney that is promoting that? Hawkins: They are pretty labor intensive. For planning and zoning staff, they are actually not so much labor intensive. It does make it difficult in 3 to 5 years to remember that there is a development agreement associated with this parcel. There is a ,triggering mechanism that we are lacking. Shari is very supportive of them and has been. She is very strong. I think that the annexation ordinance is another mechanism. _' Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Meeting • ~ December 14, 1999 72 It is not just a condition use, it is an annexation ordinance and you can put some attachments in that as well. De Weerd: Which by approving the conceptional drawings on this, you are putting those conditions on there, is that correct? Hawkins: Right. If you are saying this is going with that, then it is going to run with the land. De Weerd: I know a lot of the problems in the past is P & Z hasn't even seen these development agreements until after it is signed anyway, so.. Borup: Do we even see any then. I do, but I don't think the rest of the commission does . De Weerd: No, we don't. Okay, thank you. Borup: We still have a motion on the floor. Hatcher: I was re-thinking though, we are dealing with annexation and zoning right now. We go off track even with my motion. Borup: I don't think so. Staff had that under the annexation and zoning. Ready to vote? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: 3-2 Hawkins: Mr. Chairman, could staff just get a clarification. On Item number 12, page 3, what was commissions- Borup: To eliminate the reference to the development agreement. Is that what you meant to clarify Brad. The platting was not addressed. So that was left in. That was part of the motion the recommendation on the platting. Do we need to hold up here a little bit? Hawkins: There was a resolution passed by City Council last week that allows one time splits which the City has not had. In the meeting between staff and the developer, we didn't really complete this issue correct. (Inaudible discussion from audience). If you let the motion stand, that can be modified and (inaudible) by staff when we go to City Council. It stays in the recommendation. That way it will give us time to look it over. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PROVIDE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE SITE AND AN ANCILLARY RESTAURANT IN LO ZONE FOR PROPOSED MAGIC VIEW OFFICE COMPLEX BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY-EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: :. f Meridian City Council M~ February 1, 2000 ~ , Page 2 ' of Mirage Meadows Subdivision and Lots 19 and 20 of Chateau meadows East located at the end of Oakcrest Drive: Item I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 99-005 Request for vacation of the easement lying adjacent to the lot line common to Lots 6 -and 7, Block 3, Thunder Creek Subdivision by Thunder Creek Partnership, LLC -south of Cherry lane, west of Ten Mile on Gray Cloud Way: Item J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 99-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Item K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-040 Request for conditional use permit on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L-O zone for proposed .Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Item L. Tabled from 01/18/2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit - Commercial subdivision mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini Storage Subdivision by Overland Mini Storage, LLC - 1230 East Overland Road: Item M. Approve bills: Corrie: Okay. We have on the Consent Agenda tonight Items A through M. Council, pleasure on Items? Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we pull Item D which is an agreement between the City of Meridian, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., to Item 1A on the Regular Agenda; Item F which is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, pull that to 10B, we need to discuss something on that; Items I, J, K and L, table to 2/15/2000. If that's agreeable to Council, I'll make a motion that we accept the Consent Agenda as noted. Anderson: I'll second that. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda with the exceptions as noted, Items D, F, I, J, K and L. Further discussion? I have ~ -- Meridian City Council Me~ February 1, 2000 Page 3 one thing, Mr. Bird. On Item C and the dog license agreement - do you want to - we don't need to pull it. We discussed it earlier. Bird: Are we going to take that - I'm sorry. If Mr. Anderson will accept this (inaudible) second. Item C, the dog license agreement, I would like to take back into Item 10C to discuss in the Regular Agenda if that's agreeable to Mr. Anderson's second. Anderson: Sure. Corrie: The correction is noted. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote: Mr. Anderson, aye; Mrs. McCandless, aye; Mr. Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 1. Update on Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., by JoAnne Butler: Corrie: Okay. The Regular Agenda, Item 1 is update on Cherry Lane Recreation, Inc., by JoAnne Butler. JoAnne. Butler: Mr. Mayor, Council members, JoAnne Butler, 101 South Capital Boulevard representing Cherry Lane Recreation. With me here tonight is Wally Lovan, Nancy Link, Tad Holloway, Jennifer Lovan-Holloway, and on behalf of Idaho Independent Bank, Jerry Madison. As the Council knows, we've been in the process of constructing a clubhouse at the golf course. Cherry Lane received a conditional use for this purpose last summer. Just by way, for the Council so that you know, one of the conditions of approval reflected in that conditional use permit and also reflected in the agreement that's before you tonight was not actually the condition of approval that the Council deliberated on if we looked at the Council minutes of June 15th, and we assume that was just a drafter's mistake. Anyway, that is one of the reasons that is why we are going back before your P & Z next week, actually, for a modification of that particular conditional use permit in connection with some timeframes, and that's next week. That's not why. we're here today. Tonight we're just here to review the agreement for Cherry Lane that has been under discussion by your attorney, Idaho Independent Bank and Cherry Lane. The agreement is there to provide the bank with the comfort it needs to give Cherry Lane the loan to construct the clubhouse, and the agreement is there to provide the City with the comfort that it needs to be able to step into borrowers' shoes and complete that work if it should ever have to. We have just asked the counsel through your attorney to make a slight modification to that agreement, and I think your counsel's passed that out. Under the agreement, the conditional use permit is a defined term. It just references your file number, and we just added that it's a conditional use permit as may be amended from time to time just to reflect the fact that we're in that process now in coming to the City over the next month or so to request an • Meridian City Council January 16, 2000 Page 61 tenant, they may dictate a different type of design for us, then we're back here again, and we don't want to dq that. Shari says, if you get these 50-page Development Agreements that are just so onerous as just a -you can go right one foot and then left another foot, and that's it. As I said, in the City of Boise, we have never done a Development Agreement. When we have, we started to look at one that was specific to the use, and that's it. It didn't get into all the other details. Quite honestly, you really do want to avoid it for that reason because we don't know. If we are specifically tied, my feeling is Winston Moore is going to say let's pull this. Then you don't have the road. That's a catalyst tp this. Again, I'm not trying to make threats here. He doesn't want to get locked into that because he doesn't know. I'm not sure if I understand all the nuances of these issues and all. All I know is we are trying to propose something here which is an office in an L-O zone. We're trying to propose something here that is generally what we're going to propose and we'd like to get approval (inaudible) conditional use permit. That's what we're trying - I'm sorry. I don't understand all the details of it, but that's what we're really trying to do. Again, if the City comes back and says, we're going to go through this very specific Development Agreement, we can't do that because we don't know and we don't want to get ourselves locked into it. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Jonathan, I think what we're hearing from our legal counsel is that he recommends that the State Land Use Planning Act says that we ought to use the Development Agreement. What we're talking about here is one that would be fairly loosely written that would allow you to do some of the things that you're asking. Do you think Mr. Moore would be opposed to something like that? Seel: I think if it's something like that and it's a fairly loose in nature and again, it speaks generally to this concept, then I think he would not be opposed to it. I can't speak for him, but that would be my gut feeling. Again, if it takes (inaudible) other thing where we're going to get very specific, then, no, that's not going to work. Then again, I'm not trying to - I don't know what the term is here - I'm just trying to see where our dilemma is here, but we don't want to get boxed in. I think it can be fairly specific, like, okay, you're going to have office use and you're going to have four buildings, and there might be down the road possibly that one might be a restaurant or something like that, I don't know if that's legal or not. Then, yes. Yes. We can do that. Again, we're talking about a respected developer who's not going to come in and put up garbage here. This land is not coming cheap. I think that's what we're trying to achieve. I think that if we can do that, we can work it. We would like to do this, we would like to build this project. We don't know if it's going to be two months from now, six months or two years from now, but we would like to build this. We would like to see this road in. I think it's in the benefit of everybody else. So if we can achieve Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 62 something like that with some latitude in there, you know, we're not proposing gas stations or any of the other things. We're basically talking office here, and we will say office, and we said that at the P & Z with the possibility of a restaurant of a conditional use. We will not come back here and ask anyone else here for oh, we changed our mind, and we'd like to put a Shell Gas Station on that corner. We'd like to put a retail complex. We won't and we said that at P & Z. I think we're trying to be fairly specific and give everybody the comfort they need. (inaudible) answers questions. Kind of in a nutshell. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you, Jonathan. I think you answered the question. Anderson: Mr. Foley wants to comment. Corrie: If somebody opens it up, comment (inaudible) Howard. Foley: I'm Howard Foley. From my perspective, I don't represent the homeowners either, but I just represent myself. I'm not opposed to a general, loosely-written Development Agreement. My concern is the lack of specifics as to what may or may not go in there that isn't office building. That's my concern, and I want the staff or the City to continue to have some control over it. I understand legal counsel to say is if you just annex it L-O, you're done. No other conditions. You can't put conditions on it that are other than limited office. If it's limited ofFce, it's just a limited office. Restaurants aren't limited offices. That's my only concern that they're continuing to be some kind of control. If we had the Design Review, then that would be some further control. We just don't have it. So that seems to me, and I think that would be acceptable to me as a resident, if we had a Development Agreement that simply said, if you're going to do something beyond limited office or those kinds of things that you go through something that's akin to the conditional use permit or something that gives us notice and opportunity to come in and talk with staff and say, gee, these are the concerns that we have. That's really my concern, and we have given what I understand Mr. Seel to have said if that's acceptable to the applicant. I think that would be acceptable to us, also, but, you know, we've had these issues before where we think we know what's going on, end then it's sort of gets a life of its own and it sort of changes. Then we are back here lots and lots, and I don't want to do this anymore either. So, that's my only concern. Corrie: Thank you, Howard. Is that what you were saying, Jonathan? Seel: I think (inaudible) 30 seconds because I think we have gone through this. I think that's all we're really saying here. We will put an office here. We will put in there we will be very specific. It's not going to be a gas station, it's not going to • Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 63 be retail, it's not going to be a liquor store, whatever it is. It's going to be office here. What type of office? It could be medical, it could be general, but it will be office. Then, if we do come with a restaurant, we'll come back with a conditional use permit, again, you've got that second bite at the apple. So I think we're all in agreement here. You know, I think we could accept that. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Council, have you heard what you wanted to hear? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the public hearing. Bird: I second it. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 7 and 8. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Okay. Are you ready then for your Item No. 7 on the annexation and zoning? Anderson: Go ahead, Tammy. It was your idea. Go ahead and take a stab at it. deWeerd: I knew - Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Then, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we have a Findings of Facts and Decision of Order for the request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from R-T to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that the Development Agreement be a very loose -very general L-O Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for a CUP. Anderson: Second. deWeerd: Mr. Bird, would that include - Corrie: Just a second. Motion is made and seconded. Okay. Now discussion, Mrs. deWeerd. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 64 deWeerd: That needs to include staff comments - Bird: It includes staff comments -- deWeerd: -- and would you include - Bird: -- and Development Agreement. deWeerd: -- anything on the signage? Bird: The signage is in the staff comments. deWeerd: Oh. Did you put in there height restriction on this? Bird: Ten foot, yeah. Stiles: It's just a suggestion. Bird: We don't have an ordinance. Anderson: Wouldn't that be covered under the CUP? deWeerd: If they come back for a CUP. Corrie: All right. Any other discussion? Gigray: Point of clarification. Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, is the motion with the inclusion of staff comments as the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as proposed to be amended by staff and staff's comments here today? Bird: Yes, it is. Gigray: Okay. Corrie: Is that agreeable on the second? Anderson: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. • Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 65 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Cowie: Now we have a public hearing request on the conditional use permit, Item No. 8. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Cowie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that is to include the staff comments which I'm not going through and outline and for the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Decisign of Order. Anderson: Second. Cowie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit on Item No. 8 and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Order. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Cowie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: That would have a condition that if they do put a restaurant in here they will come back with the CUP; correct? Cowie: That's part of the conditional use. deWeerd: Just wanted clarification. Cowie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now, given the hour,. it's 11:00 and we had a lot of people that was here to do the Walgreen's on 9 and 10. I would recommend to the Council, it's your decision, that we have that on the 1St on the public hearing continued to the next meeting. Bird: Yeah. We've had I'll bet you four, five, six, seven people leave because we told them -they were under the impression that we weren't going to go. There's some sitting back out there, but there were four or five sitting right - ~ Meridian City Pre-Cour?c~ting January 18, 2000 " Page 9 Corrie: Table Items C and F. Table those two. Bird: He's saying we might be able to - Corrie: Cis all right. Bird: Okay. Leave C on? Table D and E? Corrie: Right. Bird: We're tabling D, E and F. We're tabling, but in the same motion we'll move E and F to re-open to a public hearing on February 15, 2000. Corrie: Anything else on the Consent Agenda? Explanation -anything to talk about? Item H. Building Inspectors -Contract for Services: Anderson: Oh. The Building Inspector's Contracts? Corrie: Did you get copies of those? Anderson: Yes. Ask Gary a question? Corrie: Yes. Anderson: Gary, on the Building Contract for Services, did you review those and is that the same contract, the same dollar amounts and everything as last year? Smith: Yes, sir. Everything's the same except for the date. Anderson: All right. Thank you. Gigray: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Item 2. ORDINANCE NO. 853 Solid Waste Collection Services/Franchise: Item 7. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Approve - Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O Meridian City Pre-Count ting January 18, 2000 Page 10 zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct a single-tenant commercial building with adrive-thru window (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I just might note on the regular agenda, and I don't know if the Clerk's office has this, but with Ordinance - proposed Ordinance 853 on the Solid Waste Collection Services and Franchise, there should be an agreement also with SSI as a follow-up to that ordinance. I believe I have gotten a transmittal from their attorney, Mr. Freeman, that they have, in fact, signed that agreement, and I think we've got a copy of their corporate resolution. That's an item that the Council if it doesn't take action on tonight should come fairly soon and then I would encourage the Council to take a look at Items 7 and 8 and 9 and 10, and the Mayor as to whether or not 7 and 8 and 9 and 10 might be considered a motion to combine those companion applications for public hearing purposes only. That's something you've tended to do and can speed up the process subject to consent of the applicants and anybody appearing. Bird: Mr. Mayor, getting back to -I've got one question. On Gary's proposal concerning the latecomers fee, by approving that, is that the proposal, Gary, that you want to implement? We don't have any real facts and figures on there that I can see. You've got an approximate and something like that. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Councilman Bird, I just wanted to change - propose that change to the policy. There is not specific language that I wanted you to approve tonight, but I wanted to get your review and your comments concerning the format as far as how we return latecomer fees to those that extend sewer and water lines. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Gary, don't you believe that is something that we could take about 10, 15 minutes in the workshop this month and discuss? Smith: Yes, sir. You bet. Sure could. Bird: So, would you be offended if we agree with you on this- proposal but pull it from the Consent Agenda and bring it to the workshop? Meridian City Pre-Counc~ ting January 18, 2000 - Page 11 Smith: No, not at all. We've got several latecomer agreements in the process of being finalized, determined, et cetera. I just want to get the language straight in those agreements so that we can return this fund and it will have to be taken care of in the agreement with that particular language or that specific language. Bird: Maybe City Clerk could ,get us a copy of each one of the Councilmen and the Mayor a copy of that latecomers fee, generic, I know they're all different, but the generic agreement to let us look at when we're doing that. Smith: I'll make you a copy of an example agreement that we presently have approved and under contract, so to speak, that's operational right now. Bird: Then we'll put that on the 28th workshop agenda for a short meeting. Smith: Okay. Corrie: That's fine. Anticipating, you being the Council President, we need to sit down and discuss what we can put on the workshop. We might take a half a day on some of these things because there's a lot of ordinances coming up. Bird: I wouldn't have a problem with that, Mayor. Corrie: Okay. Anything else, any other questions that Council has? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Mr. Gigray, on this Ordinance No. 853, did you say to hold that -you didn't say that. I just wondered. I didn't think you had, just the agreement's coming in. Okay. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, all I'm saying is we have prepared an agreement, we have worked with SSI on the terms and conditions of that agreement. That has been approved all the way around. SSI has taken corporate action to enter into the agreement, and I'm just saying it is appropriate in my view if the Council wishes to consider it, that agreement could be approved following the passage of that Franchise Ordinance. Corrie: Thank you. Item 3. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning (R-T TO R-4) by Charles Crane -located at 3610 W. Ustick Road: Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I had a question on Item 3 that public hearing and the request for annexation for Charles Crane. Refresh my memory. What was the deal on that one and what were we waiting on? -~ 7 Meridian City Council - _ January 18, 2000 Page 44 Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 6. Further discussion? Heating none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Discussion? Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Is this a lot line adjustment/easement vacation? Is that what it is? Is that all it is is a lot line adjustment? Okay. We couldn't figure that out. Come: Okay. Any other discussion? Bird: I have none. Come: I'll entertain a motion on the request for vacation of easement, lying adjacent to the lot line in common to Lots 6 and 7, Block 3. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the vacation of the easement on the Lots 6 and 7, Block 3 of Thunder Creek Subdivision subject to stafF comments on Item 1; changing west to east and Item 7 inserting the words obtain an adjustment of lot line and removing the. words prevent vandalism and trespassing has occurred on the lot on property lines; and deleting Item 10, and instruct the City Attorney to develop Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Bird: Second. Come: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the recruits for vacation and easement of Lot No. 6 with the corrections that have been made by the Planning and Zoning Director and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Public Hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View ?' ' y Meridian City Council S - January 18, 2000 Page 45 Item 8. Public Hearing: Request for conditional use permit ~to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company -Eagle Road and Magic View: Corrie: Item No. 7 and 8 are public hearings on the Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, and since there was no objection to opening both public hearings on 7 and 8, we will do so so we can have testimony on both of them. We'll take them one at a time when we do the requests. Item No. 7 is public hearing, request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View and also Item No. 8 is a public hearing, request for conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in L-O zone proposed Magic View Office Complex. At this time I'll open the public hearing and have staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I have some suggested changes to the recommendations to City Council. I'll begin with the annexation and zoning recommendations. On Page 1, Item 6 should read subject property is bordered to the north by Greenhill Estates Subdivision and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut south and east sides of the property. It should be south and east instead of all. Page 2, Item 10, the last line Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as commercial should be added and mixed/planned use development. Item 12 should be re-numbered to 11. Page 4 we're requesting some rather significant changes. There was significant discussion about the buffering between Greenhill Estates Subdivision and this development. We would ask that Item 1.10 be revised to read: Applicant shall enter into a license agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct a 30-foot high buffer - I'm sorry. Okay. Let me start over. 1.10: Applicant shall enter into a license agreement with Ada County Highway District to construct a 30-foot wide buffer with a 4-foot high berm and a 6-foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel B. That would be the eastern most parcel that has the Ada County Highway District retention pond. As an explanation to that; that portion there -where the retention pond is shown on that parcel is going to be owned by Ada County Highway District. I think all of you are more than familiar with the way Ada County Highway District maintains those parcels. They're very concerned about aesthetics and beautiful landscaping. So that is the reason why we asked the applicant to enter into that agreement to make sure that it is landscaped and that they are responsible for the construction of the fence and the appearance of that entire area. I'd like to ask that 1.11 be the next item that would read: Applicant shall construct a minimum 20-foot wide buffer with a 4-foot high berm and a 6-foot high solid, wooden fence on top of the berm along the entire length of Parcel A. Item 1.11 would then become 1.12. 1.12 would become 1.13. We'd ask that the requirement or the staff recommendation for the plat be removed that last sentence and instead of that sentence that the following be added: Applicant shall coordinate with Public Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 46 ~..J Works Director and Planning and Zoning Director for direction on appropriate action to accomplish subdivision and/or lot line adjustment. We still need to work on some standards for those lot line adjustments or one-time splits, and I think as part of the standards, we probably won't include a roadway dedication to be permitted as part of a one-time split, but since this is a roadway section that is very much needed and should be included in our Comprehensive Plan, in fact, is something that we need to have done. We may develop some standards for that, but Gary and I can both work with Jonathan to work out the best way for that. Item 1.13 would then become 1.14. We'd ask that a sentence be added to the end: Applicant shall vacate conflicting easements prior to applying for building permits. The applicant very eloquently made his case at Planning and Zoning Commission for removal of the Development Agreement requirement. They felt it was too restrictive and it tied them down too much to exactly what they're proposing which is kind of the idea of a Development Agreement. If the Development Agreement is not required by the City Council, I would ask that you add an Item 1.15 included as part of the annexation that reads: As a condition of annexation, all uses are to be developed under the conditional use process as a planned development. That way if they make significant changes- to their proposal, we'll send them back through the process. Maybe legal counsel has something to say on that. We have in the past included that directly in the Annexation Ordinance that all uses would require to be developed under the conditional use process. On the conditional use portion, Page 4, Item 1.10 of the Recommendations to City Council, staff would support on Line 4, end of the sentence striking "approval" and inserting "building permit issuance." So it would read that the conditional use permit will become null and void if the construction's not complete within two years from the date of the building permit issuance instead of two years from date of approval here which seemed a more reasonable timeframe. Under 1.11, the staff's recommendation that all free- standing and wall signs be included and approved as part of this application. No details have been forthcoming for any of those signs that because, basically, they don't have tenants now, but I think that we should set some restrictions on at least the number and the maximum height of those free-standing signs due to the experience we've had with the Eagle Partners project, we had this same - a similar comment to that signage shall be approved as part of the application. No details were ever submitted, so they've gone through one modification request for 100-foot pole sign, and they're back again with another application fora 77- foot high pole sign. So I think if we could add somewhere within the text of this that free-standing signs are limited to four with a maximum height of ten feet or they can make their case if they want to attempt something else, but I think we need to put some definite limitations on this because we don't want to have to negotiate with every sign that comes through and have to make a judgement call on what a significant change is to their plan. On Page 5, Item 1.15, that could be stricken as they have provided those details. I believe they were presented at Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 6, Item 1.24 should read: A four-foot high berm and six-foot high solid fence is required for the boundaries adjacent to the Greenhill Estates lots. That was covered in the annexation and zoning, but it Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 47 would be good to reiterate it in the conditional use permit. Other than that, we had no further comment. This is a good project. The roadway is needed, and staff recommends approval with the changes noted. Corrie: Okay.. Any questions of Shari at this point? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I have one. Shari, you struck a nerve again with that sign deal with me. You said you didn't want to make a judgement call, but then you kind of rolled your eyes and said I'm thinking in the neighborhood of 10-foot, yet we have another application that's on Fairview that you're talking about 20-foot. Have you come up with a Sign Ordinance and these seem very much like judgement calls to me like you're making a judgement. Here it's 10 foot, another it's 20 foot. How do you determine what you're going to allow for height? Stiles: Where was it 20 feet? Anderson: I think it's on the -one of these other projects that we were looking at. The Walgreen I think is a 20-foot sign recommended there. Stiles: No. That was a 72-foot maximum. Albertson's which is way back -- you can't even see the building. The building's higher than 20 feet. It's not along an entryway corridor. You wouldn't even notice a 20-foot high sign back there. The reason I recommend the 20 feet is because directly south of this property, this entire five-acre parcel has restricted itself to a maximum 10-foot high free- standing signs. Every lot in that, they have four or five lots in there, and they have made a commitment as part of their annexation and zoning that they will not exceed that. As a condition of annexation and zoning and the conditional use permit, we could say you can only have two-foot high signs. Anderson: I understand that. I'm just -- Stiles: I would rather - Anderson: -- trying to urge you to -let's get that Sign Ordinance up so you're not making a judgement on all these so that we can push forward with that, and then you've got something to go by. Stiles: I would rather make a legal judgement - I mean that becomes a legal requirement rather than not have any requirement and then have to deal with each one when they come in and make that judgement call and -have nothing to stand on. That's why I ask (inaudible). ,. ~, Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 48 Anderson: Okay. Corrie: Any further comments? Bird: I have none. Corrie: This is a public hearing. Any developer? Seel: Good evening, Mayor, Council members. We have read through the report - Corrie: Name. Seel: I'm sorry. Jonathan Seel with W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead, Boise. We've read through the report, and we have no problems. I don't know if we want to talk about the annexation first or if we want to merge them together. Corrie: Go ahead and do the annexation. Seel: Annexation? Okay. We'll talk about the annexation first. We read through the annexation, the report that you received. We have no problems with that. With respect to the annexation and rezone, recommendations that are included on the letter from Shari, we also have no problems with that. We talked to her about that already. I'm certainly pleased to answer questions you have. We'll try to keep this short. Corrie: Okay. Council? Bird: Which letter are you talking about, Jonathan? Seel: I'm talking about this one that Shari had provided to me this evening which reflects the modifications she just discussed with you. Stiles: They don't have that. Bird: We don't have a copy of it? So we need to enter it into the records? Stiles: The memo was to myself -and Jonathan and the City Clerk from Brad Hawkins-Clark, and I went over every one of those items -- Bird: Oh. Okay. Stiles: -- verbally. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 49 Seel: Yeah. We're in agreement with them, so, I was under the understanding you had this. Corrie: Okay. And the request for the conditional use permit? Seel: Okay. You want to do that next, huh? Corrie: If you're through with - Seel: Yeah. We're through with that. With respect to the conditional use permit, again, reading the report, the recommendations provided to you, we're in agreement with-that, and we're in agreement with the conditions, again, that were applied here with, I guess, with. exception of a couple things I want to clarify. One, I talked a little bit with Shari about the signage, and I understand where Shari's coming from with her concern for signage. I'm a little reluctant right now to kind of pull something out without understanding what we're going to be potentially developing there. I would like to have the flexibility based on that. If you look at most of our projects throughout the City of Boise, our signage is never -has not been above ten feet. Typically it's been below that. In fact, we've submitted a concept plan reflecting one that was seven feet. But there may be instances where we may need a sign that is slightly higher than that, so I would like to suggest that we have some flexibility in that depending on what we're going to get in there, we had talked about a restaurant. And if it's a restaurant, maybe we will need to look at a little bit higher sign. So I guess I'm just trying to leave that somewhat open at this point to give us the opportunity depending on what we arrive at to determine then instead of locking ourselves into ten feet at this point which may or may not be, you know, may be acceptable. I don't know. So I'm a little uncomfortable in that. The other thing I'll just mention, I don't know, Shari, if you didn't mention 1.4 on Page 3. I didn't - *** End of Side 3 *** Stiles: -- tonight because I'm not in agreement with changing that. Seel: Okay. Well, I don't know if it's just simply we need clarification on it. I mean, I can explain - my concern about that one, I don't know if you want to (inaudible) rain on your parade here. Stiles: Mr. Seel had a concern because on Page 3, Item 1.4 of the conditional use permit recommendation, it speaks to providing sewer and water to and through the development. I believe that is an ordinance requirement, and I felt it was covered by the remainder of that paragraph that said project designer is to coordinate sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Mr. Seel's concern is that he's going to be required to extend sewer and water to and through his property whether or not it's needed. It's -that's just the wording out of our ordinance. That's the reason it reads the way it is. That's why I thought it ` Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 50 should just stay as it read because the Public Works Department is not going to require him to build lines that are not necessary. Seel: That was my only concern. It was more simply a clarification. If we can tie to sewer on Magic View, and I understand we can. I understand with water we can't. But in the - if, in fact, we can go ahead and tie to sewer on Magic View, I don't want to have language in there that might imply down the road that we need to bring sewer through with what's referred to as St. Luke's Street. As we all know, memories fade, and a year from now or ayear-and-a-half from now, somebody looks back and says, oh, Mr. Moore, you were supposed to put sewer down St. Luke's Street. It says it right here, to and through. So I would just like to have some clarification here that if it's necessary, we would put it in, but if it's not necessary that it will not be a requirement. I'm not trying to go against the ordinance because we've had to do the to-and-through policy before. I think it's just clarification because we're talking two streets here with sewer and water right now. That's my only thing.. Corrie: But you do agree, Jonathan, that perhaps that last sentence does take that into consideration? Seel: I think it generally, does. I guess it doesn't completely satisfy me. You know, I just want it - like I say, I just want something in my mind that's a little clearer on that. As we say, we're talking two streets. We're going to be (inaudible) ACHD is depending. I just don't want that to become an issue, and if it's not necessary and someone down the road decides it, it would be nice to have, but we don't necessarily need it. So maybe I'm being a little picky on this, but as I say, we believe memories fade. So anyway, it's a minor thing. I think it's just simply that and the signage are the only two items that I had any comments; otherwise, we're in agreement with this. Corrie: Council, any question of Jonathan? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony on Item 7 the annexation and also the conditional use permit? Yes, sir. Harl: My name is Chuck Harl and I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. Thank you for your time this evening. I just would like to clarify that I'm a resident in Greenhill Estates, and I would like to clarify a couple of things here. In particular, the berm issue because it becomes a noise, light and privacy issue of separation between this project and our residential subdivision. At the Planning and Zoning meeting, we somehow came up with this four-foot berm on a 35-foot wide piece of right-of-way, and it comes out to a 3:1 ratio, and I'm still confused on how this works. Because even if the- 35 feet is split in half, that's 17 feet, and 3:1 is not four. I -for some reason, I think we can raise this berm for a little bit more or a ~. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 51 little bit more of a privacy issue is what I'm concerned about here. We talked about before what goes on top of this berm. I'm hearing now that we want a solid six-foot fence that's made out of wood. At the P & Z meeting, we had requested either brick or vinyl, something that doesn't need long-term maintenance. Something that is permanent. This is what we're looking for. I don't think it's really out of the question to do something like this if you look at the maintenance costs that are going to be incurred by having wood on there as to no maintenance on the other things. If we could have some clarification on why exactly this berm is going to only be four-foot high, I would really appreciate that. I guess those are my comments. Corrie: Okay.. (inaudible) comments, questions at this point? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Yes, sir. Foley: My name is Howard Foley. I reside at 2875 Autumn Way in Meridian, Idaho. I'm a resident of Greenhill Estates Subdivision, also, and I have, in addition to Mr. Harl's comments or concerns, two others. I have the same concern that was raised by Shari regarding the sign and Sign Ordinance. Our subdivision has been through this process with Eagle Partners before where the sign's not been designated and we've been back to hearings, and we've had discussions about 100-foot signs and whatever. Now, I understand we're going to be maybe having another hearing about a 72-foot sign, and this seems to be repetitious, and it seems that this is probably the time and the place for these discussions to end so we don't find ourselves back again and again. It seems appropriate to me that if these are going to be office buildings that the signage be consistent with office buildings. That they be ground-level monument signs or that they be signs on the buildings themselves, that they not be free-standing, illuminated signs. Assuming that the offices will be open from eight to five, you know, I'm just not sure we need 10, or as Councilman Anderson asked, 20-foot or whatever they are illuminated signs. I know you've heard from us in our subdivision on too many occasions, but I can assure you we're well illuminated by signage from Jackson's and the Chevron's and the McDonald's in our backyards as it is, and the further that development comes down our backyards, the bigger the concern for us with free-standing, internally illuminated signs -just some definition of what that's going to be and some consistency in terms with the development seems appropriate to us. Certainly, the buildings have to have signage, and we understand that, but we just don't see the need for it to be wide open and then the signage issues that we've had to address before, all of us. Secondly, I think there ought to be a Development Agreement. When I first heard about the project and viewed it, I understand there is a proposal for a restaurant. At one time, I'd heard the proposal was that the restaurant would be internal to the office facility itself, would be one of those things where people who worked inside the office buildings would come and have lunch- or whatever the case might be. Now I understand that the developer's not exactly sure what they want. They really don't want to be tied down, understandably, Iguess, if you were in our position, we'd like them tied down. We'd like to know what they're Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 55 Corrie: Any other questions or any other testimony you would like to hear, Council? Bird: I have none. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor, just for staff. Shari, since I didn't write every change down that you had suggested, in regards to the Development Agreement versus the other alternative, what are the differences between those two? Stiles: Well, a Development Agreement will definitely lock them into exactly what they proposed, what they've shown. I saw Mr. Gigray over there shaking his head when I was talking about just making it a part of the annexation that all uses had to be developed under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. I think that we can do it that way. I think it can be included in the Annexation Ordinance that that's a condition. It's just as easy, in fact, probably easier to track than a Development Agreement; less staff intensive. I'm sure Mr. Gigray wouldn't mind getting rid of some Development Agreements whenever he has the opportunity. I think we have the same control by going with the conditional use permit process as we would through a Development Agreement with a lot fewer trees killed. deWeerd: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: With that, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No. 7 and Item No. 8. Bird: So moved. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 7, request for annexation and zoning, and Item No. 8, request for conditional use permit. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Okay, Council. Let's take then one at a time. Item No. 7. Mr. Gigray. Gigray: I would advise the Council that it would be my legal opinion that regarding Development Agreements that you can use them to craft conditions of development as well as. conditions of use. You don't have to include both. They Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 56 i can include one or the other. I do not recommend that you have an Annexation and a Zoning Ordinance that has conditions in the Zoning Ordinance because I do not feel that there is clear statutory authority allowing that. I think the vehicle which the Land Use Planning Act provides as a Development Agreement is a condition of a rezone or a zoning designation, and that's why we've used those. Now, if your ordinance which is proposed on this annexation requires a conditional use permit in an L-O zone for what they proposed to do, then that would take care of itself under the Zoning Ordinance. If it doesn't require a conditional use permit, then if there's part of this that wouldn't be governed by the conditional use permit, then the zoning without a Development Agreement wouldn't control it. They would be able to do what the zone would allow. Corrie: Any discussion? Bird:. I think Shari's got something to say. Corrie: Shari. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I need to address what Bill just said. If I'm hearing you right, you're saying that you can't include in an Annexation Ordinance that as a condition of annexation, all uses shall be developed as conditional uses, and that under the conditional use permit process as a planned development. You can't do that? Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, no. We can write it that way, I just don't recommend that. I don't think that there's clear statutory authority. I think you have an Annexation Ordinance that includes property, an annexation and then we're required as soon as possible to zone it, and that Annexation Ordinance includes a designation of the property in a zone. We have an ordinance that prescribes what you can use property for in a particular zone. We can't rewrite that Zoning Ordinance in an Annexation Ordinance, and I wouldn't recommend that we try to do so, and I think that's the idea of Development Agreements and why the statutes allow us to use them so that .through the Development Agreement as a condition of that zoning you can further limit the use of the property and/or the development of the property in that agreement. Now, if, for instance, the annexation were to the L-O zone and the L-O zone had requirements in it that this developer, whatever that is they wanted to do, required a conditional use permit by the terms of the L-O zone, then what you've recommended works under the terms of our own Zoning Ordinance. If that doesn't work, if then - if you have an annexation into an L-O zone, then they can, without a Development Agreement, then they would be able to develop the property subject to whatever uses are permitted in that zone. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council i January 18, 2000 Page 57 n Bird: This is for Mr. Gigray. But if we, in approving the annexation and zoning to an L-O, require that all buildings come under conditional use permit, then that takes -they can't (inaudible) go back on that, can they? That takes place of the Development Agreement? Gigray: I'll be directed to draft the ordinance as you require. I just don't recommend that because I think then you get into issues of conditional zoning, but by specific ordinances, you have an ordinance that prescribes your zoning regulations, and you can't amend that by various annexations. You have to go back and change the whole ordinance. But you can, in the Idaho Land Use Planning Act specifically gives you authority if you choose to exercise it, to govern and restrict as a condition of the zoning, the use and/or the development of the property. You don't have to do both. You can just do one. Or you could do both, depending on how you see the evidence in the particular case and what's reasonable. But if you started annexing property and zoning it subject to conditions, we'd have a bunch of mini-zoning ordinances all over the place with every annexation, and I just don't see in the Idaho Code clear authority to do that. But if you direct me to draft the ordinance, I have to do what I'm directed to do by the governing body which you are. Corrie: Okay. It looks like you've got two choices. Annexation and zoning with the Development Agreement or with the conditional use permit on the zoning. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: May I ask Shari -Shari, if I recall, I don't believe it's probably been the two years I've been on here, but I believe we've done a lot of annexations and zonings with conditional use permits, have we not, instead of Development Agreements? Stiles;; Most of them ended up requiring a Development Agreement. Practically everylthing that's been annexed since 1994 has a condition that they enter into a Development Agreement. Bird: Okay. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I guess I just have a general question, then. This seems like a development that we're not the only city that has these types of developments where we don't actually know who the tenants are going to be at this point. How are those other cities dealing with this same type of issue? Are they requiring , Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 58 Development Agreements or are we - is our ordinance restricting us or do we need to look at that? I'm not -anybody that can answer it, I guess. Bird: I'm with Councilman Anderson. I'd like to know, too. Corrie: Shari, any idea? Stiles: I believe Star is getting into requiring Development Agreements, Eagle is way different and does require some Development Agreements, but they also have very restrictive design review guidelines. Boise City has a lot of zones that are design review. They have Design Review Committees which helps them a lot, but when you are just trying to do it with Planning and Zoning and Council and staff, it gets down to design review of practically every project that comes through the door. That's why we put the Development Agreement requirement on them because we may have conditions that aren't necessarily outlined in the existing ordinance that is sometimes a lot of it's site-specific, too. Depending on where it is, what the surrounding uses are, some of their presentations they may make during the public hearings that they may say they're going to do that, but if you can really tie them down with a Development Agreement, it's easier to enforce, but I don't know how many Development Agreements Boise City has done. I know that they do have the mechanism for them, but I believe, and maybe Jonathan can even answer that, too. It's governed more by design review in those other cities. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: It seems that you have a little bit more control, a little bit more chance of feedback with a conditional use permit, though. At least you can see what they're proposing. If it's just under a Development Agreement, you don't see it, if it's permitted. Corrie: Shari. Stiles: I don't particularly like the way Development Agreements are turning out as far as - I mean, they are extremely restrictive. It says - it has -it's 50 pages long, it has the Findings attached to it, it has an exact site plan that sometimes is so restrictive that it doesn't leave them any room for even slight modifications because of the way that it's written. deWeerd: So it's almost better off that they come in and ask for annexation and zoning without a plan. I've seen that happen. So why on earth do we allow that to happen and don't put any conditional use permit requirements on but we're holding -we're considering holding this one up because the CUP process is not the way to go? , Meridian City Council • January 18, 2000 Page 59 Corrie: I don't think it's not a way to go. It's just one of the ways. Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, the only time that you have authority to require a conditional use permit is if the applicant is in a zone and they propose a use of that property that that Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit. They've already been annexed, they're already subject to a Zoning Ordinance that applies to that property, and they propose to, let's say, put a gas station in an L-O zone, and in order to use that as a gas station, takes a conditional use permit. Then you go through and they go through the conditional use permit. But if the L-O zone allows an office building, they don't need a conditional use permit because the zone allows an office building. Now, if in a Development Agreement, you require as a condition of giving the L-O zone to the applicant that they go through a conditional use permit in order to get the office building, you need a Development Agreement in my opinion. That's an example. Obviously, in this application, one of these would be subject to a conditional use permit, but I'm saying do not pass annexation ordinances with zoning designations that include conditions on the zone because I don't think you have clear, legal authority to do that. You have your zoning ordinance, and once you're designated in that zone, it's subject to the terms and conditions of that zone whatever they may be. Now, if you want to limit that further, then you do a Development Agreement. Whether or not you do that is a matter of discretion and determination. Yes, you could accommodate an application for annexation and zoning and no development, and if you feel in your wisdom that's proper, you'd grant the annexation and zoning with no conditions. You know, those are going to be fact-driven by each application. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: Mr. Gigray, so can you request that a Development Agreement be made but not particularly tying to that and ask for them to come through with conditional use permits with their - Gigray: You could have a Development Agreement simply just governed the use, and it'd have a provision in there that any uses proposed of the property or any development of the property would require a conditional use process and of conditions. Corrie: Any further discussion? deWeerd: Well, Mr. Mayor, I guess some of the change in this, I would be interested to hear what the applicant had to say. Corrie: We can't do it. It's a public hearing. Meridian City Council • • January 18, 2000 Page 60 deWeerd: That would be my proposal. I would move that we re-open the public hearing. Bird: I'll second it. Corrie: Motion's made and seconded to re-open the public hearing on Item No. 7 and 8. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: All right. Let's hear what you've got to say, Jonathan. Seel: I think there's a couple things to think about here. This kind of caught me flatfooted because I didn't think we'd be going through this again. The City needs the road and County wants to put it in, and Winston Moore -let me back up. The process behind us was Winston wanted to, about six months ago, wanted to get an idea how this road would be laid out. He went to ACHD and said to them, we'd like to know how much right-of--way you'll be taking and how's this going to be used so we can begin to design a concept plan on this project so we can begin to market it. ACHD's comment at that point was, okay, you go ahead and submit an application, and based on that, we'll be able to determine what kind of road we put. Based on that, we came up with a concept plan is what we're proposing here which we don't see is going to radically deviate from this. This is an L-O zone, we are allowed to put office in here. With multiple office, we go through the conditional use. So we submitted this concept plan without knowing precisely how this is all going to work out because we haven't started the marketing process yet, and we don't know how market conditions are going to dictate for this. So we have a concept plan here. I don't want to say this as a threat, but this is almost verbatim from Winston, is if the City of Meridian requires me to do a Development Agreement that's very specific, then I'll simply pull. the application. He doesn't want to get locked into something because we don't know. As Shari's said, we've gone through this before where it gets so specific is the type of building, the size, the footprint and everything else, and we begin to deviate from that, we're back here, and we don't want to do that. That's just counterproductive. I don't think you enjoy listening to me talk, and I certainly don't want to be here until 11:00 multiple times. I'm not trying to be smart here, I'm just trying to lay it out. What we're trying to do is say, okay, this is generally what we're going to do. It's an L-O zone. The homeowners, from what I understand, and Billy Ray is probably spent many meetings here with homeowners and their concerns, they wanted office, we're proposing office with a possibility of a restaurant which we will come back under a conditional use permit to provide. So we're not really talking about a restaurant today. The restaurant is for all intents and purposes in my mind off the table. We're just saying that there's just a possibility down the road, we're kind of laying out. Maybe it'd be better if we never had. So we're trying to give you a concept plan, but we don't know if this is specific. If we get a particular type of tenants or •. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 62 something like that with some latitude in there, you know, we're not proposing gas stations or any of the other things. We're basically talking offce here, and we will say office, and we said that at the P & Z with the possibility of a restaurant of a conditional use. We will not come back here and ask anyone else here for - oh, we changed our mind, and we'd like to put a Shell Gas Station on that corner. We'd like to put a retail complex. We won't and we said that at P & Z. I think we're trying to be fairly specific and give everybody the comfort they need. (inaudible) answers questions. Kind of in a nutshell. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you, Jonathan. I think you answered the question. Anderson: Mr. Foley wants to comment. Corrie: If somebody opens it up, comment (inaudible) Howard. Foley: I'm Howard Foley. From my perspective, I don't represent the homeowners either, but I just represent myself. I'm not opposed to a general, loosely-written Development Agreement. My concern is the lack of specifics as to what may or may not go in there that isn't office building. That's my concern, and I want the staff or the City to continue to have some control over it. I understand legal counsel to say is if you just annex it L-O, you're done. No other conditions. You can't put conditions on it that are other than limited office. If it's limited office, it's just a limited office. Restaurants aren't limited offices. That's my only concern that they're continuing to be some kind of control. If we had the Design Review, then that would be some further control. We just don't have it. So that seems to me, and I think that would be acceptable to me as a resident, if we had a Development Agreement that simply said, if you're going to do something beyond limited office or those kinds of things that you go through something that's akin to the conditional use permit or something that gives us notice and opportunity to come in and talk with staff and say, gee, these are the concerns that we have. That's really my concern, and we have given what I understand Mr. Seel to have said if that's acceptable to the applicant. I think that would be acceptable to us, also, but, you know, we've had these issues before where we think we know what's going on, and then it's sort of gets a life of its own and it sort of changes. Then we are back here lots and lots, and I don't want to do this anymore either. So, that's my only concern. Corrie: Thank you, Howard. Is that what you were saying, Jonathan? Seel: I think (inaudible) 30 seconds because I think we have gone through this. I think that's all we're really saying here. We will put an office here. We will put in there we will be very specific. It's not going to be a gas station, it's not going to Meridian City Council January 1 S, 2000 Page 63 be retail, it's not going to be a liquor store, whatever it is. It's going to be office here. What type of office? It could be medical, it could be general, but it will be office. Then, if we do come with a restaurant, we'll come back with a conditional use permit, again, you've got that second bite at the apple. So I think we're all in agreement here. You know, I think we could accept that. Corrie: Thank you. Okay. Council, have you heard what you wanted to hear? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we close the public hearing. Bird: I second it. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Items 7 and 8. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Okay. Are you ready then for your Item No. 7 on the annexation and zoning? Anderson: Go ahead, Tammy. It was your idea. Go ahead and take a stab at it. deWeerd: I knew - Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Oh. I'm sorry. Then, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we have a Findings of Facts and Decision of Order for the request for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from R-T to L-O for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that the Development Agreement be a very loose -very general L-O Development Agreement and anything outside of light office will come for a CUP. Anderson: Second. deWeerd: Mr. Bird, would that include - Corrie: Just a second. Motion is made and seconded. Okay. Now discussion, Mrs. deWeerd. Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 64 deWeerd: That needs to include staff comments - Bird: It includes staff comments -- deWeerd: -- and would you include - Bird: -- and Development Agreement. deWeerd: -- anything on the signage? Bird: The signage is in the staff comments. deWeerd: Oh. Did you put in there height restriction on this? Bird: Ten foot, yeah. Stiles: It's just a suggestion. Bird: We don't have an ordinance. Anderson: Wouldn't that be covered under the CUP? deWeerd: If they come back for a CUP. Corrie: All right. Any other discussion? Gigray: Point of clarification. Corrie:. Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, is the motion with the inclusion of staff comments as the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission as proposed to be amended by staff and staff's comments here today? Bird: Yes, it is. Gigray: Okay. Corrie: Is that agreeable on the second? Anderson: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. r Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 65 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now we have a public hearing request on the conditional use permit, Item No. 8. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we .approve the conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site and an ancillary restaurant in an L-O zone for proposed Magic View Office Complex by W.H. Moore Company, Eagle Road and Magic View, and that is to include the staff comments which I'm not going through and outline and for the City Attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Decision of Order. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to approve the conditional use permit on Item No. 8 and the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Order. deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: That would have a condition that if they do put a restaurant in here they will come back with the CUP; correct? Corrie: That's part of the conditional use. deWeerd: Just wanted clarification. Corrie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Now, given the hour, it's 11:00 and we had a lot of people that was here to do the Walgreen's on 9 and 10. I would recommend to the Council, it's your decision, that we have that on the 1St on the public hearing continued to the next meeting. Bird: Yeah. We've had I'll bet you four, five, six, seven people leave because we told them -they were under the impression that we weren't going to go. There's some sitting back out there, but there were four or five sitting right - Y Meridian City Council ' January 18, 2000 _ Page 66 Gigray: (inaudible) Bird: Is there anybody that can't come back, Mayor, (inaudible) 1 Sty Corrie: Is there anybody that can't come back on the 1St of February? We can take - Hawker: Mr. Mayor, Colby Hawker, Hawkins Smith - if we - Corrie: It's not open yet. Let me - I just wanted to know if -the reason you can't. Hawker: I'm with the applicant, and our issue is simply with we have made a commitment on the property, and we have got to finalize where we are in this project or our commitments on this thing - we started - we applied in August, we were deferred through Planning and Zoning, we were deferred through ACRD, and it just keeps going on and on and on, and I know the timing was bad with the first of the year and the new City Council members that have come on for the last hearing that we were supposed to be on. So - Corrie: One of the things, if I open it, it'll have to be continued to the first, so it'll be the same thing because we've got people that left that have a right to testify. Hawker: Well, I understand. I don't know what to say other than (inaudible) specific commitments that we have got to make and I would just hate to have that go - I think we have a plan in front of the City Council that we can talk about tonight. I ,know there are several neighbors that had some concerns, and I think we've got a plan that we will present to you that will alleviate the concerns that they had. Corrie: That may well be, but they're not here. Hawker: Well (inaudible) - Corrie: So that's why we have to have the continued public hearing. You're in a Catch-22 here. Some people have left because of the hour. Hawker: I understand. Bird: Mr. Mayor, can I explain something? The Mayor asked earlier if there was anybody here that, you know, -- told them that if it comes 10:30, we were going to decide on these two things to go, and then at that point, five or six people left. It would not be fair to them, and I understand your dilemma, you know, and I realize you've went on about six months trying to get this thing through, but it's Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 67 not fair to those people that were under the impression that we were not going to have a public hearing. - *** End of Side 4 *** Item 9. Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from C-2 and R-8 to C-G (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Item 10. Public Hearing: Conditional use permit to construct asingle- tenant commercial building with adrive-thru window (Walgreen's) by Hawkins Smith Management, Inc. - NW corner of Fairview and Locust Grove: Hawker: -- I understand that. Bird: I understand your dilemma. Hawker: It's an unfortunate situation, I guess. We've just been involved with this process for so long, and our commitments that we can make to the landowners out there -you know, the property that we're taking down as part of this, there's a huge financial commitment that we have to make to go ahead and close on those pieces of property, and without knowing that my development is approved as part of this, there's a huge financial risk that I take there. Bird: When do you have to make the commitment? Hawker: Well, our commitments have to be made by the end of this month. Bird: By the first of February? You couldn't get a 15-day extension on those guys? I don't think somebody's going to jump in and buy it up (inaudible) Hawker: I don't know. (inaudible) approach them and make that recommendation. That's my concern. Bird: And I apologize for the -you know, we can only go so much - Corrie: The thing is, you wouldn't get a commitment from the Council anyway until they voted the 1St if they had it tonight. So you're still in a Catch-22. They have to approve the Findings of Facts on the 1St, so you're not in time anyway. Hawker: Sure. I understand. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. The Idaho ~3~J' °r ~~ ~~ridia~ Statesman - P.O. BOX 40, BOISE, IDAHO 83707-0040 Amount Oue - - -~.,~~;~~i;~,_~~1.~,, ~ LEGAL ADVERTISING INVOICE L $49.20 __ -_ Account Number/Trans. # _ ~ ~--~ -- Identification -- - - --- _ - --~ ~--__-~ -~- _-- -~~~-- - --~--~ ---- i 064514 176253_ PUBLIC HEARING -MAGIC VIEW_ ~- - - - - Ordered By ~ _ ~~ P.O. Number Rate Run Dates ~ ~ ---- ~~ - - ---'~ SHELBY _ _- ' NT _~ DECEMBER 31, 1999, JANUARY 14, 2000 Estimated Inches Real Inches CITY OF MERIDIAN 35 LINES _ _ _ _ __'~ 33 E. IDAHO AVE p AHldavits Legal Number MERIDIAN, ID 83642-2631 ', _ ~~ 1 5903 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the CiN of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the CiN Council of The CiN of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian CiN Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m, on January 18, 2000, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the application Of W.H. Moore Company for annexation and zoning of 10 acres from RT to LO for proposed Magic View Office Complex which is generally located at Eagle Road and Magic View. Furthermore, the applicant requests a conditional use permit to provide multiple buildings on a single site plus an ancillary restaurant. A more particular description of the above property is on file in the CiN Clerk's office at Meridian CiN Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection dur- ing regular business hours. A copy of the application is available upon request. Anv and alt interested per- sons shall be heard at said public hearing and The public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. DATED this 23rd day of December. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK Pub. Dec. 31, 1999, Jan. 14, 2000 5903 ,~~~~~~isH41~~ a ~ .~ ~ , .• ' ~ ~' m "~~ ~ -~ ~..a; , P ~ .,, ~~ -,. JANICE HILDRETH ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is the Principal Clerk of The Idaho Statesman, a daily newspaper printed and published at Boise, Ada County, State of Idaho, and having a general circulation therein and which said newspaper has been continuously and uninterruptedly published in said County during a period of twelve consecutive months prior to the first publication of the notice, a copy of which is attached hereto; that said notice was published in The Idaho Statesman in conformity with Section 60-108, Idaho Code as amended, for TWO ^ consecutive weekly ^ single ^ consecutive daily ^D odd skip insertion(s) beginning with the issue of DECEMBER 31 1999 and ending with the issue of JANUARY 14 2000 STATE OF IDAHO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ADA ) On this 14TH day of JANUARY in the year of 2000 ,before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared JANICEHILDR_ETH _ _ known or identified to me to be the person whose name subscribed to the within instrument, and being by me first duly sworn, declared that the statements therein are true, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same. ~~~~~~ Notary Public for daho Residing at: Boise, Idaho My commission expires: ~~~/~/ap Q~ Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 51 little bit more of a privacy issue is what I'm concerned about here. We talked about before what goes on top of this berm. I'm hearing now that we want a solid six-foot fence that's made out of wood. At the P & Z meeting, we had requested either brick or vinyl, something that doesn't need long-term maintenance. Something that is permanent. This is what we're looking for. I don't think it's really out of the question to do something like this