Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 6, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 33 of 87 Borup: Okay. Let's do that while the audience is leaving. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 03-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 2.064 acres in a L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers - 2150 West Cherry Lane: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, .Inc. - 2150 West Cherry Lane: Borup: We will proceed. Yes. We'd like to continue with items number seven and eight, Public Hearing PP 03-029, request preliminary plat approval of six building lots on 2.065 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision and CUP for the same project, CUP 03-048, request for Conditional Use Permit fora planned development for nursing home care. I'd like to open -- I'd like to open both public hearings at this time start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Craig Hood, Planning and Zoning Staff. The applicant Pinnacle Engineers has requested Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit approval for a planned development on 2.07 acres of land located in the north -- located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a third of a mile west of Linder Road. The subject site lies within a public, quasi-public area on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The property is presently zoned L-O and is currently used for church-related activities. The submitted preliminary plat proposes six office lots, with the landscaping, driveways, parking and common area within easements. The CUP PD includes a request to allow the operation of a nursing home facility in the L-O zone and modified development standards, including reduced building setbacks and reduced landscape buffer widths abutting Cherry Lane and adjacent to the exist building. As part of the PD, the applicant is proposing two small landscape plazas with the picket fences as the two required amenities. The first plaza is located in the front of the nursing home facility and is approximately 1,750 square feet in size. The second plaza is located on the east side of the eastern driveway and is approximately 1,300 square feet in size. The plazas compose approximately 3.5 percent of the gross site area. Staff has recommended, with conditions, approval of the submitted preliminary plat. Although this site is currently zoned L-O, staff had recommended denial of the submitted CUP PD, because at that time it did not appear to be consistent with the Meridian City -- City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has since submitted a letter addressing stafFs recommendations and I believe that you all should have a copy of that. If not, we can get you a copy. But staff did recommend denial of the CUP PD and will stand for any questions you may have. Meddian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 34 of 87 Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Zaremba: Let's see. I'm just -- I'm trying to see whether on the revised plat we got -- if they resolved the landscape and setback issues or not. Borup: I think their letter addressed some of that. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant -- the question is -- they are measuring the setback of the buildings from the back of the sidewalk and the setback should be measured from the property line. They are showing a 15-foot setback from the back of the walk. However, it's only 13 feet from the property line. So, that was the issue that was brought up and I don't believe any changes were made on the revised plat. That was prior to the staff report and those comments going out to the applicant. Borup: We may need to get some clarification on that. Zaremba: I guess the only other question would be a Comprehensive Plan question. It was given the quasi-public designation because it was a church. Borup: Exactly. Zaremba: If it stops being a church, should it lose that designation and just be a straight L-O? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, we don't know. I mean that -- this was the first one to come through and we met with the applicant a couple different times, told them that we had these concerns, and that, quite honestly, as staff, you know, we are not allowed make those quasi-judicial decisions and that's your job in life and, then, the City Council after you. So, just from the staff perspective, there is not enough information in the Comprehensive Plan to tell us what should be done with these once they stop being -- well, there is some information. It doesn't specifically talk about reuse, but it says other uses that are appropriate and that was all we could really go by, so is it reasonable. Zaremba: Well -- and I understood the nursing home is -- Powell: Right. Zaremba: -- acceptable in aquasi-public -- Powell: You know, is it -- is it reasonable? Probably. It's just there wasn't enough in the Comprehensive Plan that we could forward a staff recommendation for approval and we were clear with the applicant from the get go on that topic and we just --our job is to try and stay as close as we can to not making quasi-judicial decisions and just guiding Meddian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 35 of 87 you in yours, so we are working on a zoning consistency matrix, just as a better guide to add that to the Comp Plan and that this issue is one of the ones that we don't know where the City Council wants to go, we don't where you want to go, so we kind of view this as an opportunity to find out, you know, what we check off as appropriate for those. The other -- the other issue is similar to the Office Jet Subdivision that we were talking about the other day. There have been a couple little issues and this was an opportunity to find out what you think about this one. But there is a little guidance in the Comp Plan. Some of you were more involved than I was in the drafting of that Comp Plan certainly, so I don't know if you have any recollections or -- to my knowledge I don't think it was really ever discussed, especially in a public forum, so -- Borup: I don't think that was ever anticipated that the use would change. It wasn't addressed either way that I can remember. Powell: And it affects not just churches. I mean there are other quasi-public uses that could change and maybe it's -- and maybe it has to be done on a case-by-case basis. If the sewer treatment plant ever wanted to change, a church or light office might not be appropriate back there, but I mean that's, obviously, not a real example, but, you know, it is another quasi-public use that we have, so -- Borup: And one of the thoughts Ihad -- and maybe this is a early, but just, you know, the things that we discussed before that one of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan is to be a guideline that even sometimes some of the map is not -- does not necessarily always set boundaries, but -- I don't know. We need to get into the testimony a little bit, but -- so the question is what takes -- from what you're saying, what carries the most weight, the L-O zoning or the Comprehensive Plan designation. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: Anything else, Mr. Hood? Did that conclude --okay Zaremba: Well, I mean on that point, in the ordinance there is no such zone as quasi public. Borup: Right. Zaremba: That's not really a zone. There is an L-O zone. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: It's a use. Borup: Okay. Let's proceed with Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. It's kind of a sad opportunity to talk in front of you tonight. I Meddian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 36 of 87 echo the comments that have been offered already concerning Commissioner Centers. Besides losing a great friend in the industry, I lost a friend as well, and I really respected his smirks and his sometimes brutal honesty that he had with -- with myself and with people that he wanted to work with. He was always avery -- a very gregarious person when he did that, though. Well, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it seems like there is really one big issue that needs to be decided with this and it sounds like there has been some discussion already about this and let's jump right into that. It has to deal with the quasi public and the public use of this property and how it became as such. If I could indulge you must for a moment on a little bit of history concerning the Comprehensive Plan and concerning the fact this is not the first time you guys have made a decision changing aquasi-public open space to an office use. In the creation of the Comprehensive Plan land use map, one of the first things that was done was to go out and take an inventory of the existing uses and after making an inventory, you create a map with those existing uses and give land use designations to that. The remaining portion of that -- of the properties that are in the City of Meridian's area of impact are, then, looked at and decided upon in a large group meeting, sometimes a charrette, sometimes it was just with a guidance committee and they determine what those uses should be. Typically, the uses for existing uses, such as the church use and the other quasi-public uses, those uses were not discussed as being essential uses that are required to be in the city. However, those are uses that are existing in the city and so that's the reason why it was showed as such on the Comprehensive Plan. I know that all three of you were present when a vote taken about eight months, nine months ago now on the Episcopalian Church on the 8th Street. They, too, requested an L-O, zone because they were moving out of their church and they wanted to be able to market their church for more than just a church use. They were in an R-8 zone and you recommended approval to an L-O zone. So, there is some history of doing that. Borup: But the other part of that is because the residential zones -- right. McKinnon: -- in the L-O zone, it would be allowed to expand as well. If I can address Commissioner Zaremba's concern as to whether or not Comprehensive map has to change to an L-O zone to reflect the changes that may be made tonight. You may remember that this exact church, the Central Valley Baptist Church, recently received approval to move to the corner of Ten Mile and Pine Street. At that time the Comprehensive Plan was not required to be changed to aquasi-public and public. At that time, rather, the existing designation on the Comp Plan remained as the mixed use, rather than being changed to quasi-public or public. There is not a need to change the Comprehensive Plan to match that, and I might lean on Chris a little heavy tonight. I don't know Chris real well, I might make him earn his money tonight, because I have a couple questions for him that maybe he can help answer and add to this discussion. But if we could just jump right into the idea of whether or not this use is aquasi-public use or a public use as designated on the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not that's a good idea. In the Comprehensive Plan there are a number of uses that are listed that are allowed in the quasi public and they include cemeteries, parks -- and that's urban parks and larger parks. It includes other types of open space for recreation facilities. It also includes schools, both public and private schools, and if staff wants to correct me Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 37 of 87 and add if there is anything I have missed. Utilities and govemment facilities as well and in determining the type of use that would be the best service for this property, it is determined that we'd have to decide what to do with the church first and the developer looked at this site and decided and that this would make a great location for a nursing home. It's a building that's already shaped for such and with a little more reconstruction that it could be become a nursing home. But, then, the question remains is what do you do with the remainder of the church parking lot and if you go back to the quasi-public uses and,you look at what would be allowed, obviously, a cemetery doesn't make sense there in this location. A park doesn't make sense in this location. The Parks Department, having talked with Doug Strong, has no interest in acquiring this for parkland, it's too small, and he wouldn't want to maintain it. Government facility. The government hasn't come forward to say that they want this facility. No utility companies have come forvuard to say they would like this. As far as a school that would be allowed to be placed at this location, we are dealing with a site, after you take out the nursing home facility, of less than two acres. No schools would like to relocate and build on somebody thing like that. They couldn't meet the parking standards for that. So, essentially, all of the uses that would be allowed per the Comprehensive Plan don't make sense on this site. We can revert back to the existing zoning and this is a rezone that took place in the late '90s. It was not a conditional rezone, it was rezone to L-O without conditions, which meant that those zoning ordinances -- I'm going to rely on you, Chris, real quick here -- that because it was a zoning ordinance change, adopted by ordinance, rather than by resolution, such as the Comprehensive Plan, all of the entitlements that go along with the L-O zone, such as the uses that are permitted uses in that zone, would be allowed if they were requested. The reason why we are having this discussion tonight is because we have requested reduced setbacks in this zone as part of the Conditional Use Permit. If we had not requested the reduced setbacks -- the reduced setbacks, we would only be looking at the findings required for a preliminary plat. The findings for a preliminary plat do not include the consideration of whether it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. You have the staff report and you have the findings. That's not included in the findings. It's only included in the Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, if we had not asked for those reduced standards, this would have been a project that could be approved without having to have the discussion concerning Comprehensive Plan consistency. So, that brings us to all of the requirements that -- all the, I guess, reduced standards that we have asked for and to whether or not those make sense in this area -- just a few minutes ago, Commissioner Zaremba, you mentioned that you wanted to see unique and new types of projects to try some new things and we think we have tried to do that with this site plan. We have, actually, instead of placing office buildings at the back with parking on the front and, then, landscaping in front of that, we tried to make this more pedestrian friendly following a new urbanism design. The entire site is surrounded by residential uses and rather than require that those people drive a car to this site and, then, walk across a parking lot and through a large landscape buffer to get to the services that could be provided in this subdivision, we put the buildings closer to the front. In order to accommodate the parking and drive aisles, we have had to ask for reduce setbacks in the buffer and it was an oversight on my side, I didn't communicate entirely clearly with my drafter about the 15 feet. He took it from the back of sidewalk, it should be from the property, and we Meridian Planning & Zoning November 8. 