The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOctober 16, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 9 of 64 Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 08-026 for Mills Veterinary. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move we approve file number CUP 08-026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with no modification. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C-C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies -Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on AZ 08-005 for Meridian and Amity and start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Meridian Amity annexation. It has been continued since the August 7th hearing and been further continued from September 4th. As you recall back in August, the Commission acted on its Comprehensive Plan amendment to change a portion of this site, approximately 40 acres, from a medium density residential designation into a mixed use regional designation. I would inform the Commission that that approval has gone through the City Council -- that has gone through City Council and has been approved as the change to a mixed use regional designation. If you recall, the -- slide show froze up. If you recall, primarily the -- all the land around this was pretty much vacant land. The i i ~~ ' ~ , ~ ~~ ~~ 7~ ~P= ;~ , ~ , ~ ~ _ _ ', ~ }„ 1 ~ 4 ~,. - t ' f „ 4 !"` G Z;nY ~ } ` i ,S i:.i J 'I ~ ? ( l ~~ . J did , ~{~ ~ - ~ }} F , ft C ~ , ~ ~ ~~~ ~*, ~~ ~ ~ti r ~ ~'~ -d ; ~ it a ~ ~ $ ~' ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ i. ~ ~ ~ 1 r r ~ a ~ ~ _, ~ k `~ ~ ~~ , ~, ' ~ .~ ~~ '~ ~ r a x~i '",~- ~ $ ,s i ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ a ~ ~ + ! ~~ ~~' '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M 1 ~ ~ . f . 7 7 ; .~ ~ fff i t - 4d I l E ~ ~ c{, ~ ~ f : t ~ ~i 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ j f ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f K 7 ~1 'Si# 4 ; ) ' {~~ Sp ~ f i } ~, 4~ ~/. i` 1 i , ~~ . 7'~+ ~ i~ ~ ` ~.~ ""i { • , ~F ` ,'1 i , , I~ - ~k.' f ~ ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 10 of 64 only really development -- or the subdivision to the south was Meridian Heights, zoned R-6. The rest of it was vacant land, agricultural land, zoned RUT. So, this pretty much -- this slide here tells the story. Again, this whole area is -- encompasses roughly 73 acres. The applicant has revised the Comp Plan since those last two hearing dates and I will try to go through those -- some of changes and inform you what has changed from that previous slide -- or previous concept plan to the new concept plan before you tonight. The one thing that -- that has changed and the reason why we continued it and asked the applicant to re-notice the project is the zoning designations have changed from the previous time that you saw this. This portion now up here in the northwest comer has been changed from R-8 zoning designation to an R-15 and that is roughly 7.5 acres. The previous concept plan shows roughly 5.6 acres. The office component up here has also changed. That was at 3.2 acres and now it's beiing shrunk down to 1.2 acres. And instead of having five pad sites, it references three. And, then, going to the east of that, this northern portion here that I am circling before you has changed from C- Gzoning to a C-C zoning district. And, then, again, the southern half has remained C- G, as it was before you on the 7th. Again, the -- at that -- that previous concept plan showed, basically, a drive aisle along the back of the building. Staff had recommended the applicant provide aback-age road. The applicant was willing to do that and so on this concept plan tonight you do see the back-age road before you. The other changes is there was a pad site located here -- centrally located here. The applicant has gone with staffs recommendation and included the ten foot multi-use pathway. Instead of it going along the gas canal here, as the Meridian pathway depicts, the applicant's just running it from the west boundary to the east boundary and, then, connecting to Meridian Road. Staff is supportive of that. I did ask Steve Siddoway, the parks director, to provide some comments on that. He didn't get me any comments until after the print date of this project, but he was -- he has encouraged the applicant to come in and work with them as far as location and the requirements that the parks department would be looking for when that pathway goes in and that's part of the DA provisions as well. Again, the applicant is providing a plaza area that connects to that pathway, as well as some open space internally to the development. The last concept plan also staff had some concerns with the alignment of some of these drive aisles. The applicant has cleaned that up and, basically, aligned those drive aisles to try to address the staff concerns. One of the biggest concerns staff had still is the access to Meridian Road. We have talked with the applicant on that. They know what is staffs standpoint. The code restricts access to Meridian Road and the applicant still shows references to three access points to that road. This is a right-in -- right-in, right-out only at this location. Right-in. Right-out. Left-in. And, then, aright-in, right-out at that location as well. Other access points -- there are two access points proposed to Hams Street here. Full access points there. Two full access points to Amity Road and one right-in, right-out access point from Amity Road. Also, I'd like to include ACHD, ITD also gave me comments regarding the traffic impact study for the site. Basically, they were -- I'll move to that slide and try to bounce back, but these are some of the access scenarios that the traffic group analyzed and so I will let them get into those details further, but this is pretty much what ACHD and ITD have communicated to staff that they would prefer and that's pretty much no access to Meridian Road. They feel that that can work with that backage road and still serve the needs of that development. However, with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 11 of 64 conversations earlier this morning between the two, ITD has said they would be willing to grant aright-in, right-out at the quarter mile to the site. I would point out to the Commission that the applicant has submitted a variance application to staff and based on your recommendation tonight, if you want to move this onto City Council, that variance will catch up and be heard at the same time as this -- as the annexation is heard before City Council. Also, I'd point out if you wanted to see a modified concept plan without access points, it's well within your power to ask for a continuance and see a revised concept plan before making a recommendation onto City Council. So, here is the elevations that they are proposing. The previous staff report did ask for additional elevations, but after staff kind an analyzed everything and looked at the code and realized that this site will be subject to design review, we felt confident that we could just allow the applicant to go through the design review process once that identified tenants for this site. So, we made that as a DA provision that they will -- any building on the site will be subject to design review. So, that should -- hopefully, that gives you a little bit more peace of mind that you are seeing some high quality buildings being developed on this site. But what they did submit was this annexation and I didn't show it at the CPA hearing, but this is part of their large box multi-tenant -- I think it was the intention of the applicant to really just show us what type of building materials would be provided out there and the quality of construction. Staff has analyzed this and feels that these are high quality building materials and are supportive of what the applicant is proposing to construct on the site. These additional elevations are the rear facades. One of the DA provisions that staff brought up -- some of the concerns, anyways -- I'll go back to the concept plan. As you can see there is some pretty large buildings that abut some future residential to the west and so staff felt that these larger buildings should incorporate some type of modulation, incorporate the loading docks, and have some kind of decorative elements on the back of those facades to help to kind of blend in and add some -- break up some of that massing of the buildings. So, in the development agreement we have also required some of those provisions to be in place as well. And the applicant's in agreement with that. And these are some of the details -- if I had to choose one I would go with the Kohl's building. If any of you have driven there and seen the back of Kohl's and some of those pilasters that they have on there, as you can see here, it is a pretty high quality large box building. With that, like I said, I want to go over some of the DA provisions for you tonight, some of the ones that we think are of issue will be a topic of discussion from the applicant tonight, so I wanted to keep -- have Commission be aware of what -- what they are wanting to discuss tonight. I apologize, I didn't number the DA provisions, I just put bullet points, so what I have tried to do in my cheat sheet tonight that I gave you, I put those DA provisions in there so you guys can reference off those, but these are some of the same DA provisions the applicant will want to discuss with you tonight as far as modifications to those. So, with bullet point one, again, that's where we required all buildings be subject to design review, as well as the rear facade, which would have similar architectural features as the front facades. Again, we have required -- if you look at the concept plan, we required that multi-use pathway here and that green space being constructed prior to the first occupancy. We have also required that the 35 foot landscape buffer, with a ten foot pathway, be constructed for the entire length of Meridian Road. We have also restricted access to Meridian Road and any existing access points be vacated with annexation of this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 12 of 64 project. Staff has also required that this back-age road be completed in its entirety prior to the first building permit. And, then, also the one thing I haven't brought up to you is this northwest pipeline here that runs through the site. Staff has asked that they coordinate with that gas company to insure that the safety measures are in place so that construction could happen on that site. I have also contacted Mr. Gordon Hamilton. I hope he's in the audience tonight. He's nodding. He is. So, he's willing to talk to you a little bit more and explain kind of their role in this development process as well. And with that -- or I should say staff also received comments from Paul Taylor and James Persey in agreement -- or in favor of the project and with that staff is recommending approval of the annexation and I will be happy to answer any questions Commission may have. Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions at the present time? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Marshall: I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Bill, why is it that I -- I don't recall on the original plan that this large of store was this close to single family residential. Was that exactly where it was before? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, I don't believe that building has shifted, so yes. Marshall: Okay. Parsons: I believe it was like that. But this -- the single family starts here. One thing to point out, this was the project that you saw with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and so Becky McKay was working with the applicant to try to give you guys an overall picture of how this would develop in the future. So, keep in mind that the annexation is really from this point on and going down here. This right here will be subject to a different -- these design standards here won't even be applicable when they come in with this greenbelt -- I mean some of this stuff will, but these -- this landscape buffer here will realistically only have to be 20 feet. So, what Becky is showing on here is probably exceeding what you're going to see when the applications come in. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Evans: Good evening. My name is Lance Evans. I'm with Hawkins Companies, 855 Broad Street, Suite 300, Boise, Idaho. I want to thank you for hearing this -- this request for annexation and zoning again tonight. As Bill has just stated, we have modified the concept plan based on your comments and staffs direction. I'd like to ~J .~ 4i Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 13 of 64 begin tonight by focusing on the -- the attention on the first note in staffs report and reiterate some of the significant changes we have made to our site plan. And, again, Bill has kind of covered this, but we have modified zoning designation, addressed the buffering concems, relocated the pathway network through the site, added an outdoor plaza and open space amenity centrally located on the site, and aback-age road to insure the connectivity to the existing and future developments in the area. We have spent significant time and energy working with staff to revise this concept plan and to address the concems raised by the Commission and staff. We believe this improved plan will -- is designed to utilize and will utilize land for the highest and best interest and in accordance with the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. In Section 10 staff has gone through -- and as Bill mentioned, has bulleted items. I went ahead and made a color copy of this with our red lines. I thought it would be a little easier to follow. I'm song I didn't get it to Bill before, but if I could just hand that out to everyone now. In this section staff has outlined 17 bullet points that they would like to include as conditions in the development agreement. These conditions are the culmination of the annexation and zoning issues from the application. We are in general agreement with these items and we have submitted a couple of minor clarification comments and are proposing changes regarding the access and the phasing of the landscaping and back-age roads. Our first concern relates to the timing of development improvements in bullets 11, 12 and 16. And those of you who have followed the construction of Meridian's new City Hall are aware, the completion of a large project can be very challenging. We hope to have our development and all its improvements complete as soon as possible, but the timing of the entire project can be very lengthy and difficult. The development of a 73 acre site does not happen overnight and we are simply requesting that you allow us the flexibility to phase our new development and complete the back-age road and perimeter landscaping in two phases prior to the issuance of the certificates of occupancy for any buildings within the respective phase. For example, the -- if the first building is proposed south of the concept plan's east-west drive aisle -- so, this -- anywhere south of here -- we would -- we would like to have the improvements of the landscaping and the back-age road for that section, as well as the -- the center drive aisle and the park and open space amenity. We would like those things a would all have to be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy on that building. And, then, the same thing on the northem half of the site prior to the first certificate of occupancy of the building up there, we would have to have installed the landscaping and the completion of the back-age road for that section. So, it allows us the flexibility to do it in two phases. We are not sure which -- the northem or the southern, which one would come first at this point in time, so it would allow us the flexibility to take care of that without doing all those improvements prior to even pulling a building permit. The second item of concern is the 20 foot landscaping requirement along the back-age road. We have added the back-age road to the development plan at staff and Commission's direction for improved connectivity of the future development to the west. As initially indicated with staff and discussed with staff, the addition of the back-age road provides an increased buffer to the adjacent properties. The back-age road will include a 40 foot right of way, a five foot sidewalk, and we are proposing a ten foot landscape band. Additionally, we have committed to high end architectural treatments on the rear elevations of the buildings and screening of the trash enclosures and loading docks Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 14 of 64 along the western property line of the development. We ask that the condition be amended to allow for the back-age road and a ten foot landscaping to serve as a buffer to the west. Last we request the removal of development agreement condition prohibiting access points onto Meridian Road. Our concept plan only proposes three of our seven deeded access points. The access points are deeded by the state of Idaho and are valuable property rights. The transportation impact analysis shows that the three access points constructed with dedicated deceleration and acceleration lanes will allow for the sufficient traffic flow on Meridian Road. Yet, these access points are critical to the operational success of any users of the development and, more importantly, to service the area population. We have continued to work with ITD and ACHD as recently as today on the access design and we ask for your support. in exploring details of these options with those respective agencies. One additional item I'd like to touch on is the northwest pipeline. We have met with the pipeline representatives in the past. I believe we can work out an acceptable arrangement. The pipeline representatives having acknowledged to us that the growth in the area and the Department of Transportation regulations will trigger the need to upgrade the pipeline. We believe we can stage the construction and timing of our development to provide Williams Pipeline Company with the opportunity the complete the upgrades that they may need. In conclusion, we agree with staffs recommendation for approval. We have submitted the red lines for the requested modifications to the development agreement, which are, in summary, clarifying the language which allows the flexibility for the phasing of the construction of the development. Remove or modify of bullet number 13 to allow us to coordinate with ITD and ACHD for access onto Meridian Road. And, last, reduce the landscaping band along the back-age road from 20 feet to ten. With these changes in the development agreement and conditions, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the City Council. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have or discuss any items which you may have an interest on. Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Let's talk about the access to Meridian Road for a minute here. You know, we try real hard to stick with recommendations of staff and the state of Idaho and ACHD and we have got three proposed accesses to Meridian Road and from the staff report it appears that there may be room for maybe a little leeway of putting aright- in, right-out at the quarter mile. If, in fact, we were to stick with that in and of itself, then, that also flies in the face of your phasing, because there is no access road at the halfway point of your development. So, to me it almost -- that becomes a significant issue before we can move forward period, is we got to resolve where we are going to go with access to Meridian Road before we cats discuss the phasing or any other aspect of modifications to the staff report from your perspective. So, anyway, that's -- that's as I see it. So, if anybody else has any comments on the -- on the access onto Meridian Road, maybe we can discuss that portion of it before we move forward. Moe: Well, Mr. Rohm, I would tell you that I think that you -- you hit it right on the head as far as I'm concerned. We have dealt with this issue many a time and simply -- I'm surprised that their -- that ITD may be approving the right-in, right-out. I mean it's not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 15 of 64 done yet, but I mean that may be the only thing. But the back-age road and everything else is going to bring everybody right into -- if they are going to shop, they aren't going to have any problems going down Amity and going in and taking that road back and doing the shopping Marshall: I have had conversations with ITD. They have indicated to me that they feel compelled by state law to offer access if we approve it, simple because of a state highway that there is a state law stating that there has to be reasonable access allowed to anything and anything that's -- that is approved as C-G, we, as a city, approve that access, they feel compelled to do so and so they tend to do that and that's what's happened to Eagle Road. That's exactly what's happened to Eagle Road. And, personally, that's why I'm against approving accesses, because ITD will not say no and we need to and it has to be us that does that. Rohm: So, are you opposed to the access even at the quarter mile? Marshall: That's a tough one for me to go against. I don't know. That's one I'm pondering. But the other accesses, no, I cannot see three accesses whatsoever. Rohm: Well -- and that kind of is where the discussion is again is if, in fact -- if we could even get to the one access off of Meridian Road, I don't know how you would phase it and not have an additional access and -- do you have some comment on that? Evans: Sure. Well, kind of the two parts to that question Ithink -- and I'll take the easier one first I think and that's access for the phasing aspects. If we were to develop the site and just, for instance, we go to the southern portion first, we would complete the back- age road, the southern portion of the back-age road. We would, obviously, have the accesses off Amity. And, then, we would complete the center drive aisle that goes to the middle of the site and that's where the right-in, right-out would be. So, we would have that one point for traffic to come in and a road for them to come along -- they would be able to enter there and come along in this site and go down and -- you know, and visit this section of the property. Rohm: Is that the quarter mile? Evans: That's about the quarter mile. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Evans: So, that's where it would be. So, I believe we would phase it so that, yes, this access would happen immediately with the development, you know, and, then, we would also have the right-in, right-out access there, full access -- or three-quarter access there and full access on the back-age road. So, there would be ways to get into the site. Similarly, we would have Harris Street on the north and the access point there. And, again, this, if we choose to come in on this side of the site. So, I think that --Ithink the phasing and the access issue we can work out. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 16 of 64 Rohm: I agree. That would be the -- Evans: Okay. You want to talk about it or -- we have with us tonight our traffic engineers from Kittleson and Associates. And a quick summary is they have looked at the access points and with those three access points it actually -- it is not detrimental, significantly, to the functioning of Meridian Road. And, in fact, might help it at Amity and Meridian. So, I will let them talk to you about that. Daleidin: Good evening. Andy Daleidin with Kittleson & Associates. I'm a senior engineer. Address 101 South Capital Boulevard, Suite 301, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, and staff. To answer your question related to access on Meridian Road, I think what we have done has been working collaboratively with ITD, ACRD, and your staff over the last eight months related to the traffic impact study. In terms of the initial comments from ITD and ACHD, which are included in the staff report, we met with them this morning to go through the access elements with Amity Road, Harris, as well as Meridian Road, and what we found in talking with them is that the access points on Amity Road are acceptable from ACHD. We found on Harris Street those are acceptable and with Meridian Road as your staff pointed out, ITD would consider the right-in, right-out at the quarter mile. Related to the other access points that are proposed at Meridian Road at the eighth mile, the eighth mile being north of Amity Road and an eighth mile south of Harris Street, and those are both proposed as right-in, right-out driveways. They would both include a right southbound right turn deceleration lane. It's -- you know, that would meet ITD standards associated with that. So, as traffic traveling down Meridian Road south through traffic, it would be -- if you were tuming into the site you would actually have a dedicated lane to separate out, adequate time to decelerate, slow down, make that turn, and the actual -- the speed differential that is always a concern with driveways, it's very minimal, it's very minimal once you're providing a full deceleration lane to separate the through traffic and the right tuming traffic. And so, yes, there may be a minimal decline decrease in traffic -- in speed on Meridian Road, but not to the degree that some might think. And when I say, you know, degree, we are talking, you know, maybe one mile per hour, you know, for the decrease in terms of the speed on that facility, it isn't a major one when you're providing an actual deceleration lane associated with that. Does that help answer the question related to the driveways at those two locations? Marshall: My issue is that with additional access points here, as opposed to pushing traffic back out to these major roads to go through lights, you're pumping it right out onto here and that slows down traffic. The problem is as we do more and more and we get people on this side of the road wanting to have three accesses and people just -- yours slows down traffic, theirs slows down traffic, everybody slows down traffic and before long we have Eagle Road and I do not believe that Eagle Road is capable of doing at its designed speed because of the number of accesses that have been granted. For that reason I don't believe that additional accesses are not going to have an influence on the traffic there. Maybe one or two might have a small influence, but the problem is lots of them all up and down the road will and I would prefer to see the -- the traffic pushed Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 17 of 64 back out onto these roads and go through lights and I think that's the same thing we are hearing from ITD or ACRD, we are hearing from city staff. I don't see these accesses as being positive for traffic flow on Meridian. That's -- and to me your answer is not answering my question, it's saying that it's not going to have a detrimental effect and I disagree. I'm sorry. Daleidin: The -- can laddress -- Marshall: Uh-huh. Daleidin: The -- when we looked at the traffic impact analysis and assessing the different scenarios, one of the things that we were looking at associated with those driveways was trying to seek out at solution that distributed the traffic multiple locations from the sight and not loading specific -- you know, specific intersections. All the traffic going to Harris Street or all the traffic going to Amity Road and so similar to the situation where we are looking at providing the north-south collector, the back-age road, that has been implemented, it's the same concept as providing your east-west connections through the site to that back-age road to distribute the traffic through the site and not load just directly to Amity Road and Harris, which, then, feeds to Meridian Road as a traffic signal. And so we were trying to distribute the traffic, instead of just seeing turning movements that would route to Hams or Amity Road and occur at those two traffic signals, by providing those access points on Meridian Road, they become through traffic and have a less impact -- you know, for the most part a less impact at the intersections of Amity-Meridian and Amity and Harris. And so from that standpoint there is a benefit of providing access on Meridian Road to off load the turning movement traffic that would occur at Meridian and Amity, as well as Hams and Meridian. Marshall: I appreciate your perspective. Moe: Thank you very much. There is no one signed up for the public hearing. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come up. State your name and address for the record, please. Hamilton: Good evening, Mr. Commissioner and Members of the Commission. My name is Gordon Hamilton and I'm with Williams Northwest Pipeline. Our business address is 1301 South Locust Grove. I'd like to first just tell you a little bit about the pipeline. There are two pipelines that we operate. The first one was constructed through this area in 1955 and it's a 22 inch diameter high pressure natural gas pipeline. The second pipeline was constructed in 1981 and it's a 24 inch diameter high pressure natural gas pipeline. These pipelines carry all of the natural gas that is used in southern Idaho and most of the natural gas that is used in the northwestern United States. Our customers -- Intermountain Gas, obviously, is our biggest customer around here, but we also deliver to a number of generators who generate electricity for Idaho Power. And let's see if I can -- we operate the pipelines under federal authority under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and our safety regulations are administered by the Department of Transportation. In this area pipelines are fully compatible with the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 18 of 64 current land use, which is, basically, agricultural and when we see developments occur, typically what we are -- what we like to see is an open trail system, something that allows us access to the pipelines. This is a critical item for us in that we do numerous inspections for corrosion. We are able to do an electrical inspection over the ground and that will help us find areas where we are having problems coating or corrosion and if we find anything like that we have to excavate the pipeline and repair it. We also run tools through the pipeline and these tools will go through and measure the wall thickness, look for any areas of corrosion or damage to the pipeline, dents, or anything along those lines. Once, again, if