Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 7, 2003 P & Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Augusl 7, 2003 Page 2 of 104 Item 4. Public Hearing: PP 03-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building .lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for proposed Southern Springs by The Land Group, Inc. -southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road: Borup: Okay. The first item on the agenda is Public Hearing PP 03-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in an existing C-G zone for the proposed Southern Springs by the Land Group. We'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This item is requesting a plat for 11 building lots. It's approximately an 11-acre parcel located here at the southeast corner of Overland Road and Meridian Road, State Highway 69. The property is annexed, has been annexed for several years at the C-G, Commercial General, zone. They are -- they have no need to request application for annexation at this time, since they are in, so they are just proposing to plat the property. The Ten Mile Creek is contiguous to the property here along the eastern boundary. Running Brook Estates Subdivision is immediately to the east of that. Country Terrace Subdivision is also nearby up to the north and east. Elk Run Subdivision is across Meridian Road. ACHD, as you have probably been out there and seen, is constructing a storm water retention area in this triangular shaped piece here on the north side of Overland and they are in the process of widening Overland Road at this time. The intersection improvements will be an Idaho Transportation Department project that is separate from the Ada County Highway District project that's going on right now. That intersection project is in the design phase, but it's -- it is a separate project, separate funding from what's being done right now. Here is an aerial photo giving you a little orientation, of it's existing farm vacant property. Here are the Preliminary Plat and the Landscape Plan that were submitted to the city for application. What is shown here on the left and right, actually? Both show building pad sites, 11 of them. They also show parking and internal circulation. There is a pathway shown along the Ten Mile Creek. The building pads themselves and the parking are not an item for this discussion per se, since it is just a plat. They are just requesting, basically, tc subdivide the property, but they have - - they have shown you the layout that they anticipate to happen on the property, even though that's not a part of the application approval right now. The general breakdown that they have shown is about 21,500 square feet of restaurant, fast food, there is four lots designated for that on the Meridian Road frontage. There is about 11,100 square foot of use for bank and 37,000 square foot of use for other commercial and there are five lots for that. The largest proposed lot is down here in the southeast corner of their property and that at this point is just shown as a General Commercial building that is not called out for any specific use right now. There was a detailed traffic impact study that was done as a part of the application, done by Adobe Engineering. It's projected to build out by 2007 in that traffic plan. There are no new streets proposed, it's all internal circulation within the project. They are proposing an access point off of Meridian Road here about a third of the way dawn from Overland and, then, a second one close to the southern boundary and those are the two access points that they are proposing right now. To my understanding, we have not received any written comments from the Idaho Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 3 of 104 Transportation Department either approving or denying these two access points. I understand from the applicant, though, that the deed for the property does entitle them to two deeded points of access. I will go back to the vicinity map here just for a second, so you can see the Calderwood Street is located here just separated from this property by one -- about a two acre parcel here. Ultimately, what you will see we are looking for is an ability for some of this traffic to have across-access through this parcel to get to Calderwood that would ultimately help to minimize the conflicts on State Highway 69, so that they can get to a future signal that is ultimately planned by the Idaho Transportation Department on Calderwood. Here is a couple of site photos for you that show the existing trees, all of which are on the east side of Ten Mile Creek. This is looking at it from the property and generally looking east and south. This shot here on the bottom right is giving you somewhat of a sense for the Ten Mile. This is, actually, taken from Calderwood further south than the property itself. I'm going to hold off on talking about the proposed pathway design and let the applicant describe what they are proposing on that. There are a couple of different options that they are looking at right now. They did hold a neighborhood meeting with the residents within 300 feet were mailed notices and some of these alternatives are coming out of that neighborhood meeting that they held. In terms of staffs proposed conditions, I think there are two of them to point out to you starting on page five of our staff report. We do have a special consideration that we have mentioned on the buffer and that's the reason why these alternative designs are in here. Getting back to the project here. You can see they are not permitted an access point to Overland Road, vehicular access point, but the city Comprehensive Plan does show a public multi-use pathway adjacent to Ten Mile and that would tie into an Overland Road sidewalk and generally come here on the east side. Now, we have a requirement that anytime a commercial development goes adjacent to residential, you have to have a 25 foot wide buffer and the standards for that buffer width are in the landscape ordinance, but, generally, it has to be within three years that buffer has to be 60 percent opaque, so they need to put the types of shrubs -- mostly evergreen, of course,- that are going to be able to create closure for a year around screen to close it off. The conflict that the application is looking at is that they have that 25-foot requirement from the residential subdivision. They are also dealing with a safety concern that's been expressed by the Police Department that for a public pathway it not be blocked off from view and create some kind of a safety or a hazard for any future pedestrians. They -- they are kind of looking at some options on how they can accommodate the safety concern, as well as provide the buffer between the residential. As you may recall, this northern third of the property on the east side of Ten Mile is an existing -- just a single house with Ada county property. It's not been annexed. The subdivision does not come up to that point, so there would not be the buffer requirement for that piece, but there would begin where the single-family residences are at here to the south. The two items to point out to you, I guess, are Item Number 3 on the conditions on page talks about the sidewalks on Meridian Road. Our ordinance requires them to be detached. The Idaho Transportation Department generally is discouraging any pedestrians along their facilities, so the -- we'd like the applicant to clarify that. If ITD is, indeed, saying they do not want a sidewalk, that's something that this Commission needs to discuss and consider whether you want to require that. That -- that's Item Number 3. Then, Item Number 10 on Page 6 is the correction that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 4 of 104 East Overland Road has to have a 25-foot landscape easement, not a 35-foot. Also, it's not the Silverstone Business Association, so that needs to be stricken. Then, finally, on Item 9 that's talking about how public pathways are going to be platted in Meridian. Actually, just this week we had some issues come up on how the county -- the county surveyor John Priester wants to see pathways, pedestrian pathways dealt with on plats. That item there will actually need to be amended. We cannot require the applicant to dedicate public land through an easement on the plat, it needs to be set up as an easement separately, not just shown on the plat. Basically, we need to just state on that that a permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian shall be created, not shall be added to the face of the plat and, then, that easement should be recorded as a separate document. Like I pointed out, I think probably the biggest issue on this project tonight is going to be discussion on the pathway issue. Then, also the staff, as you saw in our recommendation, is asking for a Planned Development on this project, because we feel there is enough issues to be dealt with in terms of the building layout. IYs kind of a tight site, the access is pretty critical, how the drive-thrus are going to work, you know, none of those issues can really be dealt with in a Preliminary Plat. We would like to see a Planned Development application submitted that would be a separate Public Hearing process that we could, then, deal with the configuration of the pathway and the access issues and also building elevations ,could be a part of that, which is not a part of this application. I think with that, if you have any questions, that's all I have at this point. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Mathes: I have a question. When was it zoned C-G? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Mathes, that's a good question, and Idid --Idid try to find that. It's certainly been -- Mathes: Was it before or after Running Brook? Hawkins-Clark: When it was annexed I did not get that information, so I did ask the applicant to provide to you, to check with the current property owner, because I believe the current property owners did annex it, so -- Mathes: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Zaremba: I also had a question. Several times there is reference to common area lots and even in their own CC&R's there is how to deal with common area lots. Idid not identify any lots that were specified as common area lots. Do they exist? Hawkins-Clark: No, they do not. There are no common area lots proposed at this point. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 5 of 1 D4 Zaremba: Wouldn't it make sense to make the main driveway that has to be commonly maintained and things like that into separate lots for the association to maintain? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, that could work, but if they knew the precise building pad locations, but -- Zaremba: So, you're comfortable with it the way it is? Hawkins-Clark: It would be difficult, yes. Zaremba: They have plenty of cross-access agreements and easements and all that of sort of stuff in there, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: That's comfortable? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We are certainly requiring the cross-access. Right. I think the one that could become common would be potentially the pathway lot, which right now is -- the pathway would go through about six different lots, because they all just have easements that go to the center of the creek, but that could potentially become a common. lot. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Koga: Good evening. My name is David Koga with the Land Group at 128 South Eagle Road. I appreciate the time to be able to talk about this project, Southern Springs. I want to, first of all, go over just a couple general key points about the development and go more specifically on the site-specifics. I want to talk the access, first of all, so everybody kind of understands where we are with our two accesses into the site. As Brad had mentioned that the existing property warranty deed does grant two accesses off Meridian Road. They were previously accessed for agricultural, now we are asking for access for commercial, so because of that we have to go with ITD through their right-of-way encroachment application permit process. We have filled out this form and turned it into ITD District Three. We turned this in about a month before we turned in the Preliminary Plat and it's still being reviewed. We had a meeting Tuesday of this week. It was a joint meeting with out traffic engineer, ACHD, and ITD, to discuss where they are in regard to those approaches. We are requesting for two -- basically two access for full access. They are still, like I say, reviewing this, because they are taking into account some other factors. I don't know if you're aware, but ACHD has hired a consultant and they are going through the process for redesigning the intersection of Overland and Five Mile and they have plans to have it to be built in 2006 or 2007. That kind of brings out one factor on those accesses. Number 2, is there has always been Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 6 of 104 discussion and talk about a traffic light at Calderwood, so they are trying to take into account all these different factors to come up with a final ruling from District Three, which, eventually, will go to the headquarters. The bottom line is we do, though, at least have two accesses far the project. Secondly, the overall intent of the design on the site -- all of the buildings along Meridian Road are what we would call high density user buildings and all the buildings that are on the back are what we call low density users. The reason why I was trying to be sensitive with the residents to try to keep all the -- more of the high use traffic end users along Meridian Road and less cars along -- along Ten Mile Creek, Number 1. Number 2, all the buildings along the Ten Mile Creek will be what we call front loaded buildings, meaning we won't provide any type of access or roads on the backside of those buildings. Once again, try to keep as much of the activity away from residential side, Number 1. Number 2, the buildings themselves will become some type of their own buffer, which will help to take care of some of the visual impacts into the development, Number 1. Number 2 takes care of some of the sound coming off Meridian Road. Basically, in general, we feel that Southern Springs, you know, is a good improvement for the -- not only the City of Meridian, but the community, because, as you know, there is not a lot of commercial retail development on the south side of the freeway. Because of that everybody -- I mean I live on the south side also and everybody has to come and go over the freeway and that's where you have all your traffic woes and congestion in there. We feel that this development on the south side would also help with a lot of the residentials from Meridian to Kuna for other traffic. In regard to the site-specifics, in wanted to go over a number of -- first, over site-specific Number 3 in regard to the Five Mile -- Five Mile sidewalk. In our meeting Tuesday with ITD I asked if they have any procedure or standards in regard to requirement of sidewalks on their roads and they said they do not, they kind of take it case per case, number one, and, number two, they will listen to whatever the city kind of requests also. Bottom line is they don't have a standard that requires a sidewalk along there. Another thing that we would like the Commissioners to consider, though, on that sidewalk is we feel there is somewhat of a safety issue, because of the traffic of Meridian Road, everybody knows it's a very busy and high volume traffic. At the same time, we will be providing a pedestrian pathway system that's going north and south along the Ten Mile Creek. We feel that would be a much safer pedestrian circulation use going north and south. The developers will install a sidewalk along Overland that provides east-to-west type of pedestrian circulations, but we would like to suggest using the pedestrian pathway as more the northbound pedestrian circulation on there. Then, on regard to site-specific number nine -- Brad, could you forward that to the section in there? If you'd kind of bear with me on this, I'd like to kind of walk through the situation. I think it's kind of a challenge on here and we think we are truly trying to work with the neighbors on this. When we went to the neighborhood meeting we tried to listen to their concerns and are trying to come up with a possible solution. What I'm showing first here is the existing site conditions and it shows in the middle the Ten Mile Creek. This section, by the way, is very accurate taking account of the survey and it's showing the Ten Mile Creek with the slopes of the banks coming across. We have a hundred foot easement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and of that, of course, 50 feet of that irrigation easement goes from the center -- or about the center of Ten Mile Creek to the developers. That's one easement on that area. Also we have a 20-foot sewer Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 7 of 104 easement that aligns with the Ten Mile. Creek that's inside of the 50-foot Nampa -- of the irrigation easement. That sewer easement is approximately 800 feet long from the north property line at Overland going south. On those two easements. the restrictions we have, of course, on the Nampa-Meridian irrigation system, we need -- we are required to provide a minimum 18 foot flat surface area so they have access to maintain on the Ten Mile Creek. From historical use of that area, of course, all the maintenance has happened more on the west side of Ten Mile Creek, so we are not expecting that Nampa-Meridian to go through on the residential side. The other issue is on the sewer easement. Of course, we will not be able to provide any trees inside, because the Public Works does not -- they prohibit any type of trees planted inside of their easement. Okay. What I'm showing here first is -- it's the original application Site Plan that we put together with some modifications of the landscape buffer. Basically, what we did on this, we added more trees along the buffer area and' I kind of want to explain how this works on the section. This section shows one of our proposals taking into account of the existing site as we turned in the application. What we are showing is inside of the -- of course, first of all, we have a 50 foot easement that we feel that the developers are providing that's an adequate buffer for the landscape buffer area. The landscape buffer, as Brad mentioned, it requires a 25-foot landscape buffer, so it's kind of broken up in two things. We have a -- we have a width area and we also have a type of buffer that's used for the buffer area. We feel we adequately provide the distance with the -- inside the 50-foot easement. We do have restrictions, of course, with the type of trees that we can put inside of this buffer and the case in point is on this -- the way we have this designed here, we are showing that also inside this easement we are also proposing to provide a pedestrian pathway system. We have an adequate area -- anywhere from five to seven feet of a landscaped area where we could more of the heavy evergreen plant material to buffer from the neighbors inside the landscape buffer area, but we are also restricted because of a safety issue, as Brad mentioned, because of the firemen and the police, when they are cruising by that area, they like to be able to view into that pedestrian area. What we propose as an alternative is the best way to plant -- to put plant material in that buffer is we are showing -- on the lower area we are showing a planter shrub area that would not exceed 36 inches tall and that could be an evergreen and, then, above that we would provide trees that would be limbed up at least six to seven feet tall, so, basically, we are providing awindow -- a view window to where we feel that the police and the firemen could view the safety issue along the pedestrian pathway system. Also, we are showing that outside of the easements we would not start installation of the -- any of the buildings minimum 25 feet from that easement. We are also going to be using that area as adequate landscape to buffer and soft up -- to buffer the backside of the buildings. Also to soft, up the parking -- the parking area. That -- basically, I'm showing you that was our first application that we turned in. The second one here is a little trickier. What we are requesting is a Variance -- a Variance from the planning director to where we could ask for a width reduction from the landscape buffer along Meridian Road. What we are going to request is we'd like