Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 17, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning ~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 2 of 71' A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-013 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a personal service shop in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Mira Bella Salon by Jerry Williams -1645 W. 1St Street: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on that and that is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-013 for Mira Bella Salon. If I could get a motion to approve. Marshall: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings on the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. Moe: Well, we have a great audience tonight, so I want to -- before we get into the public hearings why I'll just kind of give you an explanation of the format, which we will be going through for those who haven't been here before. I will be opening up the hearing, at which time I will ask the staff to give their report. Basically, they will go through their findings and whatnot. After they are done the applicant will come forward and they will 15 minutes to speak their case to the comments of the staff and whatnot. After they are done there are sign-up sheets in the back, you're more than willing to sign up and speak. Each person that signs up will get three minutes to speak to the Commission. After which time the applicant -- after all the folks on the signature list are done, I will ask one more time if there is anyone else that would like to speak and you will also be given the three minutes. We do have a timer and we will try and keep that to the three minutes. If there is a group of you, since we do have a good crowd tonight, if there is a spokesman for a certain amount of folks and you would like that spokesperson to speak in behalf of yourselves, we will ask at that point that that person -- that spokesperson would have additional time to take care of that. Once the applicant -- the audience is taken care of, I will, then, ask the applicant to come back up and rebut any comments that were made in the public hearing, as well as -- and answer any questions that came up with that as well. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from June 19, 2008: AZ 08-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.79 acres from RUT to C-C zoning district for Shops at Victory by LDR-II/DMG, LLC - 3210 S. Eagle Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from June 19, 2008: PP 08-006 Request for Preliminary Plat for 3 building lots on 3.68 acres in a proposed C-C zoning district for Shops at Victory by LDR-II/DMG, LLC - 3210 S. Eagle Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 3 of 71 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from June 19, 2008: CUP 08-011 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-thru pharmacy in a proposed C-C zoning district within 300 feet of an existing residence per UDC 11-4-3-11 for Shops at Victory by LDR-II/DMG, LLC - 3210 S. Eagle Road: Moe: So, having said that, I would now like to open the continued public hearings for AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP 08-001, for the Shops at Victory. Ask staff to go. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commission. The applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning request of 4.79 acres currently zoned RUT in Ada County, proposed to be zoned to C-C, community business district, in the city. A preliminary plat for three commercial building lots on 3.68 acres of land and a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru pharmacy within 300 feet of an existing residence. This is the property right here on the southeast comer of Victory Road and South Eagle Road, 3210 South Eagle Road. Surrounding uses. To the north is rural -- single family rural residential parcels, zone RUT in Ada County. To the east is single family residences on large rural parcels in Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4 and RUT. Here. And there is also an R-8 portion down here in Golden Eagle Estates. To the west are single family residences and Medford Place Subdivision, zoned R-8. This is an aerial view of the property. It currently has an existing house and associated outbuildings on it. That house will be required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat. A little history on this property. In 2005 a comp plan map amendment was approved to change the future land use map designation from low density residential to mixed use community for this property. As previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting annexation with a C-C zoning district, which complies with the mixed use community future land use designation for this property. This is the proposed plat. It consists of three commercial building lots, ranging in size from .84 of an acre to 1.78 acres. No vehicular connections are proposed to adjacent properties from the site and none are stubbed to this site. Staff is not requiring the applicant to provide stub driveways to adjacent properties. No pedestrian connections are proposed to adjacent properties. Staff is requesting that a pedestrian connection be constructed to the future pathway in Harcourt Subdivision to the east and there is one that's been platted that stubs to the property about in this location. Staffs also requesting that a pathway stub be provided to the south boundary to this rural residential property for connectivity