we find something that concerns us, we have to be able excavate it immediately. So, we have to have access to these pipelines. And, in fact, our easements do give us the right to have those accesses. We have had some conversations with the applicants. I think it's been more than a year since we have spoken and I don't think we reached any conclusions at that time. I am saddened to see that there -- there was an indicated open area trail system here and I'm saddened to see that the applicant has -- has changed that. So, I guess that's about the extent. I could take any questions that you have. Marshall: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I just have a couple. Do you have any pipelines under other urban areas anywhere? Hamilton: Oh, yes. We run through the Seattle area. Through Portland. Through Gresham. We operate pipelines in -- and, actually, our sister company is Transco, operates even in New York City. Marshall: So, do you do -- go underneath roads? Hamilton: We go under roads, yes, we do. Marshall: And under parking lots? Hamilton: It's possible to place them under parking lots. Now, this is always -- anytime you do this -- but you have got to recognize the situation that you have placed the future in, in that you have no notice at all. We may be in a situation of going up in there and digging up that parking lot and that's the situation we would be in. Also, before we would allow a parking lot to be placed over us, we would have to do a full inspection of the line. The line has been in the ground since 1955 and the other one since 1981. Marshall: So, does that include excavating a line to inspect it? Hamilton: That would be full excavation and inspection of the line. Marshall: Okay. And you say you have an electrical inspection for corrosion? • ;~~. ors ~~' f E ~ !.3~ fr t; 3~ !. X1~ ~ t ~~P ~ i tjtjt '1 p , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 19 of 64 Hamilton: That's correct. Some of the cathartic protection, you maintain a direct current on the pipeline and it causes ions to flow to the pipeline, instead of away from the pipeline and you can measure the potential in the pipeline to determine areas that are -- Marshall: Which can still be done under a parking lot and street? Hamilton: It can if you -- if you install inspection areas. You need to -- you need to put areas where you can actually make contact with the soil. Marshall: How far apart do those need to be? Hamilton: Oh, probably 50 feet would be adequate, something like that. Marshall: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I guess my only comment is I would presume that the easement associated with the pipeline itself spells out the specific of your right to maintain and if, in fact, the developers adhere to the specifics of the right of way, then, at the end of the day everybody is protected. Would you concur with that? Hamilton: I would. I would also say that it's like when you're talking about the traffic situation on Meridian Road, that there are areas -- there are ways to do it that are more compatible and there are ways to do it that are less compatible. You know, this is a -- it is a critical facility. There are millions of people relying on it and -- and the most compatible way to operate a pipeline in an urban area is to maintain a green space and in most cases if this was to be an urban use, a subdivision you can see that if -- it's very compatible to that. A parking lot is not a best case. Rohm: Yeah. Now, is it right that the -- that gas flows both directions, assume this is from the north, what is it, the Rockies to the -- Hamilton: We have -- we have the capabilities of flowing the pipeline in both directions, but right now the Canadian gas is very expensive. Rockies gas is inexpensive. Rohm: It's kind of like the transmission grid in the electrical system, electricity flows both ways, just as your -- as your gas would. Hamilton: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Well, again, there is ample time for others that would like to come forward. None wanting to come forward. But we have ~~ a i; a~ e. €. kr, .~ ~, ~, y I i?? i ~Y_ ~~.. ~ , ~ f ,1, f ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ 7GrF I }t ~: i Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 20 of 64 multiple issues to discuss here as far as -- just kind of curious as far as some opinions in regards to some of the bullet points that -- in regards to the -- the applicant wanting to change some of these items and whatnot. Rohm: I would like to make just one further comment about the natural gas line. The representative from Williams hit the nail right on the head and the fact of the matter is that that pipeline doesn't serve just the community we live in, it serves all the way from the south all the way to Seattle and everything in between. So, it's of significant importance that the integrity of that easement be adhered to and I don't think we should at any point in time deviate from that or lose site of that, because that is a huge issue from one end to the other. Moe: I agree. A couple things. I guess I would -- I'll ask the question of the Commissioners in regards to the fact that this -- this access that has not really been resolved. You know, this is an open item and, basically, for us to act on this hearing as a whole, that means that we are either going to have to agree with what's shown or make a recommendation to change or whatever on the access or we have the opportunity to continue it until we see the new plan with what access has been finally approved. Rohm: Well, let me just throw out what -- my thoughts and, then, we will get some discussion going here. This is -- this is a commercial development that there is a lot at stake here and to not have any access to the development off of Meridian Road I think compromises the project as a whole. I am not in support of three accesses at all, but I do believe that in -- I don't know, quote, unquote, fairness to the developer, having one access at the quarter mile, which lets the project so you have traffic flow that doesn't -- everything has to come in from the backside or the back-age road, if you will, seems to be in keeping with the desires of the city to minimize access to Meridian Road, while at the same time taking into consideration the needs of the developers as a whole. So, from -- from my position I think one access, right-in, right-out, at the quarter mile is a healthy compromise to this development and they will still be able to phase the development in a fashion that the entire back-age road would not have to be constructed at -- at the time that the project began. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from. Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: If that center drive aisle were aright-in, right-out only, I'm not sure about fire and EMS not having the back-age road all the way through. I don't know. I don't know what their concerns would be about that. Rohm: Well, they always have access off of Harris and/or Amity. So, the fact that it's a right-in, right-out off of Meridian doesn't preclude them from gaining access to the development at all. I mean they still have total access into the -- the development. Marshall: Right. Right. They usually like to move access, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 21 of 64 Moe: I do realize that it's a significant cost impact to do the full back-age road all the way through -- Marshall: Yeah. Moe: -- you know, for a development that, you know, they are hoping to fill in. However, you know, a couple things that come to my mind is I like to be able to see that some of these developments -- that they are -- they are taking the step that they are planning to go forward and do as much as possible, you know, to create the -- the whole shopping center is going to come in. I, quite frankly, would like to see the improvements on Meridian Road go all the way through, not just one phase at a time. Rohm: The back-age road? Moe: The back-age road, as well as the front landscaping onto Meridian Road, is that -- and, again, on the -- as far as the right-in, right-out, I agree one hundred percent. One entrance on Meridian Road, right-in, right-out, I have no problem with whatsoever. But beyond that I don't want to see anymore than that as well. But I, myself, would like to see the back-age road go in, as well as the landscaping that's going to be fronting this development in as well, all at one time. Rohm: Seems reasonable. So, I guess we need to get the applicant back up here and discuss what we have discussed. Overy: Good evening. Jason Overy. 5537 North Brigadoon Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. I wanted to come up and -- you know, Lance may come up also to add a few things, but I did want to stress to you, the Commission, that we understand the pipeline. It is a very important pipeline that serves this northwest and that in the discussions we had, as Mr. Hamilton mentioned, over a year ago, we recognize that and part of the discussions related to the engineering and the work that would need to take place, so that there could be upgrades and testing to be done and we are more than happy to sit down with Mr. Hamilton and his team to continue to work through those before, you know, we move forward to do that, so they have the opportunity to, you know, do whatever improvements and things they need to have done, so I wanted to stress that to you, because you have made a very important point. In listening to, you know, your concerns related to the back-age road and to the landscaping on Meridian Road -- and I do appreciate the fact that we recognize these are definitely different economic times than we were in 18 months ago, 24 months ago, when even developers could go get, as a condition of the development agreement, the funding we needed to do that. We are looking for some flexibility to come in, still develop, put a shovel in the ground and make that -- get something going on this, but trying to reduce some of those costs to make sure we can get it going. Now, can we concede and say, yes, hey, we will -- we recognize it would be great to have the landscaping along Meridian Road and we would be willing to do that and change that, but, you