to change the 35 foot wide buffer area along Meridian Road into a 20-foot landscape buffer. We would still provide all the amount of trees that are required along that buffer. What we would like to do is transfer and take that 15-foot landscape buffer area and replace or move that, excuse me, to the area along the Ten Mile Creek Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 8 of 104 adjacent to the west wide of the irrigation easements. Basically, we are expanding that buffer even more so another 15 feet. Also, if you notice, we were able to almost double the amount of trees on that area. I'd like to show through a section what that would kind of look like. If you notice we have taken the pedestrian sidewalk to the west and so that the east side of the pedestrian pathway is along with -- with the easement, number one. By doing that, we also would be able to provide a planter bed on both sides in this pedestrian area, five feet on the west side, and it varies five to seven feet on the east side. At the same time, we have to be -- so, number one, we are providing more distance and we are providing more buffer to -- for the residential area. At the same time, we have to be sensitive or understanding of the safety issue with the pedestrian pathway system, not only viewing from the pedestrian area looking to the east and the pedestrian area, we still need to take into account of the safety issue of the plant material to the east of the pedestrian area, Number 1. Number 2 the Ten Mile Creek -- and everybody knows this, this includes a residential area, we talked about it, is that the Ten Mile Creek is a natural amenity it's an esthetic wildlife amenity. Basically, we are providing -- I'm not going to say this is the greenbelt of Boise, it's a minor version of the greenbelt that people, the public, have -- you know, would like to enjoy the view -- the beauty and to view into the Ten Mile Creek area. At the same time it's not -- it's not fair, if you want to say, for the developers and the public to be completely blocking off the buffer looking to the east into the Ten Mile Creek area. In our meeting for -- with the neighbors, the neighbors' request was to provide asix-foot tall berm and fence somewhere along the landscape buffer area. The concern or the problem we find with that is, Number 1, if this 12 foot buffer is -- of course, is on west side of the pedestrian area, you definitely would block any type of safety issue to the pedestrian and if you put it on the east side, you have the same problem. It's a safety issue. Plus, you're blocking any type esthetic views for the amenities of the Ten Mile Creek. I think this is a very -- I call it a challenging issue with the landscape buffer. I think -- like I said, myself and the developers, we are sensitive of the neighbors along the Ten Mile Creek. At the same time, though, we feel that the developer has the right, because of zoning, able to - - to be able -- or I should say to be able to build this project. I hope I haven't confused you all. I was wondering if you have any questions at this time? Or any other questions about development? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. I may have several, but let me start with the first one. Help me with a little bit of math. What would be the east end of -- or this east diagonal along Ten Mile Creek? If that's 100-foot wide easement, is that whole hundred feet on your property? Koga: No. I'm sorry to interrupt. It's on both sides, so it's only 50 feet on the developer's side. Zaremba: Okay. Still, the whole width of that opening -- Koga: Is a hundred feet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 9 of 104 Zaremba: -- is 100 feet Koga: Yes, sir. Zaremba: And, then, you're adding another 25 feet to that? What I'm trying to establish is in the portion where there are residences backing up to your property -- or, actually, backing up to Ten Mile Creek, the distance from a resident's fence to the wall of your first building is going to be like 150 feet? Koga: Yes. I kind of checked that. A lot of the buildings are pretty close to the easement on their side, so if you had basically -- on this case maybe 100 feet, plus 25, plus another 15 feet, so 140 feet. Zaremba: From the nearest building to one of their fences, actually. Koga: From their residential building -- Borup: Well, from their property line is what he is asking, I think. Koga: Well, their property line is at the center of the ditch -- of the Ten Mile Creek. The Ten Mile Creek, basically, is the property line. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Their fence would have to be 50 feet back from that. Borup: So, the easement goes into their property line? Koga: Yes, sir. Borup: Fifty feet. Koga: Yes, sir. Borup: But doesn't Nampa-Meridian have a no build policy within that 50 feet? Koga: Yes, sir. Zaremba: So, they can't build there. What I'm trying to get is I think what you came up with from either their property line or their buildings to the back of your building has got to be in excess of 140 -- Koga: A hundred and forty feet. Correct. Zaremba: Something like that. Fifty feet. Koga: Correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 10 of 104 Zaremba: Okay. That answered one of my other questions. If the other 50 feet of the easement actually on their property, then, it isn't a solution for you to plant trees on that side of it, instead on your side of it. That's doesn't help. Mathes: Do you know when this was annexed as a C-G? Koga: One of the owners had just mentioned that it was annexed prior to the subdivision. Borup: Dave could -- you don't have a year, though? Koga: I do not have that answer. Mathes: But it was before Running Brook? Koga: I don't know that. Maybe we could ask -- Borup: We need to get -- it doesn't work to have someone speak from the audience. Someone had stated that the property was annexed in 1993. Did you have some other questions, Dave? Zaremba: Let's see. I think I remember the staff notes were requesting that you make some arrangement with the property owner to the south to have easement on their property and I'm not sure that I heard a resolution to that. Koga: Well, we are if you -- Zaremba: I say it looks like you're stubbing -- Koga: Yes. We are providing across-access agreement stub for that use. Borup: I think that's all staff was asking is to make sure there was access to that property; is that correct? Zaremba: I saw the request, I didn't see the resolution. Those are my questions so far. I'll probably have mare later. Koga: Okay. Borup: Anyone else? Rohm: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Along the Meridian Road you had mentioned that the retail development would be parallel to that portion and it seems like if you have got retail along there, that you would have pedestrians and if there is no sidewalk along that, basically, they are either walking in the street or they are walking in the parking lot and it Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 11 of 104 seems like from a safety perspective that there -- we would be better served by having a sidewalk along that roadway, if at all possible. Can you address that for us, please? Koga: Yes, sir. You know, that's always a tough call on other projects have been to and what we found, though, in reality, it's kind of human nature in America that we drive everywhere and not so much walk and so because of that most people would be coming from the parking lot into these -- to these type of buildings, Number 1. Number 2, I think by doing some better direction possibly people to use by putting a pathway system in there. Borup: But the pathway is not going to help them get to the retail businesses. Koga: In the front area there? Borup: Right. I'm thinking along the same lines as Commissioner Rohm. I guess, you know, we put sidewalks along Eagle Road and I'm trying to remember how many times I have seen people on that. Zaremba: Well, I was going to save this for some discussion later, but I would lean towards asking for the sidewalks, almost not even just because of this project. If we ever get to the point where Meridian or the Treasure Valley has any kind of a transit system, this is certainly one of the major roads that the buses will go up and down and you would want people to be able to use the sidewalk to stand at a bus stop and I think that's part of the reason that -- that there are some sidewalks along Eagle Road as well. It seems like a road with this much traffic -- car traffic, I agree with the' issue -- if it's only going to be car traffic, it would be safer not to attract pedestrians, but thinking even farther down the line, if we ever have any kind of a transit system, then, we need a way for them not to be standing in the planters to access the transit system. Just an opinion. Borup: I think it makes sense. You know, if this were just all office buildings or something along that line, it would not be generating pedestrian traffic at all. If it is going to have some fast food, you know, the likelihood there is going to be some. How much we don't know. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Borup? Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Could I just make one clarification? I think I might have misstated at the beginning that the ordinance does require -- Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: -- the sidewalks and so it would require a formal Variance in order to not construct it, as far as the city code, because it's not something that can just be waived. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 12 of 104 Borup: No. I think we all understood that. Koga: Okay. Borup: As you had mentioned, the conflict is between ITD's -- well, apparently, ITD's non-policy, so maybe there is no conflict, if they don't have a policy. As it stands right now, that is -- and you understood that, that is Meridian's policy and ordinance to require sidewalks along all projects. Okay. Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I don't have anything else. Borup: Is everyone clear on the two -- you're saying -- you're offering two options on the buffer? Koga: Yes, sir. Borup: One with the -- essentially your original plan with more trees? Koga: Correct. Borup: It, then, the other with adding 15 feet to it and sliding everything down, is that what -- Zaremba: Gaining those 15 feet by taking it out of the Meridian -- Borup: Right. Yes Koga: No. One thing also I forgot to mention, that the developers were not only required to, you know, provide the 35-foot landscape buffer originally, but ITD also required another 12 feet of a right of way for a de-acceleration lane. If you really add up all these 35 feet, 50 feet here, you know, it really adds up, makes it somewhat of a hardship with the developers. Borup: Well, I think we understand that, but the de-acceleration lane wouldn't be necessary if the project wasn't there. I think. Isn't that right? Okay. Rohm: Well, personally, I think I'd rather see the sidewalk on the front side and give way some of the expanded pathway on the Ten Mile Creek side and, basically, you slide everything east. Koga: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 13 of 104 Rohm: It seems like that would satisfy the fact that you are giving up some to the roadway and you have the pathway along Ten Mile Creek and you just slide everything to the east and put the sidewalk alohg Meridian Road. Koga: So, you're leaning more to the latter option, the last option, when you say that? Rohm: Yes. Koga: Okay. Zaremba: Whichever option. I thought it was creative and I like the idea of limbing the trees up, so that you create a visual zone -- Koga: Right. For the safety -- Zaremba: -- at an appropriate height for the safety. I like that Koga: Thank you. Borup: Any comment on the staffs recommendation on applying for a Planned Unit Development? Koga: I will be quite honest with you, we have had a meeting with the staff recently, and we still maybe don't understand the full request on that to change, from -- to provide a Planned Development. At this time I think it was something that maybe we -- is something we could discuss a little bit further with staff as a Planned Development. We feel -- well, we kind of feel that on the design that we still have to take account of all the -- the internal traffic is still an issue that we have to take care of that. All of the buildings in there, like, for example, if they are adrive-in bank or a restaurant, we'd still have to go through a Conditional Use, which is asking all of the elevations and the same landscape design. The buildings that are not we still have to go through the certificate of zoning compliance, which takes into account a degree of the landscaping design. It's kind of a -- I know that's kind of a tough call, but I think at this time we don't -- I guess we are willing to discuss that, but at this time we don't quite understand the reason why on that. Zaremba: With you here let me ask a question of staff. I think the reasoning behind wanting this to be a PUD is that every lot would, then, need a CUP is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, if I understood your question, if they did a Planned Development every lot would a require CUP? That's -- no. The Planned Development would basically be a Conditional Use on the entire project if they came through with a detailed Conditional Use -- I mean detailed Planned Development. Zaremba: And with a -- with a C-G as it is now, except for adrive-thru window, they don't need to come back for a CUP? Meritlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 14 of 104 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: So -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It would all be allowed -- Zaremba: -- let me have staff comment first and then applicant comment. Koga: Okay. Zaremba: To me, the buildings that would be -- need to be the transition for any nearby residential would be the ones that will be Lots 9, 10, and 11. Would it be a possibility, still leaving it as a C-G zone, to say on the plat that whatever is built there must either comply with an L-O or come for a CUP? .Hawkins-Clark: We do not have that ability at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: That cannot be made a requirement of the plat. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: That's usually done at annexation; is that right? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Koga: I think the developer might be interested to go through a PD if there was something that would not hinder the development or the schedule of the development. If you understand that as -- typically developers are under a schedule issue in regard to the development. If there is a way, like if the Preliminary Plat was passed and if we could go through a PD in conjunction and prior to the Final Plat that would not slow us down it might be a possibility: Borup: Well, the buildings you have conceptually here, four of them, I would imagine, are going to need Conditional Use. Koga: Yes. That would be -- yes. Yes. Borup: That's -- was that four out of the eight? Yes Koga: Depending on -- yes. Of course -- Borup: That could change. Koga: It could change. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Augusl 7, 2003 Page 15 of 104 Borup: But -- I mean I'm making an assumption that the banks are going to have a drive-thru. Koga: Yes, sir. Borup: And the fast foods. Koga: Yes. Powell: Chairman Borup, may ladd -- Borup: Yes. Please. Powell: -- a brief comment? Part of the discussion of the PD came out of the request by the applicant initially of me for the alternative compliance to waive some of the buffer requirements, so that they could increase the width of their buffer in back to comply with code regarding the screening along the pathway. At that time I stated that I was reluctant to consider an alternative compliance when there wasn't really a mechanism of -- well, I believe my question was, well, what am I getting out of it? What's the alternative compliance that I'm getting and perhaps I wasn't satisfied with the answer, so that was the original discussion of it? I do have concerns about the site layout. There are an awful lot of drive aisles that would close to the reduced buffer, so I wanted an opportunity to work with the applicant on a PD. There -- Mr. Koga's client has concerns, because they haven't pre-sold these, they don't know exactly the clients the clients' needs regarding the buildings and the parking. That's fine, so we went forward saying, well, we'd prefer a PD, but if you don't want to do the PD right now, we'd just go forward with the full buffer width as required and just meeting all the requirements for the plat. That's where we left our arrangement and if, as they are developing those and find clients, if they find that they can't meet those standards, then, I suspect they will be back in for a Planned Development. Borup: That makes sense. Is that kind of the direction -- Koga: Understood. Borup: -- you were thinking of going? Koga: Yes. Borup: Okay. Does that make sense to the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Anything else before we move onto our public testimony? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 16 of 104 Koga: Not at this time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone here that would like to testify on this application? Come on up whoever would like to. Jewell: My name is Richard Jewell. I reside at 1729 South Marsh Wood. It's located in Running Brook Subdivision just the east side of the creek there. I believe in individual property rights in which the owner has the right to do whatever he or she desires to do with their property, as long as it is law abiding and does not adversely impact the adjoining community. Meridian City enforces limits on non-compatible uses, obnoxious noises, lights, and structure appearance. Likewise, most residential developments have restrictive covenants of the same. Neither the city, nor homeowners, desires any obnoxious uses. However, Meridian City in its wisdom has allowed two non-compatible zones next to each other without any transitional zoning or significant buffer. We are not here tonight -- or I am not here tonight to reject the developer's opportunity to exercise their individual property rights in the way the city has determined to be lawful. Even though this is -- this project is non-compatible and it adversely impacts the adjoining residential community. We appreciate the developer's intent in minimizing the impacts on the residences. As previously submitted in a letter to the Commissioners, adverse impacts in addition to others, will mainly consist of excessive noises, pedestrian and vehicle traffic, loud speakers, intercom systems and equipment, yard lights and vehicle lights and non-compatible structures, being non-compatible to the residential. A screen of some type, preferably a landscape berm screen, would both minimize the adverse impacts and be an amenity to the commercial development. If it pleases the Commissioners, I would like to present a concept sketch that emphasizes these adverse impacts and the benefits of landscaped screening. Borup: If you will turn those into the Clerk first. Have you got enough for everybody? Jewell: Yes, I do. Borup: Okay. Well, the Clerk needs to enter one in on record and then -- Jewell: As you can see on the sketches that I provided to you, it indicates the residential subdivision on the left, which has -- with most of the buildings -- or a good share of them are butted up right next to the 50-foot easement. Oh, very good. If you go -- slide it to the left a little bit. No. The other direction. Okay. The easement line, especially on my home, runs right parallel to the house. The house is right up against the easement. The property line, as David mentioned, does -- or is on the centerline the creek and there is 50 feet. At the time that the development was platted, this was approved and the majority of the fences on the properties do go to the edge of the bank here. The flood plain for the creek lies within this area and there are no building structures allowed within that easement. To continue on here with the line of sight from the housing -- and I'm basically showing the downstairs and the upstairs. As you can see, the visual impact, depending on how close to the buildings will be, are fairly significant and, therefore, the landscaping of trees -- having significant trees on it would Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 17 of 104 be a tremendous advantage. However, if these trees are not evergreen trees, once they lose their leaves in the wintertime you lose last that. The benefit of a berm -- and I understand the problems associated with having one, but without one -- and like Dave mentioned, if you have bushes down here that are low. Then, the trees are cropped six or seven feet up, this enables the line of the headlights to go directly to these windows here, so they wouldn't -- it really wouldn't be providing the buffer as far as the headlights are concerned. The evergreen trees and bushes would provide -- minimize the impact of headlight, noises, and such. We request that the Commission reevaluate the proposal to redirect the pedestrian traffic onto a pathway here from Meridian Road. One alternative, as a suggestion, is I don't believe that the highway district can refuse the developer to put a sidewalk just right outside of the rate of way. However, it would have to meander within the landscaped area, which I guess the city would have to determine that. The trees as proposed will not diffuse nighttime headlights unless they are evergreen and they are placed fairly close together. Trees need to be -- oh, let me see. I have already stated that. I think that's about it. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission so, you're proposing eliminating the pathway is what you're saying? Jewell: That would be our desire. Zaremba: Thank you. The value of the berm would be that it would raise the height of the trees, is that -- Jewell: Of the bushes. Not necessarily the trees, but of the bushes, or have fairly substantial bushes that would -- whether they would be staggered or however to minimize the impact of the headlights. Right now as it is with Meridian Road and the streets coming out off the other side of Meridian Road, those headlights at nighttime come right into our bedroom and so you can imagine once this is developed what it's going to be like or could be. Borup: I'm saying once it's developed it's going to be a very. good buffer with eleven buildings there blocking you. Jewell: I don't know if it would help or hurt. It's going to bring a tremendous amount of traffic within that development itself, which we do not have right at the moment. Right now we have cornfields that grow up during the summer that help block that. Zaremba: Do your or your neighbors have any kind of a back fence? I'm guessing by looking at your drawing, since your whole backyard is within the easement, you may not have a fence. Jewell: Some do. Most have a chain link, so that they can use the creek as a -yes, as an amenity. There was a question that came up regarding the zoning, the timing and so forth. I am also a land planner with Northwest Design and I just happened to be the one that did the preliminaries for Running Brook. If you would allow, I have a zoning map Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing August 7, 2003 Page 18 of 104 here with a date on it that indicates what the -- what it was at the time when we started the process for the Running Brook Subdivision. However, I don't have a date with me right offhand as to when the subdivision was actually platted. May I -- Borup: Well, it was submitted to -- Ada Planning Association date stamped it 1992. At that time it looks like the subdivision was zoned R-8. Jewell: And the commercial property was RT. Borup: Yes. It was still RT, which would have been in the county at that time. Okay. Anything else from the Commissioners? Thank you. Jewell: Thank you. G. Jewell: Thank you. My name is Ginger Jewell and I live at 1729 South Marsh Wood. Respectively close to the gentleman who just presented to you. I want to thank you for this opportunity for presenting my concerns. My thoughts would start with what does the city officials think about when there is an opportunity for growth for their community, things such as what does it benefit, what challenges does it create. Hopefully, the benefits outweigh the challenge. Here is a challenge that I'm concerned with pertaining to this development. I also support the fact that the property should be developed as it has been promised. However, I think there are some situations that I'm very concerned with here and I'd like to present those to you. Currently, I look out at a bare wheat field. I knew when I moved into this house that the farm would eventually be a commercial development and that's really -- it's okay with me. Or least I thought it was. At the time that was based on the fact that I was told that the commercial area would be a low impact -- doctor's offices, office spaces, perhaps some retail, Monday through Friday day-types businesses. Now, I'm hearing other plans and seeing drawings, possibly of businesses that will not mix well with the over 500 houses, as you saw on the plan, with Meridian Greens, Running Brook, and Elk Run Subdivision. This new commercial develop is going to affect everyone living in this area. It's negatively going to affect these people. It's going to ihcrease traffic. There is already a problem concerning that issue. It's going to create unwanted noise, unwanted lights, and it's going to change the overall ambiance of this area. Currently there are strong family groups living here, all supporting Meridian city, living, shopping, and upholding the law in this community. The power that Planning and Zoning has concerning this request and the decision you all can make can possibly change the impact on this neighborhood and the quality of life these families have learned to live with and support. If these important factors are not taken into considerations, families will move, houses will lose value, and a different type of neighborhood will grow and the remains are lower income neighborhoods and all the problems associated with this type change could be the outcome. I don't want this to happen and I do support using this area for a commercial site, however, the commercial site needs to blend with the already existing community. I want to emphasize, the already existing community of over 500 houses. Again, I say low impact businesses, office spaces, some retail, not fast food or restaurants or businesses that will be open all night or getting deliveries at all hours of the day. We are talking -- I sit in my Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Augusl 7, 2003 Page 19 of 104 backyard, it barely -- I could stone throw where the proposed businesses are going to be placed. The other issue is concerning a proposed greenbelt, I work for the city of Boise, and I know the greenbelt well. I can tell you it's a wonderful amenity, but this is talking about, I believe, 1,200 feet behind businesses, so who's going to use it, where is it starting from, where is the proposed outcome or going -- where is it going to go? My thought is if we did use that sidewalk -- and I do appreciate all of your comments on that. If we had similar Ridge to Rivers type idea where the sidewalk was visible for people who were on Meridian Road, they knew it was there -- if you were on Meridian Road right now and all of these eleven sites were there, you wouldn't see a greenbelt, so the only people that are going to use it are the ones that are having lunch from the businesses. Who is going to know it's there? Where is it going? Where are they going to park to use it? Where are they going to leave their cars? These are the questions I have. Borup: Isn't that the way the greenbelt in Boise is? You don't see it unless you're there, because it's covered up with trees -- it's hidden by the trees, buildings, and everything else? G. Jewell: But you do have access through public grounds, public properties, such as parks and recreation. It is advertised and cleanly marked. You would have -- if you were driving along the road say at Julie Davis Park, it would say entrance to greenbelt. Would we have that for this small pathway, would be one of my questions. I guess my question would be is do we have a proposed plan -- does Meridian have a proposed plan for an extended greenbelt and, currently, I can tell you -- Borup: Yes. That's why the developer is proposing this, because that's in the Comprehensive Plan to do that along the waterways. G. Jewell: Okay. Thank you. I haven't seen the total plan, so that was one of my questions. I will tell you now there are many pedestrians that use that pathway, running, bicycles, and those types of things. I do think a sidewalk pathway would be used more often and be safer for the general public than the pathway that's behind the businesses. I want to emphasize the need of your support for the existing long-standing Meridian neighborhood and I ask for your support and consideration in this matter and I, again, thank you for your time. Do you have any questions? Borup: Okay. Thank you G. Jewell: Thank you. Tomlinson: Hi, I'm Darrell Tomlinson. I live at 1817 March Wood and lalso -- my wife and I built our retirement home in Running Brook Subdivision and we will share Ten Mile Creek, which borders the back of our property with the Land Group's proposed commercial development Southern Springs. We moved there four years ago with the understanding also that the property was zoned commercial. We were• also led to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 20 of 104 believe that if the property were developed it would be most likely single level office-type spaces -- occupations. Borup: And who was it that told you that? Tomlinson: I think it was the develop -- not the developer, but the person that -- you know, that -- Borup: Was trying to sell the house to you? Tomlinson: Yes. No. Well, it wasn't -- no, it wasn't the real estate agent, it was the -- yes, the -- Borup: The developer of the subdivision. Tomlinson: Yes. Borup: Who was trying to sell lots? Tomlinson: Yes. Borup: Okay. Tomlinson: Nearly 30 residents of Running Brook Subdivision, plus the president of Meridian Greens Subdivision Homeowners Association, gathered at our home to discuss the concerns of the proposed development. We wrote a joint letter detailing our concerns and offered suggestions that would subdue the negative impact this venture would have on our residential community. This letter was mailed to the City of Meridian, Planning and Zoning, the County Clerk, and ACHD. Last week another large group of residents met with the developer and the land architect, David, provided them with a copy our detailed letter and discussed each item of concern. We came away from