Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 20, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian Planning ~ Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 7 of 57 Baird: Madam Chair, just as a point of order, you can certainly comment on the variance, but the variance is a matter that -- for the City Council only. It's in the staff report because that does get forwarded onto City Council, but two items before you are Items 5 and 6 on the agenda, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Correct. I just -- in the draft motion here it did list it as I figured we needed to comment on it, if we are commenting on the rest. Baird: Well, maybe I'll flip it over to planning staff and see if they had a comment on why it's there. Watters: Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, you are not required to make a formal recommendation on the variance, but it would be good to forward your unofficial recommendation to the City Council. Newton-Huckabay: So, with that said, do you want us to state our specific reasons for recommending that the variance be granted, since that's the only thing the staff is not in agreement with or may we just leave it off of the motion? Watters: Just leave it off of the motion. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, you can proceed as originally intended. O'Brien: Okay. Should I just start over then? Newton-Huckabay: I think so. Watters: Let me just add to that. You can -- you can add your comments on the variance and, then, proceed to the motion, if you -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. O'Brien: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ OS-003 and CUP 08-00~, as presented during the hearing of March 20th, 200$. Marshall: I second it. Newton-Huckabay: All those in flavor? Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 21, 2008: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 8 of 57 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Prouerty (aka Browning Plazas by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Item $: Continued Public Hearing from February 21, 2008: PP 08-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 commercial /office lots and 1 common lot on 38.21 acres in a proposed C-G zoning district for Brownin Plaza aka Waltman Pro ert by SLN Planning, Inc. - 505, 521, 615 and 675 W. Waltman Lane: Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from February 21st, 2008, AZ 06-063 and PP 08-001, the Waltman property, aka Browning Plaza. And before we start with the testimony from staff, we do have some comments from the city attorney. Baird: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Just a quick note. This matter was continued for specific items, but we did received an inquiry from the public about the applicant's presentation and there may be a desire on behalf of those present to testify to matters that they may not have had a chance to testify at the last hearing, so we just wanted to let the folks that are here know if you have anything -- everything is already on the record, there is no reason to repeat anything that's been said, but if you have a desire to put anything else on the record, we are going to allow that tonight, just as a -- as a courtesy. So, if that -- that's what we all got to say at this point. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you, Ted. Applicant -- or Sonya. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners. Just to recap real quick; the site consists of 38.68 acres of land and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site is located on the south side of Waltman Lane, east of The Landing Subdivision, on the north side of Interstate 84. This is an aerial view of the property. This is a conceptual site plan showing how the property may develop in the future. This is the proposed preliminary plat, which consists of 40 commercial building lots and two common lots on 38.21 acres. This is the landscape plan and, lastly, these are the conceptual building elevations that represent haw future buildings on the site may appear. These were submitted at the last Commission hearing and have been entered into the staff report as part of the record. When the Commission previously heard the subject applications on February 21st, at that meeting the Commission voted to continue the project until tonight's meeting in order to have sufficient time to obtain comments from ACHD and to give the applicant time to review the development agreement provisions recommended by staff. The applicant submitted a written response to the original development agreement provisions proposed by staff. Staff has updated the development agreement provisions in Section 10 of the staff report, including some of the requests by the applicant and has met with the applicant to discuss these changes. The applicant submitted another written response to the DA provisions that you should have, based on the updated provisions made by staff. On February 25th, city and ACHD staff met with the applicant to discuss traffic issues in this area. During that meeting the current access limitations and long-term solution for Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2D, 2008 Page 9 of 57 traffic in this area was discussed. A loop frontage road was briefly discussed, but it was not considered a viable option due to the state's plan for the new westbound on-ramp onto I-84. This new on-ramp will take a substantial portion of the property due east of the subject site. ACRD and city staff both expressed an interest in having Corporate Drive extended to the north to connect with southwest 5th Avenue. If this connection is made, a viable secondary access to the site will be established. A solution that ACHD staff offered up to get the Corporate - 5th connection made, but not put the entire burden on the application, unless to enter into the development with the development agreement with the developer to establishing an extraordinary impact overlay district in this area. If an extraordinary impact area is established, the developer of the subject property, in concert with ACRD, would build the Corporate Drive extension and any other necessary roadway improvements. And, then, reimbursed through extraordinary impact fees that are generated as buildings are constructed in this area. Unlike ACHD staff, however, city staff believes that the corporate drive extension should occur prior to another 8,000 vehicle trips being added in this area, not after. City staff continues to believe that the extension of Corporate Drive to the north across the Ten Mile Lateral is a critical roadway improvement in this area that should be constructed sooner, rather than later. Staff is recommending that no more than 75,000 square feet of gross building area be allowed before the Corporate -Southwest 5th connection is made. Staff recommends that the Commission decide what roadway improvements and development agreement provisions should be included with this development. I'm just going to run through the development agreement provisions that staff has modified since the last hearing. Construction traffic for the purpose of infrastructure improvements is going to be allowed during the construction related to the Waltman Lane -Meridian Road -Main Street intersection as requested by the applicant. Staff is allowing up 75,000 square feet of gross building area prior to the extension of the Corporate Drive across the Ten Mile Creek connecting to Waltman Lane prior to occupancy of structures on this site. Also, certificate of zoning compliance application will not be approved for any structures on the site that exceed the total allowed square footage for the site until Corporate Drive is extended. All buildings on the site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual office and retail elevations submitted with this application. Staff has added the last part, unless the development agreement is modified by the developer once actual users are identified. The applicant requested that addition be made to it. Staffs in agreement with that. Staff modified the provision for -- except for a potential hotel site at the southwest corner. Offices shall be constructed along the west and north -- staff added northwest boundaries of this site. There in that corner adjacent to the residential properties as a transitional use to the existing residential uses, unless the adjacent uses are changed into nonresidential uses. Anew provision was added -- restaurant uses proposed along the north boundary of the site, excluding the northwest corner directly adjacent to existing residences, of which restaurant uses are not allowed -- restaurant uses are not allowed to have outdoor seating areas located adjacent to Waltman Lane and residences to the north, unless the adjacent uses are changed into nonresidential uses. All structures along the west and north property boundaries adjacent to existing residences shall be limited in height to two stories. Staff added to that: And shall have a minimum setback of 25 feet adjacent to the existing residences, unless the adjacent uses are changed Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 10 of 57 into nonresidential uses, with the exception of the proposed hotel. If a hotel is built at the southwest corner of the site, as depicted on the concept plan, a 25 foot setback shall be required for the first story, a hundred foot setback shall be required for the second story, and a 2p0 foot setback shall be required for anything greater than two stories adjacent to existing residences. Structures along the west and northwest property boundaries directly adjacent to residences shall position the second story -- and we added and higher in the case of a hotel -- windows in such a manner as to not have these directly into neighboring residential properties. StafF also added the provision for no rear loading areas, delivery areas, trash areas, or obtrusive lighting shall be permitted adjacent to existing residences on the west and north praperty boundaries. Minimum -- and we changed the provision. A minimum of 15 buildings -- it said should. Staff changed that to shall be required on this site. Development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan submitted with this application, as determined by the planning director. Staff added unless the development agreement is modified by the developer once actual users are identified. Prior to issuance of the first occupancy, a ten foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed at the northeast corner of the site. Staff added as depicted an the concept plan and as approved by the parks department on the east side of the Ten Mile Draln. Construct a maximum of five access paints to Corporate Drive as shown on the concept plan. Staff added unless the development agreement is modified by the developer once actual users are identified. That concludes the development agreement modification. Staff added a preliminary plat condition of approval for a maximum of five access points to Corporate Drive. A collector road shall be allowed as depicted on the concept plan. And the building elevations that were submitted from the last hearing has been included in Exhibit A-5 of the staff report. Written testimony on this application was received from Art Berry. At this time staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Newton-Huckabay: Any questions? O'Brien: Yeah. Madam Chair, I have a question for Sonya. Something I have been thinking about -- the applicant is not allowed to build or bring in heavy equipment before Corporate Drive is completed or the intersection of Waltman Lane and Meridian; is that -- so, that's correct? Wafters: Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, staff changed the DA provision to allow construction traffic far the purpose of infrastructure improvements to be allowed during the construction related to the Waltman t_ane - Meridian Road -Main Street intersection. O'Brien: So, we are talking about dump trucks and bull dozers and things like that? don't know. Wafters: Whatever construction traffic is needed for the purpose of infrastructure improvements. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 11 of 57 O'Brien: The reason I bring that up, because if it was going to happen, I just wondered if you could build a temporary access road -- could I have the overhead of the site -- the -- I don't know what you call it -- Google site. Well, this -- that would be fine. Yeah. So, we are talking about here of excess traffic and this intersection is going to be rebuilt and Corporate Lane is going to be extended, but I don't know the time frame that Ada County or the state's going to improve this on-ramp and could there not be an access road, temporary one, built alongside this area? Has that ever been considered? Wafters: Well, the applicant -- excuse me. Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, the applicant will need to obtain permission from those land owners -- O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Wafters: -- to do that. I don't know that they would want construction traffic on -- O'Brien: I was thinking more about the right of way that the state was going to use anyway until they get that finished and I don't know what the time frame is on that. So, that's -- it's just a wild thought, so -- Hood: Madam Chair, Commissioners, if I may -- and the applicant could probably enlighten a little bit more. We met with ACRD, as Sonya mentioned, although she kind of went through those -- there is really not a lot of changes, but there were some details that have been added since the last time. The temporary access, ACHD assured us -- and I'm sure they told the applicant the same thing, only with some more details, that they can allow those bigger construction traffic type trucks in and out of there while they are reconstructing an intersection. How, I don't know, but they said they would work something out to allow them that construction traffic to maneuver. I don't think it's in the movements that you just kind of outlined, though. I would imagine it's going to be something closer to the intersection and getting them back and using Waltman Lane to get them into the site, rather than sending them through the state's property, but I don't know that. I didn't see that plan. I did want to highlight one quick thing, though. This doesn't have anything to do with your -- with your question, but I did want to explain a little bit more, because I was at the meeting and Sonya wasn't and I covered this last time at the presentation. That same meeting that we had with ACHD, I just wanted to explain a little bit of this extraordinary impact fee overlay and kind of how that works and why I personally think it's a great opportunity for the entire area to -- to get some roadway improvements up front and not have them lag behind or potentially never happen. Essentially, what happens is in this case this applicant would be charged with working with ACRD and ACRD told me -- or told us all at that meeting that they would work with this property owner on acquiring some of that right of way or all of the right of way needed for the Corporate Drive extension. Essentially, what happened, though, is the applicant fronts all the money for whatever construction is going to be included, whether it's just this or improving all of Waltman Lane, so it connects through and you have a finished street or maybe there is other roadway needs in the area, whatever ACRD and the applicant and the city all say, yeah, this is what we want to see grouped Meridian Planning & Zpning March 20, 2D08 Page 12 of 57 in with this area. And what happens is, again, they front the money and if the market slows, the applicant, you know, has to pay all that money up front and they are out that money. But as anyone within this geographical area comes in, they pay above and beyond what their regular ordinary impact fee is to the highway district. It's an extraordinary impact fee. And ACRD, basically, tracks all this and collects that fee and, then, hands it over to the applicant. So, basically, they're administering this fee in making sure that the applicant gets paid back in time their fair share. Now, they still have to pay their fair share, too, so the buildings that come in within their development are still subject to this, but, in fact, they are credited back. But that's kind of in a nutshell how it works. They administer it, they oversee it; they review the construction drawings and do those types of things. But the monetary costs are associated with the developer who up fronts the cost and, then, over time are reimbursed. So, I just kind of wanted to give you just abrief -- and I probably butchered it, but that's the general idea of how they function and what staff, again, thinks is a viable solution to make this happen and not put all of the costs -- there is some burden, don't get me wrong, they have to up front those costs, but it spreads it out over a larger geographical area where everyone is paying their fair share. So, I just wanted to explain that real quick. O'Brien: Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Marshall: Madam Chair, I did have a -- what I think is more of a legal question regarding the potential DA and the comment about unless the adjacent uses are changed into nonresidential uses. I understand the purpose behind it, but what I wonder is if those residential areas are purchased, does that null and void everything that comes before it? There is no -- Baird: Madam Chair and Commissioner Marshall, if I could ask you to sort of give me an example of what your concern -- Marshall: Well, it's used multiple times throughout the DA and so I read restaurant uses are proposed along the north boundary of this site, excluding the northwest corner directly adjacent to the existing residences of which restaurant uses are not allowed. Or not allowed to have outdoor seating areas located adjacent to Waltman Lane and residences to the north. Unless the adjacent uses are changed into nonresidential uses. I can understand that if there is no longer a residence there we don't have to worry about a restaurant there, but it just seemed that that comment used over and over again seemed to throw out any control over how that developed. Baird: Madam Chair, Commissioner Marshall, Members of the Commission, the way that I would interpret that is that if and when the residential use goes away, then, that only adds additional flexibility, it doesn't take away from anything that's been done before. Say there is a restaurant there that goes in -- if it's allowed, if I understand it correctly, while there is resident adjacent, then, there wouldn't be any outdoor seating. If the adjacent residence went away, that restaurant could conceivably came in and get approval for outdoor seating. I think that's the flexibility they are trying to build in, so that the applicant -- or whoever is the owner, doesn't have to come in every time there is Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 13 of 57 an owner change on the adjacent properties to have the DA updated, because updating a DA is a pretty onerous process and I think we are just trying to foresee what could happen in the future, build in some flexibility, but I don't think it nullifies anything that has happened prior to that. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Baird: Is that a sufficient explanation? Marshall: Thank you. Baird: I was getting nods from staff as well. I hope they are agreeing with that interpretation. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Any other comments? Would the applicant like to come forward? Nickel: Good evening, Madam Chair and Commission. Shawn Nickel, 6228 Discovery Way, Suite 200, in Boise, here tonight representing the applicant. We want to thank you for the additional month to get with staff and ACRD and try to work out these -- well, the laundry list that we had that we left with last time. Did you all receive my March 18th letter'? Okay. All right. And as you can see -- and Sonya went through the items of the development agreement in detail, but just wanted to point out -- and I try to highlight them in red and make them as user friendly as possible. But, as you can see, we are in agreement with the majority of the conditions now that staff is recommending. We still have some issue with two of them and so I'll go into those real fast and, then, we can -- we can open discussion. The first -- the first issue -- and I do appreciate Caleb kind of bringing you up to speed on the history of that meeting we had with ACHD. So, I think that was important for you guys to understand what -- what happened. However, staff is recommending that a limit to the square footage of the construction on site until the Corporate Lane connection is established and, again, we would like to have your condition be consistent with ACHD's condition, which staff did read into the record, but basically at a certain vehicle trip threshold that would kick in the requirement for that Corporate Drive to be extended. We are excited about ACHD working with us on that possible extraordinary impact fee and I think that's -- that's something that we can work with. You have seen it in a couple other locations. One is ofF of Eagle Road, Mountain View, and Allen Street. Now, that you're there, they had the same type of impact fee -- extraordinary impact fee established where those projects developed -- I think it was -- think it was Allen and Mountain View were improved and that allowed that area there to -- to develop with a McDonald's, with the credit union, and all those other uses that you see there now. So, that was -- that's an example of the extraordinary impact fee in play. And, then, the second -- second and only additional condition we'd like modified or at least bring up for discussion is the condition -- staff still feels that they do not want to see any of retail uses on this west boundary, they want to limit it to office only and at our last meeting we got into a little discussion on, well, what type of uses would be there if we did allow some retail. Our idea is to have it be neighborhood type retail and so what Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 14 of 57 we -- what we have done is we have proposed a couple of things for each night. One is -- and if you can look at that -- that bullet in the red outlining that I have, we have proposed -- Newton-Huckabay: Excuse me. Shawn? Nickel: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. I don't think I have that letter. I'm not finding it. I thought that I had read everything. Nickel: There is something that I had given to the clerk a couple days ago. Marshall: I received it in a fax, but I don't have it with me. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Sorry to interrupt you. Nickel: That's okay. Newton-Huckabay: Is that the only copy of it? Okay. Can you go make -- O'Brien; I apologize you don't have that, because it's probably hard for you guys to follow me if I'm referring to something you don't have in front of you. Marshall: I went to the source. I went to Sonya and she sent it over to me, so -- Nickel: Okay. So, basically, what we are -- if you want me to continue until that comes back. Newton-Huckabay: That would be fine. Nickel: What we are -- what we are asking for is to have some limited retail uses on that -- on that western boundary. Staff has indicated that they want to keep it strictly office. What we are proposing is two things. One is to prohibit drive-thrus, drinking establishments, businesses that would operate after 10:00 p.m. and, then, restaurants or food establishments would only be allowed as a Conditional Use Permit. And, then, in addition -- and staff has put this in later on, no rear loading areas, delivery areas, trash areas or obtrusive lighting would be allowed. That's one proposal. The second proposal, which is a little more -- I think might be a little bit better, might be what you were looking at last time is to establish specific uses. So, what I did is I went ahead and included the -- if you had that list, the list of uses in the C-G zone and we took out the ones that we felt were not compatible with residential. And I can either read those all to you or you can wait for a couple minutes until Machelle gets back and you can look at that --and you can look at that list. Newton-Huckabay: Let's wait for the letter. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 15 of 57 Nickel: So, those are the two recommended conditions in the development agreement that we would like to discuss this evening and we can open up that dialogue -- I'll go ahead and stand for any other questions you have right now and, then, we can open up the rest of the Public Hearing. Q'Brien: I just have a question about some of the issues that I know are going to came up in that is increased traffic and noise and trash collection, et cetera, if you have a restaurant in there or anything that's retail of that nature is going to -- and I think this is what I heard before from the community, saying this is going to be a problem and they don't want to have that kind of problem and I kind of agree with that. So, I don't know if that is a viable suggestion or not if that's going to -- going to work. Nickel: Madam Chair and Commissioner, that's why we are proposing these conditions, so you would -- you would -- Sonya, can you put the site plan back up. So, again, you have a -- you'd have a building here. What we would do is we would establish, no matter what that building is, office or this limited retail, would not have any parking, trash pickup, lighting, loading, anything along the back side. So, if there was a use that was going to go in there, it would all be handled internally. You would have landscape buffer and, then, you would have the building itself. That's one -- that's one way to take care of that compatibility issue. And, then, if you look at the list that I'm proposing, you can see the list that we use for that we have taken out altogether that we don't feel are appropriate that you -- it would be impossible for us to bring in or to try to -- try to transition those into a residential use, so -- Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Marshall: I have got a quick question. Shawn, could you refresh my memory here on the recommendation about an 80 percent build out or 75,000 square foot maximum. Was that conditional on the build out of Waltman Lane or Corporate Drive or Waltman Lane and Corporate Drive? Nickel: I guess I'll let staff elaborate on that. Wafters: It's and Caleb's telling me. Newton-Huckabay: And. Marshall: So, it would be limited until such as -- such time as Waltman Lane and Corporate Drive would be built out. Newton-Huckabay: I understood nothing would happen until Waltman Lane was under construction. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 200$ Page 16 of 57 Nickel: The -- okay. It's the -- the intersection of Waltman Lane. Nothing can happen, other than utility construction on our site until the Waltman Lane intersection is completed. Marshall: Right. Nickel: Then, additionally, as staff has it written, only 75 percent of -- or excuse me -- 75,000 square feet can be built on site before Corporate has to be extended. Marshall: And the ACRD recommendation was 80 percent limiting to 8,000 vehicle trips per day down Waltman Lane. Nickel: They actually said 8,000 vehicle trips, because they are basing it on the traffic study and the -- Marshall: Which was a maximum 10,500 vehicle trips per day at build out. Nickel: Right. Correct. Correct. And that comes out to about 80 percent of the development with our calculations. Newton-Huckabay: So, what's the difference between the 75,000 square feet and 8,000 vehicle trips? Hood: Madam Chair, maybe I can try to answer that one a little bit. I guess it's the difference between us as city planners trying to track how many trips a retail or restaurant or office user is going to generate. First is us looking at a site plan with elevations and a floor plan going this is how big the building is. I don't know haw many - - how many buildings or square footage 8,000 trips is. ACRD expects us to track that and say, hey, stop at 8,000. I have no way. I'm not trained to do that and we can't, essentially. They have offered something up and I asked them that at the meeting, how are we supposed to know when we get to 8,000. They said, well, track it. I was like don't know how to track that. So, that's why we put into a measure that it's certain -- let me just put it in some terms of 75,000 certainly isn't going to generate 8,000 trips, unless it's just -- I don't think a movie theater generates that. So, I mean you're talking it's not -- it's a very small portion of what ACRD is willing to allow. My thinking -- Sonya's thinking in talking with her about it was it allows them to get going with some -- some building, but we don't want them to get 80 percent and, then, say, well, we are at 80 percent, we can either spend a million or two million dollars and build the road or we can stop now and not and already have it 80 percent built out. So, 80 percent or 8,000 trips -- to me there is no carrot there for the developer to follow through and get Corporate Drive extended. That's way too much. You're too far down the line to now say, whoa, stop now and build it. I just don't see it happening, quite honestly, at 8,000 trips. So, with 75,000 you get a little taste of a development. If you want more, then, you have got to get that infrastructure, really, that can support more. So, that's kind of our -- our thinking and just how we can -- if we are going to administer this or some restriction on it, we need it to be on our terms, so we can -- whatever it is, square Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 17 of 57 footage for us works. We can track that. If you guys want to modify that, that's fine. But we need something that we can work with, not vehicle trips per day. Wafters: If I could just add to that a little bit. I spoke with Matt at ACHD and he said that ACRD figures 8,000 trips is -- 8,000 trips is, basically, equivalent to approximately 267,000 square feet of commercial area. So, that gives you some comparison idea of their requirement versus ours. Newton-Huckabay: Which would make this about 320,000 square feet at build out? Wafters: I'm sorry? Newton-Huckabay: It would be about 320,000 square feet total? Hood: If it were all commercial. Now, there is certainly office and hotel and those are going to generate traffic at different rates than each other, so retail generates a little bit more, so that may be that 280,000 or whatever she just said, you know, could be any combination of 100,000 square feet of office and 200,000 square feet of retail and 75,000 square feet of restaurant or whatever to get to that. So, we just said again, for us easy tracking, whether it's restaurant or office or retail -- square footage. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, you answered my question. What I wanted more than anything was a perspective an what 75,000 square feet means to city staff and what 8,000 vehicles trips per day means to you and the difference is about 195,000 square feet of space to build, so --okay. Nickel: And, again, we are real concerned with having conditions placed on a piece of property that has out -- or has off-site improvement requirements that we have no control over. So, even though ACHD is saying, yeah, we will work with the neighbor to the north and we will try to get that connection, it's really hard for us to get a developer to come in that wants to invest anything, not knowing, you know, if we can get that -- that access to Corporate Drive -- or through Corporate Drive. So, that's the concern we have. This is something you guys have to, obviously, weigh out and make as part of your recommendation to the City Council. Given that, if we have to come up with a number, I would rather have something closer to about 150,000 -- and the reason I'm throwing that number out there is that that would provide the anchor tenant to be able to come in, because until you get an anchored tenant, the chances of a smaller user coming are probably not going to be that great. I think the anchor tenant's going to -- and we don't even know what that is. But the anchor tenant is going to come in, they are going to establish that, they are going to start building, and I think that's going to draw in your -- our other users. So, we haven't really talked about this with staff, but if you have to put a limit on the square footage, that would be our -- I guess our -- you know, as opposed to 75,000, we'd like to at least have something that the anchor could go in and start -- and start construction. So, you guys are going to have to make that decision. I'll just leave that with you to discuss. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 18 of 57 Newton-Huckabay: I just have one -- or go ahead, Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Oh. Madam Chair, I have a question fior Caleb. Caleb, when you attended that meeting with Ada County Highway District, did they factor in the residential uses? In other words, people that live in the residential areas that bypass this operation, that still use the highway as -- and, basically, add to the congestion, I mean it seems like that number is so supertluous that it would be difficult at best to guess what the number would be. Hood: And I missed the very first part of that, but I think I heard what you're saying is that 8,000, basically, just this site or does it include background traffic as well. Because I think that was something that the applicant bought up and if I heard ACHD correctly at that meeting, that 8,000 trips -- it isn't just for their site, it's any of the properties further - - closer to Meridian Road coming in and they, too, have to go through Waltman Lane. They are going to limit anyone going down Waltman Lane to 8,000 trips. So, those -- they don't even own those 8,000 trips if it gets approved at 8,000 trips. It's anyone. And if someone builds a residential subdivision back there and they have to go through Waltman Lane, it's 8,000 trips total. They just happen to be in first, so that's how it was explained to me. O'Brien: Thank you. Appreciate that. I have nothing further. Newton_Huckabay: Mr. Marshall, did you have another question before we take public testimony? Marshall: I don't at this time, no. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Shawn, I just had one question. I made a note when you first came up that you were really excited and okay with the extraordinary impact fee potential with ACRD and, then, I heard you say that you didn't want to make any outside improvements at the end of your testimony. Nickel: We are not -- I mean we are not there yet with ACRD and this is something that they have said that they are -- you know, they have got it written in. We don't have the details yet and we don't know the area that the -- the boundary that this would cover. It's something ongoing and so I can't stand up here and say that -- Newton-Huckabay: Do we want to continue this until you get that worked out? Nickel: It's not something that's going to be done at anytime soon. I mean it could take -- it could take a year for them to -- for them to establish it. And we are excited that they are looking at that, because what's going to happen is I think you're going to see Waltman be improved -- improved quicker and you're probably going to see Corporate be improved quicker. That gives a basis for that to happen, but, again, this developer has to -- has to front that cost and, then, as other development comes into the area, then, it will be -- it will be reimbursed. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 19 of 57 Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. That was my only -- do you have any other -- before public testimony? Nickel: No. Just thanks -- thanks a lot. Newton-Huckabay: Kathy Floyd. Floyd: Hello. My name is Kathy Floyd. I live at 520 Waltman Lane. And I'm a little concerned about the no loop or frontage road and the only reason it seems like that were being given is because it's going to be widened, but it doesn't need to be right next to the exit. I mean it's not going to be widened to the whole property. So, I think that's kind of a weird reason. And the second thing is -- another concern I have is it seems like the city or -- I don't know who it is -- is kind of bending over backwards to help this development go in. I did a little research as far as the split corridor and two years before this developer bought this land it was going to be under three million dollars to do basically the same thing, except not open Waltman -- put Waltman further from the intersection. When the -- when this was bought by the developer it now has jumped to 15 million and I think that seems kind of strange. I mean I know our costs rise, but I don't think they rise like that much. And, then, I think it was strange that Joe Borton, who was on the City Council when that was proposed and approved, was representing the developer. I think seems a little bit conflict of interest. And secondly or thirdly ar fourthly -- I don't know where I'm at, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Fourthly. Floyd: -- the -- Waltman Lane is a one lane road and even when my brother was building his house you couldn't put cement trucks aver the bridge, because it can't handle that. So, for anything to be built on Waltman Lane, you have to have Corporate in place, you have to have Waltman Lane in place before anything can be done. So, that's all I have to say. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Nona Haddock. Okay. From the audience Nona Haddock's concerns have been covered. Donna Aldridge. Aldridge: My name is Dvnna Aldridge. I live at 365 Waltman Lane. And I think I'm the oldest person down there. I have been there for aver 40 years and it's been so peaceful and quiet and this is going to be a nightmare. The road, like you say, they opened that up about 25 years ago when they built that bridge aver on the other side there and that traffic -- you couldn't even get out of my driveway. They had to have the police down there, they had to have that little wagon down there and that traffic was just like a bunch of wild horses set free. So, if it was that much, people coming through there at that time, who do you think is going to be when they put this development in? It's going to be a nightmare. I think that they ought to come to the people and try to make something right with them. Like I said, I have been there 40 years and I have a lot of memories there and if they widen that road they are going to have to take my well, they are going Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 20 of 57 to take my whole yard, half my yard, my well and everything and that's not fair. Like I said, I have been there 40 years and that's my home. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Mike Swenson. Swenson: Mike Swenson. 815 Waltman Lane. I think what -- I have got a number of concerns. The main one is that we have been kind of left out of the loop. We have had one meeting for the development that, you know, with very bad pizza and maybe six people showed up type of thing and, then, we haven't heard anything about this since that. Well, like, oh, there is a meeting, you know, you really need to go. My neighbor had to tell me that this meeting was here tonight. Our -- our -- right now the -- getting onto Meridian Road is a death trap. You know, I just can't imagine being able to do anything until you improve Meridian -- you know, that interchange and that -- we were told when we moved in 16 years ago that we were going to -- not to worry, they are going to build Corporate through. Well, you know -- you know, so you won't have to worry about that death trap kind of thing. Well, that hasn't happened and, you know, putting equipment down that road, which is a really Mickey Mouse kind of road. I mean Mr. Waltman built it that should tell you something. I think this whole thing is kind of ill thought out and I think there needs to be same more input. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Curtis Lee. Lee: Curtis Lee. 265 Waltman Lane. I just want to -- kind of the same thing everybody is saying. That bridge will not handle big trucks, cement trucks going over it. It's just a little one lane bridge from a one lane road. So, that's impossible for that to happen. And the corner is supposed to be getting done. We are on one side -- we had developers on one side of this, another developer behind us, and the city owns property behind that developer and, then, the Browning Plaza on the other side of us by the drain ditch. The developers need to get together with the city, because they own that land, and make a frontage road back there and it wouldn't affect any neighbors, there would be no traffic. They just got to talk to the other developers and the city and do it. That overpass has been in, what, the 20 year plan, so, you know, things could change in 20 years. So, that's all I got. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Lee, are you referring to the Meridian overpass or Linder -- Lee: The Meridian overpass. It supposedly is going to be a big loop tee do, but it's not - - and no immediate plans, so it's way out in the future. But you'd have to talk with the other developers to use their land fior a frontage road, but they should be having a frontage road also, because they are developing right -- they already got a sign up there wanting businesses to come in there as soon as that corner's done. So, all the developers should be together and make a frontage road with the city through their land. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. No one else has signed up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Please state your name and address. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 21 of 57 Larcher: Joe Larcher. 