Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 2 of 43 A. Approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of May 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a church from an existing building in an 1-L zoning district for Vineyard Christian Fellowship by Randy Rodes - 936 W. Taylor Street: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Items on the agenda are fhe approve minutes of April 3rd, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting. I#em B is the meeting minutes for our May 15th regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and C, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-010 for Vineyard Chrisfian Fellowship. Any discussion? Comments? Having none, can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES_ ONE ABSENT. Moe: Next item on the agenda is the start of our public hearings, but before we get that started, if there is anyone out here that hasn't been to a Planning and Zoning meeting, I'm going to kind of give you fihe format of how we go through this. We will -- I will open a hearing and, then, ask the staff to do an overview of the project and, basically, give the recommendafions to the Commission for this project. After which time the applicant will have -- will come up and they will have 15 minutes to, basically, review the project as well and explain to the Commission why it should be approved as they were hoping it would be, as opposed to what, possibly, the Planning Department was to change. After fhat time -- there are sign-up sheets in the back for everyone in the audience that are willing to come speak, you would have three minutes to speak your mind in regards to the project. At that time, once all the signature items are out, I would ask if fhere is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak and, if so, they will also have three minutes to speak. After that the applicant will be given the opportunity to go back and come up and, basically, discuss anything that was discussed during the hearing itself. Other than fihat we would, then, vote and go from there. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: AZ 08-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts Meritlian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 3 of 43 in Ada County to the C-G zoning district for Overland Village by Relo Development - 3330 E. Overland Road: Moe: So, having said that, I would like to reopen the continued Public Hearing for AZ 08-001 for Overland Village and ask staff for the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for annexafion and zoning of 9.06 acres of land from RUT and R-1 in Ada County, to C-G, general retail and service commercial. The property is located on the northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road. Right here on the overhead. This site is currently vacant, except for an ACHD park and ride lot at the north end of the site. Right here. A rural residential property zoned C-G exists to the north. Commercial property zoned GC in Silverstone Business Campus exists to the south. To the east is vacant land zoned C-G. And to the west across Eagle Road are commercial properties in Dorado Subdivision Zoned C-G. The requested C-G zoning district complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of mixed use regional for this property. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan showing how this property may develop with 28,820 square feet of commercial uses, consisting of one 10,000 square. foot multi-tenant building, one 14,820 square foot building and one 4,000 square foot building. A drive-fhru window is depicted for each of the buildings. And the police department is requesting that conditional use approval be required for each of the drive-fhrus. Staff has included a development agreement provision to that effect. The ACHD park and ride lot currently at the north end of the site is proposed to remain. A portion of the city's mulfi-use pathway system is also planned across this property. The applicant has included a pathway on the site plan in accordance with the pathways plan. Access to the site is proposed from one right-in only driveway from Overland Road right here where Rackham Way is currently located, approximately 262 feet east of the Eagle-Overland intersection. Rackham Way is proposed to be vacated and relocated further to fhe east. Right here. City Council approval of a vacation of the right of way is requested with this application. A full access is proposed to -- from Overland where Rackham Way is proposed to be relocated, approximately 518 feet east of the intersecfion. No access is proposed or approved to Eagle Road. A stub street to the east is proposed from Rackham Way to the west easement boundary of the Eight Mile Creek for future connectivity to the vacant commercial property to the east. Staff is requesting fhat the applicant submit a road trust to ACHD for half the cost of a bridge crossing the Eight Mile Creek to allow for future connectivity to the east and access to the signalized Overland-Silverstone intersection as a provision of the development agreement for annexation of this property. The ACHD report states that the Rackham Way access will be restricted to right-in, right-out in the future, either on determination by ACHD staff of a substantial safety issue or on the provision of a connection from Rackham Way to the signalized intersection to the east, whichever occurs first. Based on this, the fire department has concerns about emergency access to the site from the west. After meeting wifh fihe applicant and speaking with ACHD, ACHD sent a memo agreeing to coordinate with the fire department to insure that any access restriction device to be installed at the iniersection of Overland and Rackham would allow for emergency vehicles to turn left Meritlian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 4 of 43 onto Rackham from Overland, such as a three-quarter access or a mound-able median. This left turn access would be maintained at least until