know, aback-age road -- a 40 foot wide road that we have put in, that's a significantly much more costly item than saying, hey, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 22 of 64 let's continue our landscaping for another quarter mile, because, again, we are talking quarter mile segments. These are very significant, you know, undertakings to make this happen. And one additional item of cost that we -- that didn't come up or surface during the presentations is we will be extending utilities as part of the conditions of the development agreement from Victory approximately a mile. I mean that's a significant undertaking to kick off either phase of this development. So, we are just looking for some consideration or some -- some potential help to offset, hey, maybe we can live with that without the full back-age road. Maybe we can put in the landscaping along Meridian, because it is the entryway corridor and have a compromise on that level. Mr. Marshall, I did want to make sure that -- to elaborate a little bit on what Commissioner Rohm said as far as the loop would go with -- with an access point at the quarter mile, whether it came in off that or off the back-age road or off Amity, they would create a full loop. We would have a full circulation, whether it was the southern half of the development or the northern half of the development that came in first, so that we could address that concern for -- that you brought up as far as fire. So, I hope that helps answer some of those questions. Moe: Any other questions? Marshall: The other question stems to the don't know, it sounds like you guys talked, this and extend it along here to put a greenscape? pipeline and that would be -- it doesn't -- I but is there any way to take some more of larger percentage of that pipeline under Overy: You know, when we have looked at this, it really is a --.definitely a constraining element on our site planning for this. You know, we -- as much as it would be nice and we try to take working with staff in the necessary steps to let's create that amenity, which was brought up with -- in the last hearing, where do you go if you're on this pathway? Where does it lead to? And it really wasn't leading to anywhere, so we said what can we do with the constraints we have and that was let's create this open space, let's create this gathering space, people can get on this pathway, they can -- from those neighborhoods they will get to it, they can come to our shopping center. If they want to stop and eat ice cream or do whatever in that covered patio, then, we have created an open space amenity to at least recognize that this now is a ten foot pathway that comes through our center and it does provide somewhere to go. Now, I'm hoping I'm answering your question, Commissioner Marshall, on that, but we really couldn't see how we could carve it through that parking lot to do that and still maintain, you know, an adequate field for our tenant there. Rohm: Let me just throw this out. That pipeline runs all the way from the northwest down into Colorado. There are other cases that have occurred where development's taking place. I think that before we can really act on this application, I think we would like to see some concurrence between you, the developer, and Williams as the pipeline people and you guys come up with something that works between you and them and we can continue of this until you get something that works and I don't care if you expand the greenway or if you allow them to provide protection of -- appropriate location to Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 . Page 23 of 64 protect the integrity of the pipeline, but I want to know that that's been resolved before we move forward. I just -- I'm not comfortable saying, well, you figure that out after we move this forward. I think that from my perspective, because that's such a significant issue, I'm not comfortable just saying work it out, I'd like to see what the answer is before we move this forward. Overy: I'll let -- Tracy, our legal counsel, may be able to address some of the issues related to rights of the easements and, you know, keep in mind that we have the right to use our property and -- Newton-Huckabay: And I state that up front, that there are specifics to the easement associated with the pipeline. They know it and you know it and all of that is well and good, but I want to know what the answer is. Overy: And we will be happy to help provide that as Mr. Hamilton has mentioned, it's govemed by the Department of Transportation and other agencies that say the house happens or so much density of people are within 660 feet or some number and I'm not going to quote what that is, but I know that there are trigger events that require them to upgrade that, because it's a Department of Transportation issue and it's govemed no differently than a tanker taking gas down the road. So, I'm confident we can -- we can work it out with them and -- Rohm: And we can, too. I just want to know what that is. Moe: I guess the thing that I would be most concerned about is you haven't talked with them for a year. Overy: Well -- and part of that was, you know, we submitted our application in December of 2007. We met with them in June of '06 and had ongoing conversations and a lot of things have changed since '06, '07, '08 in the process and part of it was do we have something to talk about when we are going through this process to say we have got a Comprehensive Plan change now, we have requested zoning and annexation to you now and once we have a more affirmative timeline -- I know that one of Mr. Hamilton's concerns is when is he going to budget for the upgrades. When does that need to happen and at one time we were talking at the 2009 project. Well, we are here and it's not going to be a 2009 project, it's -- you know, we still have some process to go through with you and ITD and the City Council and it's not kicking off, so I know that in the previous process we did get to a point where there was some engineering work being done and some things along those lines. Part of that process was who pays for that work -- all those type of items to finalize, but, again, I -- I'm confident we can do that. Rohm: Do you think a continuance for two weeks is adequate or -- you tell us. Overy: You know, Idon't -- I don't know that answer. I mean I -- like I said, I'm not -- I'm not seasoned enough on the rules and regulations regarding what Mr. Hamilton has to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 24 of 64 do with that pipeline to say can he come to an agreement with us to say in two weeks in his process. So, I can't speak for him. Rohm: My bet is that it would take more than two weeks. Overy: Right. Rohm: That would be my belief and I'm pretty sure of how I feel about the importance of this specific issue and I don't know if I'm speaking for everybody, but I think we need to continue this at leases two meetings and if -- hopefully you will be able to have resolved that issue by the time we reopen the hearing. Evans: Lance Evans again. I just -- I hear your concems. I hear exactly what you're saying. There are safety issues. There are details to be worked out and that is why we are -- and this whole process gets a little bit ahead of itself. We had to get the Comprehensive Plan amendment. We had to get over that hurdle first. Okay. So, the city's on board with that. Now, let's go on, do we want to be a part of the City of Meridian is the question tonight and what would the zoning on the property be. Those are the questions before us. The city takes the extra step and says, hey, we want to have a development agreement and see a concept plan. We don't want to just give you a general -- general commercial zoning, we want to see a development agreement and concept plan that nails you down a little bit more, so we at least have some idea of what we are getting and we are trying to provide that. But to continue to hold us off on moving this project forward, that's what the development agreement is for. It's so that these details, which will have to be worked out before we can move forward. Before we can build a building on that site, before we can pave over it, we have got to do it. But part of the problem and part of the reason we haven't discussed this is kind of -- as Jason alluded to, is because we have got to get this answer before we can go to this one and before we spend thousands and tens of thousands of dollars on engineering and site planning -- gosh, are we going to be part of the City of Meridian and are we going to be zoned? And that's the question before us tonight. And Ijust -- I think your concems are legitimate, but I just want to say that we got to keep it moving forward, so that it functions for us. Rohm: What's the time frame between once it leaves here before heard by City Council? Is it usually 30 days or longer or -- Hill: Around 30 days. Evans: You know, I think we can make some significant progress in 30 days and when it comes before Council, they can look at it again. After that we have the development agreement, which the city has control over, that they can say, no, that is not an adequate coordination with the pipeline. But we need to keep moving forward to get those questions, you know, and the other issues on that site. So, it comes back to that's why you have the different applications. You have an application for one thing, is the comp planning right? Should it be annexed. Should it be rezoned? Design review. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 25 of 64 What's-the building and the site going to look like. The development agreement adds a little more restriction to the zoning. So, I really feel that you're covered and Ijust -- we need to keep this project moving forward is our concem. Moe: Well, sir, I just might add to that. Item number 17, basically, in the DA in the applicant shall coordinate with the Northwest Pipeline Company prior to any construction on the southem portion of the development. That should be both the southem and northern, since the pipeline does go to the north, does it not? Rohm: It crosses both portions. Moe: It crosses both. Rohm: And as long as that's one of the provisions in the staff report, then, maybe we can -- I'll give them the allowance to get that resolved, but -- and it wouldn't necessarily change -- it wouldn't change the zoning, but it certainly affects it and when the development actually does occur. So, we still have some -- Moe: I have one more question I would like to talk about to the applicant as well, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I have a question, too. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you had a question? Newton-Huckabay: I just -- I don't have any problem moving this forward. I want to address some of these bullet points, because I'm not in agreement with the red line -- all the red lines from the developer, but -- but I'm recommending approval and the development agreement, which includes these concept plans that are before us -- I'll try to phrase this in a relatively intelligent question. In my mind there is a possibility that the concept could change significantly with coordination for the pipeline and how do we -- how do we -- how do we address that and that I don't want to imply that -- that we are approving this in -- or recommending approval the way it looks today, when it may significantly -- will it significantly have to change as it -- Moe: It very well could. Newton-Huckabay: In our motion -- I mean is there something we need to state in the motion or -- Moe: Well, I think that's something you can sure ask -- Newton-Huckabay: If it changes significantly, come back through the approval process. Marshall: That's a subjective term. e i ~ ~9 ~ ~ ~ ` ~ d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ,{ t~ a , ~ ~ i ~ ~, a i y ~ ~ ~- d 1~1 t~ t~ - ;ppt _ j t # . { ~ ~ { ~ ~ ; ~ ,, ~ ~ } ~ a~ ~ ~ r i( ~ : k j9 ~ 7 j 1} ~ t. ~ ; : ~ _ ~ J ~ ~ V FF ~ ~ ~ ~7 i ~ ~ r~~ 4 ~ k;~ Y t d 3 ~~~ q ~ ~ i{ A t ~~ ' ~~f ' ~ 1~ j ~1 { ~ ~ t t {{ ~1. ~ t i f { ,I t ; ;F .S i 1 ~~ S ~ y ,! ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~_- ~~ r {i; ~ ' .C k .~ ~ 1.i it ~ s ~ { ~ t ti ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~S. ~S h;' Ey~ ~~ 3 z 'E ~ E z ~ ~ y ?. ~ x~ ~~~ tt 4~- ~ y .. ~ ` 1 ~ ~d` s ~ I F ~~ ~` ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~: 4~ # ii ~ . ~~ , Y i ~ . ~' ~~ ~ . f ~ ~ {~ t ~ ~ ~ y f t ~ ~ ` f& ~ i S ~ s ` ~ ; : i {t~ ~ i~~ ~~ K: x. ~~ ~/ ~ a~ ~ 7 ~ F~~ ~~ ~$ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~- 3 i ' e. ~ ; j t; ,$,~ ' ~i S tj i .. ~ M lid` _., 3 . ~,r1 ~ ~r~~ .~ . 1 r. # . _ ~l e {~: ~Tf`; ~ #~~. f t x ',, i iii ~ ~ ~ ! S r , ~ 7 ~ ~ r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 26 of 64 Rohm: I think the -- I think the answer to your question is the concept plan that's before us is just that and all we are acting on at this point in time is the zoning for the properties and at such time that they move forward with actual development of the -- after the zoning is obtained, is going to have to receive approval through the city as well. So, by granting the annexation and zoning doesn't preclude responding to your concerns as they become more apparent. Newton-Huckabay: But is not the concept plan part of the development agreement? Rohm: You know, concept plans -- they all change. I mean I don't know that I have seen one project that has developed exactly as the concept plan was presented in the zoning application and so I don't think that any of us are naive enough to believe that -- that it will develop exactly as the concept plays out right now, as none of them -- no projects ever do. Newton-Huckabay: Are you calling me naive? Rohm: Not ever. But, anyway, that's just my comments on that part. Moe: Okay. My turn. You know, the problem I'm having and one of the comments you got here, as far as within your phasing plan and whatnot, you do not -- you would, basically, be able to make sure all the improvements are done prior to final occupancy, in lieu of prior to building permit issuance. I'm kind of curious as to why you wouldn't have the improvements taken care of prior to building permit issuance, as opposed to final occupancy? Evans: So, I -- let me just restate the question, because I'm -- yeah. We are asking to -- let me do it this way. We are asking to be able to work on the site improvements, on the road, on the landscaping, you know, the civil engineering work for that site in accordance with the building construction and it comes back to, similarly, the reason for the reason for the phasing. If we can start tearing up the ground for -- do all the civil work and the green takes place, you can build the pad site first and those guys can move on -- and this is very generally, but those guys can, then, move on and start working on the road and start working on the landscaping, while we are under construction with the building. If we have to go through the whole civil engineering of the site, build the road and, then, build the landscaping and, then, we can come in and say now maybe we have a building permit, we have got another six or eight or -- these are big stores, maybe even longer -- months before that happens. So, that -- it, effectively, doubles the time, give or take. Moe: You answered my question. Evans: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 27 of 64 Moe: Yes, I did know that. I wanted to make sure that we all understood it. Any other questions of the applicant? Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Baird. Baird: I might add -- with regard to your question about the conceptual site plan, item number nine in the DA does require general consistency and if there is a change, as determined by the planning director -- if, for some reason, the discussions with the pipeline company effect a change that the planning director thinks is significant, they would have to apply for an amendment to the DA to come back to you -- or come back to City Council under the DA to approve any changes. So, what -- if you do choose to approve this with the concept plan as presented and for some reason the negotiations with the pipeline company didn't work out, it's likely the matter would be back before the City Council for resolution. Rohm: But that doesn't -- still doesn't change the zoning applications before us. Baird: That's correct. All I'm saying is it -- it does give you a measure of security that if things don't work out to allow the parking lot go over the pipeline, it's going to come back to City Council in the form of a DA modification. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Baird, does it imply that we -- I mean in my mind this is saying this is how I prefer it to develop as paving the over pipeline. Is imply the city prefers it to develop out that way or -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's not saying that you prefer it that way; it's just saying you're improving the application to do it that way. And they are moving forward with the full knowledge that there may be some requirements of the pipeline company they are gong to have to meet. There is an a-mail from the pipeline company in the packet that outlines some significant upgrades that may have to take place. It sounds like they are well aware of that and they are choosing to go forward with that knowledge. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just don't want to inadvertently -- and the terminology -- give the upper hand, if you will, or a back door blessing to the developer to say, well, this is what we prefer and so -- against the pipeline company, so to speak, but if we are -- if we are not doing that, then -- and, then, I'm -- I guess that's the answer to my question. ~ ~ y r F ~ ~ + ~ I A r, ~ tt _ r ~ ~~ } ) ~ { Z ~ i F ' ~~ ,fit ' t f~ 4 ~. f ~ i ~ } _ ,, 1 ~r t l r 1 f ~try~y Fp' ~ ~4 , k ~F ~ ,~ s~ ~ _~ t $ ~ i ; ~ ~ ' 1 ~ , ~ ~ ~~ l~ ~ f' ) ~ ~ r . ~ i ~ ~ [. N ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4 ~ ~ -i ~ t ~ ~.:~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ 4 ~ ~' i ~ 33' ~~~ 7 ~$, t ~~ c ~. ~ ` ~ " ~ ~ 666' i ~ i j t ft. ' ~~ d ~ ~ , ~ ? ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~~ y , , ~ ~) t ~1 ~ " i : 1 ~ } 3 . s{ °~ ~ qj f ~ :~ ~.j. .. Fit r f fi ' ~ y{ ~5~ ~ ,4.: ~ ~ {~ i _ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~7 t a ~ s ~ f' i. - , f i ~ {) ~ . r . F 7 , ~ - f~ ~ .i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' f[ ~ 3 f.f ~ I i ~ i 1 ]j ~ ~~~j . i •. ~ ~ i.. ~ * ,, ~ 1 6 ~i #l4 f f ~~ ~"' ~ ~ ~. X ; j tp ~ +' G 7 ~ g~ ~ ~" } v ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ *~ a i ~ 7 ~+~ i [ 1 e 14 . . e T ' 3 y~ y ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~t ~ Rh ~. 7i5 ~ 3j, ~•i 7P ,+~~ i ~1 r~ . j i s~~ ~ ~` a'j t i i e ~ 11 ( Cy i c ~ a i v "~ ~ ~' ~ x t I`x t ~ l ` ` ~ ~ F C ~ ¢~ ~ Y ,`jR y , (1 {~ ~ 1 (~~ ;} 1.Y, ~\ ~ i 1 y y ~, E ~ W ~F ~ s _ ,'.~-~ ix 9 . ~~~~~ ~~ y If.r.. ~ . :~ t.8 .., '} K'rf~ .1 " i a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 28 of 64 Baird: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if it's your preference that this remain a natural open area, then, your option would be to deny the site plan as presented. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. I don't -- I don't have a preference that it remain, necessarily, in a natural open area, I just don't want one person to have the upper hand, if you will, on the other one in negotiation process in equal rights to develop your property or maintain your property and Iwould -- that may or may not be the case, I just don't want to end up inadvertently -- this is the first time we have ever had a piece of property come through with a pipeline, so I just don't want to -- Baird: Members of the Commission, I think both parties are well aware of their respective rights. One person owns the property, the other person owns the very significant easement, so I think -- Newton-Huckabay: So, I'm good. Moe: Okay. Any other issues that -- Newton-Huckabay: I thought that developing along Meridian Road, in the totality of the development, but only the back-age road in whatever portion is being developed; I thought that was areasonable -- reasonable compromise there. But there was an issue on landscaping along that back-age road and I wasn't really in favor of modifying the landscaping. I think that that -- I mean personally I'd like to see that remain in place. Rohm: If you have aback-age road and a landscape buffer, the width of that landscape road and the buffer itself -- it seems to me that's going to be like 60 feet if, in fact, you do the 20 feet, 40 foot, you're giving up 60 feet and I think what the developer's saying is we are already giving you a 40 foot road, maybe you can give us a little concession on the landscape, because by reducing that to ten, so that we are only giving you 50 feet, rather than the 60 feet. Is that correct? Maybe Bill could respond to that. Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I'll on that a little bit more, just to try to give you a bigger overall picture on this roadway. Basically, as you know, ACRD would classify what this road is going to be and that's going to be based on the trip generation. So, I would anticipate if access is denied along Meridian Road, this will become a collector road and our code requires a 20 foot landscape buffer along a collector roadway. If, in fact, they do get some access here, it will probably reduce the trips on that and in anticipation of that probably might not classified as a collector road and a ten foot buffer might be adequate. So, what we could do is in that DA provision we could modify that to say based on what it gets classified, we could either say it's a designated collector, they'd need to keep it 20 feet. If it's not designated a collector street, then, you -- or collector street, then, you can possibly have just -- you can provide a ten foot landscape buffer, if the applicant is willing to do that. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 29 of 64 Marshall: My other issue -- Mr. Chair? My other issue there is the proximity of these large buildings to those single family residences right across that back-age road and that I would like to see that additional buffer there, because you're putting some very large buildings right next to single family residential. Typically I like to see office buildings, some other sort of material. I think as a site that's needed in that part of town, I think we need the commercial out here, I think it's an area that needs to be served. But at the same time I'm worried about the single family residential that's going to be backing right up to it. Evans: And if I can clarify a little bit on that? Would that be all right? Moe: Go ahead. Evans: In particular, this building here, where we are tight on landscaping is right down in here. We will have the roadway, then, the five foot sidewalk and, then, ten foot of landscaping. The code requires us to put in -- and maybe Bill can clarify for me -- would the sidewalk count as landscaping or do we need a five foot wide sidewalk and 20 feet of landscaping? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it's a detached sidewalk you can incorporate that as part of your landscaping. Evans: So, if we detach the sidewalk on this section, we are really only asking for five feet, because the five foot sidewalk would count. So, we could have -- we just need that five foot flexibility. It just helps us -- there is a property line going down the middle. It just makes it so we are able to stay on our property and not have to go into all the negotiations with the adjacent property owner to, you know, do more work there. And Jason wants to clarify that. Overy: I wanted to clarify one point on that. We have been working with Victoria Laidlaw and worked with all of our neighbors here to make sure we are working together. Part of the way we did design this -- and I -- we definitely understand the concern with the single family housing. There is a -- this is where that single family housing is proposed and our green space and our limited development is -- we try to -- you know, to bring those two together, so that we could reduce that impact, Commissioner Rohm -- I mean Marshall. And so we definitely were cognizant of that when we designed this and we understand that. What Lance also talked about is on the southern half -- you know, Mrs. Laidlaw has been very cooperative, but she's also said I just want to, you know, live here until I go meet my maker and if we end up building that road we are going to end up having to do half plus 12 and we are just trying to get that ten feet back to say, hey, if we have to build half the road, plus another 12 feet, it's pushing that road more onto our property, so we'd like to squeeze that ten out of the 20 foot landscaping. So, you know, once -- when and if that does develop and we can limit that flexibility to the southern half, if you -- if that is helpful or agreeable to the Commission, it gives us a little more flexibility there, knowing that we are going to end up having to mostly build half plus 12 and when we head north Mr. Johnson's been Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 30 of 64 more than agreeable to allow it to come back to the property line and he'd build his half and we build our half and we are not looking -- wouldn't necessarily need that flexibility on that northern portion of it. It helps. And as shown it already has that 20 foot buffer on the northem portion of it. It's only the southern that we are looking for that flexibility. Hope that helps explain what -- Moe: Thank you. Mr. Marshall, you look like you have a comment. Marshall: So, when we are building the road -- so, when they are building that road, this landscape buffer is required on both sides of the road and that's what's pushing it to the west. Excuse me. The east. Is that correct? Overy: What's pushing -- when we come in, if Mrs. Laidlaw or someone else does not -- is not in a position or not ready to move forward -- staff can clarify this -- our understanding is we will have to build half, we end up shifting our road back to the east another 12 feet, so that we can provide adequate circulation for two lanes of traffic. Marshall: The whole road goes on your property, rather than half the road. Overy: Uh-huh. And so when they come in they have to complete the road, then, they will put in their landscape buffer. So, you know, you could have over a hundred some feet there, depending on how that develops between the back of our building and just to reiterate, you know, we did -- you know, we did agree that we would, you know, screen trash enclosures, screen the -- screen the loading docks. Do the -- you know, similar to what happened to the Kohl's where they -- nice building materials and broke those backs out, so that they aren't looking at that, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would like to close the public hearing on AZ 08-005. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 08-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Discussion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Y x ~ ~ 4, ~C ~ ~yg~, E t ~~r f~ ~ • t ~ ri` k E ~ ~ 1 ii44 ~ ii ~ k, ~ t t ~ e ~ k~~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ i ~ g I ~f~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ _ ~ ~ iii ~ ~ ,.~ ~ { ~~ t ~ ~ ~ * ~ z s v~ d wa ~; I ~R ~ ~Y"'' ~, 1 ~ ' , ~ sj * 'S Z ~~ ~~ ~ t4 fiY ~>; ; (d~~ t ~ r, iy' ~ V~ ]] ~ t: . ,, a i~•~- T3yy ~ ;; y - i 1 i ~ 1 # ~F ~ { Y k e ~ ~ ~ r ~ r ~3 }' ~ a 2 ~.zt:. ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ i i . 3 I r I v i i II d ~ ~ r ~ i ~` i. ~ ~~ p}, ~ ~ ~~` ~ t p 7 1 ~ i 1 r f a i! ~ << ~~ ~ r t .e- , ' , ~ - . P 3 ~ .,- 3 ~ ~~ ~f. ~ ,~ 1 7 i F d ' ~ '~ ~ z ~ i r 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' f x f~ ~ fi r ~~"? rt r , ~~ I ~~ ~' 1 } { ~~ Y ~ ~ ~, } ~ 1 f ~ S ~ ~ a i 7 { F ~ ° iC i ~ ,e f F i F ~ . ~ ~~~ 1 i r ' 4 I t , y ~ } F ~~ i fi ~ ~~ : r f 1 ~~ F ~~ s'` ~ ~~ ~: ~ i ~ ~ 1~ i r,~ ~ ~'~S is ? . ~ , ~ _., cS,: - x 4: Y ', i? ~ ~ b Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 31 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to ask staff if the comments added on bullet points three and four by the developer -- number three reading: Subject to any applicable reimbursement agreements. And number four: As depicted on the submitted concept plan, ere -- those seem very minor to me. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we are. in agreement with that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Those are the only two minor ones that -- Rohm: How do you feel about the -- the split on the -- the 20 feet on the north and the 20 feet on the south half? Is that acceptable to you? I don't know how you -- can that even be in a motion to change the landscape buffer on the north half to the south half? It can? Okay. Parsons: Yes. Rohm: And how do you feel about that? Because I think you're the one that's going to be making the motion. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to say it wasn't a deal breaker for me from the beginning. Given the information by the developer I would be -- I would be okay with that. I do want to see the development -- or the landscaping along Meridian Road all the way the entire length of the development. Rohm: And only one access off of -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think I would only support a right-in, right-out at approximately the quarter mile. So, that would be that -- bullet number 13 would be modified to say that access to Meridian Road is limited to one recommended -- limited to one right-in, right-out. Marshall: At approximately the quarter mile? Rohm: Right. Newton-Huckabay: Bullet number 11, construct a 35 foot wide landscape buffer along the entire length of Meridian Road and a ten foot wide pathway prior to issuance of the first building permit -- okay. So, that bullet point would state exactly as stated in the staff report. No changes? Moe: They are requesting going to certificate of occupancy, in lieu of the building permit. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff is okay with C of O. 1. ( ~ 1 ; ~ ~~ ~ E'Y ~ ~ la - )f ~ ~~~ t t 1, tt F~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 13j ` t t a _ ~ }'~ ~ i ~ ' ~ t. ~- F '~_~ ~ a ~5 ~ ~ t a j ~ ~ ' ~ °' ` i ' Y `~ 1 ;g ~ ~ Y ~ ~ - ~ 1 ;~ ~ - i -' y r, , a ~, i ', .n ~ d ~ a, f~, c 1 1 .~ ~ .. 'i ~~ ;~ i ~ d~ ~ 1r ~ ,~3 b ~ M ~ ~ ,t y ; ~ j t j - ~ i )5 F' ~; Y ~. i i ~t ~ ~ + T j ' 1 ~ F ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ' }~ ( r' ~ ~ i ~~ ~ i [~rpp't ,y t .. S ' I I~. f ' ~.