upon redevelopment. Access points to the subdivision are proposed from one full access to Eagle Road -- let me get a site plan up here that shows it a little bit better. There is a full access right here proposed to Eagle Road. And aright-in, right-out. Also aright-in, right-out proposed to Victory. And a full access proposed to Victory. ACRD submitted comments today that are not included in the staff report that give the applicant two options for access to the site as follows: Either construct one full access driveway on Eagle and one full access driveway on Victory, located 315 feet from the near edge from the new curb line, measured near edge to near edge. That's the preferred option they believe that will work best for this site. Or construct one right-in, right-out access driveway on Eagle and one right-in, right-out access driveway on Victory as proposed, with six inch raised median from the intersection back 50 feet beyond the driveway to Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 4 of 71 restrict tum movements and one full access driveway on Eagle and one full access to Victory as proposed. I just want to note that when ACRD purchased the additional land for the --from the property owner, at a residential rate for the intersection improvements in August of 2006, an agreement was made between ACHD and the property owner which allowed for four specific points of access to the site from Victory and Eagle Roads, as depicted on the site plan. That agreement was based on the residential use of the property at that time and was not intended to give approval for access points to a future commercial development. Today with the proposed commercial use of the property, ACHD would not likely approve the proposed access points. However, because of the terms of the previous agreement, ACHD is allowing the proposed access points as one option for access to and from the site. ACHD does believe, however, that the other option for access would actually better serve this by -- with one full access to Victory and one full access to Eagle. Planning, fire, and police department staff are supportive of two full access points furthest from the intersection, but are not supportive of the two right-in, right-out access points proposed closer to the intersection. And the Commission should note that just because the applicant has an agreement with ACHD and they have agreed to allow the proposed access point, the city is not obligated to approve those access points. The city is the decision-making body in this development application and as such has the authority to place provisions on the project through a development agreement associated with the annexation and zoning application. The Comprehensive Plan supports limiting access points to arterial and collector streets. For this reason staff has included a development agreement provisioning -- provision limiting access to the site to one full access to Victory and one full access to Eagle Road in locations approved by ACRD. This is a copy of the landscape plan proposed for the site. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is proposed along Victory Road. And a 25 foot buffer is also proposed along Eagle Road. A 25 wide buffer to residential. uses is required on the east and south sides of the development adjacent to existing residential uses. Alternative compliance in requested for a reduced buffer width in certain areas along the south and southeast boundaries here. Staff is supportive of the request if a minimum six foot Verti-Crete wall is constructed adjacent to all areas within a decreased buffer width and minimum six foot tall solid vinyl fencing is constructed in all areas -- other areas along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision adjacent to residential uses. Fencing shall be constructed as shown along the south and east boundaries. If you note here on the plans, a minimum six foot solid vinyl fence is required right here. A six foot tall Verti-Crete wall is required along these boundaries and minimum six foot tall vinyl fencing was required along here. The Verti-Crete is -- is required in the areas where the buffer is, you know, decreased to provide a little bit more of a buffer to adjacent residences. All existing trees on site that are removed during construction shall be mitigated for in accord with UDC standards. Seven foot wide detached sidewalk is proposed along Eagle and Victory and shall be located beyond the ultimate right of way. This is the site plan for this site, showing the proposed drive-thru for the pharmacy, which is located right here. It's within 300 feet of existing residential properties to the east and south. UDC requires a Conditional Use Permit for that reason. There are three buildings shown on the site and it consists of a total 29,910 square feet of commercial uses, consisting of neighborhood commercial type retail uses, such as drugstore, retail, shops, services, Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 5 of 71 offices and restaurant uses. And, then, there again, the Verti-Crete wall is proposed right here kind of to buffer that drive-thru use there. Staff has included a development agreement provision that hours of operation for all businesses in the site be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. because of the adjacent residential uses in the area. The applicant has submitted building elevations of what some of the future buildings on the site may look like and they are all single story. There is three different types. This is for pad A for the proposed drugstore. This is for pad B. And this is for pad C. All of the building materials for all of the different structures consists of stucco, wood, stone, and split face CMU block accents and green metal roofing. The buildings will be painted with five different shades of brown. A letter of testimony was received on this application from Charles Axelrod, the owner of the property, along with the sale and purchase agreement with ACHD. The applicant has submitted a letter in response to the staff report. Staff recommends approval per the conditions of the staff report based on the findings in Exhibit B. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Do we have any questions of staff at the present time? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Moe: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Real quick, if we can go back to the first site map and, then, the second -- this one. You're showing Verti-Crete from this comer all the way across where the next one shows it ending right here. Which is correct? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, this is the -- the fencing shown on this plan here is what staff has required as a development agreement provision. It differs just a little bit from what the applicant originally proposed. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Wafters: Staff modified it just a little bit, so it would be more consistent along the, you know, boundaries that have a little section of Verti-Crete wall and, then, a section of vinyl fencing. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address, please. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group, 2462 Sunshine Drive in Boise. Moe: Thank you. Thompson: With me tonight I have the developer Greg Owens from BMG Real Estate -- I'm sorry, Real Estate Partners. Our attorney Deborah Nelson with Givens Pursley and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 6 of 71 the civil engineer and landscape architect Phil Hull from the Land Group. So, they are available if you have any other questions after we are done. This proposed development fills a need for neighborhood services in this area of the city. The proposed project will reduce vehicle trips out of the area for daily consumer needs and services. We have read the staff report and agree with staff in almost all areas. Of course, we have a couple that we'd like to discuss. The first being access. I don't know if ACHD staff report was a little confusing for you, but it's, basically, given us two options. They are saying you can have the four that you're proposing, they've approved those based on their current construction drawings. They have construction drawings for this intersection and they also extend to the north to the Ridenbaugh. Eagle Road's widened to Ridenbaugh and ACHD has construction drawings that will extend from the Ridenbaugh Canal south through the Victory intersection, including all of our property to the south. All of our frontage to the south. They are currently -- well, they actual went out to bid, but right now this is in their fiscal year work plan. It is scheduled to be bid and constructed in the fall of '09. So, those improvements are underway. The construction drawings have those four access points, so when we started our site planning, ACHD gave us the construction drawings for this intersection and that's where we started our -- our site planning. The access points were approved by ACHD based on the construction drawings, based on their policy, those meet their policy and they were also approved based on the right of way acquisition with the property owner. That was less than two years ago. And I just want to clarify something that Sonya said is that that was for residential use -- for accesses for residential use. That's -- I want to just correct that. In the purchase and sale agreement, which I believe you have a copy of, if you look it specifically says commercial access points on that and this is -- so, these were the intent of that agreement and ACHD has these in their construction drawings. Like I said, our application is two access points. We will restrict the first, the closest to the intersection -- two access points on each road. We will restrict the first two on each -- anyway, the first finro closest to the intersection of both Eagle Road and Victory Road, those will be restricted with a median and the -- yeah. Thank you. And, then, full access points are at the -- the furthest away from the intersection. To attract high quality national tenants to Meridian and specifically to this area of town, this area is definitely under served by neighborhood serving daily needs, that access is one of the most important site criteria -- site selection criteria for these national tenants. Therefore, this access is extremely important. We are asking you -- we understand you have the ability -- so, let's go back to the ACRD staff report. It currently says that they would prefer one access point on each roadway, but they have approved all four. And so they have given us the option of whatever works best with our site plan and we are asking the city to modify its recommendation and to defer to the ACHD staff report and just for -- the conditions state we comply with ACRD staff report and not make that choice for us right now. As you know, this -- these - at this point these are conceptual site plans. They may be changed from -- a little bit and, you know, we will definitely pick which which