the meeting with a very clear message from the developers, the Land Group is only concerned in providing and insignificant barrier between the existing residential and proposed commercial development if it is released from an easement or other requirement of Planning and Zoning, the City Meridian, or ACRD: Basically, they are not willing to sacrifice anything to be a good neighbor to the existing residents. We have requested a berm, topped with asix-foot vinyl fence, to mitigate the lights and noise pollution and also possibly deter crime. As residents we are only asking you to project our property values and quality of life we currently enjoy by living here. The developer is not willing to consider this request. We explained that providing this barrier would reduce the impact of many of the concerns listed in our letter that was sent to you. Some of the other concerns that -- of this development, the number of commercial buildings proposed in such a small, tight, area, the traffic congestion. Right, now as I understand it, there is three entrances, two coming off of Meridian Road, one which is very close to the Calderwood intersection, and one that's coming off of Calderwood itself that -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 21 of 104 Borup: This property does not go to Calderwood. Tomlinson: Okay. There will be no access point off of Calderwood in to the -- Borup: Not directly from this property. Tomlinson: Okay. Borup: If that other develops, there could be -- Tomlinson: Okay. Borup: -- through that property. Tomlinson: Okay. If it were to happen that way, our concern is that the high school students from the new high school would turn Meridian Green Subdivision into a raceway to get to the lunch access to those fast food restaurants that are being proposed. Some of the other concerns is -- as was described, a circulation pathway in our backyard. Forty foot high commercial buildings. Richard's already discussed the light pollution. The light, the air, the noise pollution from the development to the residential area, delivery hours and close times for these businesses. Construction hours. Those are some of the issues that we have discussed and I bring to you guys. Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? You made the statement that they were not willing to do -- I mean you make it sound like we are not willing to do any buffer at all. Were you familiar with what the city requirements are on a buffer? Tomlinson: Yes. Well, as he explained it, his original plan before tonight was strictly a few deciduous trees besides the ones that are already in existence. Borup: Well, that's not what their Landscaping Plan shows. Tomlinson: Yes. What we are -- all we are trying to do is if you only have deciduous trees, which we currently have in the backyard, six months of the year you have nothing. Borup: Okay. I see what you're saying. You'd rather see the evergreen? Tomlinson: Well, I'd rather see a berm and a fence. I'd like to be able to separate our homes from light and the traffic. I would just as soon, if we could avoid the walk path, I would prefer the sidewalk on the front myself. Borup: Anyone else? Thank you, sir. Tomlinson: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 22 of 104 Zaremba: I was going to comment that we do have your letter in our packets and I .appreciated it. It's very well thought out and very clear. Tomlinson: Thank you. Zaremba: And very effective. Borup: Anyone else like to come forward? Now is the time. Maybe while they are coming up -- come on up. Brad, on -- Bunch: I'm Raleigh Bunch, 1797 South Marsh Wood place. Borup: Last name again, sir. Bunch: Raleigh Bunch. I live in Lot 7. I'm concerned for, like you say, what Darrell has written and I just wanted to mention the sidewalk -- the pathway. I think the sidewalk would be better in the front if it could be proposed for the fact that there is many children and I have seen them walking down Meridian Road going to the -- across to the restaurants and everything. Just thinking when there is a hamburger place there, they are going to be there, and if there is a pathway in the back, they are going to go through that lot. They got just as much problem being hit by cars parking and anything else and that is my concern, too, because, like I say, I have eight grandchildren and five great grandchildren and I worry about them where they live. I just -- that's all I got to say. Just I hope that they -- that somebody make amends on the pathway, that greenbelt. I know when they bought -- I seen the little sign greenbelt proposed and -- but, like I say, like Jewell's, they will mention the path -- the greenbelt is only. the length of the project that they have. To my knowledge are they going to go through -- kind of stop at Overland and if they go through Meridian Greens they will have to -- the Meridian people got to deal with the Meridian Greens with a greenbelt, too, so that's all I have to say. Borup: Thank you, sir. Zaremba: I would comment that we also received your letter, sir. Thank you. Borup: Brad, I was just curious on -- to what extent could this property have been developed at present? Could be a single site, with a single building, without a -- Hawkins-Clark: That's correct, Chairman Borup. The property upon annexation, then, of course, has a certain amount of entitlement to development under the city ordinance. If -- the reason that it's coming here is because they are proposing to plat the property. Borup: Right. As it stands right now, a Wal-Mart store could have gone in with not Public Hearing at all. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Augusl 7, 2003 Page 23 of 104 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It is a single buildable lot that does not require any Public Hearings. Obviously, you have to come through the city and comply with our ordinances, but -- Borup: Right. You would have to have the 25-foot buffer and -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: --all the other ordinances. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: I would be curious any other further staff comments on the pathway? I mean I think I have made it plain I'm a big advocate of that. I think we need to plan for the future, but sometimes a pathway that doesn't go anywhere maybe doesn't make sense either. Is there any -- is there any chance of that pathway continuing to the southwest -- southeast? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, the ultimate alignment of a public pathway is something that our Parks Department would be charged with. The design of that pathway regionally, you know, throughout our entire city impact area, has primarily been designed based on natural waterways. There has not been any kind of aggressive move on the parks department of the Planning Department to go out and actually walk these pathways. There has been some effort and Steve Siddoway and another planner has done some work with a committee that is doing more and more effort to try to identify where those would go. I guess to answer your question, there has not been any contact with other -- with the subdivisions to the south of this that -- that the Ten Mile Creek runs through. We have shown a pathway, because it is a natural waterway and there is an existing easement that the -- that the land is there, but there has not been any effort to actually secure the land, there is no conveyance that has gone to the city fpr the actual pathway itself. Borup: Through Meridian Greens you mean? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Borup: I mean, obviously, the easiest time to do that is when the property is developed. That's why I was wondering, after the fact is it feasible. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think, frankly, that -- you know, that question of feasibility is one that we need to -- you know, we need to work at. It is feasible if the city puts the resources to looking at acquisition and/or easements, you know, of that property. You know, providing some kind of pedestrian system throughout the city that is off of major arterials, you know, is something that helps people get around in a safer manner, for the most part. You know, in this way to, as Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, some kind of future transit, you have the Gold's Gym up further north, there is an ACHD park and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2D03 Page 24 of 104 ride lot, you know, within walkable distance of this property. You know, having -- having ways for pedestrians and bicyclists to get to those kinds of destinations, you know, I think is important. To get across the intersection at this point it would -- the pathway, obviously, would stay on Overland Road for a certain distance when you're going north and you're going to the west, because there is already the JB's and the Texaco and other things that are already built out that, obviously, you're not going to have an off- street pathway system over there. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Leaving this property heading southeast, as I look at the display that's up now, would I interpret that -- that the creek leaves this property and, then, is piped the rest of the way southeast or is it open? Hawkins-Clark: It is open. It is certainly -- obviously, it's piped for under Calderwood, to go underneath there, but it's open right to the edge of Calderwood. Opens up again. Borup: And it's open through Meridian Greens. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Borup: Okay Zaremba: Well, I was not thinking of the pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and the sidewalk along Meridian as being either/or. I was assuming we were asking for both. One because of city ordinance and the other because of the Comprehensive Plan and it was not necessarily -- the discussion wasn't a trading one for the other. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission or staff? Zaremba: One of the people that were talking about the berm mentioned that he knew that there were difficulties with berms and we have run into those with other projects where we have talked about it. Does the staff have an opinion about some portion of that -- I would say in addition to the walkway or next to the walkway, having a little bit of a berm No opinion? It seems to me if we remove the safety -- the idea of having the gap where the trees have been trimmed up from the bottom and if you berm now, all of a sudden the bushes are up to the bottom of the trees again. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the thought that comes to my mind is we have a 20 foot sewer easement through there. We have to maintain access through there. The Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District also is going to be trying to do their maintenance from that side. Any berms may be -- you know, kind of impede that access. That's just my first blush thought is that I think a berm would kind of get in the way. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 25 of 104 Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, Chairman Borup, were you asking about a berm inside the easement or outside the easement? If there is additional -- Zaremba: Well, it would have to end up being on this applicant's side and probably would be partially on the easement and partially taking more property away from the applicant. Powell: Yes. The Public Works concerns would if it was in the easement and, then, outside the easement you do get into the safety concerns that Brad mentioned earlier. Zaremba: Do we have any leeway -- and, again, I guess I focus on Lots 9, 10, and 11. I realize the C-G zone is pretty liberal in what can be put there, but do we have any leeway in established hours of operations for those three lots, even not know what's going there, so that headlights pulling into that parking lot is not an issue if we have -- Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, the ordinance prohibits glare, so, certainly, there would have to be a design that we would look at the time of Building Permit submittal, where any glare is dealt with through, you know, whatever means we had. They have to accommodate that. I mean that is ordinance. Hours of operation, the only ordinance we have is the noise ordinance that the Police Department enforces, which is an 11:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. They are -- obviously, you have to keep under a certain decibel level. Other than that, there is no mechanism for this Commission or the Council to require other hours of operation. Zaremba: In the C-G zone. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Well, you bring up a point that -- that the tentative suggested, I'll call them, drawings that would give some potential layouts for buildings after this is platted, shows some parking stalls that would face directly into these homes. You're saying that this so tentative that platting the lot lines would still leave the necessity of staff working with the applicant in perhaps turning those parking spaces other directions. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, in terms of the glare, is that your question? Zaremba: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I mean they are going to have to meet, you know, the minimum parking ratio on their lot. They are going to have to provide however many parking spaces the ordinance requires on that lot. Yes, in terms of how the lot -- the parking spaces are configured, they are going, through whatever mechanism, whether it's screening or otherwise, keep the headlights away from a direct glare into the residents. They would be dealt with on a lot-by-lot, permit-by-permit basis right now, since there is no Planned Development. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 26 of 104 Zaremba: So, to net it out, this is already a C-G zone, they could already build a building there without talking to us, but, really, the only question is should it be divided into 11 smaller lots or not. What eventually goes on those lots still has to go through some staff review. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. As Mr. Koga pointed out, is there is a drive-thru or other uses that may require a Conditional Use, then, that would come back. Borup: Okay. That's as per our policy. Mr. Koga, have you got any final comments? Koga: I guess just in closing it was kind of --just catching all these -- the column down there that -- I know that -- I talked to the developer earlier, but in regard to the pathway system, they could take it or leave, to be quite honest. I mean if there was not a pathway system they -- it wouldn't bother them, really. Then, they could maybe have a different alternative way to have a -- well, we could use evergreen possibly more, so that is one possibility to think about with the pathway system. At the same time, I personally -- and this is just my own opinion. I think -- I remember -- I'm old enough and been here my whole life, I remember when the Boise greenbelt started and it was nothing downtown, so -- when it comes to light pollution in the parking lot, we definitely - - I do alot of projects in the city of Eagle and they are probably one of the most strict codes in regard to lights for parking and so we are very sensitive with that and we will definitely work with those type of issues on this project. Borup: Comments on the evergreen trees? Any problem with -- Koga: Any comments on the type? Borup: Yes. Using the evergreen -- Koga: Well, the only reason I didn't use, once again, is because on one side we do have an issue -- well, it's a safety issue. To a degree it's not even just on the pedestrian side, looking to the pedestrians, but also if there is going to be a public pathway there and if we started putting evergreens next to the pathway. Then, we have another 15 foot for the Nampa-Meridian easement access and also access for the sewer, I mean who knows what could happen on the other side with the evergreens also or the berms. I think the minute you became an area that becomes a public use, if you think about it the pathway systems, we have to really think on both sides of that pathway and what might happen. I have done projects in the city of Boise with the pathway systems and it is an issue. It's an issue about -- a safety issue on the greenbelt area there, so we have to take that into account on this also. Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Thank you Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 27 of 104 Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 4. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: I have got a question for the staff and that's on definition of where a buffer is measured from? Twenty-five feet normally would be from property line to property line. What effect does a -- in this case a hundred foot easement have on that? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, the ordinance requires 25 feet from the property line: Borup: To -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, it's intended to buffer the uses. Borup: If the canal wasn't -- I mean if this waterway wasn't there, the 25 feet would be from one property line to the other property line. That would be correct? Hawkins-Clark: Well, it would start on their property line. The ordinance does allow the buffer to be a combination of both sides of the property line, so, for example, if there is already an existing ten feet of buffer on -- Borup: I mean I'm saying of there was no buffer there. If this waterway was not there and this property went right up to the other property line, that's where that buffer would normally be, then. It would be 25 feet from their property line to -- Hawkins-Clark: Right Borup: -- to the applicant's side. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. I think the -- you know, the other key piece is that it's supposed to provide within three years a 60 percent -- Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: -- you know, solid -- Borup: But also on a 25 foot buffer like that, you normally wouldn't have a pathway and a sewer easement in there either to contend with. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 28 of 104 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Right. They are dealing with the challenge of both the irrigation easement that they can't plant in and the sewer easement that they can't plant in. Borup: Well, they can still get the planting in there, other than it's the problem with the pathway. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Okay. Do we have questions from the Commission?.Item for discussion? Brad, was there any discussion as far as building height? Just -- nothing beyond just compliance with city ordinance? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Yes. There has been -- it's not an element of the plat application. They just have to comply with the maximum 40 feet. Borup: These footprints that are on here, was that calculated on -- on what type of building that would be? Did anybody look into that? Hawkins-Clark: I did look. Borup: It shows afootprint -- is that the footprint square footage? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Well, it would be the ultimate.building square footage, yes. Borup: That's what Iwas -- Hawkins-Clark: Within that envelope, that building envelope. Borup: And what -- so what is the footprint square footage? Do we know? The 17,000 feet on the big one. Hawkins-Clark: Right. I believe -- I believe they have taken the maximum amount of gross floor area for that building that they can fit and still get their parking on there. That would be the square footage of the floor area of the building. Borup: Well, that's the square footage of the building, all floors. I'm just wondering how many floors that is calculating. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, that -- a single -- single level. Borup: Okay. That's showing a single level, then. To go to a two story or a three story would require a smaller building -- smaller footprint. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng August 7, 2003 Page 29 of 104 Borup: Than what's shown on the plat. Okay. The layout we have looks like it's showing all single story buildings, if it was done by this concept.. I don't think we brought that out earlier. That's normally what I'm -- you're used to seeing in this type of project is usually single story buildings, sometimes maybe two story, but I think a lot of builders don't want to get into the elevators and everything else that goes along with that. Commission Rohm, you look like you're ready to say something. Rohm: Well, I think I am. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me from the discussion from the public that the issue is, number one, that the path that would parallel -- what is it, Ten Mile Creek? The potential light contamination and if, in fact, they build the path as proposed here, there is not any way that you can additionally build a berm everything else that the public would like to see and still have any property yet to be developed. Because the path has nowhere to go on either end, it seems to accommodate both the developer and the concerned public. The logical thing to do is maybe waive the path and increase the berm, so that you can eliminate some of the contamination, while at the same time not be taking additional property away from the developer for his project. Is that something that staff could support at all? Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Rohm, this is the beginning of what would be the pathway going south from the freeway and although this is a small portion of it, if you lose this portion, then, you lose the connection to the retail properties that this could potentially serve. Even if this only were to go half a mile, three-quarters of a mile, which is -- given the large acreages to the south of this, it's conceivable it would go at least that far and even if it only went that far, it would still serve to bring a lot of people -- I think the number 500 residents -- it gives them an opportunity to get to the commercial areas without going in their car and driving there. The Comprehensive Plan shows a pathway on this and I think staff is in support of that concept. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Any other discussion? Rohm: I guess to continue, then, I don't know that I would be in support of both requiring the developer to have the pathway as the Comprehensive Plan states and give up some additional acreage to a berm to accommodate an additional request by the adjacent property. It seems like it's kind of a redundancy on the developer to address issues by the public and there is already 100 foot right of way for the Ten Mile Creek. That's quite a bit more than you see in a lot of developments that don't have waterways between them. It seems like, even though the perception may be that there is going to be contamination, there is going to be less contamination than you see in a lot of other places that don't have that hundred foot running along the property line itself and that's the way I see it. Zaremba: I think I'm agreeing with Commissioner Rohm that a berm would take up quite a bit of space. It has to ramp up, it has to ramp back down again, and it would be, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 30 of 104 from the applicant's standpoint, a choice between having the path or the berm and I think the Comprehensive Plan is pretty clear that it needs to be the pathway, with the mitigating factors of trees that have to be 60 percent coverage within three years, and the applicant's willingness to at least put some low bushes along there and staffs assurance that whatever does get built there is going to have to comply not only with the requirements that that lighting on property itself be down shielded and so forth, but that staff would look at where headlights go in any parking plan. I would support having the pathway there and I would have to give up the berm. Rohm: Additionally, the commercial buildings that will be to the back will provide some extra buffer, if you will, and primarily the retail or the fast foods are all adjacent to Meridian Road. The parking that you see in the Preliminary Plat back against the property line would generally be used for the commercial development that would be presumed to be 8:00 to 5:00. You're not going to -- as I would envision it, in any case. Zaremba: Well, let's say we didn't agree to divide this into eleven lots and it remained a single lot and as Chairman Borup said, something like a K-Mart -- a Wal-Mart went in there, what would face the residences would be the loading docks, the truck traffic, the other things. In choosing the trade off between saying no to something which is actually legal for them to request, dividing this into 11 lots -- if it were no and they had to develop one building, I don't think the neighbors would have the protection that -- Rohm: That's being offered here. Zaremba: What's being offered here. Right Rohm: Right. Right. Zaremba: This may be a better choice than -- Rohm: You mean be careful what you wish for? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. It sounds like, Commission, we are looking -- heading towards really agreeing with all the staff recommendations. The only one I have got a question on was recommending applying for a PD. Is staff still feeling that's something they'd like to see or after the previous discussion is that necessary at this point? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, you know, I think the -- there was two reasons, really, that the PD think came up, you know, and -- Borup: One is for the reduced -- Hawkins-Clark: For the reduction. Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 31 of 104 Borup: I'm sorry. I guess that was answered and we are not talking about that, so -- Hawkins-Clark: You know, the other was largely the -- just the internal design, traffic circulation, orientation of the buildings that -- you know, we think with several heads being put together, the developer is there, their architects, you know, staff was that we might be able to come up with something that could be more set in stone for the public, for the city to know what's going to go there, rather than leaving such a broad open -- I mean, you know, I think we do believe that we could come up with a better product. Now, this is something that, as Anna pointed out earlier, it -- for the most part if not -- we can't condition a plat to say you have to submit for a PD, so, you know, I think we are prepared to let this plat move forward. I think the developer certainly has the options to come in and submit for a Planned Development at anytime. Borup: What I was just thinking of, same past history on other applications is probably something good for the applicant to remember. If they don't design this overall project with the traffic flow -- and there is likely to have four -- four of the lots needing Conditional Use, that could jeopardize those buildings and we have seen another project turned down twice because of traffic congestion within the project. Probably enough said there. I think it's to their best interest to design the overall and to make sure they are compatible with each other and -- I mean they are going to want a project that's going to do that. Otherwise, they could be stuck with something that's not marketable. I would assume that the owners would agree with that. Okay. Was someone leaning towards a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would, but before I do I would make one further comment to those who took the time to put their thought into the letters that they wrote. One of the items we have not discussed is the traffic on the two streets that are totally outside of this project and, really, not the responsibility of this applicant. I think it's Calderwood and the street that's actually in the subdivision, which might be -- is that 3rd Street? ACHD, of course, is in control of what happens on those streets and neither this Commission or probably even our City Council or the applicant can do very much about those. ACHD is very sensitive to traffic calming issues and having cars racing through neighborhoods. I would just suggest to the neighbors who have already put some thought into this and regardless of this application are already seeing raceway traffic through those roads, to get a similar petition together and go to the ACRD and say, hey, something needs to be done about this and it's going to get worse. There are some ways they can help in response, but that's the proper agency for that. That being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, PP 03-016, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 10.97 acres in a C-G zone for the proposed Southern Springs by the Land Group, Inc. Southeast corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 7, 2003, received by the Clerk July 31, 2003, with the following exception. That on Page 6, Item 10, the minimum landscape buffer is 25 feet along Overland Road, so this reads all perimeter lots along east Overland Road are subject to the minimum 25-foot landscape easement. The third Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 7, 2003 Page 32 of 104 sentence in the same Paragraph 10 on Page 6 should begin: The Southern Springs Business Association, not Silverstone. Borup: Item Number 9. Did you have a note on that? Zaremba: I'm sorry no, I did not make a note on nine. Did we resolve that? Borup: If I may add -- or have you got that, Commissioner? Rohm: I believe that they wanted it to be a recorded easement, as opposed to added to the plat. Borup: Okay. Yes. Permanent pedestrian easement in favor of the City of Meridian shall be created and recorded adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek. Rohm: Right. There you go. Borup: Or created adjacent to Ten Mile Creek and recorded is probably how I wrote in down. Zaremba: That is also included in my motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you all for coming. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: One thing I had intended to mention earlier and I don't know that that affected anyone here or not. Item Number 18 was a Public Hearing for Coffee Kiosk was -- has been asked to be moved to our hearing on the 21St and we are anticipating we will do that when we come to that on the agenda. The other thing I might mention, I don't know -- we are going to have to wait and see, I don't know that we are going to get to the last three items, just for information for anyone here. I guess we will see, but -- Rohm: We are moving pretty slow Item 5. Public Hearing: AZ 03-016 Request for annexation and zoning of 80.51 acres from R-1 to C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments -southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 03-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 49 building lots and 2 other lots on 80.51 acres in a proposed C-G zone for