~ ~ ~ t `. v. ; ~ ~ Y. t ~ t 1 $1 : k f t ~ C r } ~ i~ y~ ~ Y y~ ~ 2 rft ~ ~5 .3 _~ f d 4` Q r ~ i, ~ pp ~ q ~ 1G ~~ ~ } ~ ~ =t~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ } ~ i3 ~ § ~ i ti a €; ~ i i i i li ` e ~, ~ € ~ { ~~ ~ j _ s 2 t ~"~ t i~ ~ d '~ ~ ~ ffffff ~ Z ~ ~ t ~ : x,. ~ f e . ~ 1, ~. , ~ i f ; ~ ~ ce~ _ ~q l ~ ,~ ~ ; 3 ~ t r ~ ~ F ' r x q ~ , ~~'.'t ~~ ~ a Yd i ` 1' ~ ~ ~'' E i~ % a~T ;~ ~ ~ r t: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;a ~ t~ . ~ { v ~' ,y ~ ~ t .i; ~ ~"µ ti 1i _ ~~~ ~ ~ jy } '~ l~ ~~ f* + , .i ' ~} s li ~ ~ F ~ ~ '1 n i S 9 i t F V i~ ' a~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ t , ~ ~ r i s -~ 'S `y~ t ~ ~ .S $ ,~ ~ F ~ € # , tl i ~~ } i ~ ~ t ~ , y ~ $.y. ~ }~ ~ f ~ . Y -r F ~ .. S ; ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 32 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, going from -- change that, then -- I have lost my place. Okay. So, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, rather than building permit. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Bullet point number 12, a 25 foot wide buffer shall be constructed along West Amity Road with five foot detached sidewalks. Construct a 20 foot wide landscape street buffer along Harris Street to the north and the collector backage road adjacent to the west property boundary. Okay. So, we are going to go with the -- we are going to accept the developer's request -- a 25 foot wide landscape buffer shall be constructed along West Amity Road, with five foot detached sidewalk. Construct a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along Hams Street to the north and a ten foot wide landscape buffer along the collector back-age road adjacent to the west property boundary. Buffer shall be designed in accordance with the standard listed in the UDC and shall be constructed in the phasing as outlined in the previous condition and shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the respective phase if the plat has not been recorded. So, we all agree with that statement. Moe: Mr. Rohm, you're requesting that the northern phasing be the 20 feet along the west property line and that the southern be ten foot on the west property line. Rohm: Well, I think the developer has just agreed that they would -- they could live with that and so if they will agree to that, let's put it in there. Newton-Huckabay: So, the -- okay. So -- Marshall: I would prefer it. Moe: You wouldn't have to change anything. It's all there. Just come here and construct a 20 foot wide buffer along Harris Street -- Newton-Huckabay: To the north, which is north of the property. And a ten foot wide landscape buffer along the collector back-age road on the south -- Moe: Or on the west property line. Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to call it the south phase and by that I mean the phase that -- the quarter mile down to Amity. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Number 13. Already did that one. Sixteen. I was okay -- we all agree that the applicant shall construct its half of the collector back-age road from Amity Road or Harris Street to the center east-west drive aisle prior to the first certificate ~ R , , 1 fi ~ ~p ' t ~ ~~ ~~ ~ s ~ ` , ~ j i ~ ~; ~ i. i t t ,~ i ~ ~ F ~ r ' ` E ~ ~ Y t~ ~~~> ' ~ ~ ; u i ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a } ~ 2 rt - 4 T - 2 y ~[ I` i i y 4 ~ ~• ~~~ ~ - I ~4 ~ f ~ ~ J~ ° p a ~ f ~ L ( r ll y; 4 r ~ ~{{{~~t y p ~ ~ r ~ si ry1.' ~r E r ` l4~ ~ j b -~~ 3 ~ t i ! , }~ I7'~ t l; f# r;, ~ 4 ~ ii'r t ~'. ( ff S~ ~ 1J 4 ~ ~~.~ #'t E ~ .~ 7 f 3~ 1 ~ x ~~ }~ ~ t t 11 . ~.{ f £ ~~ r l ; .F ~ #i ~ ~ 7y ~ ~ i~~ ~ ` .. 3 C ~ i -~ 3 ` ~ S ~ '-. ~~ ~ { kz ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ 3. { t " - ti ~ '~ ~ ~ r.. ~ ~ .` ~ i ~ ~ y g L., t ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ i w t .. ty g ~ ~`.~ f ~ ~ 3 6 ~~ ~ t ~ r + ~~ ~ ~~~ '' ~ ~ .)~ "t'.= ,"~ ~ t ~ ~ i ~ 1 4 ~ , ~-r F ~ / i~ i ~ q ~ ~ ~ i 111 k- i ~ 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ,, L~ 3ji ~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t ~= ~ ~C 3 ~ I ~~ { J r ~ ~ i '~ ~ t x c ~ ~ ~ t r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~~ ~~ 1 k i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a !~ ~ ~ ~? s ~ ~ ~` ~ : :3 ~ yy 3 ~~ t E ~ '~ ~ 1 ~ ' ~8 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' l~ ~ ~ gg ~s Y~ ; t J} t4- ~ ~ 9 t } ~' ~ l .i 7 ~ ~ , ` , ~ ' ~ 7 1 ~ ~ ~: ~ ` t ( ~ 1 f a , r ~ ~ l f i iii d ~ ~•I { ~ ; ,~ ,~ 1' L... , r: ~~:;, ~ ~~ ' ~~ f~S{ ,~ 1 y n ( i Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 33 of 64 of occupancy of the first building in respective phase, as propose on the concept plan. That is -- we are all in agreement with that? Moe: Because we are getting full landscape -- Newton-Huckabay: Along Meridian Road. All right. This is going to be a very long motion, so everybody hold on. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number 08-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with the following modification to the conditions of approval. Starting with development agreement, bullet point number three, add the word subject to any applicable reimbursement agreement. Bullet point number four, add the -- the words: As depicted on the submitted concept plan. Bullet number 11. Construct -- will be changed to read: Construct a 35 foot wide landscape buffer along the entire length of Meridian Road and a ten foot wide pathway prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. This buffer shall be designed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7 and be placed along the entire eastern boundary of the subject site. Bullet point number 12 will be modified to read a 25 foot wide landscape buffer shall be constructed along West Amity Road with five foot detached sidewalk. Construct a foot wide landscape street buffer along Harris Street to the northern and a ten foot wide landscape buffer on the southem property -- orthe southem phase of the development along the collector back-age road adjacent to the west property boundary. These buffers shall be designed in accordance with the standard listed in the UDC and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the respective phase if the plat has not been recorded. Bullet point number 13 will be modified to read: One access to Meridian Road is recommended as a right-in, right-out at approximately the quarter mile mark of the property, finally, bullet number 16, the applicant shall construct its half of the collector back-age road from Amity Road or Harris Street to the center east-west drive aisle prior to the first certificate of occupancy of the first building in respective phase, as proposed on the concept plan. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Marshall: I was going to ask you to add one thing with the 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the collector back-age road adjacent to the west property on the north half of the property. Newton-Huckabay: I believe that was already in the staff report. We were only modifying the -- my intent was to only modify the ten foot on the southem phase of the property. Marshall: I understand. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Again second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 34 of 64 Moe: It has been moved and approval of AZ 08-005, with the Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. seconded to move onto City Council recommending modifications as noted. All those in favor say aye. Moe: We normally take a break at 9:00 o'clock, so we will be back at 9:05. (Recess.) Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP OS-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in a C-C zoning district for Shaylee Estates by Marc Johnson -1332, 1402 & 1414 N. Meridian Road: Moe: I'd like to reopen the hearing this evening and open the public hearing for CUP 08-025 for Shaylee Estates and start with the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit request for a residential care facility in a C-C zoning district. Approval of a private street is also requested for access to the site from Meridian Road and for addressing purposes. The site is located on the east side of Meridian Road, approximately a quarter mile south of Fairview Avenue on the rear portion of the properties located at 1332, 1402, and 1414 North Meridian Road. Surrounding uses. To the north are commercial property and a residential mobile home park, zoned C-C. To the south is a hair salon, zoned C-C. To the east are commercial properties, zoned C-C. And to the west right here is an office of Talon Construction. And a residence, zoned C-C. This is an aerial view of the property. There is an existing house that's used as a dwelling here on the north. The office for Talon Construction. And a vacant house and outbuilding here on the southern property. The house and shed here will be removed upon -- upon development of this property. A property boundary adjustment was recently ,approved that created the parcel for the subject development. This whole parcel here outlined in red. A little history on this site. Last year a rezone to Old Town, a preliminary plat for two office lots, six residential lots, and one common lot and a Conditional Use Permit to construct six townhomes in the Old Town district were approved for Shaylee Estates. However, the applicant has decided to develop the site in a different manner and the rezone, CUP, and preliminary plat are not needed now. The development agreement was never signed, so the property is still zoned C-C. This is a copy of the proposed site and landscape plan. The 9,500 square foot assisted living facility, with 15 beds, is proposed here at the rear of the property on this new parcel that was created through the property boundary adjustment. Access to the site is provided from Meridian Road via Kimberly Lane, a private street. Stub driveways are proposed to the north and to the south for future cross-access. At the south is a shared driveway. It's currently approximately 18 feet wide. Staff is recommending that it be widened to 20 feet wide. It is currently shared with the property owner to the south, who is operating a beauty salon there. And I just spoke