ever one is best at that point for interior circulation and for our tenants' needs. A couple other things that we just want to bring up. They are definitely not anything that we are against in the staff report, we just want to clarify a few things. And the first one is the utility main line extension. We have to extend I believe both sewer and water from down Victory Road and if -- we should only be required to pay for what our -- Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 7 of 71 what's necessary for our development and if we qualify, we just want to state that we would respectfully request a reimbursement agreement for those main line extensions, if they are oversized to service someone else. If they are just for us, then -- then, that's what they are. The other item is the pedestrian connectivity. We are open to the connectivity. The location to the east to the Harcourt Subdivision is established and we can tie into that without any problem at all. The property to the south is a five acre single family residential parcel that's still in the county. They are -- we are not sure what they say about it, but it may not be appropriate at this time to create an access point there, but we can definitely work with that property owner and perhaps put a gate in that could be opened at a later date or something like that. But Idon't -- we just want to put that out for discussion that that pedestrian access may not be appropriate at this time. And as far as the fencing, we would like to stay with the fencing options that we gave before. We gave the six foot high Verti-Crete wall in the area where we have a reduced landscape buffer, but we have anice -- a nice fencing material for the rest of the property. So, instead of changing the whole back where we abut to the county zoned property, we are just requesting that we can stay with what we currently have. And with that we thank you and if you have any questions we are all available to answer those. Moe: Is there any questions? Thank you. I do have questions of staff. In regards to the utilities, can you speak to that? Steckline: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I researched this application under the city code for reimbursement agreements under the eligibility section. There is neither oversight or overdepth being required for this application. Therefore, they are not eligible at this time. Moe: Not eligible. Okay. And something else I was kind of curious about -- is there not about a hundred yards or a hundred feet down -- is there not another access out to Eagle Road right through there? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, yes, there is. It's East Falcon Drive to the south of the property there. You can see it on the aerial here. Moe: Okay. That was, basically, that access where the assisted living that we had seen a couple weeks ago? Wafters: Yes. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Bob Aldridge. Aldridge: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Bob Aldridge and going back to that one you just had. Yeah. Thanks. On the property here, the landowner that's still in the county and still residential, and we can -- Moe: Give me an address, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 8 of 71 Aldridge: Oh. 3300 Falcon. Moe: Thank you very much. Aldridge: We intend to live there -- we hope another ten years or so. We don't intend to move if we can avoid it. So, that property is intended to stay as residential. I want to say that we worked extensively with the developers of this project, they have been extremely cooperative, there has been a lot of mitigation in terms of the interface that we are going to have with that landscaping and where they place things. We came to some agreements on where buildings would be relative to the back line. They have been. extremely easy to work with on that and so we don't have any objections to those portions of things. The two things that I think I need to comment about the one is the road here. This is our sole access out to Eagle Road. This is, as you noted, being developed and we will have cottages on it with residence and staff and so forth when -- whenever Trevor does this subdivision one of his main roads come out right here and accesses out and, then, there is a stub cul-de-sac down here that will access all of those -- will probably be coming out Falcon Drive. So, as development goes on there is going to be a lot of traffic there. You can't see it from here, but right here is a dip and at the time that this subdivision was negotiated, I worked with ACHD and those developers and we moved their access point from here down to there, partially because of that dip, partially because having the competing direct opposites, even though that tends to be how you do things, would have created tremendous problems. And the reason that I think there needs to be a little bit of movement in that southern access is because when you come to here and stop is you're looking left, you have four seconds or less of visibility, the cars go out of sight when they are in that dip and, then, come up. You also have cars coming out of here and coming on and if your point is right here, literally you're looking south and, then, going. If you're too close here, you're going to have some real intersection problems and I think that by moving this 40 or 50 feet, maybe at most, to the north, it would give some additional space to have that flow merge together, because that is going to be a full in and out, you're going