a public connection across Eight Mile Creek north of Overland is achieved. The fire department is in agreement with this proposal, except t'hey don't want a raised or mound-able median because of the low hanging plumbing underneath the fire trucks. In response, ACHD has agreed to a fhree-quarter access and will be issuing a revised memo to the city prior to the Council meeting. The fire department views the left-in access to the site from Overland as a short-term solution to the emergency access issue. Long-term the fire department strongly supports access to the site from the signalized Silverstone-Overland intersection via a bridge connection across the Eight Mile Creek from the property to the east, as required in the development agreement. The fire department is not supportive of this property being annexed unless this connecfion is provided. The conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how future buildings on this site may be constructed. Building materials appear to consist of stucco and either block or brick accents. Staff is supportive of these elevations and believes that they represent quality construction and building materials. Because fhis property is located adjacent to two entryway corridors, Eagle and Overland Roads, the site, buildings, and landscaping will all need to comply with design standards in effect at the time of certificate of zoning compliance application. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and zoning request to C-G with the development agreement as stated in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions that Commission may have at this time. Moe: Okay. Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address, please. Thompson: Sure. Good evening. My name is Tamara Thompson. I'm with Landmark Development Group and I represent the property owner. Moe: Thank you. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have read and agree with fhe staff report, with fhe exception of finro items. The first is -- and I think yours is the same as mine. But on page ten, item number C for provisions for the development agreement, we would like -- we respectFully request fhat the last sentence of that be modified to four stories, in lieu of three stories. But we will comply wifh fhe 65 foot height requirement in the C-G zone. The second is the item number K, as in kangaroo, for the development agreement provision requiring this property to pay for half of a bridge crossing across the Eight Mile. A road trust for half a bridge does not accomplish anything at fhis -- in this -- on fhis property. ACHD has not required the bridge, that's not part of their requirements, and they have agreed to not eliminate emergency access to fhis property. So, that in itself should be enough. In addition to this, this property has been conditioned to relocate Rackham Way from its current location. So, we are providing the right of way for that and constructing that road. And I just want to point out that the actual acreage of this property is 4.77 acres. The additional acreage that gets you up to the nine acres is for half of Eagle Road, half of Overland Road, and, then, all of Rackham Way and the park and ride is included in that -- fhat nine acres. So, the Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 5 of 43 actual -- what this property owner owns is actually 4.77 acres. So, it's quite a small piece of property. Okay. So, they are being required to dedicate the right of way for Rackham Way and do all the improvements, the construction of that road. The vacated portion of Rackham Way, which is this right here that currently has ufilities in it, such as fiber optics, that are exfiremely expensive to relocate. So, we -- it's just not feasible to relocate those, so that roadway or that -- where those easements run has to remain in a drive aisle. We don't gain that as buildable area. The property owners at this location do not own any portion of the Eight Mile Creek. That is solely on the neighboring property's -- property owner's property. We are not responsible or do we control the timing of their development, the right of way needed to get access over to Silverstone where the signal is currently on Overland, or, frankly, the cost of that, since it's an off site. Due to the floodway -- and if you see -- Sonya, can you go just to fhe site plan, please. This -- actually, I'll just stop real quick. If you want to go back to that one, I'll just point out -- so, this is where the existing road comes out, thaYs a full access right now. Part of this development, the conditions from ACHD, is relocating that approximately 236 feet to the east. Okay. Thank you. Next one. What we have shown on this site plan is the floodway. This is controlled by FEMA. If's different than a flood plain. Flood plain we can actually build in, you just have to build your buildings out of it. floodway we cannot touch. It has to remain a conduit to get flood waters through the site. So, any type of a crossing has to span fhis area. So, fhe -- you know, one of the smallest areas is in that location and that's roughly 80 feet. So, to gives you scale, that's about half of what a bridge crossing of the Boise River would be. So, it's -- it's not just a small little bridge. This is -- this is a big, big bridge and for a small 4.77 acre property to absorb that cost or half of that cost, it's -- it's just not feasible. Sonya, could you go to the -- the zoning map, please. So, here you see this is kind of a little doughnut hole, if you will, for what hasn't been annexed. The -- the entire C-G zone on this corner, once this is annexed, is a little over 85.5 acres. So, this little corner is roughly -- it's less than six percent of fhat. It's 5.6 percent of the total. And we have looked at some concepts for how these crossings could occur. Currently -- where Rackham Way currently is, there is a crossing across the Five Mile currently and I don't know if it's still there, but there is a-- there was a residence up here that utilized