if you look at the maintenance costs that are going to be incurred by having wood on there as to no maintenance on the other things. If we could have some clarification on why exactly this berm is going to only be four-foot high, I would really appreciate that. I guess those are my comments. Corrie: Okay. (inaudible) comments, questions at this point? Thank you. Anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Yes, sir. Foley: My name is Howard Foley. I reside at 2875 Autumn Way in Meridian, Idaho. I'm a resident of Greenhill Estates Subdivision, also, and I have, in addition to Mr. Harl's comments or concerns, two others. I have the same concern that was raised by Shari regarding the sign and Sign Ordinance. Our subdivision has been through this process with Eagle Partners before where the sign's not been designated and we've been back to hearings, and we've had discussions about 100-foot signs and whatever. Now, I understand we're going to be maybe having another hearing about a 72-foot sign, and this seems to be repetitious, and it seems that this is probably the time and the place for these discussions to end so we don't find ourselves back again and again. It seems appropriate to me that if these are going to be office buildings that the signage be consistent with office buildings. That they be ground-level monument signs or that they be signs on the buildings themselves, that they not be free-standing, illuminated signs. Assuming that the offices will be open from eight to five, you know, I'm just not sure we need 10, or as Councilman Anderson asked, 20-foot or whatever they are illuminated signs. I know you've heard from us in our subdivision on too many occasions, but I can assure you we're well illuminated by signage from Jackson's and the Chevron's and the McDonald's in our backyards as it is, and the further that development comes down our backyards, the bigger the concern for us with free-standing, internally illuminated signs -just some definition of what that's going to be and some consistency in terms with the development seems appropriate to us. Certainly, the buildings have to have signage, and we understand that, but we just don't see the need for it to be wide open and then the signage issues that we've had to address before, all of us. Secondly, I think there ought to be a Development Agreement. When I first heard about the project and viewed it, I understand there is a proposal for a restaurant. At one time, I'd heard the proposal was that the restaurant would be internal to the office facility itself, would be one of those things where people who worked inside the office buildings would come and have lunch or whatever the case might be. Now I understand that the developer's not exactly sure what they want. They really don't want to be tied down, understandably, Iguess, if you were in our position, we'd like them tied down. We'd like to know what they're - Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 52 going to do, we want to know if there's going to be restaurants that extend beyond the eight to five timeframe, and if so, what kind of traffic and lighting, and those kinds of things are going to go on. If that is done by the mechanism of a Development Agreement, many of the applicants that come before you are required to enter into Development Agreements, and that's a safeguard for us through your process, and I'd ask that you pose that on the applicant. Thanks. Corrie: Any questions for Howard? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Howard. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Jonathan, any comments on the questions that were raised? Seel: Yes. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company. I think with respect to the question about the berm and the fence, I think the thinking behind that was that if we have afour-foot berm and asix-foot feet, you basically have ten feet there. I think that would obstruct any type of lighting that would come from the cars. I can appreciate their concern with the noise and lighting, and so I think that was where it was addressed; the fact that we would put afour-foot berm with asix- foot fence on top of it which would give you your ten feet. Presumably, that should be adequate to eliminate the lighting. As far as the sound goes, I'm not sure that you're ever going to completely eliminate noise there, and (inaudible) given the fact that you also have, 'I don't know how many thousands of cars running up and down Eagle Road every day and every night. So that's where that came from. With respect to the question of the fence, I don't recall - my memory's failed me before, but I don't recall any discussion or approval about a vinyl or brick fence. I do recall some discussions about that, but we would be opposed to that. You start getting into brick, you get into something very substantial in terms of costs. It's not cheap. Winston Moore, I think you're probably all familiar, is awell-respected developer in this community. He's not one that kind of comes in here, throws up a project, sells it and blows out of town. It's in his best interest to maintain this fence, too. We don't want that to deteriorate if we end up, in fact, putting up a wood fence. We want that to look nice. If that starts to deteriorate, then, obvious, that impacts our marketing ability. We want full buildings. So, again, I would like to say that we would (inaudible) wood fence. It would be attractive, it would be well-maintained as well as the landscaping that's in our best interest. As far as the restaurant goes, I would point out that we also say here that we are here for a conditional use permit. In the event that we do come in for a restaurant, we will come back for a CU. So we will come back at that point and there would be conditions put on us. At this point, we don't know what kind of restaurant it is. We don't know what kind of hours of operation. This is a concept. We know generally how it's going to look, but we don't -that's one of the reasons we said to P & Z and we're saying to City Council, that we are prepared to come back in the event it is a ' Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 53 restaurant and ask for a conditional use permit for that project. So you have essentially another bite of the apple down the road as well as the homeowners who can either say, yes, that's acceptable; or, no, we have a real problem with that. So we are not proposing right now that, yeah, we are going to create a restaurant tomorrow based on this. So I think that's an important point, and I think that's my only comments. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: Generally what building you'd be looking at fora restaurant? Seel: Yes. I think most likely if you're looking at it, you'd look at that building right there. (inaudible) Right there. You know, our feeling is that because that is so -that is close to the Chevron Station that that's going to be the most likely place for a restaurant. We also feel that it's far enough away from the homeowners that will not be disruptive to them -certainly minimize any disruptions to them. That is right now what we visualize it as working out that way. I think, again, that would minimize it and it backs up the gas station would be the most likely place. Anderson: Thank you. Seel: Any other questions? deWeerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd. deWeerd: Mr. Seel, would you be -since you'd have to come back for a CUP if you put a restaurant in that spot to agree to a height on your signs because that sign could be designated with that piece and could come through with a CUP at that point. Seel: Well, again, I would prefer at that point to address the sign on that. Without knowing what type of restaurant it is - deWeerd: Exactly. That's my point. You could commit to a height on the other facilities, but in case that you did have to come back for a CUP on that particular area, you could come back with the sign package at that time as well. Seel: I don't see -- like I say, if you look around at anything that Winston Moore's done, drive up and down Emerald or over Forest River (sic) stuff, you'll see that those signs are monument-type signs that I think are seven, eight feet tall. They're no more than that. They're a brick structure with (inaudible). They Meridian City Council January 18, 2000 Page 54 have lights that shine up. They're not internally illuminated. I don't see where that will, personally, where. that will be a problem. I think that will go well with an office complex. deWeerd: Would you have a problem putting aten-foot maximum on signage with the exception if you come back with a CUP on the particular lot. Seel: I don't think so. I think that's reasonable. Again, I understand the homeowners' concerns that they don't want 150-foot sign shining down into the backyard. We can appreciate that; the homeowners' concerns about that. deWeerd: Just one last thing. I know that Shari and~her changes had mentioned if we didn't do a Development Agreement there was some other verbiage that she suggested. Do you have a problem with either of those? Seel: No. Because what we presented here is what we think is a concept, the way it will generally look. We've talked about the building, the westerly (inaudible), and I can't remember if that's Parcel A, but the northerly building would be a one-story. Again, we know we're backing up to neighborhoods, so we don't want it to be two-stories. The one below would be potentially atwo- story. So we see this as kind of a concept plan that we're going to do, so we're comfortable with trying to stay within these perimeters. I don't see where we're going to erratically deviate. We're not going to throw five buildings on this one and six on that one or something like that. deWeerd: So you wouldn't object to a Development Agreement? Seel: A Development Agreement? Yes, I would. deWeerd: That was part of my question. Okay. Seel: Yeah. That's the whole thing. That's what we argued with before was that we don't want to get locked in, quite honestly, if we are forced for that, then, you know, we don't know at this point what precisely we're going to do, and if you get into Development Agreements, they're a very specific thing. You have a concept here, and I don't know if we - we don't -we're opposed to that. deWeerd: That's all I had. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Seel: Okay. Thank you very much.