2003 Page 38 of 87 can live with the 15 feet for reduced setbacks from there. The remainder of the property -- not the office, but the existing nursing facility -- the existing parking lot right now, we have asked for reduced setback to keep the existing parking. That's on the west end of the project. We just ask that we keep the existing parking and keep the existing landscaping in that area. So, that covers some of the reasons why we have done what we have done. As far as the plazas there was some concern in the staff report regarding the amenities that were requested -- that we are requesting approval for the reduced setbacks and there was some discussion to the fact that the amenities that we provided are not the types of amenities the City of Meridian would like to see for this area. But we looked at the list of amenities the City of Meridian has suggested for this type of area. A walking path doesn't make sense in this area. We have sidewalks and we have provided sidewalks leading to the buildings from those sidewalks. A walking path didn't make sense within this area. In addition, the sites are tco small. A tot lot doesn't make for an office or nursing home. There is no need for it. Other recreational facilities are typically not something you would find on a two-acre site, especially a site that's devoted to office and nursing home. Rather, we decided to take the type of amenity that would more of a passive-- a sitting type of an amenity and we have added some picnic tables and some plazas and in talking with Craig -- we have talked a little bit about creating the plazas to be a little bit bigger and I will get to that as I offer some suggested conditions of approval that were not included in your packet, so we will have to work on those tonight. That basically covers all of the reasons why we should be dealing with the -- how we should approve this project. The quasi public doesn't make sense and we have to look at the project as does this project make sense and go over the principles of planning, what makes sense, what's the highest and best use for this property. So, we jump down page ten of the staff report, if you guys could all grab your staff report really quick and grab a pen, I have got some recommended conditions of approval. After talking with Craig about whether or not there should be conditions of approval included in this staff report, he said that because it was a recommendation for denial he wouldn't include those, but having read through the staff report, I have taken some time to list what some of the specific conditions of approval he did actually recommend are. If you could look down to the final paragraph on page ten, the first italicized area that starts with because the parking area currently exists in modifying the parking to meet the standard would result of landscaping on Cherry Lane, staff recommends an alternative alteration of the standard area dimension for the parking area west of the driveway. That's if the application is approved. I would label that number one. In discussing with Craig on this project, he suggested that this be relabeled to compact stalls, because they don't meet the full length and the drive aisle width is too small. Those are all of the parking stalls in front of the nursing home facility and we can live with that, to restripe those if that's your wish. That's something that we can work with staff and with you to amend the project. That parking would be for those people that in the nursing home and for the employees of the nursing home. The second condition of approval that I have noted in here that Craig recommend is the -- Powell: Excuse me, sir. Craig doesn't really - he has talked about some of these. There are no conditions of approval recommended. The staff recommendation is for denial. If the Commission decides to go ahead and recommend approval, then, we will Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6. 2003 Page 39 of 87 come back with conditions of approval for you at another hearing. I think that would be the appropriate thing, rather than trying to rewrite the staff report. Rather than trying to write a staff report during the Public Hearing time, I think it would be better to come back with a written out conditions of approval for you to look at and review and critique at another hearing, if that's the desire of the Commission. Borup: Probably more consistent with what we normally would -- McKinnon: It would be consistent --just to add what Anna said, in discussions with staff I actually requested that conditions of approval be added in case there was -- you know, on the off chance that you recommend approval with this project, so we would not have to continue this hearing for another night, because it takes up more time of your Commission and it takes up time for my developer and it costs money to have the motion moved on, and what we are offering is suggested recommendations of approval. In addition to that, it states correctly in the staff report that if the application is approved, he would like to see these things happen. So, on page 11 and -- Borup: Okay. I remember reading that earlier. McKinnon: Again, I offer these just as suggestion. Borup: Well, Commissioners, would -- maybe we ought to proceed with the rest of the items and, then, if we are looking at recommendations, let's cover that at the end. Zaremba: The difficulty of proceeding -- and I appreciate, Dave, the thought that you put into it. The difficulty of proceeding that way is that our motion would be like a 25- minute motion and it's so much easier to just say we agree with the staff report or -- you know, one or two sentences are different. Borup: Unless we had a formal written -- Zaremba: I'm inclined to go to the -- to go the direction of thinking this would be a useful project. I agree with staff that there are a couple things that need to be adjusted in it. But my inclination would be to continue it and have staff report reflect the things that you're asking. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: It certainly makes the motion much easier when we make it, because we, essentially, have to repeat everything you're saying. Borup: Unless we had that all out in writing. Zaremba: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 40 of 87 Borup: The each Commissioner would have a copy of and the staff and -- but I assume we don't. McKinnon: Well, maybe Craig can help me out with this. Do you have anything written down, Craig, that you have here tonight that we could possibly look at a break or after this --during the meeting tonight at a different time? Hood: Mr. Chair, Dave, I mean I have some notes, but nothing that's -- I mean if we are going the direction of making recommendation for approval, I had specific notes on what I thought we definitely needed to include in that staff report. I don't -- Borup: It's not prepared? Hood: Yeah. It's not fully in a form, I don't think, that would be comprehensive enough to include everything that should be included. Borup: That's kind of what I assume. Well, let's go through and maybe hit some of the other items and see of there is -- McKinnon: Well, I'll quit numbering them, then, but let's go ahead and -- Zaremba: Let's get all the discussion out, but -- McKinnon: Let's quit numbering them, let's just go ahead and go to the next one at