this Rackham way. So, fihere is a crossing at this location. And if you could go to that -- the last slide fihat I had, please. Right here. One of the northern property owners gave me fhis plan and we put our site plan on the corner. They -- from the property owners that I talked to to the north, their main objective is to get to the signal to -- they already have access to Rackham Way. My understanding is of fiire code that for those northern properties to develop, which is just over 70 acres, they have to have two points of ingress and egress for fire code, that you could not build out fhat amount of acreage and I believe they couldn't build out more than probably seven to ten acres with a single access point, that two access points are going to be required for those properties to develop to the north. They already have access to Rackham. We have a crossing there. They want to get across to the light and that is where the money to build a bridge should go into -- into the crossing here and, ultimately, by default, these two are going to have to join, just because they are going to have to -- you know, you have to be able to get to both accesses. So, ultimately, this is how we see the master plan, not an additional crossing to get across here, but the crossings to get to the signal. Safety is Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 6 of 43 definitely a concern of ours also. We had our traffic engineer, which is Stanley Consultants, look at access or response time for the fire department -- back to the aerial, please. There is a fire station right here. Access time to the site is roughly two minutes and 18 seconds, which is well within the five minute goal. They can achieve that several different ways if, by chance -- I mean right now ACHD said that they won't eliminate fhe left turn, but if by chance that does go away, there is also this opfion of going through onto Silverstone and, then, you could take a left turn to get into the site via that way. I think as far as the initial response, I don't think that's the issue. It's secondary and tertiary of -- of emergency vehicles coming from the north across the freeway and, again, they could go through this way as a little bit, but with what I was showing you before on a master plan, you know, they could take a left in here, a left in here, and come around. It's really fhat -- not that much further than -- than what the other is. We have provided several viable options, we feel, to the fire department. Actually, the planning director Anna Canning came up with one with -- after a median, having grasscrete where we have a curb cut already, that it could -- it would just be landscaping and they could get in across a landscaping area with grasscrete with a-- that would pass a median if a median were ever put in. And, then, again, there has been different designs shown by our traffic engineer for a mountable median, which the fire department has a concern with the -- with the low areas on the fire trucks and stuff like that. But there could be a median cut where it's striped and you really couldn't tell. So, there is -- there are lots of options, but I do want to go back to ACHD has agreed not to eliminate emergency access and this bridge -- half of the bridge is not their requirement. They have -- that's not a requirement to ACHD property. So, I will wrap it up. Two -- two items. One is the four stories in lieu of three. And second is to remove the provision to put up a road trust for half of the bridge crossing. Thank you very much. Moe: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Moe: Okay. Marshall: Can we go back to that conceptual master plan for me for just a second? There. Thank you. Now, when you were saying that you're about, what, 4.7 percent or five percent, essentially, of the total buildable area -- Thompson: We are 5.6 percent of the total buildable area in this location. Marshall: Now, you're including only the 4.7 acres that you're saying is buildable? Thompson: Correct. Marshall: Does fhat include just the entire GG area up above? Thompson: It does. It includes -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 7 of 43 Marshall: So, we are including that area fhat's not buildable up there in the on-ramp area and all that stuff that's also zoned C-G -- Thompson: No. W.hat I took this from is the assessor's parcel map and it's just the property boundaries. So, like this property here was annexed to the center line of Overland. I have not included that -- right -- or that right of way in that calculation. It's just actual property lines, not -- not the right of way. Marshall: Right. But you said they own Eight Mile Creek and things like that. You didn't take those out of the calculations? Thompson: I did not, no. Marshall: Okay. Did you just -- to me it appears to be -- it's a small percentage, but it doesn't -- it appears to be more than five percent to me. Just -- thank you. Thompson: Yeah. The top area is over 51 acres and, then, kind of in the middle above fhe Five Mile and just to clarify everything, this is the Eight Mile right here and, then, this is the Five Mile. So, that north of fhe Five Mile is a little over 70 acres. So, that -- that wouldn't include any of that. The ditch -- the creeks in fhat calculafion, but where it would is probably fhis piece of property. Marshall: But knowing that you have to have -- that the city typically needs -- for emergency purposes, needs finro entrances and exits; right? They kind of need fhat pass through, you don't feel you have any responsibility to that bridge over Eight Mile at all? Thompson: Well, we are providing this access here. We are providing a hundred percent of the right of way and a hundred percent of the construction of that. You know, we are not getting any help for fhat. There is no pay back for any of that. So, that's one of the access points that's needed for fhat area. Marsliall: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm, anything? Rohm: Nothing. Moe: Thank you very much. Gary Allen. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Ghairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Gary Allen. My address is 601 West Bannock in Boise. I'm project counsel for the applicant and Tamara covered our issues on this well. I just wanted to emphasize one or finro things about the bridge. And the first one is we have no control over if, when, and -- if that will ever be built. We don't know when development's going to occur over there. So, it's not Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 8 of 43 -- you know, we may be putting up money -- if we have to put up money for the bridge -- that is not never used and so, you know, fihat's one of our concerns is that it's just not a useful expenditure. As Tamara pointed out, it's also not proportionate to our impact on the area, so we are concerned about t~hat. And I wanted to make sure that you understood what the ACHD condition requires. They are also concerned about trying to gain some connecfivity in here and we would like fhat as well, of course, but, again, it's not our property, we don't control it. So, their condition says that if the -- if that other road is put in, you know, that -- and there was a connection made, then, they are going to cut off the access or the -- they are going to close off Rackham to be right-in, right- out. They want the main access to go around and out at the light. But they have said, as Tamara said, that they are not -- you know, because of the emergency access concerns, that's going at least have to remain as a three-quarter access until then and there is no proposal to close it o.ff at all now and the only reason they would close it off is if there were a substantial safety issue, in which case they would leave at least a three-quarter or if the light goes in and they get a connection the other way. So, we think this is covered about as well as it can be. And that, you know, you have really got a lot of different ways for fhe emergency vehicles to get in here. You have got -- as Tamara said, you have got direct access from the south. You have got the secondary access from Boise, which is to the east. And, fhen, it's only this tertiary access that we are concerned about and that is provided for with at least a left-in access. So, we think that that's sufficient. We have already got belt and suspenders on this. There is no need to have masking tape and staples. You know, we think that the fire department is just being a little too caufious here and we would ask for that condition to be removed. Do you have any -- I would be happy to answer any questions if you have any. Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. That was the only one that was signed. If ~ there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, you're more than welcome. Okay. No one wants to come up. Okay. Thank you. Sonya, I do have a question for you. I was kind of curious in regards to the condition on the fhree stories in lieu of four stories. What is fhe purpose of the three story in lieu of going any higher? Watters: I believe that's -- excuse me, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. I believe that's what was shown on their plan. Staff does not necessarily have a problem with that being, you know -- the C-G zone allows up to 65 feet. So, that's fine with staff. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: I may have missed it in the staff report, but I'm unclear on why the existing bridge isn't sufficient or -- or couldn't be improved if it was say widen or something like that. I just need some clarification on why -- why the existing bridge on fhe property -- Meridian Planming & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 9 of 43 Moe: You might,want to wait until -- Sonya? She has a question for you. Newton-Huckabay: The existing bridge, why is that not -- why do we need an addifional bridge? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Huckabay -- Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, we need an additional bridge for interconnectivity between this parcel and fhe parcel to the east. It will also provide a more direct path for connectivity to fhe signalized intersection at Silverstone and Overland. It also provides a more direct route for the fire department. I think Joe is wanting to address the -- that a little bit more also, if he may. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Can I-- Mr. Chair, can I ask one question before? Moe: Yes. Please. Newton-Huckabay: I don't recall any other projects where we have required a bridge trust. Have we done that and it just is escaping my memory? ; Watters: Waltman: Browning Plaza. North of the site. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Oh, did we? Okay. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Mr. Silva. Silva: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, I know there is a little bit -- excuse me -- been a lot of controversy associated with the bridge. And there has been several instances where we have had multiple bridges within a given development. We have had it done multiple times. I just -- the names escape me, because we have had it several times, probably about a half a dozen times. Our concern here is that -- and we have kind of addressed this -- or explained our concerns to the -- to the development team and the owners. You know, there is the Eagle fire station down here and there is no problem, if fhey are in quarters or in the area south of Overland, there is no -- there is really no difference whether or not they are going to come down Eagle, turn right here on Overland and, then, go into the development. Or if they have to take this route down and into the development, our concern is that ACHD senses that there may be an overall traffic concern here where they may have to put some sort of inedian or control to prevent left turns in here at some point where the -- where there is a tra .ffic safety concern on behalf of -- that ACHD has. And they proposed, as the design team had