to have traffic coming across, as well as coming, and to avoid having any, you know, real problem here that I don't know how you solve -- I think it would be solved by moving this maybe 40, 50 feet to the north. The ACHD report talked about anything from 312 feet on. I think that far north would be too far. It would interfere with the internal flow and it's more than what you need. Secondarily, in terms of the proposed access point here, right now we would greatly prefer not to see that frozen in, because we don't know years from now, when we finally do sell or develop or whatever we do, how our property is going to layout and that would lock us into a number of things. And there is certainly going to be no actual point there. That would be emptying into my backyard. So, it's not going to be opened up at this point in time. So, we would ask that that not be done and I think that just on esthetics we would prefer the Verti-Crete, but it's not a major major point. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Moe: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Next on the list is Bob Carpenter. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 9 of 71 Carpenter: Good evening. Bob Carpenter. 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian. And my wife and I own the property just to the north, just across Victory Road. Nine acres there. And we have lived there and really appreciate how this developer has kept us informed on what's happening with the property across the way. We support the project and look forward to seeing it develop. So, any questions? Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Now, Nedra, your name was on here, too. Would you like to come up or just -- from the audience she's in agreement. Nate Wheeler. From the audience he will pass. That's all that's signed up on the list here. If there is anyone else, you're more than welcome to come on up. No takers. Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up? Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson again. Just to follow up with Falcon Drive with what Mr. Aldridge said, ACHD is the traffic expert in this case and has -- didn't share any concerns with the proximity to Falcon in their report. So, that's all. Moe: You do have a pointer there, right? Thompson: Oh, I do now. Moe: Could you show me where the -- where the fence changes? Thompson: I can. Moe: And what you guys are proposing. Thompson: Okay. The fence changes roughly here and it stops here, where the landscaping gets to the 25 foot, it's much wider than 25 feet at this point, but at these locations where it's narrower is where we have allowed for the --they are calling it Verti- Crete wall, yeah, which is kind of like a -- it looks like a block wall. Moe: Thank you very much. Any other questions? Owens: Hi. My name is Greg Owens. I'm with DMG Real Estate Partners. 350 North 9th, Suite 201, Boise, Idaho. I wanted to speak to one of the -- Mr. Aldridge's comments about the access point at Falcon Drive, just as Tamara just spoke to it. In looking at the ACHD staff report, certainly they didn't identify any safety related issues with the access points that we have proposed. But one thing I would say, as long as we still maintain the four access points, we would certainly be willing to try and compromise to deal with the Falcon Drive issue by taking the southerly access point and we think that we could slide it to the north some distance, which wouldn't impede the access and the parking in front of the shop building that you see on the south end of the project. So, I just wanted to point out kind of to -- one of the items that Tamara mentioned, which is the site plan has a little bit of play in it, we could move that access point maybe 25, 30 feet, maybe 40 feet, if that would help in the consideration of this decision. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 10 of 71 Moe: Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a question real quick. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: If we can go back to the plat or the site real quick. This triangle here, that's not included, that's just part of the fence there, isn't it? Okay. I got it. That's all right. I answered my own question. Moe: That was easy. Marshall: Yeah. The site -- earlier there was a site that showed -- there was a small black line that showed this part as -- of the site plan, as part of the site and I see that's the boundary there, so -- Moe: Okay. All right. Well, Commissioners, there were no other questions. Any comments as of yet or do we want to close the public hearing? Would one of you folks want to do that? Rohm: Well, you're making it sure difFicult. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff, maybe. I'm -- Sonya, I'm a little bit confused, I guess, on -- on the access points that the Ada County Highway District either has approved or not approved and is it just a recommendation that you --that you would like to see as full access on only two points on Victory and Eagle Road or is that -- it seems like we have a choice here; is that correct? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, yes, you do have a choice on what access points to approve with this development. City staff and ACRD staff -- well, let me back up. City staff is recommending that only the two full access points, one to Victory, one to Eagle, be approved for this development. ACRD favors that also. However, they have allowed the applicant an option to either have the two full access points or as they have shown on their plan with two right-in, right-outs close to the intersection, along with the two full access points. O'Brien: Thank you for clarifying that. Wafters: I should -- let me add one thing here in regard to Commissioner Marshall's last comment. There is a property boundary adjustment in process with the county. That's why the boundary looks different. That will be completed prior to this site. Moe: Mr. Rohm, do you have a comment? Rohm: Yeah. Just more of questions for Sonya. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 11 of 71 Moe: Okay. Rohm: I understand that the city would prefer to only have the single access both off Eagle and off of Victory, but from my perspective, that right-in and right-out doesn't, in my mind, cause any additional burden to the flow of traffic in any way. It doesn't seem to, in my mind -- and I'm .wondering why staff is objecting to the right-in and right-out, just to minimize the ingress and egress off of Eagle and Victory? For that sole purpose? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, yes, the Comprehensive Plan, you know, supports restricting access to arterial streets and, therefore, staff is recommending the access points be reduced. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, if I -- may I add onto that a little bit. There are access studies that will show that additional access points, you're going to have more accidents, it's going to lessen the traffic flow, so it's not just our comp plan policies, it also has to do with things you have touched on directly and indirectly tonight, like the location of the Falcon Drive. I don't know why ACHD -- maybe they did bring it up in their report. I didn't read the report. I don't know exactly what the separation is between the two access points. It is close and that's why we thought if you move that southerly most access to Eagle Road up a little bit and made it a full 350 or 315 or somewhere in there, you get the separation. I think if you float that up closer to that right-in, right-out, you have your right tum blinker on, I don't know if you're tuming into the first one or the second one. You may get rear ended. And people coming in and out, same deal. If I'm at the right-in, right-out and I'm trying to tum and I'm trying to tum right and I see someone coming up there with their right tum blinker on, are you tuming in the first one or are you coming in the one that I'm coming out. So, I -- we do see some issues with that. We don't have a lot of policies that way, but certainly if they want to develop in the City of Meridian and we have a development agreement that we are proposing and like Sonya mentioned, you do have the option to limit those and we think, again, based on a lot of presentations that have been given, limiting those access points certainly helps the general flow of traffic on major intersections and in general. Wafters: And if I may add to that, just a tad more, if the Commission does decide that they want to do the access points as proposed, staff suggests that a median be constructed in the middle of Eagle and Victory to prohibit traffic from entering the site from, you know, left-in that way. ACHD has requested that also. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Mr. Marshall, any questions or -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 12 of 71 Newton-Huckabay: How difficult would it be to get a copy of the ACHD reply for us to see? Wafters: It would not be difficult. I have a copy right here. It came in right at 5:00 pretty much today, so that's why you don't have a copy. I can certainly give a copy to Machelle if you'd each like one. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to browse through it real quick. Wafters: Sure. Moe: Any other comments while we are waiting on that? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I also need to ask somebody to tell me what page of the 45 page letter from Mr. Axelrod the comment about not being residential is on. That would be helpful as well. Moe: Can the applicant do that? And would the applicant tell staff and -- Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like somebody to tell me what page that's on. I don't recall reading through it. City staff is saying it says it's for residential development and the applicant is saying it's for commercial development. Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if I could just address that real quick. I did not have time to -- I got this late this afternoon, I did not have time to read the whole document and I called ACHD fora, you know, summary of the history on this and that's what I was told from them. So, if it's in here I'm not sure where it's at. I would also like to see which page it's on. Moe: We have someone who can answer that. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the -- the reference that I'm talking about is to the purchase and sale agreement with ACHD and the current owner of the Axelrod trust. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Which you said Ihave a -- we have a copy of and I have just a 35 page document, I was wondering which of the -- Thompson: I don't have a copy in front me. It's fairly far in the back. Wafters: If I could, excuse me, just add one more thing. The copy the city received from the property owner appears to be a draft copy. It was not signed by ACRD and there are comments that are noted on the side margins. So, I'm not sure if this was the final agreement or not. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 13 of 71 Rohm: Sonya, to kind of shift gears for just a moment, the property to the north across Victory Road, where is the access into that -- that property? East of Eagle on Victory. Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, I am not sure. The property owner is in the audience if yo.u would like him to address that. Rohm: Isn't that DJ's? Is it DJ's? Or, no, Double D? Wafters: Bob Carpenter's property, I believe. Rohm: Okay. I was curious where the access to that property on the other side of Victory took their access and see if it was kind of aligned with the one that's being proposed. Wafters: I can't tell from the aerial. Carpenter: Bob Carpenter. 3250 East Victory Road, Meridian. The -- yeah. Right there. We have got -- with the road project that's coming, we have two access points, one right there at the driveway of the house and one there where that little white spot is, which is a bam. And, then, there are no other access points at this point, but when the property is developed, whatever the developer does will determine the access needs and points and we don't have a negotiated access agreement with ACRD for future access points once we sell the property. Moe: Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, have you been able to read through that and -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I'm good. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP 08-011. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt real quick before we close the public hearing? I forgot to mention this to staff earlier. It has to do with bicycle access or through put in and around that development and I didn't see anything in here that mentioned any bike paths or otherwise. Is that -- am I seeing something wrong here with that or -- maybe Sonya can answer that. I'm not sure. Sonya? On the -- Newton-Huckabay: The pathway. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 14 of 71 O'Brien: Pardon? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien. There is the pathway. O'Brien: There is pathway -- that's what I'm asking. Is there one along Eagle Road there? Because there is an awful lot of usage from bicycles and pedestrians and runners that use that now that is -- is the sidewalk will be sufficient? I don't know if -- is that five and a half to seven feet? I assume that the bicycles are going to use that access or is it going to be a bike lane on the highway? Moe: Sonya, can you answer that? Wafters: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that whole question. Could you, please, repeat it? O'Brien: Let me start over again. So, I didn't see anything in there where it had access for runners and bicyclists on Victory or Eagle Road. Is that going to be included or is that going to be -- is there going to be a pathway on the road for bicycles or what? Is part of that plan -- Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, are you asking if that's amulti-use pathway requirement? O'Brien: Yes. I don't remember what they called it. Wafters: No, it's not amulti-use pathway requirement there. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Wafters: The applicant is proposing a seven foot wide detached sidewalk. They are only required to do a minimum five foot wide in that area. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, abullet -- finding and facts in ACHD -- ACHD report number ten, Eagle Road from Victory Road to Ridenbaugh is scheduled to be widened to five lanes with curb, gutter, sidewalk and bike lane. O'Brien: Okay. Great. Thank you very much for pointing that out. Thank you. That's all I have. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 15 of 71 Moe: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I got most of the way through that. Do I need to do it over? Moe: Yes. Rohm: All right. Here we go. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP 08-011. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 08-007, PP 08- 006, and CUP 08-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Comments? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: As far as the development as a whole, I think that that's a very nice development for that comer. I think that the applicant's got a good layout and it appears as if it's something that's needed in the -- in the neighborhood and in support of staff on Eagle Road in particular, I think that we should probably limit access to one in and out full access, but possibly because Victory is not as a through put in the same nature as Eagle, that maybe we could compromise and allow for the right-in, right-out and the full access on Victory. But that's -- that's just my thoughts and other than that I think it's a great project. Moe: Okay. Great. A couple comments I'd like to make. Quite frankly, Mr. Rohm, I'm somewhat in agreement. My biggest concern is -- is that we end up with a full access also on Eagle. I just don't think you can get it far enough to the north from where the other access point is. I just think that there should only be one access point on Eagle and I'm more than willing to give full access to that and I think the right-in, right-out should go away. I do agree that Victory Road -- I think both access points would be fine. I don't have a real problem there. A couple other items, you know, that were brought up. The utilities -- I think staff has taken care of that. There is -- there is no area there for them to get a reimbursement on that. As far as the access points, definitely happy to hear. they will have a problem with the one on the east and I know staff would like to see the one on the south, but the south property owner said he's not going anywhere for quite some time. I, quite frankly, am not sure what we gain by putting an access point to the south right there if he's not planning to go anywhere, but I realize what we do like to do is have connectivity and so, therefore, I mean he may not want to do anything for quite a few years, but you never know. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 16 of 71 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chan'? Wasn't that an access point for the pathway? It wasn't a driveway. Are you talking about a driveway? Moe: Right. No. I'm just talking about the south -- exactly. As far as the fencing, think what it says that fencing is fine. That would be my comments. Marshall: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I -- based on the comments that were made, it appears the developer has worked very hard with the people around. I am very impressed with how they have worked with everybody. I, too, am concerned about the dual access. I don't like numerous accesses to major arterials. One issue, though, is Falcon, being able to move that north, I don't know that it can move too far north. We have 480 feet of property line along Eagle Road and ACRD is saying for a full access that they need 440 foot clearance to the intersection. I don't know that it can move too much, but it may be able to move a little and any bit there could help. I would like to see that full. access moved as far north as possible and still limit the 440 foot to the intersection. I'd not like to see the right-in, right-out. Not fond of it on Victory either, but I would accept that and I do like the idea of continuing on the Verti-Crete wall for continuity sake and I do believe there ought to be a pedestrian access and I like the idea of putting in a gate there to be able to fence it off for some time until such time as maybe that develops in the future. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any comments? O'Brien: Yeah. I largely agree with the full access only on both Eagle and Victory and not aright-in, right-out. I think as time goes on we will find that that intersection is going to be extremely busy, even with the improvements that they are going to make in the future. So, again, adjustment of the Eagle Road access, I'm in agreement with that, if they need to move that within reason I think would help. That -- that knoll that that intersection is on as it drops down is a concern, so I think that's all going to be taken into consideration in how much they need to move that, because that is -- it can be kind of tricky there with the amount of traffic that's going to be on that roadway. I like the fencing as it currently is drawn out and I think this is a very good project. Been waiting for something to happen down there for quite some time, so thank you. That's all I have. Moe: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any comment? Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing else, of substance to add. Moe: Thank you very much. Mr. Rohm, are you wanting to do something here? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 17, 2008 Page 17 of 71 Rohm: Well, I think I'm ready to make a motion, if there is no other input. Moe: I don't hear anymore comments. Rohm: We will see where it goes. Okay. Let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP 08-001, to include the staff report, with the following modification: That the access point on Eagle be limited to one full access and to be relocated to take into consideration the dip in the road and if it's only -- Newton-Huckabay: Furthest point north. Rohm: The furthest point north. Thank you. As possible and still adhere to the distance requirements from the intersection and allow both accesses onto Victory Road as currently proposed by the applicant. No other changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 08-007, PP 08-006, and CUP 08- 011, with modifications as noted. All those in favor way aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2008: CUP 08-016 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for a convenience store and fuel sales facility in a C-N zoning district per requirement of the Development Agreement for Maverik (Locust Grove/McMillan) by Maverik, Inc. -NEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing for CUP 08-016 for the Maverick and have the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit for a convenience store and fuel sales facility for Maverick in a C-N zoning district per requirement of the development agreement for Woodland Springs Subdivision. The property is located on the northeast comer of the Locust Grove and McMillan Road. Surrounding uses are -- to the north single family .rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is rural residential property, approved fora 26 lot residential subdivision, Portico Subdivision, zoned R-8. To .the south is an Idaho Power substation, zoned R-8. To the west are rural and urban residential properties, zoned RUT and R-4. The history on this property -- a comp plan amendment was approved in 2008, this year, to change the future land use map designation of this site and the surrounding Woodland Springs Subdivision from medium density residential to mixed use neighborhood. It was annexed also earlier this year with a C-N zoning district. A development agreement was approved that required