page 11 and go to the italicized portion. Borup: Okay, and you handled the 15 and 13-foot things, so we are okay there. McKinnon: Yeah. Let's go on to page 11. Page 11, the italicized portion. In exchange for the reduced buffer width the-land use as outlined, that the planned buffer materials along the west and northern property lines in accordance with MCC 12-13, 12-3, and that's something that we would have to agree with, that's something that we can do. There are some sewer lines that we can't plant on top of the sewer will come around the backside of the church building. Just to give you an example, currently, the sewer for the church is at this location in the far -- I guess that would be the northwest corner of the subdivision. The reason for the sewer being in this location is that it runs back to the cul-de-sac to the manhole in the residential portion of the subdivision and so we will have to create a new sewer service line that runs -- actually, it will be a main line that will run up 90 degrees here with a manhole, run to 90 degree with a manhole here, then, run down and gravity feed back to this point. We won't be able to plant any trees on top of the sewer easement at this location, down across the back of the building here as well. No additional trees will be able to be planted in that area due to the sewer requirements from the City of Meridian. We will work with staff to accommodate the landscaping that would be required there. On to D, the amenities on page 11, the final statement, in the applicant should provide a note on the plat and other means to make sure that the common areas throughout the development are maintained. I suggest that Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 41 of 87 if you make recommendation for approval on the preliminary plat that be included on the preliminary recommendation for approval, rather than the Conditional Use Permit, as that would be a note on the plat. We don't have any concerns with that. Item C, circulation and design, parking, internal drive aisles on the west -- that's the limited italicized portion again. These are all the recommendations that Craig is making. But all internal drive aisles east of the western driveway shall be 25 feet in width. Can we go back, Craig, to the drawing? That's in direct -- that would on this one. The western drive aisles be 25 feet in width. East of the western drive -- okay. That's dealing with this area right here. This drive aisle be reduced from 41 feet to 25 feet. We have no concerns with that. Item D on page 11 under in the Comprehensive Plan consistency, which we have already talked about and, again, we disagree with staff that this does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a plan that's not necessarily something that is followed or set in stone. In fact, it's just a plan, that's what it is, and that's why I'm going to relay on you, Chris, for a little. bit of guidance on that. I know that Bill Nichols has shared his opinion on that before, that the Comprehensive Plan is not an item that's set in stone, that there is some -- there is some forgiveness in that to allow for some changes, if it makes sense. Zaremba: Well -- and I think that's -- it's easily defensible to go either direction. My feeling probably supports yours, that this as a project that was designated quasi public, because it already existed, that's what it was, and it was easy in the Comprehensive Plan process to say that's what it is. A church is quasi public. As a manual for the guidance in our decisions, the Comprehensive Plan is really more focused at the new development, rather than changing an old process, and I understand they are constricted to go by what they feel the letter of the Comprehensive Plan is in deciding whether it would comply with it or not. I'm not saying they did the wrong thing in making that decision, I'm saying I'm ready to take the other tack, so they certainly interpreted it in a correct way. I wouldn't argue with that, but I think the alternate -- which is why we are eventually going to ask them to make up some rules for approving it. I'm not disagreeing with the decision they made I'm just saying there is an alternate decision. McKinnon: Okay. I've had some more discussions with Craig about a couple of other items, but it sounds like the direction that we are going tonight is to see what all those are and how they are written out and I guess I would like the opportunity to see what those are written out from Craig as well and review those and review those with -- with the developer and make sure that he's okay with those conditions as well. So, that's something that I can understand tonight. But if there is any way possible, we would like to move forward tonight with -- whether or not it's a recommendation of approval for the preliminary plat and tabling the Conditional Use Permit portion of that and, then, holding those together until they get to the Council. With that I guess I would just end that we think we have, actually, tried to work within the confines of the zoning ordinance itself, we have tried to work with the planned development ordinance to create something that's a little bit different than what we typically see in an office park, especially something that's surrounded by residential on all sides. We did have a neighbor meeting, we met with the neighbors, and after we met with the neighbors we took their considerations into concern and wrote a letter back in response and we did not hear Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 42 of 87 anything back from the neighbors after that letter. I don't know if they are in attendance tonight, but we have had the opportunity to meet with the neighbors and try to discuss things with the neighbors and ask if you have any questions and I can end my testimony. Borup: Did you have any comments from any of the neighbors that -- McKinnon: We did. We had a number of comments that -- Borup: I mean pertinent ones that we would be interested in? McKinnon: They wanted us to build a masonry wall around the entire outside edge of the project and we felt that that was a little onerous for a small two-acre project. They felt that the air conditional units would create a large amount of noise, but we are dealing with small office projects that would be on timers, so that the air conditioning wouldn't be on at night and the air conditioning units would be on at the same time as the housing units surrounding them. One of the other major issues they had was the fact that they would lose their view and they felt that they would lose their view of the parking lot, because there would now be buildings in the way and that was something that we didn't know how to respond to that, so we left that as something unresponsive. The other issue had to deal with the water pressure and the subdivision has got a rather clever name, it's called One Sub, so it's One Sub One and One Sub Two, One Sub Three, all the phases, and this project, when it was constructed, it did not have any pressurized irrigation to it. So all the houses are on one inch lines, (believe athree- quarter inch meter and so at the meeting they were concerned that we would take away water pressure and the water pressure is not a problem within the main itself, it's once it gets to that one inch line, if the sprinklers are on, they can't take a shower, because they don't have enough water pressure and it's the amount of water that comes through the line off the main and in talking with Bruce over at the -- Bruce Stewart at Public Works and he said that this would not decrease the water pressure in their neighborhood. It's not a problem with the main line not having enough pressure, it's the water coming off of the main line through their small connections and so I wrote a letter back to them concerning that. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Let me ask a question on the air conditioners. Wouldn't they typically be on the roof of these buildings? McKinnon: No. They would be in the back. Zaremba: So, they would be ground level? McKinnon: Ground level. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 43 of 87 Zaremba: Okay. Can they be screened in some way? I mean not building a whole block wall across the back of the property, but can the individual air conditioners be screened? McKinnon: There is some screening in effect. You can see along the northern property line that there are a number of trees on the northern property line. In addition to that, there is a separation, plus a six foot cedar fence that's currently located surrounding the homes and so that does provide some shielding from the noise. Borup: Did we get any new elevation designs for these -- McKinnon: There was some confusion there. When the packet was submitted, we took some pictures of some existing buildings, so these are typical of what we are going to build on this site and they will be gabled structures and it would look similar to, you know, the ones that we propose. The confusion was the fact that there is not a -- the pictures that we took showed parking in front -- Borup: Right, but I think the comment was still pertinent, that you're emphasizing the pedestrian friendly and et cetera, so I'm assuming that the facades would need to be -- McKinnon: Pedestrian friendly as well Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: The concern is that it doesn't look like the back of a building. McKinnon: Doesn't look like the back of the building. Exactly. Zaremba: Technically, it is the back of the building. McKinnon: It, technically, would be the back of the building, but it would -- Borup: In this case it could be a side design. But still -- McKinnon: As far as additional facades, to be honest with you, there is not many projects in Boise or the Meridian area that have the buildings brought up to the street front like this and they -- Borup: Old Town. McKinnon: Old Town has some and you guys know what the Old Town buildings look like. They typically look as though they are fronting onto the street, even though they are entered from the back. We can provide some additional photos, if we are going to be continuing this, that we can show you what that would look like. I might be able to find some or a side building that was brought closer without parking in front. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 44 of 87 Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And I don't remember if there were any other issues, any other staff comments that haven't been addressed, are there? Staff talked about additiohal plant material along the two boundaries. Did the -- McKinnon: The additional plant material was along the northern boundary Borup: Well, yeah, you mentioned about the sewer line problem, but -- McKinnon: And we can -- we can meet the landscape ordinance with planting the trees back here. There are a number of trees that currently are back there right now and additional trees would provide more buffer. Borup: Okay. I'm looking at the staff comments. So, you're saying that their -- the current plan did not meet --did not meet the landscape ordinance, is that correct? And that's why additional -- McKinnon: I'd have to lean back on Craig on that one. Borup: That looks like the way it's written, Craig, is that you need additional just to meet the -- Hood: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what page you're on, but (believe -- Borup: I'm on four, under B, last sentence in that paragraph. Hood: That was the intent, I guess. Or, myself, I wasn't aware that that sewer line was going to be running back in, so trees would be a problem there, but additional plant material per that code, which requires a little bit more landscape buffering than the one per 35 -- Borup: Right. But something could be done along here and maybe taller shrubbery type stuff, rather than trees may be more appropriate. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a couple thoughts on that. It's a very narrow stretch of land that's through here and, then, you have got asix-foot -- you got pictures of it? Hood: I do. McKinnon: All right. Right there. If you were to plant -- we have asix-foot fence and, then, we also have the church building right there and, typically, a tree, once it grows to a mature height and width, a tree is not going to sit back in that area. The idea of the taller shrubs that you addressed, typically, the shrubs, as they grow, are not going to Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 45 of 87 exceed the six foot fence by such a degree that they would provide a great deal of buffer from the church building itself. Borup: Did those neighbors along that side have any concern on -- McKinnon: At the meeting there wasn't a great deal of concern discussed about the current church building itself. Borup: Okay. They are more worried --they were more about the new buildings, then. McKinnon: But the addition of some shrubbery back there -- I don't know what visual appeal it would have, other than to have some knobs above the fence for the back neighbors. As far as providing an additional streetscape for that, it's others very hard to see landscaping between the building and the fence when you're traveling 35 miles an hour on Cherry. Borup: Well, no, it would be for the neighbors, not for driving by. Are there doors or access points off the back of the building along there? McKinnon: I believe that the sidewalk runs right to that door. Borup: That's it? The rest of it -- McKinnon: It goes into the chapel pews, I believe. There may be one service door towards the very end for the existing mechanical structures. Borup: That's what I was wondering. Would you even have anybody be accessing that area? If not, it doesn't matter if a shrub covers the whole -- takes up the whole place. McKinnon: There is just the one door. Borup: Okay. Well, that's probably more time than we need to spend on that, but -- I mean there is some shrubs that can get ten feet tall in not that many years. Rohm: Who is going to see them? Borup: The neighbors. Rohm: They'd have to get up over the fence to see them. Borup: Well, not to see over. It's not -- not a ten foot one you don't. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Borup: Yeah. That's the only --that's the only thought that the neighbors -- yeah. From Cherry Lane it's not a factor. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 46 of 87 McKinnon: Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the -- with the existing building there, not having any -- any testimony offered as of yet for additional landscaping in that area -- I mean they have lived with the building in that area for a number of years. Borup: I'm okay with that. I don't think there was anything else -- any other items, then. You already addressed the parking lot. I don't think I have anything else. Now, at this point you had said you'd like to see us -- McKinnon: I guess my comment to see if you can make some sort of motion with this is I guess if I had some understanding from the Commission as to -- Borup: And I think that may be more appropriate as an understanding. We have done that before, because of the -- and you understand better than me, I think, probably, on the -- once we make a recommendation, that the time constraints we have that it needs to get to City Council could be a problem. We can't just sit on it for that time. So, we have done that before, we have closed -- we have closed the hearing, we have discussed what our proposed recommendation would be, and, then, waited until the following meeting and actually made that motion. I don't remember what project it was, but I remember we did that not that many months ago, I don't think. You don't remember? Zaremba: I remember there was a reason for doing something and -- Borup: It was kind of similar to this, where we had asecond -- the second part of it -- I think we just didn't want to rehash everything again, because we were satisfied with -- and it probably was the annexation part, I'm assuming. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman Borup: I don't know if it matters, but we did that -- Powell: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I think that was fairly recently and I think that -- Borup: It was this year. Powell: And it probably -- you can always have discussion. There is nothing to prevent you from having discussion, so if you want to close the Public Hearing and, then, have discussion and, then, table it to -- well, maybe if you're tabling it, maybe -- no, you don't have -- you can close the Public Hearing and still table it if you want to, for just making a finding once you get it, but, then, that prevents you from discussing the recommended conditions of approval with the applicant, so you probably want to leave it open. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 47 of 87 Zaremba: My inclination would be, one, to leave it open and, two, to continue both hearings -- City Council, I'm sure, would rather have them both come to them at the same time. Borup: Well, yeah, we need to do that. Zaremba: And even though I think we clearly have made a decision on one of them and just want a little bit more information on the other one, I would treat them equally, rather than pass one and sit on it. Borup: I don't think we want to sit on it. All we could do is express our opinion Powell: Chairman Borup, before you get on to making motions, Idid -- a couple things came up with the applicant's testimony that I just wanted to clarify. Borup: Okay. Powell: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is the first finding required for the preliminary plat, so I'm not saying that you can't make that finding at all, I just wanted to let the record reflect that that is a required finding and also that one of the uses that the applicant carefully avoided on the quasi public is health care facilities, which we suggested as the very first pre-app would be appropriate for medical offices to be in these office uses, that as staff, even, we could make that consistency statement. So, I just -- a little omission on the part of the applicant there, so -- McKinnon: Anna gives way too much credit. There wasn't any attempt to try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. In fact, the nursing home itself is one of the medical cares and I wanted to emphasize the fact that the one use that we are using for the existing building is something that complies with the Comprehensive Plan, because we are asking for the nursing home and staff has stated in the staff report that the nursing home would comply with the Comprehensive Plan, because it is a medical care facility. So, she's giving me a little too much credit for trying to strategize that. Powell: The only other thing that was unclear on the applicant's statement -- with the neo -- stafFs concern with the elevation and the photo that was provided was not the architectural look, it's just we wanted to make sure that the applicant understood that, as staff, if that goes forward with your recommendation for approval, we are going to look to that actually being the entrance, not just looking like an entrance. That was the only concern. I mean it needs to -- to be an entrance to the facility to really provide that neo- traditional feel. If it's just a blank door facade that says employees only, that's very different from actually having an entrance there. It's not to say you couldn't have an entrance from the other side, but in --given the size of those buildings, I doubt it's going to happen and that's why staff brought it up as a concern. Borup: I need some clarification, then. You're saying you want that -- you would expect the entrance to be from Cherry Lane? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 48 of 87 Powell: If, as the -- what the applicant has suggested is that in cases where it's a neo- traditional look or feel, that it's appropriate to reduce the front buffer, because you're bringing that entrance closer to the people. You're drawing them in from the street. But he's claimed that it's appropriate to reduce the buffer for that very reason, and then, to not have an entrance there, it just -- you can still make that finding if you want to, to just have a reduced buffer, because it should be a reduced buffer, but to make it on the statement that it's for this neo-traditional look or feel, then, there does need to be an actual entrance there, a public entrance and a welcoming entrance, not just the back door. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission -- Borup: Comments on that? McKinnon: Yeah. Craig, could you scroll back to the site plan real quick. The plat map. Okay. We have got two buildings that we are asking for reduced setback on. It's this building and this building right here. As far as having to have the entrance at this site and having an entrance at this location, it doesn't necessarily make sense. There is not going to be a great amount of traffic generated from the pedestrians. It's an opportunity for pedestrian traffic. In order to create the opportunity for pedestrian traffic, we have provided sidewalks that would lead from the sidewalk itself to the entrances, rather than have the buildings across the back where people could come across the sidewalk with no -- if you put a standard design, what you would do is place the buildings at the very back of the lot and, then, you place your parking -- double load your parking, so you have parking on the north side and on the south side and you'd have your large landscaping buffer right here. For pedestrians to access those buildings, they would have to walk along this sidewalk and, then, cross over the landscaping, across along one of the driveways without a sidewalk back to these buildings going through the lanes of traffic and through the parking lot. The idea of having new urbanism is two fold. One, it's for the appearance as driving down the street, it softens the scope, it creates a sense of space and livability, rather than creating landscaping, parking, building, you create building, something that can be attractive, with the landscaping. The second thing for us to increase pedestrian access and by adding sidewalks leading to these building entrances -- if it's a recommendation or requirement to do this, that is something that we can work out and see if it's something that makes sense to the developer, but that's a site specific requirement to have a door in this, that's something we'd like to review, but the idea is to create pedestrian access to these buildings, rather than force them through the parking lot and across landscaping to get to the building. Borup: Anna, I assume you're referring to their comments on that quote -- or on that comment about the urbanism? Powell: I'm sorry, could you ask the question -- Meridian Planning & zoning November 6, 2003 Page 49 of 67 Borup: You were referring to their letter and their comment about the new urbanism. Is that what you were referring to? Powell: Right. Borup: Okay. That's what I just wanted to clarify, because f was reading that here. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: And, Dave, it sounds like you're saying -- and from -- I don't know if the other -- other Commissioners, it's the Pinnacle Engineer responses right after the page after the staff comments is, I think, what we are referring to. It sounds like you're saying that the pedestrian traffic would be encouraged by the visual appeal of the building, not necessarily that it's got a pedestrian entrance into the -- McKinnon: Well, it's two fold. You're walking along the highway and you -- major arterial and you see a mall behind a large sea of parking, you're not typically going to say this is a great place for me to walk all the way through the parking lot to the mall, but if you bring the building closer to the street, the person on the sidewalk can access that. In addition to that, besides just the pedestrian friendliness of it, you could have a softer street scape where you don't have this large separation from the buildings from the street, you, actually, bring those buildings closer to the. street and it becomes a better appearance. It's the difference between driving down Fairview and having all the buildings set back with the parking and what we have in Old Town Meridian, where we have the building brought down -- Borup: No. I understand. I was interested in Anna's comment about the pedestrian -- but Idon't -- unless it was somewhere else, I don't see where you stated it quite that same way, but it's saying that it can-- visually can encourage pedestrian traffic, not necessarily have the front door access like -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, the alternative -- the request you're considering is should there be a 25 foot landscape buffer with heavily vegetated that would be a pedestrian amenity along this arterial is what has been determined through the zoning ordinance process and through the Comp Plan process. Or should you consider a lesser landscape in exchange for bringing these buildings forward that are welcoming the street and as he described, the traditional thing would be to put the buildings in the back, in which case they'd probably get the three buildings they have got, and put the parking double loaded on either side and have the landscape buffer. So, this -- in this scenario they are gaining more room for two additional buildings in exchange for welcoming the street with this entrance and I'm not sure that we are going to see this welcoming the street part. I just -- and I don't think that the comments about the plazas not being appropriate for this area, I don't think was quite what staff was trying to get at, it was a question of whether the amenities provided by this PD are commensurate with the exceptions you're asking and they are .asking for quite a few exceptions. There is the existing -- the existing parking lot and setbacks that are Meddian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 50 of 87 existing and, then, further reductions in what -- or reductions in what's required on new development as well and I think that that was staffs concerns with the density of this development and the proposals they were making and the reductions they were asking for. Borup: I don't remember seeing a review of the parking. Powell: Well, I know he did, because -- especially on the existing parking where it's - Borup: And we have plenty of parking on the proposed -- we are okay there. Commissioner? Zaremba: My thought on the landscape buffer -- I agree that it's an entry corridor we want to stick with the 25 feet wherever we can. What made me comfortable with reduced is -- and I may or may not be right and either the applicant Mr. McKinnon or staff -- to either side of this project, I think we have a sidewalk and, then, a small landscape buffer and, then, the back fence of residences and my question is how deep is the existing landscape buffer on the adjoining properties? Both sides I think are this - - pretty much the same thing. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the staff, Craig could you address that in the staff report and they are between seven and eight feet in width on either side to the west and to the east of the residential property. Zaremba: So, 15 feet is even greater than the two side properties. I even think that the 25-foot landscape buffer would look funny there. McKinnon: If I can add just one additional thing. This landscape -- if you can go back to those pictures, Craig. Yeah. You can see that the buffer width is currently, you know, eight to ten feet and it's the same as you see on either side and that's going to be doubled before you get to your first building, and so what you see right now is actually going to be approximately double that right now in width and so that should be double what you see on both sides of this project. Borup: From my standpoint, probably the big --one of the big factors for me is going to be the architectural design of those buildings and -- Zaremba: What's it going to look like facing the street? Borup: Yeah. Because I -- that holds a lot of weight to me. You can have some very attractive facades there and I don't know that -- I would like to see something. Not a plan, I don't think we need a plan, necessarily, and I don't know if you're going to find it in photographs of existing buildings. You might. But, you know, a rough architectural sketch. McKinnon: We could provide that. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 51 of 87 Borup: You know, just a -- even just afree-hand type sketch or something would mean something to me. McKinnon: We will get that for you. Borup: And then -- yes. I mean that makes a lot of sense. That, with the reduced and especially since it's going to be double what it is on either side, I think it would take most things on a -- sometimes on a case-by-case basis if it does tie in with the rest of the neighborhood. Okay. Have we discussed all this enough? Rohm: I think so. Borup: I think -- I don't know that there is any --anybody has any problem at all with the annexation? McKinnon: The annexation? Borup: I mean the preliminary plat is what I meant to say Zaremba: No. The only thing I would want to do is keep the two of them in the same part of the process. Borup: And do we want to keep the public hearing open on the first? Zaremba: Have we asked if there is anybody to -- McKinnon: There might be somebody -- Borup: No, I haven't. I'm sorry. I'm making an assumption. But do we have anyone here to testify on this? Okay. Please. Sorry about that. Thank you, Commissioner. McKibben: Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Sherry McKibben, architect and urban designer, new urbanism, and I reside at 515 West Hays in Boise. I did want to comment on the complexity of new urbanism and it is primarily a configurational thing when you get down to the physical environment and design matters. The intention is to create from the street, which is ideally amulti-modal conveyance, a presence for all those modes of transportation and to make the pedestrian and the cyclist feel comfortable on that street and I noticed, Commissioner Zaremba, that you considered this a gateway corridor. Very important, I think, for your community to have, you know, something that is conducive to pedestrian activity, as well as something that represents your community. So, I think that those buildings moving up close to the street is important, but I also agree that an entrance and windows on those facades is also very important. I do appreciate that the parking is primarily at the back and that is important and I certainly understand that the existing parking lot and the church building be Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 52 of 87 reused is also important. That's a sustainable thing to do, reuse the building. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. It sounds like we want to just continue both -- Zaremba: Yeah. I would -- Borup: Craig, is two weeks enough? Zaremba: I would second that in saying that if we ever do have a transit system, it would be nice to have an entryway closer to the street. Mr. McKinnon said he was not envisioning an entrance on that side of the building, but -- unless the entryway -- he did say there would be walkways along the building to get to the entryway. But we may at some point have transit and I could see a stop being right in front of the building and people needing to get in, so -- whether or not there is an entrance facing the street needs some further discussion, I think, but I would recommend they talk to staff more about that. Borup: That wasn't a big factor forme if it's obvious that there is an entrance right there on the side and the building is right there, so they know they got to walk another ten feet. Zaremba: If the pathway steers you toward it, I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. Rohm: I do like the idea of putting windows or something along that Borup: Dormers or, you know, pop-outs, whatever -- whatever -- and that's not up to us to design, but that type of thing. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, just a couple things. Not necessarily rebuttal, just for some clarification. We have got this project in front of you tonight and I guess we'd just like to see if we can figure out a time that would be appropriate for staff to be able to get these comments to us, so that we would have the time to review that. Borup: Okay. That's what I was just going to ask. Is two weeks you feel enough time -- if we continue this to the next meeting. Hood: I'm wondering about the Clerk, if I get you -- when would that be. Zaremba: Monday is ten days before the next meeting. Hood: Yeah. That doesn't seem to be enough time for me tomorrow to put something together and have the applicant come up with a drawing I think that we could, you know, look at the possible elevations for those buildings there adjacent to Cherry Lane. I know that pushes us back a month to the first on in December. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 53 of 87 Borup: So who needs the ten days? Hood: Any revised -- Borup: Well, right. The only thing -- the only thing they would be bringing back to staff would be some designs, right? As far asany -- Hood: Depending on the motion, yes. I mean that -- I think the building elevations have been the main --the main issue. Borup: And do you need ten days to review those? Hood: Oh, no. No. Just ten days to get copies out to anyone else that may -- that's what I'm trying to think about that may have an interest in this. It is primarily a city issue and a revised staff report, that's the other thing that I'm concerned about. I do have -- like Isaid earlier, I do have some notes and a rough draft of -- if you were going towards approval, but Ijust -- I don't know what else may come up -- two weeks -- I mean in two weeks, the next meeting, I should be able to get something probably to the Clerk I would hope. Borup: Okay. Then, Mr. McKinnon, you realize -- if that's -- if we did it in two weeks, the time that you would have to review the staff comment would probably be very short. McKinnon: That's fine. Borup: Or we could make it the next meeting and give you more time. McKinnon: Two weeks will give me enough time. Borup: Well, you wouldn't have two weeks. You wouldn't have two weeks. You may have one day. We have seen that a lot in the past. McKinnon: As long as I got it the day before, I can do that. Borup: 50, that sounds all right? Rohm: And I'd just comment to that, Dave, if, in fact, you have exceptions to any of their conclusions, that you have that well prepared, so that we can look at your responses at the same time, because when we don't have that, it just adds confusion to the issue. McKinnon: Understood. Borup: And others have brought it in writing and handed it out and that makes it real easy to incorporate if we felt appropriate. Meddian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 54 of 87 Zaremba: Similar to what they did this time, but just response to a new report. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That being the case, I -- Borup: So -- but would we be asking staff to prepare a staff report for approval? Is that Rohm: Yes, I believe so. Zaremba: If we chose to approve it, I'd like to know what their issues are that need to be resolved. Borup: I mean right now they have -- Zaremba: Including the quasi-public issue, which, you know, I think it can be interpreted either way and I'm choosing to interpret it the alternate way. Borup: It sounds like we are saying -- you're not telling staff necessarily to prepare a report for approval, but that we would ignore the Comprehensive Plan conflict. I don't know if there is any other conflict you felt, other than that. Hood: As it was brought earlier by the applicant. I mean they are design issues that -- Borup: Right. Those things would still be appropriate and we'd like to still address those. Is that correct? Zaremba: That's the direction I would go. Rohm: Yes. I concur with that. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That being the case, I would move that we continue both Public Hearings PP 03-029 and CUP 03-048 to our meeting of -- must be the 20th, November 20th. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: We do have a fairly full agenda on the 20th, so we'll have to kind of hopefully move things along when we get to that. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 55 of 87 Zaremba: I suspect we have discussed things thoroughly enough that -- Rohm: But we do want Dave to be at the very end for sure. Zaremba: I move that he be the last item on the -- I'm pretty sure the issues are clear enough that we should go through it quickly. Borup: Actually, it may not be that bad. There is a lot of items, but four of them are on one project, you know, and the -- you know, it's multiple things on the same project, so - Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company - northwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Borup: All right. Item number nine. We have received -somewhere we have received a written request to have this item continued to January. Zaremba: And open the Public Hearing to do that or -- entertain it without -- Borup: Well, no, we -- Zaremba: Otherwise, it becomes a notice issue. Borup: Right. So, I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-025, request for annexation and zoning of 57 -- Gabbert: Chairman Borup? Over here. Borup: Oh. Sorry, Chris. Gabbert: That's all right. If you want to table that, then, it would require new motions -- I'm sorry, new notices made -- Borup: Right. Gabbert: -- for January. If you open it, then, you will need to continue it. So, that's the technical difference. I realize you guys were discussing that at the last -- two weeks ago and whatnot. So, if you open it, you table it, and -- Borup: No. If we open it, we continue it. If we don't open it, we table it. Gabbert: Thank you. Borup: But tabling it would require new notification, is that what you're saying?