740 Waltman Lane. I was here, in fact, on February 12th -- or 21st, whenever it was, our last time we were talking about this. I am the own of the property where Corporate needs to go through and I remember Chairman David Moe saying make sure that I get involved in any Ada County Highway District meeting. I wasn't involved. No one notified me. No one called. Knew nothing about the new proposals. Again, if they are going to build Corporate Drive, you think one person they want to talk to would be me and I have had no conversations whatsoever with anybody. And I just want to stress the concern on construction vehicles on Waltman Lane, the bridge -- again, we have had a few people say if they are going to bring construction vehicles down there -- that bridge -- Steve Cooper lives across the street, 755 Waltman Lane, I think, he had to stop bringing his dump trucks dawn, because of the bridge limitations, the weight limitations that are on that bridge. So, Ada County Highway District should know what those weight limitations are. I think they are the ones that put the limitations on the bridge. So, construction vehicles over that bridge I don't think will be allowed by Ada County Highway District. So, I just wanted to state those concerns. Thanks. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you, Mr. Larcher. Haddock: My name is Rob Haddock. I live at 650 Waltman Lane. It's I guess going to be the future corner there of Corporate and Waltman, that square shaped property. I have got a lot of the same concerns that have been addressed already. My major concern is just opening up the road to the subdivision to the -- to the west. You know, if you do that you're going to get your car count whether you develop that property or not, because the only way those people have to get out is through Linder right now. You know, if those people want to go shopping at Winco or Home Depot, you know, they are shooting up Waltman and like Donna mentioned earlier when that was open when they were building that subdivision, it was -- it was crazy. So, I think, you know, the only thing I agree with so far is that nobody knows the timing of this. I heard the Ten Mile exchange was going to be completed in 2007. You know, we are here in 2008, they haven't even begun. And so to -- you know, I think we are just premature on the whole thing. If the Waltman exchange was in, I think we'd have something to talk about. Where it's not, you know, I think this is all premature. Like Joe said, you know, no conversations on Corporate. So, you know, I see a lot of unanswered questions. I haven't seen a development agreement. I'd like to be involved in that. Don't see a lot of buffer or transition space. It's a concern. You know, right now we might have -- we have got five neighbors west of me on a dead end lane. Talking 8,000 vehicle count, you know, on a busy day we might see 20, you know. And so those are my concerns. The green light still -- oh, yellow. Newton-Huckabay: No, you're still -- Manifest Destiny here. Haddock: But, anyway, there are probably other things I want to say, but that's all I can think of right now. And I think if the Ten Mile interchange did go in, you know, I'd Ilke to see those -- that subdivision funneled through to Ten Mile and have that be their Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 22 of 57 secondary access, because, you know, even for the development I couldn't see, you know, businesses wanting that kind of residential traffic shooting through their businesses. So, from both sides I think that's a lose to connect that -- that subdivision entrance, so thank you for your time. Newton-Huckabay: Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Would the applicant like to rebut? Nickel: Thank you, Mr. -- or Madam Chair. Newton-Huckabay: It's your first time too, uh. Nickel: Sorry about that. And Commission. To address some of the concerns of the neighbors -- and we do -- you know, we do want to work with them and assure them of a few things. First of all, the bridge will have to be built. That's one of the first things that's going to have to be rebuilt before we can bring, you know, heavy equipment across the creek. So, that is something that will have to be taken care of as part of our - - part of that first phase of the -- of the infrastructure, when the infrastructure has to go in. And one thing to point out is that -- and, again, we do -- we do understand the concerns of the neighbors, particularly over here. But also to point out that this property is zoned commercial. It is designated for commercial uses. So, not that they are going to be, you know, forcibly taken from their properties, but as this area develops per the -- per the city plan, there is going to be a change from residential to commercial. That's what the city has already established. And so I just want to paint that out. And, again, the intersection of -- this intersection right here has to be -- it's a condition and we have understand this from the very beginning, that that has to be built before we can start construction of any -- of any buildings, any structures on site. All we have asked for though ACHD and through your staff is the allowance that once this starts building -- and we are probably not going to start our construction until this gets started, because that's the only time frame we can work on is -- you know, when we are going to have this completed. Otherwise, we will sit there until that development is -- or until this development -- or this construction is finished. And so we will plan on doing that when that construction is started. So, again, no construction of structures on our site or uses or additional traffic until that intersection is built. Newton-Huckabay: I think we can all agree, Shawn, .you have nothing to sell without that intersection. Nickel: True. Which brings me to my next point. We understand the situation with Waltman and the fact of the matter is until Waltman gets approved -- I mean our future users are not going to want to have amulti-million dollar development with a goat trail leading back to it. So, we do understand and that's -- and I think that's why ACHD is helping us with the extraordinary impact fees, because we understand that Waltman is going to be -- is going to need to be improved. We are doing it on the property that we have control over. We have no control over the Waltman -- outside of our -- outside of our boundaries. There is a 50 foot right of way there now, but that's not enough for the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 23 of 57 ultimate improvements that you're going to see on Waltman and so that right there is going to hamper same of that. But, again, we are confident that that is going to be a different looking road when we are -- when we are -- when we have got uses in there. And, again, just for clarification, the state owns this property, not the -- not the city. So, the city has no control over this and we have seen or heard of several different construction options for this property and, unfortunately, ITD, it could be 20 years out. But, eventually, they are going to do something and they are not going to want to buy land -- develop land and tear things down to get their -- whether it's a -- whether it's a sweeping on-ramp or it's a cloverleaf of whatever, they have got plans and that's why they have that property set aside. Regarding Mr.-- is it Larcher? I don't want to butcher your name. Sorry. We have met with Mr. Larcher one time, my client and I, early on and ACHD has every intentions of meeting with them once they figure out the extraordinary impact boundary and so he's not being purposely left out of any conversations, it's just that we have -- we are not to that point yet, so to clarify that. And, then, finally, the comment about connecting Ruddy Street -- this is Ruddy right here coming out of the -- the subdivision. I mean that's a requirement that's being put upon this development. Trust me, if we could just block it ofF, we'd love to, because we could completely redo our -- our site plan. But because of the development, because of the requirements of interconnectivity through the highway district and through the city, that is a requirement that we build that -- that connection to take it through our development. So, with that I will stand for any questions you have. Newton-Huckabay: Shawn, I have one. Mrs. Aldridge made acomment -- Mrs. Aldridge made a comment about the road improvements would run into her yard and her well. Can you clarifiy that? Nickel: I can't. I don't know where her well is. If it's -- if her well is in the right of way right now -- Newton-Huckabay: Is all of the right of way on the property -- the development to improve -- the road you're going to be improving -- that will be improved on the Waltman -- the end of Waltman that you will be improving? Nickel: Yes. Is all our property. Newton-Huckabay: So, on your property. Nickel: Yes. From this -- from this point aver is our property. Newton-Huckabay: And there is also a 20 -- Nickel: I believe their house is -- are you guys right here? Okay. Yeah. So, we have no intentions right now of disturbing their wells or -- well or anything. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 24 of 57 O'Brien: I had a question, Madam Chair. Shawn. So, what would be a solution if there would be an impact on these -- on the residences disturbing their -- their property, their well, their yard -- I mean is it eminent domain or what? Nickel: Well -- I mean that's going to be up to ACHD and they have got a 50 foot right of way in place right now, so -- O'Brien: That goes into their property? Nickel: I believe they have some improvements that -- there is trees, there is probably - - Idon't know about your well, but those things will all be worked out. They are not -- ACRD is not just going to go in there -- or we are not just going to go in there and cut someone's well off and leave them high and dry. So, these are all things that will have to be worked out with the highway district within that existing right of way. Now, if ACRD at some point in the future wants to expand their right of way, that's something that they would -- they would do. O'Brien: Okay. So, it's just -- I have a question for staff. What is the transition or what kind of transition is normally required between a build out like this at a residential area? thought there was supposed to be mare of an open space ar more of a transition with light office somewhat more designated than what they have here. Wafters: Madam Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, the zoning ordinance requires a 25 foot wide landscape buffer to residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan does encourage, you know, a transition in uses -- you know, to residential uses and commercial properties. So, you know, we would prefer to have an office use as a buffer to residential use between a higher intense commercial use and the residential uses. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing more. Nickel: And if I could elaborate on that. That is our intention as well and that's why I'm trying to build a set of conditions for those -- for those future uses on the west, because we want -- we want the same thing and we feel that if -- if you have got the same buffer, the same fencing requirement, you don't allow anything back in the back of those buildings like storage, trash compactors, loading, anything like that, that you could have retail uses or commercial uses on there that would be compatible like an office building would. And whether that's done as a Conditional Use Permit, which if you look at that list, a lot of those uses would be conditional use, therefore, it would still have to come back in for a Public Hearing. You guys would review those, at that time you could look at lighting, you can look at light whether a wall is needed, additional landscaping, you know, look at lighting, things like that. So, we are not just asking for cart blanche, we are asking for definite restrictions and we will abide by those, but we don't want to just flat out say, you know, no other uses besides office on that boundary, because we feel that we can make a compatible use over there. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 25 of 57 Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I have no further questions. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: Would you like me to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: I believe so. Marshall: Okay. If I can find the numbers here. I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-063 and PP 08-001 and CUP 08-002 at this time. No? Did I get the wrong one? Newton-Huckabay: No. You went one ahead. Marshall: Sorry. Just the -- excuse me. Let me rephrase that. I move that we close the Public Hearing an AZ 06-063 and PP 08-001. I will stop there. O'Brien: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Discussion? Marshall: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: We have lots of issues. Marshall: I have some thoughts and concerns. Namely dating back, number one -- first one is to the Comprehensive Plan. This area is zoned commercial, it is going to go commercial. I -- and it should. It's in an area that is close to the downtown, close to the interstate. Eventually, as times change, this is something that the community over a long period of time has looked at and years developed that Comprehensive Plan and have decided that is a commercial -- that should be a commercial area. But, that being said, the Comprehensive Plan also alludes to transitional uses and I think we have referred to that several times tonight. The transitional uses are to buffer incompatible uses and we use terms incompatible uses because high intensity commercial uses are obtrusive to residences. They are not compatible. It's not in the best interest of the residences to have high intensity of traffic next door. So, even though this site is zoned commercial, I still strongly feel there needs to be a transitional use between the residences both on the west and along the north, along here, and that transition, even though not nearly the size I would like to see it, needs to be something there. And it Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 26 of 57 needs to be a lower intensity use. Therefore, the next step dawn is office -- office space. I don't believe that retail is an appropriate use next door to residences. I also have a concern with the hotel next door to residences. Naw, I have heard some -- some very persuasive discussion about -- from staff concerning a hotel next to an interstate, next to residences, but, again, I understand a hotel is not nearly as traffic intense as retail, but the time of the day that that traffic happens is at a time when you're at home. For the people living along here, even though they are very close to the interstate, the interstate is a white noise. Yau -- your reticular formation in your brain turns it off after awhile. You stop hearing it. Car doors, people yelling across the parking lot, you gat the kids, things like that, when they are traveling at 2:00 a.m. coming in, are things that alert the brain and wake you up in the middle of the night. They are things that I don't want next door to me when I'm sleeping, when I'm eating dinner, when I'm trying to relax in the evening. That's why professional offices are appropriate to be next to residences, because they close up shop at 5:00 ar 6:00 o'clock when I come Name. When I come home to my -- my house they are leaving, so the place next door is quiet. Now, yeah, you're going to have higher intensity here fairly close by, but the buildings help buffer some of that sound. The distance and the buildings and things like that buffer that. And the fact that the interstate is close by, white noise will stop some of that. So, I have serious concerns about any retail along that area and I have concerns about putting a hotel up against that area. I would like to see this area developed with -- with high quality commercial, but yet, again, I would think that we can move this and put office space along these areas and still move the hotel back over here in the intensity retail back up here where it's still somewhat visible to the interstate, still visible to Meridian Road, but still allows a buffer zone all along here of office. That's one concern I have. The other concern I have is infrastructure and Waltman Lane. I understand that this bridge will build out first. It has to or you can't get in and even build this. But the traffic -- right now there is a traffic count on Waltman Lane of approximately 500 vehicle trips per day, according to Ada County Highway District. They say that this road is designed for 10,000 vehicle trips per day. I don't necessarily agree with that, you know, I -- that's maximizing that road to absolute potential. I mean you would have a significant amount of traffic through there. I believe that infrastructure needs to be in place and especially both Waltman Lane and Corporate Drive. Now, that -- this also needs to connect and part of the reason for the connectivity here is for emergency services. Both the fire department and EMS want that. They want to be able to get into the back side of this subdivision. The idea that there are many ways out, many ways in, is a tenant of new urbanism and neo- traditianalism that we are trying to embrace. That being said, that will significantly add to the traffic count on Waltman Lane and I am very concerned that not only the traffic coming through here, which we are requiring, it needs to be there, it needs to -- we need to have that connectivity, but that additional traffic, with the traffic generated from this commercial development, I feel will overwhelm Waltman Lane immediately and without Waltman Lane built out and without Commercial Drive, I don't think the infrastructure there is -- is there to support it. And one other more minor issue was that I would have liked to have seen the bike path or the pathway here cross over the creek and come down this side. If you're going to have a large retail facility here, I would like access to it without having to ride my bicycle or walk through the entire parking lot for a Meridian Planning ~ Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 27 of 57 quarter mile -- it's not a quarter mile, but a very significant distance. I'm not going to ride there with my bicycle and my kids or walk with my kids along the pathway to get there if I have to spend the last full portion of it through the parking lot and I would have liked to have seen -- even though this is now -- I understand that the city is expecting this to continue on the west side, I believe. But I would have -- on the east side. Yeah. Excuse me. Yes. The city is expecting to continue on the east side, but I would have liked the developer -- the applicant to have offered up an additional path along the east side. That's not a deal breaker to me, but I think that's good design. The issues I have are, number one, infrastructure and, two, the transitional uses. Those are my concerns. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, regarding the applicant's letter and their level on the bullet regarding square footage and build out square footage would be equal trips per day, do you have his specific opinion on whether you would stick with the city's 75,000 square feet if you're not -- do you want to take a position on that? Because we will need to address that -- unless you're going to vote against the property in its entirety, we need to address that. Marshall: I could not support the ACRD contention that this can support 8,000 vehicle trips per day. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Would you support a compromise of 150,000 square feet of build out or the city's 75,000? Marshall: Well, I would stick with the city's 75,000. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I agree with a lot of the things that Commissioner Marshall had mentioned. The two bullets I have are traffic -- control traffic and the transition. I don't particularly care far the layout myself. I think the hotel is in the wrong place. And maybe even the big box. Maybe it could be turned 90 degrees. I'm not sure how that would work. But think we definitely need a better transition between this development and the residential area. Of course, I don't know -- if the hotel is built it has to be 200 feet further back anyway from the existing buffer. So, that gives you something, if that's -- if that works with -- with the city. I think that would be okay, but right now it shows it pretty close. And was that correct, Sonya? Wafters: Madam Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners. The condition reads that a 24 foot wide setback -- or a 25 foot setback is required for the first story, a hundred foot setback is required for the second story, and a 200 foot setback is required for anything greater than two stories adjacent to existing residences. O'Brien: 50, it looks to me like this -- this isn't shown or drawn 200 feet from that -- okay. Okay. Of course, that would interfere with that big box, too. So, I would think that there would have to be some redrawing here for -- for us to look at to see -- forme, anyway, to see if this thing would work. As far as the congestion and traffic, I think in Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 28 of 57 the long run I think it's still going to be a considerable -- considerable problem downstream if this whole thing gets built out. I just -- I just have a concern and I don't know how to address it or to say, hey, this -- maybe this whole thing shouldn't even happen. I don't know. Maybe this is the wrong use for this, although the Comprehensive Plan says it's okay. Again, I think that the big problem is -- is the traffic and it's going to end up at -- mostly at Meridian -Waltman Lane at some point and I just don't know how it can be addressed. Those are my main concerns. I think -- Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, you don't think requiring the extension of Corporate Lane and no development until the Meridian Road -Waltman intersection is improved and a new bridge addresses any of the traffic concerns? O'Brien: I think -- my feeling is this: If they improve both of those -- the Corporate Drive and Waltman Lane all the way through without the development happening at all, it's going to be crowded. That's my feeling. I think it's going to be congested just with those. You add a development like this in there and I think you're going to compound it. Newton-Huckabay: Well, what would you put in there? O'Brien: I have no idea. But I think that putting -- get out of residential homes. I don't know, it just doesn't seem like it's -- I don't know. It just seems like it's way back in the corner somewhere and we are creating a maze that maybe isn't the right fit for this particular corner. Baird: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Marshall: May I? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I do support this development. It's going commercial. It's going to be commercial. This is a proper use for it. What I don't support is retail in along the transitional areas and I don't support a build out until the infrastructure is there. If we can get the infrastructure there first, as staff has recommended, I would be supportive of building that. But the infrastructure I believe needs to be there first. So, I think 75,000 - - Iknow that -- and Ikeep -- I harken back to the request for 150,000 and I -- I am not sure how many vehicle trips per day that would generate. I'm worried about that, because I know we are going to have a significant number coming from the subdivision over here and if they were allowed the anchor tenant enough square footage to put in the anchor tenant -- he's right, economically you have gat to have somebody big to be able to draw the other people in. I don't think a loop road -- I would love to see a loop road, but I don't think it's feasible based on the ownerships and the properties that are available. I would love to see it, but Idon't -- that's never going to happen. This property just will never build out then and as the city grows is a very appropriate use, as Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2D08 Page 29 of 57 determined by the Comprehensive Plan. It is shown to be a very appropriate use for this. Again, though, I lean back to the Comprehensive Plan. I don't want to see any retail uses up against residential. And I still have a concern about a hotel up against residential. I find it unfortunate that we have placed a commercial property right up against a residential in the land use plan, yet this is an appropriate area. It's unfortunate we didn't have the Comprehensive Plan in place prior to that residential area being built out, because it could have -- we could have had a larger office area or something like that as a buffer. Again, we are beyond that. That's already -- we are already passed that. I still think the infrastructure needs to be there and if we can -- if we can say that the infrastructure is going to be there first, how much though, as in 75,000 and the request for 150,000, is going to give them one box store, the one big box. And they have got to have the tenant to pull the rest in. Can I -- we are not open for public discussion. Can I ask staff a question, Chairman -- Madam Chair'? Newton-Huckabay: Ted, I forget the rules on that. Baird: I know the answer is yes. I'm just debating on whether we should open the --the hearing, so that whatever is said is on the record, because once you close the hearing it's really for you deliberation. So, I would just encourage you to move to reopen the hearing and ask the question. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Can I -- I want to make one -- ask a question of Commissioner Marshall. I just want to get my head around where we are going with a motion. You're in agreement with the staff report, with the exception of transitional uses on the west and the east. Marshall: West and north. Newton-Huckabay: The west and north. Marshall: Northwest and west. Newton-Huckabay: Northwest and west. Okay. And Commissioner O'Brien, you are not in support of the project at all? O'Brien: No, I didn't say that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. O'Brien: I said -- you know, ifi I had my druthers before this whole thing goes, I probably would have said, okay, let's vote on this, I maybe wouldn't have voted on it, but I have to agree with -- like I said, with the Comprehensive Plan, this is fine, this is a good use, and in answer to your question about the amount of build that could happen before the finishing of Corporate Drive and Waltman Lane and the intersection, I think those two things should be completed before any build out at all, just to make sure that we have covered all our bases here and we have a better understanding on what's going to Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 30 of 57 happen. I don't know if that would make any difference or not, but Ithink --Ithink it would cause undue duress I think if we went into -- if we didn't do that as far as getting it all built out first and try to -- to do all the other things that they need to do to build this. Newton-Huckabay: 50, you're saying no development until Corporate Drive and Waltman are built out. O'Brien: Yes. That's what I'm saying. Newton-Huckabay: Rather than the 75,000 square feet. Okay. I want to make a couple comments and, then, Commissioner Marshall, if you still have your question of staff we will reopen the Public Hearing at that time. I, myself, do not necessarily have an issue with retail uses along the western edge of this property. Ithink that a compromise of no traffic, trash compactors, and that type of thing on the west side is appropriate. I have gone through the list that the applicant has given us and I'll read a few of them for the benefit of the public of what would be permitted -- what they are proposing would be permitted uses and what they are proposing would be with conditional use permits. A Conditional Use Permit being, of course, they'd have to come back in for a public hearing. Animal care facility. Artist studio. Arts and entertainment and recreation facility indoors. A church. Let's see. Education, such as a private education institution. A bank. A health care or social service office. A hotel or motel would be with a Conditional Use Permit, as I read through this. A laundromat would be a permitted use. Personal or professional service. Public utility. Restaurants would be by CUP only. A retail store on their list would be a permitted use. Ithink a possible compromise would be that we could qualify a retail store as a Conditional Use Permit and that would have to came back through and give neighbors opportunity to comment on that. We have an overwhelming lack of representation of neighbors to the west at the last two hearings that we have had on this to comment on what they would like to see there. One thing that always amazes me when these kind of developments come through is we make a broad assumption that the patrons of this are going to come from 60 miles away to trade at this facility. I mean anyone who -- who builds or opens their businesses here is going to be looking for those neighbors around them to support the business that they do, which in the general aspect of the city cuts down vehicle trips everywhere. It may increase them in your area. Sa, I mean there is -- there is some trade off there. You don't have to drive as far to go to the grocery store or the bakery or what have you. So, I mean there is -- there is some benefit to providing retail within walking distance of neighborhoods. So, to eliminate all use of retail on the -- on the west to northwest of this, I don't think it's appropriate. Ithink it's appropriate to give neighbors a comment, a method by which to comment on what will be going in and have their opinion heard. So, I would be in support of possibly any development being subject to a Conditional Use Permit in there. That would be my stand on that. I guess I'd have to get the rest of your opinion on that. As far as the Corporate Drive extraordinary impact fee, I would say that we need to stick with the staff report on that. think that's a critical piece. Of course, the Waltman Lane build out is already in there. guess both of those are already in there. So, that would not change. The only other question that the applicant is not in agreement with the staff report is the percentage of Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 31 of 57 build out that would be allowed prior to the Corporate Drive situation having to be resolved. I think that the Corporate Drive scenario is going to solve itself by design, because it's going to be very hard to market this piece of property without access to it. It was stated that 8,000 vehicle trips per day is approximately 267,000 square feet of commercial space. I think that 150,000 square feet of commercial space -- 125 to 150, I think that would be a fair compromise on that. But I -- it's not a deal breaker for me. I think that your -- like I said, you're going to have a hard time finding someone who wants to purchase and build on this if it's not desirable for them and access -- and access is huge for anybody who is building or opening a business and so I think that it's going to force -- it's going to force the issue to resolve access here. So, that said, guess my only -- my change as a compromise would be I would suggest a CUP for all properties on the west and northwest, as a compromise between the developer and the city, so nothing could go in there. Hotels next to residential, I think that's something that the residents need to be able to comment on. Some people -- you can build a hotel with no windows on the side of the building that folks live on and that may be -- for some residents that may be more appropriate to them than having some type of retail facility next to them. I think -- I think it's inappropriate to make that decision at this paint. A hotel may be an appropriate use. O'Brien: Madam Chair, regarding the CUP requirement, are you suggesting that's only far the retail applications or just -- and leaving out light office or -- right now it says light afFice and Ithink -- Newton-Huckabay: Right now, you know, it's zoned -- it's a C-G zone. Anything retail is a principally permitted use in a C-G zone. O'Brien: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: We could -- you know, the -- where is my notes? The applicant was recommending that we prohibit drive-thrus on the west and northwest, that they would -- there would be no bars, no one could be open after 10:00 p.m., and that a restaurant would be by CUP. So, we can either go with the CUP -- any business on the west that was a principally permitted use in the C-G zone or we could go with any retail establishment would be a CUP. O'Brien: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Would be our compromise. Commissioner Marshall, did you wish to reopen the Public Hearing and ask a question of staff? Marshall: No. I think I recall an answer earlier that we don't know how to determine how many vehicle use trips per day that would generate and I think that's where my comment was going was square footage to vehicle use trips per day based on square footage and I don't believe we are going to be able to answer that. So, I think I'm going to have to make my best guess on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 32 of 57 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think vehicle trips per day is a statistic, so based on your faith in a statistic you will have to go as square foot -- square footage build out is an actual data point that could be easily determined. Marshall: Well, my point being -- my point being that we were concerned about the vehicle trips a day and that we cannot correlate an exact ratio between the square footage and the numbers that that generates and that's -- Newton-Huckabay: But we are estimating this entire -- this entire property to be approximately 320,000 square fleet of commercial space. 300,000. 400,000 square feet of commercial space. So, 75,000 square feet is a small portion of that. Eighty percent. Marshall: Right. My consideration being 75 or 150. Not $0 percent. I'm not even considering 80 percent at this time. And I'm thinking between 75 and 150. Right now it's staffs recommendation of 75,000 square foot. Mr. Nickels made the comment that 150,000 would at least allow them to get an anchor store in there, which I agree, you're probably not going tv get a Ivt of small tenants in there without a big draw ticket in there. agree that a big draw ticket is going to want Corporate Drive finished out, but, then, again, they could -- if they -- things happen and if it's not finished out, I am very concerned of going beyond that, because you're going to have -- you're going to create a significant number of vehicle trips per day simply by putting that road through and, then, you're going to add to that significantly with a large anchor store. How do we determine how many vehicles trips per day that creates? We can't. I would like to see this area developed in a manner that is as least obtrusive to the neighbors as we can, but still allow the development. It needs to go commercial. I'd like to see anice -- I think it's good for the city to see a good commercial development go in here. It's an appropriate location, as we have determined over time, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall? Marshall: -- again, I'm struggling with the 150,000 versus 75,000 square footage are the two numbers that I've heard and I'm still in my mind grappling with the retail establishments -- a Conditional Use Permit could be acceptable -- Newton-Huckabay: We are going to have to -- we are going to have to -- Marshall: Make a decision. Newton-Huckabay: You're going to have to just jump in. Marshall: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. We are going to have to make a recommendation. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 33 of 57 O'Brien: I'm in favor of 150 minimum for -- to start with on this. I think we do have to have a number somewhere. I think everything else would be just a guess anyway, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. What about -- then, the only thing left on the table we are going to have to make a call an is the west and northwest uses. O'Brien: They only show two buildings there right now on the west side. But, of course, that's -- we don't know what retailer ar whatever is going to be going in there. Maybe we limit it to just one retail and the rest light office. I don't know if that would satisfy the applicant or not. As far as the north side, I don't have a problem with what is designated right now by staff. Newton-Huckabay: Well, as the chair -- in normal circumstances I would make the motion at this point, but I don't believe I can. Marshall: Okay. So, I'll take a stab at it. All right. Appreciate your patience with me. I'm pretty new at this, sa -- okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 08-063 and PP 08-001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 20th, 2008, with the following modifications: First, that a CUP be required far all uses on the northwest and west edges of the property and that buildable space be limited to 150,000 square foot until such time as both the intersection of Waltman Lane is finished, the bridge at Waltman Lane is finished, and Corporate Drive is extended. Does that cover it? Newton_Huckabay: I think the intersection at Waltman Lane and Meridian was -- is a condition of the entire project. So, it's redundant, I think. Just -- Ted will that have an issue? Baird: Madam Chair, I don't believe so. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: Okay. So, I'd say end of motion. Baird: End of motion. Marshall: End of motion. Wafters: Excuse me, Madam Chair, Commissioner Marshall, can I clarify your motion. Did you mean to require Conditional Use Permit for office uses along the west boundary and northwest corned? Marshall: No, not office uses. Thank you. Thank you. Haw can I go back and clarify this. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2008 Page 34 of 57 Newton-Huckabay: You can restate your motion. I think our options here -- in my opinion the only thing that is at question is a retail use or a restaurant use. The applicant is offering up to -- I think we should accept their recommendation of prohibiting drive-thrus, drinking establishments, and businesses with hours of operation exceeding 10:00 p.m. and that restaurants or food establishments can be allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. That no rear loading areas, delivery areas, trash areas, or obtrusive lighting would be allowed. Additional -- and, additionally, retail uses would be allowed through Conditional Use Permit. Marshall: Thank you. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And to qualify as the hotel or motel -- Marshall: Thank you for the help. I appreciate that. Newton-Huckabay: Does that help? Marshall: Let me try this again. Okay. Yes. Okay. Can I start over with the -- do need to start aver at the beginning? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Marshall: Okay. Start over at the beginning. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I moved to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-063 and PP 08-001 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 20th, 2008, will the following modifications: Concerning the properties on the northwest and west edge of the property, limit uses to allow some retail along the western and northern boundaries. Prohibited uses would be drive-thrus and drinking establishments and businesses with hours of operation exceeding 10:00 p.m. Restaurants -- Newton-Huckabay: Would not be allowed. Marshall: I'm sorry? Newton-Huckabay: Would not be allowed. Marshall: Would not be allowed. That's prohibited. And businesses with hours of operation exceeding 10:00 p.m. Restaurants or food establishments could be allowed through a Conditional Use Permit. I would like to say all retail establishments -- Newton-Huckabay: Would require a conditional use. Marshall: Would require a Conditional Use Permit. No rear loading areas, delivery areas, trash areas, or obtrusive lighting would be allowed. Additional restrictive uses could also be listed -- oh. Including that construction be limited to 150,000 square foot, until such time as Corporate Drive is extended through. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zaning March 2D, 2D08 Page 35 of 57 Newton-Huckabay: Sonya, are we clear there? Wafters: I believe so. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. O'Brien: Second. Newtan-Huckabay: All in favor? opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's the end of that hearing. O'Brien: Can we take five? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. We will take a ten minute break. (Recess. ) Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 6, 2008: CUP 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive through establishment in a C~G zone within 300 feet of another drive through facility for Sonic Southern S rp iings by Boise Food Service - 1870 South Meridian Road: Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to open the Public Hearing on CUP 08-002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment in a C-G zone within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility for Sonic Southern Springs by Boise Food Service at 1$70 South Meridian Road. Take staff. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair Person, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is a Conditional Use Permit to allow adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru establishment and existing residential zoning district. Design review approval is also requested for the purpose -- for the proposed structure and site, because of its location adjacent to an entryway corridor Meridian Road. The subject site is located on Lot 11, Block 1, of Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 near the southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road. The property is bordered on the north by Southern Springs No. 1 and No. 2, zoned C-G and L-O. To the east is Running Brook Estates, zoned R-4. To the south is Southern Springs No. 2 and 3, zoned C-G. And to the west is Elk Run Subdivision, zoned R-8. One thing -- I'll move to the site plan -- or the aerial here. You can see -- it's kind of an old picture, but directly to the north there are -- those are where the adjacent drive-thru windows are for the other businesses. So, apologize for that. This lot and this lot here. And, then, here is your residential subdivisions. One other thing I'd like to point out is this is -- staff got this revised site plan on Tuesday and I did transmit