indicated, fhat we could maybe perhaps put a raised median or some -- or some control device like that. Again, it kind of revolves around the issue of damaging apparatus as it goes up a raised median at an angle, a 50,000 pound vehicle, and it finrists the frame and we can damage our apparatus going in there. The other instances that the develop -- that Tamara alluded to was perhaps we could put sort of grasscrete down here with a -- basically, a gate that would allow us a back entry into this project. We have not under Meridiam Planning 8 Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 10 of 43 any condition every had that situation arise in a commercial project. We have never had to go through a gate -- a locked gate, whether it's an electric gate or a locked manual gate to enter any commercial project, fhough we have done that in residential settings. So, if this engine company is in quarters, there is no -- there is little -- little delay getting in there, whether or not they come down here and in or if they have to go through Goldstone to Silverstone and in. But if we have any fire in this area right here, the second due company coming from our fire station one located right across the street from the cemetery, if they come the most direct route -- let's assume they go east on Franklin, south on Eagle, left turn, and in on the realigned Rackham, that's 2.6 miles. If fhey have to put on the additional mileage required to come down to Goldstone and into Silverstone in here and into Rackham -- realigned Rackham, that's three and a half miles -- 3.5 miles. And so that can be a considerable delay. In today's economic -- economic situafiion in fhe business community, we -- this area -- this C-G area here has already been annexed in. Tamara's absolutely correct, we have little or no control over condifions we may be able to impose to improve the connectivity to this parcel. That's our concern is that ACHD may at some point say, hey, we need, for safety concerns on behalf of the public, fhe motoring public, we have got to control the access right here before this parcel would be subdivided or come before Council for further consideration, but as it is currently zoned, could just get a certificate of zoning compliance and processed and they could build fhe buildings and we have no opportunity to improve the connectivity here at fhis point or across the Eight Mile, either one, and it could add significantly to our time -- our time response -- time for response into that whole area. And so with that I'll stand for any questions that the Commission may have. And, really, this is the only instance where we recommended if access cannot be provided at this point, that fhe fire department would be opposed to the project being developed and that would be the recommendation of the fire department. That's a first ever in my tenure as the fire marshal in Meridian fire department. This project has some unique transportation challenges and we can't overlook that as we evaluate the pluses and minuses of the project. Moe: Thank you, Mr. Silva. Any questions? Rohm: Yes, sir. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Silva, if -- if, in fact, you don't have any control over the adjacent property, then, what's going to make it where that ofher half of the bridge will be built? If you can't make them do anything, fhen, this developer putting up the money for half of it is to -- it doesn't get you anywhere and I'm just curious, doesn't seem like that's a fit. Silva: Yeah. The only -- the only fhing that can be done is that perhaps that money could be put in a trust that would at least, basically, have the improvements done to this bridge here for connectivity. If that can't happen, all we can do is work and plead our case wifh ACHD as to the overall safety concerns we have for being able to service this particular project. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 11 of 43 Watters: If I could add to Yhat. If the property to fhe east comes in for a preliminary plat or Conditional Use Permit at that time we could request that they, you know, pay for and construct the other half of that bridge. Rohm: One more fhing. I was -- in listening to the applicant's testimony the disproportionate cost of the potential bridge to the smaller parcel seems to be a valid argument as well. If you have got fiive acres on one side and you got 75 acres on the other side, it seems disproportionate to require it to be a 50-50 split and, you know, I'm all for connectivity, but to have the smaller parcel be an equal participate doesn't seem to be equitable, just from my perspective. Moe: Sonya, I guess one other thing I would be curious about. On the road trust is there any -- any mechanism to make fhe -- put that into a time frame, I mean if, in fact, there is no development to the east in five to seven years or whatever, is there a possibility that those funds come back? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, there should be -- we should be able to put a time frame on that, yes, with ACHD. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none right now. Moe: Okay. Well, would somebody like to close the public hearing and, then, we can discuss it or -- Rohm: Yeah. I will do that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move -- Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Wait a minute. I'm sorry, the applicant -- I need to make sure she can come back up. Thank you for coming back up. Thompson: Wasn't going to let you forget about me. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just want to kind of reiterate where we are at, that these properties have already been annexed, zoned, they can go out and develop today. Even if you had a whole bridge there, there is nothing that connects that bridge to -- there is no right of way, nothing that connects any type of a bridge here to this light. You know, that property owner is going to have to give up that right of way in order for that connection to happen. I mean there is -- there is just so much out of our control here that -- and I just want to go back to ACHD -- this is not an ACHD requirement. They have agreed not to limit emergency access. So, with that said, I-- you know, I don't -- I don't see whaf the issue is where the bridge doesn't even -- it doesn't get us anywhere. So, we respectFully request that that condition be removed. Thank you very much. Rohm: Just in response to that, typically, every single development that comes before this Commission we try very diligently to have that connectivity between the two parcels Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 12 of 43 and due to the uniqueness of this one the only ingress to your parcel is from the north and it's -- and fhat, typically, isn't what we are at, we are trying to get both from along Overland and from the -- from the north. So, even though there is no advantage to your parcel, at the end of the day we'd like to see that connectivity between adjoining parcels in -- in all developments, so -- Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, the -- we are giving that cross-access. So, you know, if somebody wants go from their property onto ours, we are giving it in all directions and we are giving it to the east, but, again, there is no portion of that creek that is on this property. I#'s solely off-site. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 08- 001. I guess that's it. Marshail: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: Did I get a second? Newton-Huckabay: You had two seconds. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close fhe Public Hearing on AZ 08-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Commissioner Marshall, do you have any comment? Marshall: Well, first off, I'm kind of worried, though, if just this -- this is a separate individual parcel and if it were to develop and were going to get this connectivity here, that's where we have got to get across this to get the connectivity over to the other parcel. I know we are going to require any connectivity coming back here, but -- maybe I'm wr.ong. I-- I'm not -- I'm struggling a bit wifh fhe connectivity issue. The rest of it seems prefty good. I don't have a problem with the four stories, as long as it's within 65 feet. I have got no problem with anything else. I'm just still struggling right now with the connectivity. I do think proportionally it's kind of a problem, but I do wonder if some of this other area closer to Overland will develop before the rest of this back here and I understand that if the rest of this back here develops we have got to have connectivity in two areas here. But I guess that's where I'm at. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 13 of 43 Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any comments? Newton-Huckabay: I'm just trying to remember how we -- when we annexed the stuff to the north. I can't imagine that we wouldn't have put more requirements for connectivity to the whole corner of some sort. ; Moe: That pretty much came before us. That's why I don't have -- Newton-Huckabay: Honestly, I don't remember annexing -- doing that. I'm going to have to go with fhe staff report. I don't really -- it's a rock and a hard place. I have a hard -- I mean as I say before, I don't recall -- although I do remember Waltman, which is a larger project, putting that burden on a development agreement of off-site improvements, but I don't think -- I think somewhere along the line we have already been a bit remiss on this corner and I think I-- although I empathize with the applicant, I think if we can -- I have to -- I believe staff has the best solution to -- to a tough situation. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Quite frankly, I think fihe -- other fhan the bridge crossing and fhis is a-- this project is -- is a good fit for the area there. Again, interconnectivity is a major issue and it does need to be done and so I am -- I am definitely in favor of the staff report, other than the fact I do -- would like to see an opinion from the other Commissioners in regards to a time frame on the road trust, because if, in fact, they don't get with doing somefhing to the east, I don't think this applicant should -- have fheir money held probably more than about a five year plan. Newton-Huckabay: Isn't fhat even too long? Moe: It probably is. So, I would be more than happy to listen to what you folks think. Mr. Rohm, do you have any comments? Rohm; I do. Moe: Thank you. I figured you would after I said that. Rohm: My opinion is you proportion the crossing based upon the differential between the acreage sizes and you don't put a time frame on it, because that -- that property to the east of this development will redevelop at some point in time and to put a sunset on the funds collected doesn't build the bridge and at sometime that bridge will need to be built and -- and until that develops it's not needed, but if we were to just say, you know what, that bridge is going in and you're going to participate in your proportional share of it, then, we don't have to put a time frame, because my opinion is that if we put a five year time frame or any fime frame, fhe monies would go back to fhem, because it won't develop in the time frame that we listed and, fhen, we have no participation in -- in the 'bridge crossing. So, I think it should just be proportional wifh no refund. That's the way I look at it. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 14 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair'? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm, are you basing -- I mean where do you -- what -- just the -- the already zoned area there? I mean do you create the calculation off of that whole norfheast corner? Hey, thanks. Rohm: Yes. Newfon-Huckabay: This section here? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: This acreage?. Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: So, it includes -- so, you take this -- this total acreage and whatever percentage of this total acreage this development is, they pay that -- they put that amount of money into a trust for a bridge? Rohm: Right. And the reason, additionally, why I feel this way is because the additional property that will develop in time will actually be able to utilize the road that this development is putting in as their second access and so they are already getting a-- a contribution from this development for that future development based upon the ingress- egress off of Overland Road. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Marshall: A couple comments. One, this area back here, to get access back here to up here is going have to build a whole bridge over Five Mile. They are going to have to pay for that on their own. Period. This connecfivity is befinreen this area here and this area here. Right? Now, what if -- I'm not sure. What if this area develops, without developing this area, this area may sit for another 15 years while this development -- this area develops in two years. Do we still need the connectivity right here, because isn't fhis connectivity over Eight Mile supposed to be befinreen this area and this area, not this area back here? This area requires here over Eight Mile and here over File Mile. This one over Eight Mile is existing; this one over Five Mile, they will have to absorb that cost. Newton-Huckabay: So, Commissioner -- Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page t5 of 43 Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, your argument is that the only property should be -- in consideration is this -- is fhis RUT piece here? Marshall: I'm assuming -- if's my assumption that tha#'s where we are looking for the connecfivity,• is between this intersection here through this RUT piece over to here. This is the interconnectivity that we are looking for. This is going to get two connectivities; one here at Eight Mile and one here at Five Mile and that's going to have to come through this RUT piece to get back here. So, fhis has to develop before this or that can't develop. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Marshall: But my argument is that fhis whole area here could develop long before this without this developing at all and isn't that where we need the connectivity? Moe: Yes, it is. What do you think, Mr. Rohm? You look like you had another thought. Rohm: Well, I do. It's -- and I don't know the rules of the game as well as staff, so maybe it's best to ask staff. If, in fact, that parcel which Commissioner Marshall alluded to were to develop on its own without reference to fhe property to the north, would fhat parcel be required to have access across Eight Mile Creek to fhe west if it was just that parcel, because it seems to me that, ultimately, the multiple egresses to Overland is only dependent upon fully developing the entire C-G zoned properties. It's not just that small parcel. I#'s one -- the full development occurs that the mulfiple accesses have to occur; is that correct? Do you follow that? Silva: Perhaps I could provide some clarity, Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission. There is -- there is three ways in which secondary access -- or three ways into a given project is required. Based on building height, building size, or that unique fhing where -- where in the opinion of the code official you have a unique access problem and 'that kind of -- fhat's fhe situation here, because if we don't get it to that parcel, that RUT parcel, we are forever going to have very limited access forever for a large piece of commercial property and ifs going to offer some very large challenges for fihe Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council going forward if we don't, you know, go on the record and have -- have a plan in place to deal with connectivity and access to parcels. Rohm: And i fully agree that we need to have that connectivity, but what my question is is if that front parcei were to request development independent from everything north of them, would they be required to shoulder a hundred percent of the balance of whatever this applicant doesn't pay for that Eight Mile Creek crossing and it just seems -- it seems to me that #he entire acreage that's -- the entire acreage benefits from the Eight Mile crossing and I guess that's my whole point is the entire acreage does, not just those finro Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 16 of 43 parcels, and it seems that it should be proportional to all those that receive benefit from it, not just the initial applicant. And I will just leave it at that and we can go from there. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair'? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Sonya, I fhought that this is where the Zamzow's is. Is it right here? Am I just -- so, I'm just off one. Okay. Moe: Well, Commissioners, we have all kind of spoken our mind. What's next? Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to make a motion. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: And I just got to find the page to remove fhe building height. Rohm: Page ten. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 08-001 -- and although we are not -- we are only making an opinion on VAC 08-001 -- as presented in fhe staff report for the hearing date of June 5th, 2008, with the following modifications to fhe proposed development agreement, that Item C on page ten, stating that the storage be limited to fhree stories, will be changed to four stories, with a maximum height of 65 feet. End of mofion. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approval of AZ 08-001 for Overland Village, with the changes as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Rohm: Aye. Moe: That motion carries three to one. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: PP 08-004 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot in an R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 acres for Maxfield by Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive: