Loading...
2004 12-02 ~. . Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina December 2. 2004. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Josh Wilson, Joe Guenther, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ~ David Zaremba X ~ Wendy Newton~Huckabay X X Chairman Keith Borup David Moe Michael Rohm Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the time for our regularly scheduled Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for December 2nd. We would like to begin with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I have a question on the adoption of the agenda. I had amongst my materials the beginning of a packet for AZ 04-029 regarding Cottonwood Lane and I did not get any further details and it's not on the agenda, but it's for the hearing date of December 7 -- 2nd, I mean. Has that moved somewhere? Borup: It has. That's on the revised agenda and I might mention that now. It did not get proper notice and that has been moved to the 16th. Re-noticed to the 16th. Zaremba: Okay. So, it's not going to happen tonight and it is going to happen the 16th? Borup: Yes. Canning: Chairman Borup, I might also add that the applicant has actually requested to be deferred to the 6th. Because the agenda says the 16th, you probably need to do it out to the day, but they are going to ask on the 16th that you defer it to the 6th. Borup: Why don't we just go ahead and do that now? Can we? . , Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting De<kmber 2,2004 Page 2 of 55 Canning: I'm not sure. Mr. Nary might know. Borup: Mr. Nary? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think since you have already provided notice that it's being reset for the 16th, although -- you're probably best off leaving it on the 16th and, then, resetting it -- in case other people show. They will send out notice and all things will get taken care of, but you're probably best leaving it. Borup: Oh, that's right, the notification is going out to the 16th. Nary: Correct. Borup: I was thinking that we still had the original notification for today, but -- yeah, the written notification will show the 16th, so we will just leave that. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of November 4, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: All right. The next item is that of minutes of November 4th. I don't know if there is -- I might just mention it. The project he was talking about was Cottonwood Lane, so in case there is anyone here tonight, that will not be heard. I don't think we have anybody here for that anyway. We have minutes. Zaremba: Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of November 4th, 2004, regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to approve the minutes. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Director Canning, you had an introduction you'd like to make? Canning: Yes, I did. I wanted to introduce Joe Guenther to you and he will actually be presenting an item later tonight. Steve Siddoway did the staff report, but Joe will be presenting it and he makes the last hire, so we are fully staffed now, and we will also let you know we are going to move across the hall. December 10th is our moving date. So, we will have the same address, but we will be across the hall after the 10th. Borup: Okay. I knew they were working on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Decifmber 2, 2004 Page 3 of 55 Canning: I think that's it. Borup: All right. Thank you. Canning: And, then, Chairman, were you going to make an announcement about Tuscany, just in case there is somebody here? Borup: Yes. Well, we can do that before I go into some of the other items. If anyone is here for the Tuscany Lakes application, that's No.9 on the agenda, the city did make a mistake on the notification on that and so that's being re-noticed. There is some of the names that were left off. So, we are sending that out again with a complete list and that -- to what date? Canning: January 6th. Borup: January 6th? Canning: 2005. Borup: January 6th. Do we need to make a motion for that? Nary: What I would suggest, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, is since it was noticed to tonight and part of the notice -- the mailed notice was in error, but not all of the notice was in error, that you simply -- when you get to it you can open this and continue this forward to January 6th and they are still going to send the notices out as well. But since you have got it noticed on this agenda, it's just to let folks know they don't have to stay if they don't want to. Borup: And that's what I meant to convey. It will still be opened and continued at the time or, actually, in times past if we have had someone that was -- do we have anyone here tonight for that? All right. Rohm: That was a good question. Item 4: Public Hearing: RZ 04-015 Request for a Rezone of 4.9 acres from R- 40 to R-15 zone for the retirement complex at Devon Park Subdivision No.2 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 04-049 Request for Detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for Fairview Lakes Phase II of the commercial development along East Fairview Avenue, which includes two drive-up windows; also, for the residential portion, a 30-unit Alzheimer facility with a retirement complex by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: I won't expound anymore on that, then. Okay. Just a couple of things I did want to mention before we start that procedure -- and we don't have a real full group tonight, Mertßlan Planning & Zoning Meeting Deœmber 2, 2004 Page 4 of 55 so I'm not anticipating maybe a lot of testimony, but the procedure is that as we open each Public Hearing, the staff will give a report of the project. At times -- at that time we may have some additional -- some questions for the staff and, then, the applicant will have 15 minutes -- up to 15 minutes to add anything or explain. After that point it's open for public testimony and we have up to three minutes apiece for any public testimony. Following that the applicant, then, will have the opportunity to answer any questions, explain anything that may have come up. We do have a timer and green means that the time is fine, it goes to yellow and there is 30 seconds, and the red is when the time is up. After we have heard all the testimony, the hearing is closed. The Commission may have some discussion and an opportunity to talk about or they may just go directly into a motion. Now, from this Commission we do not make final decisions, we make a recommendation that goes to the City Council and the City Council is the one that makes that decision and, hopefully, they take somewhat of a look at our recommendations when they do that. That being said, we would like to proceed with the first hearing. Actually -- well, these are completely separate, aren't they? Even though it's the same location? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, our staff report did -- Borup: Did combine them? Hawkins-Clark: -- combine them. Borup: I will open both public hearings, RZ 04-015, this is a request for a rezone of 4.9 acres from R-40 to R-15 for a retirement complex at Devon Park. And, then, Public Hearing CUP 04-049, request for a Conditional Use Permit approval, Fairview Lakes Phase Two. Again, both hearings are open and we'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. On this first item this is the rezone request and as was just noted, we -- both of these are within the boundaries of the Fairview Lakes project. Just a couple of months ago this Commission made a recommendation on another Conditional Use Permit on the property, so I won't go into much detail on the surrounding uses. It is on the north side of Fairview Avenue there. The rezone is for this area here, 4.9 acres at the very north end. This is the area that you reviewed a few months ago and at that point in time the approval and since that time City Council has also approved the Conditional Use Permit for the retirement center. This rezone, as you may recall, was discussed at that hearing and it was whether or not the retirement center would be an assisted living facility and what's the appropriate zoning for that. The Council did uphold your recommendation for calling it, essentially, a retirement center, which meant that they could keep the R-40, which is what the property is currently zoned. However, in the next item on the agenda there is a Conditional Use Permit for an Alzheimer's facility, which would not be allowed under the R-40, it would need the R-15, so they just chose to rezone this entire north area, which has -- it's not reflected too well on this, it's small, but you have this break here at the end of North Lakes Avenue and so that's the area. The Comprehensive Plan has the property designated as mixed-use community and that would certainly support the Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting De&.mber 2.2004 Page 5 of 55 R-15. SO, we are recommending approval of the rezone. On the Item No.6, the Conditional Use Permit, the Conditional Use Permit is split kind of into two general areas. One portion of the conditional use is at the northwest comer of the site and this is the Alzheimer's facility with 30 units and, then, the other portion is the commercial area on the east side of North Lakes Avenue. The Conditional Use Permit that conceptually approved this did not show this building pad right here in the center, nor the one above it. The square footage of the retail in this area is, actually, reduced slightly from what they were conceptually approved for, but they have chosen to come in with their detailed just kind of shifting around some of the building pad locations and so this -- what you see here in this area is what they are proposing there. Two of the proposed buildings do include drive-thru windows, the small pad here on the north and, then, there is a proposed bank on the south just off of Fairview. Both of those are proposed to have drive-thrus and so that was another reason for the Conditional Use Permit. The staff report does refer to a couple of outstanding issues and I will just draw the Commission's attention to those. They start on -- let's see. Start on page nine. And I will, actually, move to the next slide and just touch on a couple of these with the Alzheimer's care unit. I should point out that I did meet with Mr. Tamura, who is representing this project, today after he reviewed staff's report. He came into the office and we did talk about most of these modifications, which they have agreed to and, actually, this plan reflects the vast majority of these. So, what is being projected is slightly tweaked from what was submitted with the application. A couple of those points are the regional pathway, you as may recall, was approved to kind of relocate along this area here. There is a ten-foot wide path and, then, it goes north and the original plan proposed solid fencing on both sides. We recommended that they put open vision fencing. They have agreed to that on this site on the east side of the path, so on the back side of the building you have this open area and, then, a fence and, then, you have the pathway with landscaping and, then, a solid fence along the mobile home park. The buffer between land uses was another concern of ours. On the north here is the 20-foot required. This fire truck turnaround does encroach slightly into that and that's really the -- I think the main issue that I think that the Commission will need to address. Are you comfortable with some encroachment into that 20 feet with that fire truck turnaround or not. At this point they have left it at approximately 15 feet between the residential subdivision to the north and the end of this buffer. It does widen out when you get to the assisted living facility, but for this portion it's five feet below what the code requires, so as part of the planned development they could, technically, reduce that if you allow it. The other concern that we had with that was that there is a 40-foot wide easement for the Jackson Drain that runs -- they are relocating it and it's going to be basically placed underneath the parking lot, the Jackson Drain, and, then, curve over to the left behind the fire turnaround and, then, head up to Trailway Subdivision and that -- these trees that you see up here are within that 40 feet. Normally, the Nampa- Meridian and Settlers do not allow the trees. We are recommending that if they can't put trees in that easement, that they are going to have to shift the building, you know, to get the correct buffer in there and at this point I don't think that's been firmed up. So, it's just one outstanding question there. Let's see. Then, we also talked about maybe shifting the opening here, instead of having parallel parking in front of the facility, provide head-in and they did adjust that. I will go back to the commercial area, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deœmber 2. 2004 Page 6 of 55 and just touch on a couple of the issues we had there. This island that separates the drive-thru for the proposed Banner Bank from the main kind of thoroughfare in here, did not have landscaping before and they have shown landscaping now. They are also showing a trash enclosure in this area, which is fairly unique, but in this case I think it probably is a good compromise, since there is really no area in here that Sanitary Service Company could pickup efficiently. They have also reduced the number of compact stalls in this row of parking here. There used to be eight, now there are four, and staff is comfortable with that, since the compact is only one foot below the minimum. Let's see. We also include a couple of the elevations of the new buildings. In the slide show here, this is the largest of the new retail buildings. This is located on retail three, that pad there. Has many similar designs as the Hastings and DMV facility that's already built. This is an elevation of the Alzheimer's -- proposed Alzheimer's facility, which does have some matching materials as the one you approved a few months ago and, then, these are the two pads that do not have tenants proposed right now. And, then, the proposed Banner Bank and their elevations. The bank does propose brick on the facade. These other shell and core buildings do not. But they do compliment in terms of the stucco, so I just wanted to point that out. So, I guess just to summarize, I think the main two questions that sort of remain hanging out there are the buffer between land uses on the north and whether or not the Commission is comfortable with that encroaching there and, then, insuring that we get the right amount of trees in the buffer on the north side. So, I think with that I will end staff's comments. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. That encroachment for the fire lane, is that fire lane to be used for anything besides just turnaround for fire trucks? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, no, it's not. No, it's -- Rohm: In my mind it almost sounds like that's really a wider buffer area in a way, then, if it's not to be used other than in the case of an emergency, just kind of a point there. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess that's one way to look at it. I mean the -- normally we don't allow parking areas in the buffers between land uses and that's the way the code reads, so -- but in terms actually physical separation, I think you're correct. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba, you had -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Brad, I did have a couple questions, actually. Ones that you asked and I wondered if maybe there had been an answer to them. A fence totally around the Alzheimer's unit, you had indicated that their plans showed that it was not continuous. I agree with you that it probably should be continuous. Has that been resolved? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deœmber 2, 2004 Page 7 of 55 Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner, the way that they have shown it -- this is the south end of their building there and, then, you can kind of see this line here that would bea fencing line that, then, would go up. So, what was unclear to me in the application was whether, you know, this area in the back would be the only area designated for sort of outdoor area for the patients. If they were to come into the front, obviously, that -- this is open and so I was raising that question. They have not proposed any fencing along the pathway on the south side. Zaremba: But it does look -- the fence encloses an area that -- Hawkins-Clark: It does fully enclose an area. Zaremba: Okay. I wasn't clear about that. Thank you. The other is your comment about the requirement for multiple commercial and/or office buildings to be kind of centered on a usable comrnon area, such as a plaza or a green space. Hawkins-Clark: Uh-huh. Zaremba: And that didn't appear to happen. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I will just go back to that area. This slide depicts better than what was submitted in the application of what they are looking to construct. Everything that's cross-hatched is proposed as another phase. Everything else would be proposed as, you know, the improvements with this application and so this entrance would be improved, they are providing a second access into their project. The way that the Conditional Use Permit that was the conceptual approval read is that when they hit 50 percent of this -- all of this area, 50 percent of the building square footage for detailed approval, then, after that point they need to come back to the city and show you how they have proposed to create an area for the public or for the employees. They, actually, are still a little under the 50 percent. What I was told today by Mr. Tamura is that they are looking at maybe this area in front of this new retail -- I think this is shown as retail four. So, as you're coming in this could actually be sort of a plaza sitting area that would be a good location, I think. Good visibility and pretty centrally located for however these redevelop. They haven't shown it right now. They weren't required to. I was just raising it, because they are kind of pushing the envelope a little bit. Are they going to have room to do a plaza if they get three-quarters of it built out here. Sò, if that's the area that they do it, when you see this in the future as a Conditional Use Perrnit, obviously, we will require them to show it on the plan at that time. Zaremba: One more question. The tiling of the Jackson Drain, I know in the original version it was going to be left open as an amenity with the pathway going along behind it and I do recall that we agreed that it would be tiled. But your note reminds me that we were calling that an amenity and my question is was it a required amenity that needs to be replaced with another amenity or does tiling it just make it go away? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting De!:ember 2. 2004 Page 8 of 55 Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner Zaremba, I think -- I mean the amenity is -- I think was, technically, the pathway itself. Yes, it would have enhanced the amenity I think as a walking area, if it would have remained open -- Zaremba: But the pathway is still -- Hawkins-Clark: But, technically, the pathway is -- sort of functions as that. As would this plaza that we just finished talking about. So, that would be the two. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Mr. Tamura. Tamura: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura. My office is at 499 Main Street, Boise, Idaho, and we are the architects and developers on this project. What I gave you was kind of the updated site plan that I discussed with Brad today and maybe what I can do is kind of touch kind of the highlights under the construction -- special considerations in the conditional use it kind of outlined eight conditions that we needed to kind of, you know, revise or change. One is -- that last sheet shows that construction phasing, which is this sheet right here, and so one of the things that I discussed with Brad is that it seems like our opportunity for a large box potentially falls in this back corner. The other thing that potentially is going to happen is our lease with the DMV is only for three years and Hastings has the ability to go ahead and take over the DMV space after three years. Since I told Brad the ideal location that we think would be good for the DMV would be in this retail section right here and so assuming that we move DMV over to a nice central location, you know, a lot of parking, that it seemed like this would be an ideal place to put a public, you know, plaza that the -- you know, since there is such a high volume of traffic, that we could potentially put a large box in the corner, put DMV in between, you know, these two smaller boxes and, then, create a nice plaza in this area. So, that's where we are kind of earmarking that location to happen. In our office section of our project, we have got two smaller -- or two combined buildings in the middle of that and we are planning on putting a common plaza in between those two office buildings, but that's more for just the office use. This pretty much delineates what we are planning on doing with the next phase of the commercial. In regards to the buffering on the land uses, which -- can you flip to the -- yeah. Rohm: I have got another -- you want to use this? Tarnura: Oh, this is all right. The thing that I was pointing out to Brad that we could do it either way and it's pretty much the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission. What we have is a 15-foot landscape buffer between the property line and the fire truck turnaround. We have got a 20-foot driving aisle and we have got another five to eight feet of landscaping between that and the fire truck turnaround. I told them that we could provide the 20 feet of setback, but it would put the fire truck turnaround right against the building and we thought esthetically it would look the nicest by having landscape on Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deéember 2, 2004 Page g of 55 both sides. Again, like what Commissioner Zaremba said, it's something that you're not going to see and it's not going to be used, because one is we have got a six foot vinyl fence that we will put along the whole north property line and so as -- you know, as you look at the buffering, we have got probably a 40-foot plus buffer from the north fence line to the northern edge of the retirement center -- or the Alzheimer's center. As far as the fencing, what we have got is a secure wrought iron fence that will go around the perimeter here and, then, we have got four access points for our tenants inside, so we have got access points into a courtyard here and here and, then, we have got two separate dining rooms in these two areas and we will have large outdoor patios. But this will be all under one large secured wrought iron fenced area. The other thing that we'd like to remain, we'd like to have the transition or the openness of the pedestrian path as it goes -- you know, my little pointer might have just died. We would like to leave this open, so our fence -- we are going to go ahead and extend our existing vinyl - - six foot vinyl fence, it will go up around the perimeter all the way around here and down through here. This will be a six-foot high wrought iron fence as a security for the Alzheimer's. But this area right through here where the pedestrian path runs, we'd like to leave that as just open landscaping. We think just the overall appearance of the project would look nicer. The second one was the multi-use pathway and, again, we are going to do a wrought iron fence. On the Jackson Drain easement I spoke with John Anderson with Nampa-Meridian, I told him that our intent is that we will go ahead and locate the Jackson Drain in the center line of this fire truck access and he was saying that he didn't think that we would have a problem of requesting a license agreement with the Nampa-Meridian to go ahead and put trees on the northern -- he said the biggest concern that they had was that there was a construction zone that if they had to get in and repair the ditch, that they had it, so he -- and I told him that our intent was to put it inside the fire truck access, that they'd have easy access to that. On the parallel parking, we went ahead and reconfigured this, so we would have four handicapped spaces and a loading area, which I think was a good suggestion by Brad. And, then, we made those changes on compact parking stalls for the bank and landscaped the drive-thru median. And we pretty much concur with staff's findings of fact and conditions of approval. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Just your last statement you said you pretty much concur. Is there something -- Tamura: No. No. We concur. Borup: Okay. Tamura: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that hearings RZ 04-015 and CUP 04-049 be closed. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Debember 2,2004 Page 10 of 55 Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: We don't seem to have as many public come when it's downsizing the zoning, do we? Zaremba: No. Well, I think this is a group that has contacted the neighborhood several times and done a good job of that. We appreciate it. Staff's recommendation was that we continue this to get all the problems resolved. It sounds to me like most of the problems are resolved. Borup: Are there any other -- Zarernba: Are there any specific conditions that we need to remove or just by the fact that they have been satisfied leaving them in doesn't hurt anything? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, yes, when I issued the report it was quite at a late date and so I didn't anticipate that we would be able to get all these taken care of, so we do appreciate that. So, no, I think given what was put onto the record tonight, we are comfortable with it moving ahead if you'd like, but I do think that it would help for the Council's recommendation if you could go ahead and strike some of these conditions that they have already complied with. That way Council won't need to see it and think that would be number -- Zaremba: Do you want to start at the top and specify? Page 11? Hawkins-Clark: Starting on page 11. Right. Site specific number three, number four, number six, number eight. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question on the trash enclosure. I'm having a hard time visualizing it to look nice, a trash enclosure sticking out at the end of a drive-thru. Is it going to be behind a fence? Has that been done anywhere else in town? Are you putting it there, because there is no place else to put it? Hawkins-Clark: Maybe you'd like to have the applicant -- of course you closed the Public Hearing, didn't you. I mean you're right, it is very unique. Newton-Huckabay: That's not the word I was thinking. Hawkins-Clark: The city does require them to be enclosed on three sides. It will be, you know, on a driveway that carries, you know, a reasonable amount of traffic for sure. You know, these trash enclosures are always a little bit interesting for us, since we -- you know, we don't drive and pick them up, I mean the city's contractor does, and so we Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deiêember 2. 2004 Page 11 of 55 really do rely heavily on SSC to give us input on whether it's in a location that they can effectively pick it up. I don't think Mr. Tamura has had a chance to verify that with them. If you -- one way -- as far as appearance, you know, I think it could work as far as having the three sided enclosure match the Banner Bank materials, building materials, brick and/or maybe split face block or something like that, so that, you know, it looks like it belongs with Banner Bank and it's not just sitting out there in the middle of nowhere. Some landscaping around those can also really help. I think the main thing will be, you know, having -- normally I think they are about six feet, you know, a six foot high block wall around this and, you know, it could be that maybe another location can be figured out and they wouldn't have to do it there, if that's a concern of yours, you know, they -- you could condition this that says it's not approved I guess is one option for you and say that they have to find another location that will work. Zaremba: I like the suggestion of having it made out of materials that match the nearest building, theoretically the Banner Bank. Okay. Enclosed on three sides, does that include any kind of roofing? Hawkins-Clark: No. Zaremba: Or could they be open to the top? Hawkins-Clark: They could be open. They almost all are. Borup: The nearest building is building number -- or pad site five, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is, Chairman, but the lot -- I think that it could serve both -- both buildings, I think potentially. There is one trash enclosure shown here in this area and, then, the other one is here at the end of the island. So, you know, those kind of details would be worked out at the time of building permits in terms of -- with the Sanitary Service Company as they address these and, then, they work out the contract with each building owner and sometimes they do have combined, you know, trash enclosures that serve more than one building, as long as they -- they are not a real high trash generator. Borup: We are assuming the sight-obstructing gate, I assume. Hawkins-Clark: That's a good idea. The code does not actually say it has to have a gate. It just says three sides. Borup: Well, that may be something that we might consider at that location. Newton-Huckabay: My suggestion would be to find an alternate place for the trash enclosure. I would think there would be someplace else on that development that you could put it that it wasn't so obvious. Borup: To be used it needs to be near the buildings, doesn't it? Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting Detember 2. 2004 Page 12 of 55 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I understand it needs to be near the building, but there is a lot of banks in this town and none of them have the trash enclosure in the drive-thru. There has got to be another alternate place it could go. Borup: Maybe I'm missing something. I thought this was the trash enclosure here we were talking about. Newton-Huckabay: No. We are talking about right there. Borup: Oh. Newton-Huckabay: Right? Borup: Okay. It's not on the -- Newton-Huckabay: It's right there. Borup: Okay. Well-- Zaremba: Most of the other logical places to put it in regards to the building are going to be difficult for SSC to access, unfortunately. It means more turning and backing. Borup: I wouldn't think the bank would be too excited about it there, but -- Zaremba: It might be less -- if it were going to be shared with this other pad, it might actually be less noticeable in that position. Newton-Huckabay: I think there is one right -- Zaremba: But not a whole lot less. Newton-Huckabay: -- north where it - there is one right there. Could that one be enlarged to accommodate both? Zaremba: Well, let rne ask Brad. Would you be comfortable if we said we suggest rnoving it and work it out before City Council? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Staff is comfortable with that. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: At this point SSC I don't think has reviewed it. Zaremba: We interrupted you. Were there anymore paragraphs we should totally delete? I will add a new paragraph about the trash enclosure. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deeember 2.2004 Page 13 of 55 Borup: I think we stopped at eight. Zaremba: Eight was the last one you deleted. Hawkins-Clark: Right. And I believe that would -- that would be the last one. Zaremba: Okay. Anybody else have any issues to raise? I'm ready to make a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Did we decide on whether or not we were going to cut down the buffer to 15 feet? Zaremba: We didn't and we do need to make a statement about that. Newton-Huckabay: I think it should remain 20 feet. Zaremba: Let's see. If there is eight feet of landscaping achieved south of the driveway -- there is 15 north of the driveway and eight south and the driveway is 20 feet wide as well. That doesn't help? Borup: I think they run about five south, but -- Rohm: Well, the applicant said that they could move this -- move it south five feet to get that, but, then, what you have done is compromised the landscaping between the drive and the building and both work towards a buffer, if you will, between this development and the adjacent property. So, it's almost like sixes. I mean you're either going to put five additional feet on the north of the turnaround or five feet on the south, but you're still going to have the total footage between the developed property and the adjacent property, so you won't really be gaining any additional buffer, it's just which side of the turnaround it's on. Moe: And, then, you're bringing that turnaround closer to the building as well without landscaping between the building and the turnaround. Newton-Huckabay: Nobody can see the landscaping on the building, your line of sight there. That's my input. Rohm: Yeah. And that's good. I kind of like it the way it's been drawn up, myself. Moe: I would agree. Zaremba: Well, I would be satisfied to -- even if we had to call it alternate compliance, there is still the same amount of landscaping and the same amount of pavement. I could easily be satisfied within the configuration that the applicant has. Is that a deal breaker for you? Newton-Huckabay: Huh-uh. No. It's fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deéember 2.2004 Page 14 of 55 Zaremba: All right. Okay. In that case-- Newton-Huckabay: I'm happy about the trash enclosure. Zaremba: I would be satisfied to leave the fire turnaround and the buffer the way the applicant has showed it and if we need to call that alternate compliance, do we need to say that? Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe so, no. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-015, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 2, 2004, received by the city clerk November 30, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-049, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 2, 2004, received by the city clerk November 30, 2004, with the following changes: Beginning on page 11, under site specific conditions, paragraph three can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph four can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph six can be deleted as complied with. Paragraph eight can be deleted as complied with. And I would add on page 12 a paragraph 14 that says that we would prefer that the trash enclosure currently nearest to the proposed Banner Bank be relocated to a less conspicuous position and the applicant can work with staff and SSC to accomplish that before the City Council hearings. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 04-019 REVISED Request for Annexation and Zoning of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road and North Meridian Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 04-026 REVISED Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 220 single-family residential building lots and 17 common lots on 64.48 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deéember 2, 2004 Page 15of55 Voigt Developrnent Company - north of West McMillan Road and Noth Meridian Road. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 04-028 REVISED Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a single-family residential use with reduced lot frontages, reduced lot sizes and reduced chord length and increased block length, including clubhouse pool and playground in a proposed R-8 zone for Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road and North Meridian Road. Borup: Okay. Next item is Public Hearing for Ventana Subdivision. First AZ 04-019, request for annexation and zoning 64.48 acres, RUT to R-8 zone, and Public Hearing PP 04-026, request for preliminary plat approval of 220 single family residential lots, and CUP 04-028, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. We'd like to open all three public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. As our staff report outlined, this application was remanded back to you by the City Council. You forwarded a recommendation for approval on August 19th of this year and, then, on September 28th the City Council did remand it back to you. The primary reasons they did so are listed on pages two and three. There was four reasons that they gave as to why they sent it back and I have kind of highlighted those there. The first one had to do with a lack of transition in lot sizes on the north. The second one is a redesign for -- of the common areas. The third one is overall density. And, then, the fourth one is vehicular access and drop-off points. I, then, did list a table there that compared the original plat with the revised plat on page three. Generally, staff feels that the revised plan does comply with these changes. I think it flows really well. There was a real nice change to the open space and the layout. Just as a reminder to you, there is a future middle school site, 40 acres here on the south side, and, then, Saguaro Canyon on the east and, then, two 20 acre county parcels to the north and Paramount Subdivision to the west. The property is designated medium density on the Comprehensive Plan. This is the revised plat and many of the elements of the plat do remain the same as far as the location of the community clubhouse. Some of the - the open space lots, much of that remains the same. The big difference is that this open space area hear as you come in off of Meridian Road and this open space here in the southeast are both substantially opened up to the streets, giving a lot more visibility into the areas. Previously they were mostly surrounded by single-family homes. They have reduced the number of build-able lots from 233 to 220, so they have removed 13 lots. That changes the density from 3.6 dwelling units per acre to 3.4. The open space increases to 10.4 percent of the project. The planned development -- the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development, the reasons for that are listed on page four of the staff report and there is four areas there that they are asking for reductions. Minimum lot size -- proposing a minimum lot size of 6,388 square feet per lot. Lot frontage proposed to reduce to 40 feet. Cord length reducing five feet to 35 and, then, a block length at 1,500. So, again, we have had this discussion about how many lots are affected by this and, I'm sorry, but I did not put that in the staff report and forgot to ask the applicant to Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 16of55 do that. The minimum frontage is really very few -- few lots. The majority of the lots in the subdivision are between 7,000 and 9,000. Their largest lots are on the north boundary here, which got quite a bit of discussion at the City Council hearing. They have enlarged those and added this cul-de-sac. There is a multi-use pathway through this project as well, as was the last one, and it comes in through Saguaro Canyon and they are proposing to put it in a six foot wide sidewalk in front of the houses and, then, put it into a ten foot wide pathway the majority of the rest of the way out to Meridian Road and it would hook up with Paramount Subdivision and continue west. We think that, actually, this is an improved flow for the pedestrians as well on this new design. The block length -- there was only one block that is affected by that. They are proposing to exceed the 1,000 feet requirement and go greater than 1,500 feet on the south here next to the school. That's, I believe, the only block that is greater than the thousand feet in length. It is broken up with this area right here, which was another reason that the City Council remanded it and this -- as you can see, there is a drop-off area that is shown off of the main street, which is, I think, the first tirne that the city's really seen one of these. I think it's a great idea and will work well. There is a pathway that comes in -- that's right. Bridgetower Crossing had one, too, didn't it. There is a pathway that, then, leads down. One difference there, they did previously have two pathways connecting to the school site. This has been reduced to one. We did receive a written response from the applicant agreeing to staff's recommended conditions, for the most part. There is only one that I wanted to point out for the Commission and that is actually a fire department condition and it's on page 19, item number five. This is a standard condition that Joe Silva, the deputy chief, has placed on many projects of this size and others where they are concerned about having their main points of access into a site being separated by a reasonable distance and they have considered that distance to be half -- half the diagonal measurement of the site. In this case, if you take out the diagonal measurement of this property and you separate the entrances into the site, these two entrances are approximately 800 feet apart. They, by his standard, would need 1,100 -- about 1,100. The main reason for that, as was explained to staff, is related mainly to construction traffic and the closure of arterial roads, either for accidents or construction and the difficulty of getting an engine with those closures and the further apart they are the easier it is for them to get in on an emergency response situation. So, in order for them to comply with this condition on page 19, what was recommended is that they put a deed restriction on one of the lots in this area of the plat, that deed restriction would basically require them to construct on temporary emergency access road across that at the point that they hit 50 lots or more, until they get a secondary permanent access and, then, that would go away. We have seen this in other locations. The main difference here is that they are, actually, proposing to construct two permanent access points in phase one onto Meridian Road, it's just that they don't meet the distance that the fire department is asking for. So, Deputy Chief Silva is asking for that just to be clarified. That would probably just be a new site specific condition under the preliminary, even though the way it's written I didn't include it in there right now. It would need to be added as a condition to place a deed restriction and maybe if the applicant -- if Mrs. McKay could address that, we could go from there. I think that's the main point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2.2004 Page 170f55 Zaremba: Question, Brad. That -- I'm just trying to clarify. That would be a temporary condition that actually would be lifted when there were the back stubs -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Is that -- Hawkins-Clark: Or -- right. Yeah. You're, obviously, not going to get one to the south, because the school district does not want public streets. They have this stub street here and, then, they have two stub streets on the north. Zaremba: And at that point the fire department would be satisfied and -- Hawkins-Clark: They would. Zaremba: -- the restriction on this lot could go away? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Obviously, this applicant has no control over that and it could be that maybe Saguaro Canyon, which, you know, would be the one here, you know, may develop before they get to phase two. At this point nobody knows, but -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other question from the Commissioners? Anything you would like to add? Who is the -- for the applicant? Mrs. McKay, are you doing the presentation? McKay: I will be brief, unlike normal. As Brad indicated, we did move on with a recommendation for approval from the Commission. When we went to the Council, they had some concerns. Since the school district did not want any vehicular connection, the Borup: Oh, Becky, just -- McKay: Oh. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aiken, Suite B, Eagle. The Council had a concern, since we had two pedestrian access points connecting us to the middle school, that there would be difficulty in traffic backing up along in front of these houses along the local street, so they asked us to look at an option of coming up with say like a drop-off, since the school district doesn't want any vehicular connection, such as a stub street. One of the other concerns they had was this park here is more linear in fashion. They said that they felt that that was not inviting enough to the neighborhood, that it benefited only those lots which backed up against it, and the same for this kind of linear park right in this location. We also, as with the Commission, had substantial opposition from Mr. Priddy, who had the 20 acre parcel to the north. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deéember 2,2004 Page 18 of 55 Council asked us to take a look at trying to better transition our lot sizes from Mr. Priddy, since he indicated at the Council that he had no intentions of developing his property. However, now is marketing it for high density residential. So, what we did is we created a drop-off point here along the south boundary. We will have a ped path. Parents can come in, we have got a separation here from the right of way with an island, they will come in here, they will be able to park, get out of the traffic way, and pick the kids up. So, the two micro-paths that we originally had are now one large common area. We took this common area here, did some readjustments, oriented it not only to benefit the rear of the lots, but exposure to the public right of way. We enlarged the clubhouse and pool area here, widened it out, created some more additional open space there to rnake it a little more inviting and, then, along this area where we will be piping the North Slough, we had lots that backed up to it on both sides, this now has an orientation to the right of way. The multi-use pathway will come in from Saguaro here, will come up, and, then, the majority of it does lie within the common areas. So, most of it will be a ten foot asphalt path. Anyplace where it is adjoining the right of way it will be will six feet. This particular area we kind of moved this block outward to orient this more to the right of way, so we could get a little bit better exposure of that open space. As far as the north portion was concerned, we stuck in a cul-de-sac, because that, obviously, allows us to make larger lots and so the lot sizes along here we had, if you recall in the original plan, we had some that were 6,500 square feet. These lots are now, I think, around 13,000 square feet on the average. So, we enlarged their size. The Council did not have any criticisms about the density, nor the design -- the overall design, they just wanted us to make some fine-tuning and to address some of the concerns that they had. So, we did get with the staff, we came up with some different ideas, and based on our input and the staff's input, we came up with this plan. It did -- we did drop 13 lots from the original plan and that was based on the fact where we increased our open space from eight percent to I think 10.4 percent. That was one of the comments that the Council had. With these planned developments, you know, they stated that they'd like to see more open space when we are deviating from the dimensional standards, they'd like to see, you know, the amenities and a boost in that open space a little closer to that ten percent. So, this is the product that we came up with. We feel that it is a good plan. I think staff is very happy with it. From a planning perspective I think there are certain aspects of this plan that are superior to the other one. It is a little more inviting on the open space, although some of our clients prefer the linear open space, you know, this is more a combined type open space with orientation towards the site as a whole. Do you have any questions? Borup: No questions from the Commission? Rohm: Just one. What is your percentage of open space? McKay: I think it is 10.4 percent. It was 8.1 or something along that line. If you look in the table it delineates that. Rohm: Got it. Thank you. Me¡idian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 19 0155 Zaremba: I have two questions. I always appreciate your well thought out responses to the staff report. However, what I was given this time is a response to the Sommersby Subdivision report, so I haven't seen your response to this. So, if you'd just confirm for me staff's statement that you're pretty much in agreement with the staff report. McKay: Oh. Yes. We did respond. I don't know how that got in there. Zaremba: Somehow I got a Sommers by one instead of this one. McKay: Uh-oh. Yeah. We submitted one on November 30th. Zaremba: Okay. McKay: Yes. We have gone through the staff report and I believe we are in agreement with all of staff's conditions. I think the only thing that Brad asked me to address is the fire department's new requirement. We have been accustomed with dealing with the issue of two access points once we hit that 50 lot threshold. We have -- we have been in agreement with that, because it -- from a safety perspective it does make sense. This new requirement of this half the diagonal dimension, I'm not sure where that's coming from. You know, typically, the fire department requirements are oriented in the International Fire Code and so I have to do some research. This one was kind of sprung on us just a few days ago. So, I guess our argument would probably be better at the Council on that issue. One problem I see with it, from a practical perspective, is, you know, their concern is the fact that these are only 800 feet apart, so they are saying if this was 300 feet further down, then, it would be acceptable. Well, I think the key issue is that you have got two points of interconnected ingress and egress. If Meridian Road is blocked due to construction, I don't think the fact that this is 200 feet or 300 feet further is going to make a lot of difference from a practical perspective. We can always deed restrict a lot and bring a 20 foot gravel access out, but, typically, you have got landscaping that's required along the perimeter, we will have a meandering sidewalk. I don't believe a sidewalk can handle 7,000 GVW driving up over the top of it. Typically, they can, especially like a meandering one that's along the berm. I mean Bruce may want to address that. So, I see some problems with trying to make that work. I'm more -- an easier thing to do would probably be to bring a pathway or a 20 foot gravel access south and, then, work with the school district to bring it along the southern boundary versus coming in across berms. We will also have -- without having a gap in the fence. You know, we, typically, like the fence off the arterial. It's also a safety issue for like little kids, toddlers, or whatever that gets away and here we are creating a gap in the fence, a gap in the berm, where they could get out to that arterial. So, I do see that that's going to be problematic and I reserve the right to discuss it when we move onto Council. I guess I'm not in total agreement with that. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone to testify on this application? Commissioners? Again, seeing none, Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deœmber 2.2004 Page 20 of 55 Zaremba: I would ask one more question either of staff or of Mrs. McKay. I'm sorry she got away already. Has there been any resolution on the 20 foot gravel drive reserved for a neighbor? That seemed to be a point of contention when we had the last hearing on this project. Mr. Priddy is it to the north and this applicant seemed to be having issues about the driveway that's actually a third property. Is there any resolution or any time frame for that to be resolved? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, no, I don't believe so. I mean the condition remains actually attached to Saguaro Canyon, which is to the east. I mean that's -- that's who owns that and that's who would utilize it. So, as far as the resolution -- the way that it was worded was if that -- that it will need to go away at some point in the future, but -- I guess what we have been told here at the staff table by Dave McKinnon, who had represented Saguaro Canyon, is that the -- there is some agreement that the owner of Saguaro Canyon would sell -- will sell to either Mr. Voigt, who is developing this project, or Mr. Priddy, who owns the parcel to the north and it sounds like at this point, obviously, Mr. Priddy would be the likely purchaser. Zaremba: So, it can be resolved? Hawkins-Clark: It sounds like it's moving that direction. It remains a gravel road that neither one of these parties own today, but -- Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: It's moving that way. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on AZ 04-019, PP 04-026, and CUP 04-028 be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Brad, actually. The applicant made a suggestion of using the very southern lot to reserve for the fire access, with the ability to re-challenge that at the City Council meeting. If we wanted to include that as a requirement, is that an annexation issue or a preliminary plat issue? Hawkins-Clark: I think it would be a plat issue. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recomrnending approval of AZ 04-019, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 2, 2004. Me¡idlan Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 21 of 55 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-026, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 2, 2004, with the one change. Under site-specific conditions of approval preliminary plat, on page 15, I would add a paragraph 14 that says applicant will work with staff and the fire chief to temporarily provide an emergency access on the southern most lot facing Meridian Road and the applicant has the ability to challenge that at City Council. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-028, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 2, 2004, with no changes. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 04-040 Request to amend the Preliminary Plat (PP 02-006) to add six additional building lots in location that were previously platted as storm drainage ponds for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision (Amended) by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of East Victory Road and west of South Eagle Road: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-040. This is the one we discussed earlier. It's a request for a preliminary plat for Tuscany Lakes amended. Like to open this hearing at this time and open for a motion for-- Nary: Mr. Chairman, we did receive a fax today from Monte Morgner, who was not able to be here tonight, with an objection and I just wanted to submit that to the clerk for part of the record on this Tuscany Lakes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deéember 2, 2004 Page 22 of 55 Canning: Mr. Chairman, just so you all know, I spoke to his sister Mary DeChambeau earlier today and she said she would inform him that -- of the hearing date on the 6th and he might try and make that hearing date. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And by that time I assume we will have copies of his memo. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing PP 04-040 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 6, 2005, and that meeting will also be re-noticed for that date. Rohm: Second. Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: And as I look at this letter that was turned in, that was -- really, their comment was why weren't they notified. So, that is being corrected. Item 10: Public Hearing: PFP 04-008 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval for 4 building lots on 8.02 acres in an I-L zone for Nola Subdivision by Bergey Land Surveying - SWC or East Pine Avenue and North Nola Road: Borup: Okay. Next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-008, a request for preliminary/final plat approval for four building lots and 8.02 acres in an I-L zone for Nola Subdivision. Like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Wilson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, Nola Subdivision is located at the corner of East Pine Avenue and North Nola Road and is zoned Light Industrial. The proposal is for a four-lot subdivision. It has come in as a preliminary/final plat request. The southern most Lot 4 has an existing structure, which is used for Oak Harbor Freight. The northern portion of the subdivision contains three lots with frontage on East Pine Avenue and Nola Road on the east. Locust Grove is scheduled for improvements. It's on ACHD's five-year work program for extension to the west of this subdivision, requiring a 96-foot right of way for the associated improvernents to Locust Grove Road. Along with that, the intersection of Locust Grove and Pine will be improved and widened onto a portion. Pine will be improved on a portion of this -- of this property to the east of the intersection and it's staff's understanding that there has been some recent developments with the applicant and ACHD regarding the design and the right of way requirements along East Pine Avenue across north of this property and we anticipate that a revised preliminary plat will be submitted. I have to apologize for the large draft across the front page of this. There was, actually, supposed to be a water mark and read it -- so, it was supposed to be there, but that page was supposed to be readable, so apologize for that. I can get to the specifics in them, but we are recommending a continuation of this upon resolution of some of the outstanding issues Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deéember 2.2004 Page 23 of 55 that were raised pretty late in the process that we didn't have time to address. So, the idea being that the staff report is in draft form and will be revised for your next hearing. So, I apologize for the un-readability of that. Just some issues to touch on and I'll let the applicant address their discussions with ACHD regarding the changes along Pine. Some key things are only one access will be allowed along Pine Avenue requiring cross-access agreements to those -- to the three lots for the ingress and egress. I think one small change from the staff report, ACHD in their report did recommend closing the shared drive along Nola, if it's not going to be utilized. I think in the staff report I said that they recommend to continue use sharing that, but the submitted site plan does appear to not be utilizing that, so I do recommend closing that, if that's the case. A couple other things. The required landscape easement along Locust Grove Road on the preliminary plat submitted is not shown extending on to Lot 4. That does need to extend along the full length of Locust Grove Road onto Lot 4 and also the same on Nola Road, which is a small required easement, but it also does need to extend to the south of the property considered for the plat. Along the same vein, a detailed landscape plan also is not provided for Lot 4 and we have requested that that be provided as part of the application. We did get a detailed landscape plan for the northern three lots, but we do require one for Lot 4 to the south. The existing structure does need to be brought to the same standards along those roads and required buffers as the newly platted lots, so we do need that plan to be able to analyze that. The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan future land use map does depict a multi-use pathway along the east boundary of this property along Nola Road. It has come -- it has come to my attention that Nola Road will be cul-de-sac'd to the south of this property upon extension of Locust Grove Road, the idea being that no additional railroad crossings are granted, so to gain the Locust Grove crossing they need to eliminate the Nola Road crossing, therefore, making the location of the multi-use pathway a little bit unrealistic or difficult along Nola Road, because it would have to have a crossing of the railroad. We feel that it -- looking at ACHD's plans and the future of the site, that it makes more sense for a multi-use pathway to be along Locust Grove Road and, then, possibly along the south side of Pine for a connection to other pathways in the area and we anticipate working with ACHD on that issue and as a condition we have included an easement -- that the city does reserve the right to acquire an easement where ever that may work out in the future. So, just in summary, the staff does recommend that this is continued for the submittal of some revised information, revised preliminary and final plat. The applicant does -- is required to submit some CC&Rs as well for the development and -- and the changes to the landscape plan and upon submission of those we will prepare a revised staff report and address some of these issues more adequately and with that I'll end staff's comments. Borup: Questions for staff at this point? Moe: No. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I actually have one for Mr. Freckleton. We have a copy of a memo requesting that they allow to hook up to city water full time for their irrigation. Do we need to have an opinion on that or do you have an opinion on that? Me¡idlan Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 24 of 55 Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, the applicant and I have talked about this -- the dilemma that they have being on the -- basically the bottom end of a ditch, having intermittent flows, and her discussions with the irrigation district and it was my recommendation that she get it in writing and get it submitted as part of this packet, so that it can go to City Council. They are the ones that can -- have to make the -- take action on that. For the small amount of landscaping that they have here and given the condition that they have, I think that it -- that it probably warrants the variance. One provision that we do have in our ordinance, though, if a variance is granted for them not to have a pressurized irrigation system, they would be subject to paying well development fees, so we tack that on when this goes forward to Council. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Would the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Comish: Hi. My name is Angela Comish and I'm actually the civil engineer that's helping working on this project and just quickly to help you understand a little bit about why we had the variations with ACHD is we had originally had gone in there to meet with them and tell them what we were going to do and the person I spoke with I don't think was aware of how soon this project would take place on Locust Grove and Pine, the improvements. So, I was under the impression that I needed to make those improvements around the side and I worked quite diligently to work on that and, then, last week they brought me in and said here is the plans that are already done and they are actually looking at construction in possibly 2007. So, it's really silly for me to work on putting in -- you know, widening the road and putting in curb, gutter, and sidewalk, when they are going to turn around and rip it out within a year or so. So, that's why we have the variation in the roadway width and the right of way, stuff that we just need to get revised as far as the preliminary and final plats. So, it's not major changes, it's more or less moving a right of way line probably in onto the lot a little bit further than what it is right now. As far as the Lot No.4 with the building on it, I'm not the surveyor, but somehow during this whole process we went from three lots and that one got added at some point. So, I don't know exactly how that worked out. I think the owner actually owned that one at one time, too, I'm not sure, but somehow that got added into there, so that's why there isn't the easements and things that are shown on that and I think the surveyor thought it's existing, it's there, it already has the landscaping and things, and he probably didn't realize that that needed to be added to that, so we will get that taken care of. Moe: What kind of a time frame are you going to need to get these changes taken care of and come back? Com ish: Pretty quickly. We are already working on them. Rohm: But you're in concurrence that a continuance is in order? Me¡idian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 25 of 55 Comish: By all means. Rohm: Okay. That's-- Zaremba: I think the question on the timing, if we rescheduled this or continued it to our meeting on the 16th, you would have to have all these materials to staff this coming Monday. Is that workable? They need ten days to spread it around to all the people they need to spread it around to. Com ish: Ten days? Zaremba: Well, my question to you is will you be ready to get it -- Com ish: I know. I'm the engineer, though, I'm not their surveyor, and I worried about speaking for him. I believe he could probably do that, but I just wanted to check with -- I wanted confirmation from the folks over there. Do you have to have it truly by Monday? Wilson: We would prefer ten days. It would definitely be preferable. Zarernba: Would everybody be more comfortable if we were talking about the 6th of January, instead of the 16th of December? Wilson: I believe so, depending on the applicant's time frame, but, yeah, I think so. Zaremba: Okay. Comish: We probably ought to do that, then. Zaremba: Okay. Because they do everything ten days before, so -- Comish: That makes good sense. And as far as the irrigation, I talked with Bruce about it and I talked with the guys at Nampa-Meridian and they are like, you know, we just can't guarantee you water, we are sorry, but you're at the end of the line. So, that's why we approached it that way. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Do we have a date to continue it to? Rohm: I think before we do that, though, shouldn't we see if there is anybody else? Borup: Yes. Do we have any public testimony on this application? Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: No. We want to continue it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deii:ember 2, 2004 Page 26 of 55 Moe: Oh. Excuse me. You're right. That's what I wanted to do. I knew that all along. So, let me start that over, then. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on PFP 04-008 be continued to the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 6, 2005. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Is the Commission okay to continue on or do you need a short break? Zaremba: We could take five minutes. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time and, then, continue on. (Recess.) Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 04-050 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a 3-story, 100-room hotel in an I-L zone for Country Inn & Suites Hotel by Boise Hotel Enterprises, LLC & ABC 2, LLC - north of East Pine Avenue and east of North Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to continue our meeting this evening. Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-050, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a three story one hundred room hotel in an I-L zone for Country Inn and Suites Hotel. This is at north of East Pine Avenue and east of North Eagle Road. Open this hearing at this time and we'd like to start with the staff report. Wilson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this application is for a Country Inn Suites, a three story, 100 room hotel, located in a Light Industrial zone near the intersection of Eagle Road and East Pine -- or Pine Avenue. The subject property was annexed in 1984 by Upland Industries and was -- is subject to a development agreement recorded at that time. There has also been two planned unit developments on the property, one in 1991 and one in 1999 and both allowing a mix of commercial and residential uses in the subdivision. In the I-L zone a hotel would not normally be a allowed use, because of the planned -- the planned development CUP. It does expand on the uses allowed within the subdivision. To the -- to the north of the project -- I'll get a better visual here. To the north of the project is the Crossroads shopping center. To the east is a residential subdivision, Crossroads Subdivision, zoned R-4, and to the -- well, the location of the hotel, the proposed hotel, is in the southeast corner of the property here directly adjacent to the residential subdivision. The site is proposed to have 106 parking spots. Staff does raise a question whether that's adequate. One hundred and six would be adequate for the -- one is required per room, so there are 100 stalls required for the 100 rooms and, then, thereafter, one parking spot for every two Me¡idian Planning & Zoning Meeting De<!ember 2, 2004 Page 27 of 55 employees. So, the provided parking is adequate for the hotel, plus 12 employees. We would like the applicant to address the number of employee that the hotel will have, so we can evaluate the adequacy of that parking. As a CUP, a conceptual landscape plan was -- is required. The applicant has provided the required street buffers and landscape plantings with the -- with the one exception of the northwest corner of the property, they have depicted 13 parking spots in a row, which is in violation of Meridian code landscape ordinance and we have asked that that be reduced to 12. Staff does have concerns about the design of the site, the placement of the building directly adjacent to the residential subdivision to the east. There is an. existing fence and 20 foot buffer along that property line, but it appears that the hotel as proposed would be within 75 feet of some of the residences in that neighborhood and we do have some concerns about the impact of the residences and the residents of that neighborhood. As a Conditional Use Permit, there is a provision to require above and beyond what the letter of the ordinance allows for, so you can take into consideration design and impact on the neighborhood and impose requirements as you see fit. There is the question of the comparison of the impacts between either having the hotel adjacent to the property line or having the parking area adjacent to the line. Both do have associated impacts and staff recommends that public testimony regarding those -- the difference between those impacts be taken into account in the decision. The three-story structure close to the residences does certainly have the potential for some impact on them, but you should rely on testimony to make that determination. All accesses to the site were previously approved by ACHD. There are two on the private drive along the west of the property and, then, two accesses to east -- to Pine Avenue were previously approved. The applicant has submitted elevations as required as part of the Conditional Use Permit. This is the longest elevation. I looked -- I believe this would be the elevation adjacent to the residential neighborhood. A visual of the hotel was provided as well with the associated parking and, then, the western elevation and a cross-section elevation of the building with the portico and entry to the hotel. I'd just touch on the Comprehensive Plan and its impact on this. The future land use map does designate this area as commercial, which allows for a full range of commercial and retail uses, which does support the application. However, the Comprehensive Plan does also require screening and buffering of commercial and industrial properties and residential uses and that could have some bearing on the design and location of the building on the property. And with that I will wrap up staff comments. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners at this point? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Borup: Commissioner Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Josh, you made a comment earlier about the zoning and I didn't really follow what you were saying. Wilson: About the -- the allowed uses in the -- is that -- Merjdian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deöêmber 2,2004 Page 28 of 55 Newton-Huckabay: So you were -- but they are not requesting a zoning change? Wilson: No, they aren't. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. I just misunderstood what you were saying. Wilson: It was just informational about the request. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Could you go through that again, please? Wilson: Yes. In the Light Industrial zone a hotel in a straight Light Industrial zone would not be an allowed use. This is an allowed use because of the planned unit development, the CUP was approved in 1999, did have -- did allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses within the subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: So. could you give an example of what would have been allowed had the development agreement not been entered into? Wilson: In the Light Industrial zone? Rohm: Yeah. Yes. Wilson: Sorry, I'm not completely familiar with it yet. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the area on the north side of Franklin by the fire station is a light industrial area and there we see a mix of some shops or some -- like office warehouse or they call it flex space now, where they have maybe a small retail showroom and, then, they run a business out of the warehouse part of it or provide some services. We also see a mix of like dance studios and stuff like that. Auto body works. We have got a paint refinisher. We have got that soccer one. So, the light industrial zone does allow for a number of uses that typically don't have a lot of parking demand, but they have large space requirements. That's mostly what we are seeing in the light industrial developments. I think the point Josh was trying to explain is that the whole Crossroads shopping center has a light industrial zoning on it, although it's really one of our most commercial areas, as you know, but that was done through the development agreement. I believe the light industrial zoning was existing at the time the planned development was done, so they just kept that zoning, but, really, it's been approved for commercial uses was the point that he was trying to make. Rohm: I guess the point that I was trying to rnake was the light industrial could, in fact, have the same structural elevations that this proposal tonight is having and be in Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting DeCember 2. 2004 Page 29 of 55 compliance with light industrial. I'm not saying that there is any thought of going that route, but a light industrial development could, in fact, have that same elevation as-- Canning: Well, it couldn't have a hotel was the -- Rohm: No. No, I'm not saying that, but the elevation of a proposal in light industrial could have the same kind of elevation that this -- Newton-Huckabay: It could be three stories high? Rohm: Yeah. It could be that tall. I mean theoretically. I don't know that -- I was just trying to see what alternatives there were as we move forward that might be different than this proposal tonight that would be acceptable. So, I was just thinking out loud there. Borup: Any other questions? Moe: Mr. Chairman. Josh, I was just kind of curious -- and I can follow this up with the applicant, but was there any mention of a neighborhood meeting or anything in regards to this project? Wilson: I have not heard mention of a neighborhood meeting. Moe: Well -- okay. Borup: Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Hennings: My name is Richard Hennings, I'm an architect with Sam Companies. We will be the developers, owners, and operators of the proposed Country Inn Suites. We are located in Wake park, Minnesota. And I have registration that's now in effect in the state of Idaho. First I wanted to pass out that revised site plan, which goes to the issue of the number of parking spaces and it wasn't generated by the staff report that questioned the number of parking spaces, but by the fact that there is a -- and I'm going to call it covenant and I think that's probably the wrong word, on the subdivision that requires a larger number of parking spaces per square foot of building and so the agreement worked out with the developer and other owners on that site -- so we have revised the site by adding some square footage to the site, so that we are now 400 feet north-south and added parking to get 120 parking spaces. But at this point that would accommodate 40 employees and, actually, this is a -- you know, a minimal service hotel and so 12 actually is the maximum number of employees we would have on anyone shift. But I think the question kind of goes away. At the time same, I took the opportunity to correct the situation where I had more than 12 parking spaces in a row and so this site plan has little variation, other than it adds those parking spaces. The other situations are the same. I guess, secondly, I wanted to just bring up that perspective. I see by watching the slide show that the drawings I sent certainly didn't reproduce very well and look terrible on the screen and so I wanted to just address the Me¡idian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2.2004 Page 30 of 55 fact that Country Inn and Suites, by their nature, are very residential looking. That's really what Carlson company, who is the franchisee of these, demands and so they have a very residential nature, they have residential siding and shutters and residential windows, 5-12 pitches and shingles on and so -- and this rendering is, actually, of another hotel, not of this site. You can see this is the one in St. Cloud, Minnesota. But they have that residential look, rather than that terrible dark look of that drawing that was put up, so I apologize for the rendering there. I wanted to address the parking issue and I know this has been a consideration as we have gone along here, the decision to put the parking in front, as opposed to put parking behind, and this is a judgment issue, there is no doubt about that. In our judgment, the neighborhood is better served by the parking in front that moves the building to the rear half of the lot. You probable can't read the dimensions there. The closest the building gets to the property line is 55 feet, the 20-foot landscape berm and, then, 35 feet and that's to the projection of the -- in the center. It steps back furthered away, so that in other areas we will approach 65 feet away from the property line. I should also pass around a photo that was taken just the other day of what that berm looks like and maybe you have driven by and looked at it, but I will pass this out. The berm is pretty well established and you can see that the pine trees have done well. They are sizeable now, hopefully, to get bigger in the future. We think that the issue of having the parking in front is that the back against the residential neighborhood will be quieter, that the lighting that we need to provide in the parking lot will be less obtrusive, less bothersome to them, and that it also creates a safer condition for motel users. It has also the advantage of creating some parking spaces that are double -- in other words, for pull through, and that is handy when somebody pulls up with a trailer or a camper or something like that and so that's one of the things we try to achieve. If we put parking in the rear, I agree that that moves our windows further away from the property line and there is no doubt about that. However, we think, then, it puts more noise generated by the parking, by the cars starting, doors slamming, those annoying little beeps we all get when we lock our car, puts those closer to it and it also creates a cut-through situation that we like to avoid. In other words, we -- you can see if we put the parking behind, we will have an easy cut through from Pine over to the private road and that will create more traffic back there. We will have a little more lighting spill over and so -- then, I'd like to just address the issue again of the residential nature of Country Inn and Suites. I don't want -- I want everybody to understand that, yes, it's a three-story building, it's not a giant three story building, though. The third floor is 20 feet above grade. So, that puts a normal person's eyes at 25 feet above grade on the third floor windows. So, it's not a giant building. And I guess, lastly, I would say that in support of this kind of site plan, as opposed to putting parking on both sides, we think it would be better to intensify planting on the berm than to put parking back there and create more paving and noise back there. I'll also stick on the easel here an aerial view and this is not much different than the view they had. It does show the development of the Crossroads -- Meridian Crossroads center around the thing and you can see other proximities. Are there any questions I could answer directly now or -- Borup: Commissioners, any questions? Me¡:idian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deèember 2, 2004 Page 31 of 55 Rohm: One thing that I would suggest, though, as we take public testimony, that you keep good records as we go through this, because we are going to ask you to respond to concerns of the public and that -- and the better you do taking notes, the better we can levalize that. Hennings: I'll try. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Hennings, I have one question and for fear of showing my ignorance of this type of thing. Can this -- is the only way this hotel can face is with the front of it facing west? Could it face Pine? I don't - didn't do the math. Borup: It doesn't -- and I had the same question. I just measured it. The same length does not fit by turning it, but that would have been my question, has there been any consideration to orienting it, so that the end of the building was facing east and maybe even an L-shaped building or something along that line? Hennings: The building configuration can change. I mean there is nothing set in stone that it has to be a rectangle. An L-shaped building is not an impossibility. I guess that still brings forth the question of let's say it's L-shaped and it has one wing along Pine and the other wing running north-south, is it better to put the north-south wing against the property line or the parking against the property line? I mean it's slightly different, but it's still -- we would still have the same question there. Newton-Huckabay: I think what we are trying to get at is see what the alternatives are as we listen to public testimony. Hennings: Yes, there is a possibility of that. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Questions from anyone else? Okay. We would like to open this up to public testimony now. I do have a list of those that signed up and also any of those that have not signed up will have a chance at the end. I'm just going to go right down the list. Erick Johnson? Okay. Ted Bird. Bird: Yeah. I'm Ted Bird. I live at 863 North Filmore Way. That's just right directly behind this area here. I live -- I live right up here. Can you do an overall -- yeah. I live in this area right here. I'm concerned about the traffic that we have going through there, how close it is, and the size of it. I live right -- right there, this corner house. We live right here in this house. I'm concerned about the size, the traffic, the light and, actually, the windows are towards the back and I'm concerned about the privacy issue, the people coming in and out and the noise. And I'm, actually, opposed to it being put in at all. I don't want it in there at all. I'm not just opposed to it being that close, I don't want it being in there at all. And there is one other issue. We have that cinder block fence Me~dian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 32 of 55 that comes along here, it's not completely finished, and whether or not it is put in there, I would like that cinder block fence finished up going all the way over to Pine. That's one of my big issues. But the biggest issue was that I don't want this in there at all. But I would like the fence finished no matter what goes in there. Light industrial, you know, anything that goes in there, I'd like that finished, because we have a concrete fence that's still got about 30 or 40 feet to go to where it meets Pine. You got a vinyl fence going along Pine, you got the cinder block fence there, but, then, we have a little small six foot wood fence, I'd like that finished off all the way over to Pine and that's what I got to say. Thanks. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bird from anyone? Okay. Sharon? Did you -- Sharon, did you want to testify? Okay. Clint Boyle. Boyle: Members of the Planning Commission, Clint Boyle, as an individual residing in Meridian tonight, rather than how I typically present myself here. I appreciate this opportunity to be in front of you this evening. I live at 3668 East Judicial Drive. This is one of the few times that I ever point out my house in a public hearing. I live in this location here. And the primary reason that I'm here tonight is I have one of the -- fortunate or some people think an unfortunate obligation and that is that I'm on the homeowners association board and so I am here representing the thoughts and considerations of the Crossroads homeowners association board. The board has had opportunity to meet and discuss this issue. We have not had the time to discuss this matter in a general neighborhood association meeting. However, we have talked to as many neighbors and residents of the subdivision as we could that were adjacent to and near this site and the consensus that we have received from speaking with the neighbors that are adjacent to the site and others in the area is the majority of those homeowners are in oPPosition to the project in one form or the other and I will describe a few of those issues tonight, but I would like to just indicate that several of the people here this evening and others that couldn't attend, I will be here speaking on their behalf as well. I would like to present for the record a petition that was signed by many of the homeowners indicating their opposition to this particular project. With that said, just to dive in to some of the issues that I'd like the Planning Commission to think about. This is a major shopping area for Meridian. There are several large tenants and anchor stores as you're all aware. ShopKo. Wal-Mart. Sportsman Warehouse. I mean Old Navy. There is a lot of retailers in the area, a lot of good restaurants. Personally for myself that was one of the draws as to why I moved into the neighborhood that was within this area was because it really is an ideal location. We have shopping amenities in very close proximity, we have good restaurants in close proximity to the neighborhood, we have a hospital very close to us, we have the interstate very close, so it's certainly a nice area to live in, has some very nice common area parks throughout the neighborhood. Now, with this particular proposal that we are talking about this evening -- am lout of time already? Borup: Well, we have normally allowed a neighborhood representative -- and I didn't ask that at the beginning, so -- and I usually ask that, but I didn't know we had an Me¡idian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 33 of 55 organized -- so, if it's fine with the other Commissioners, would you like to allow him some extra time? Rohm: No. I'd like to have him continue. Boyle: Thank you. This particular proposal, while -- the first thing that I want to mention is we have had several of the neighbors go out and actually take some measurements on the existing shopping centers. The nearest wall in any of the existing shopping areas -- back behind ShopKo and the rest of these centers, the nearest wall is actually 77 plus feet away from the neighborhood. Now, these existing businesses, they are retail users, there are no windows facing the neighborhood, they are single story uses, and they are all located at least 77 feet away from the property line, with the berm, the buffering, et cetera. Now, what I'd like the Commission to do is just visualize for a minute. You're sitting in your backyard, you own a house in a neighborhood and we can play with the numbers, we will call it 55 feet to 65 feet away is a neighbor that has a three story home building, et cetera, that is right out your backyard. The proximity of this hotel, not only is it one of the proximity to the property, because it is closer than any of the other retail commercial users within that overall shopping center, not only is it closer, it's much taller than any of the other businesses and it has windows and I counted up the windows -- I mean just on the elevations we were provided there is 63 windows facing out onto the neighborhood. It's a very long wall and I appreciate the fact that this particular hotel chain does try to make their hotels residential in nature, I think that's great when a hotel does that, it breaks up the scale somewhat. However, if you look at the rear elevation of this building -- if we can have staff just flip back to it, just back to the building elevation in the rear, that is the elevation that the neighborhood will be looking at out of their backyard, 55, 65 feet away from their property. And the other thing that you have to visualize here is not only is it a long wall, it does have a pitched roof line, however, outside of that there are not a lot of features that break up the scale, the sheer mass of that particular wall. The other comments associated with this are that most of the businesses -- I think everybody within this neighborhood, obviously, anticipates that this area is going to develop and most of them have the expectation that it's going to develop as retail type businesses. That's the way this entire shopping center has developed up to this point is with retail users. Now, what are the advantages of retail users in this area? The advantages are, typically speaking, with the exception of Wal-Mart, all of them are closed by 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock in the evening. The next point. No windows. The lighting, if any of you have driven in the back of those buildings at night, they -- the only lighting they have is, actually, right on the buildings over the entry doors coming in the back of the building. No parking light, no other lighting in the back, so they definitely have taken care of the neighborhood concerns in the past with regards to lighting. The hotel, obviously, would have people frequenting it essentially 24 hours a day, so it's definitely a more intensity of use as far as the frequency of people coming and going from this particular facility. The other points that I did want to bring up, because many of the Commissioners -- and, again, I don't know the general consensus of the overall neighborhood, I do the ones that are directly adjacent to this and their thoughts, however. The board also looked at what are some options, can they rotate the building so all of these windows are not looking out at everyone's backyards, Me~dian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 34 of 55 that it's oriented towards Pine. Obviously, that is a much better scenario for the neighborhood, because, then, it takes all those -- those windows, it also takes the length of that exterior wall and it rotates it around where it's a much narrower section that the neighbors are looking at with -- without having all of the windows looking right into the neighbors backyards. So, that was one option that we looked at was the rotation of the building. Another big concern, again, is the height and the three stories and that is a major issue. So, I don't know if something could be done to reduce the number of stories potentially on this and bring it more in line and in scale with the existing shopping center and the neighborhood. Or orientation of the building, that's a difficult issue as well. The developer brought this up and there was discussion putting the parking behind the building up against the neighborhood and having the building pushed further away and, obviously, that helps with that building elevation, you do have the issues, then, of parking and parking lot lighting and I don't know that that is a great solution. The discussion that I have had with neighbors is that if the parking were located adjacent to the neighborhood, they certainly would like additional considerations as far as height of that block wall, the landscape, et cetera, because, again, in this overall shopping center behind the ShopKo and everywhere else, there is not general parking facilities for the general public, so they are located further away, there is no parking, very minimal lighting, it's just going to, essentially, change the character of the area and what's developed currently. The consensus that I have received from the neighbors that I have had opportunity to talk to and the board members is that the general preference is that they would much rather see a retailer just as the other properties have developed and have been continuing to develop with Petco and Old Navy and these types of retailers, because, again, you don't have the windows, you don't have the height of building, it's a blank wall, limited activities with hours that close and don't operate through the night. So, that is, you know, in an ideal sense -- and, granted, this is a Conditional Use Permit, so I would like the Commissioners to take this into consideration. In a standard industrial zone you are correct, there is probably uses that would be much more detrimental to the neighborhood if there was some sort of manufacturing or something going on adjacent to it. However, this, obviously, isn't a standard industrial zone, that development agreement was put in place specifically to accommodate a shopping center. A hotel, in my understanding, is not an allowed use within that development agreement, it's a conditional use, if this Commission feels that it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood, will not detrimentally affect the neighborhood, then, it may be appropriate in its location. So, I just appreciate the Commissioners considering that this evening. We certainly, if the Commission does move this forward, would like to have considerations for some of the items that I mentioned with maybe building rotation, breaking up that back wall somehow with architectural features, some increased landscape buffering, et cetera, to hopefully mitigate some of those negative aspects and effects on the neighborhood. Staff's report and your staff, they have also agreed that there could be potential negative and detrimental impacts to the neighborhood as well. And I guess just in conclusion, there was a point brought up by the Planning Commission and the neighborhood board I know feels that we would have appreciated having a neighborhood meeting, so that we would have had some discussion with the developers. The board actually found out about this through the legal notice a couple of weeks before this hearing and, Me¡idian Planning & Zoning Meeting Deéember 2, 2004 Page 35 of 55 unfortunately, we haven't even had the time, due to the Thanksgiving holidays and whatnot, to even have our own neighborhood meeting to get a general consensus and I guess it's a foregone conclusion now, but we certainly would have appreciated having some discussion with the developer on the front end, rather than everybody making assumptions on what's good and what isn't and parking in the front, parking in the rear, and what's best for the neighborhood. So, if you would just consider those issues. And, again, the general consensus of the board is that this will be detrimental and we'd rather not see it on this location. However, we would certainly like to have the Commission, if they do move forward with this project, provide some additional mitigation measures to help mitigate the impacts of the hotel. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Borup: Questions for Mr. Boyle? I would maybe like a little bit of expounding on the mitigation aspects. Again, I understand what you're saying, those -- at least those you have talked to are not in favor and that's on the orientation, if it's -- if the length of the building was rotated 90 degrees, that would put the -- that probably would not have any of the room windows facing the subdivision and -- but it would put more of the parking area there. Was there any discussion on if that would help feelings a little bit? Boyle: Commissioner Borup, yeah, that is a good point and can we just go back to that area plan just for a second. Yeah. And this is -- the elevation actually shows that -- it's my understanding just from being in hotels, that that's probably just an entry or hallway corridor, rather than rooms and this would be the elevation that would face the neighborhood and you can see just from the sheer scale -- I mean that's a much better neighborhood scale type of elevation to be looking at, than to be looking at a 300 foot long wall, essentially, with windows in it. Now, if we can go back to the site plan just for a minute here. We did discuss, essentially, flipping this building 90 degrees facing Pine and, unfortunately, the dimensions that I have on the building and the site -- I mean it was kind of unclear as to whether or not that building would actually fit if it was flipped 90 degrees. Borup: Mine shows it would not, the little bit that I did. I didn't scale exactly, but it showed that it was short. Boyle: Short by -- and I guess that's -- you know, the representative for the hotel indicated that, you know, certainly the size and the location of the hotel wasn't set in stone and I guess, you know, they are proposing a certain nurnber of roorns, maybe if they -- maybe it would fit, if, you know, three rooms were removed or six rooms were removed from an end, just to get that wall. But I haven't actually been able to work with it to see exactly how it would fit in. This is an existing private road that was just recently put in that travels from Pine up to Presidential -- this laser pointer is -- Borup: It would be roughly 20 feet short how I calculate. Boyle: Twenty feet short. Zaremba: But, then, there would also still be a landscape buffer-- Me¡ldian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 36 of 55 Borup: Well, I took that into consideration. Yeah. That 20 feet -- to the 20 foot land -- that would put -- right now taking the landscaping at the one and going to the property line it fits, so that's why I say 20 feet -- allowing the 20-foot landscaping buffer. That is probably -- that's just approximate. Boyle: And this is me speaking again, because we haven't had a general neighborhood meeting. In discussing this with the board, we certainly believe that that would be a better alternative for the neighborhood than the existing layout, the 90 degree orientation, again -- and I don't know exactly where the building would sit, maybe it would sit further back here and the parking is closer out towards Pine. Obviously-- Borup: And that was the other question I had, if there has been enough discussion for a preference there if that happened. Boyle: I don't know that we have had enough discussion that I could say -- that I could represent the board in talking about that. I could certainly tell you, I guess, my personal opinions on it, but -- and, then, Ted Bird that was up previously from the neighborhood discussed his house here. I'm not sure what happened originally, but they had the existing block wall and the landscaping that was put in, which is a nice feature, and somehow that wall just ends abruptly and it's about 30 to 40 feet away from this property line down at Pine. You have a vinyl fence, six-foot, opaque fence, running all the way down Pine and, then, there is this gap where they don't meet up. Borup: And I don't know either. My assumption would be that they allowed for -- to the development of Pine. You know, roadwork around Pine. Boyle: And that may be. I mean it may have been to allow the construction, but now if you go out to the side -- and I apologize I don't have a picture of it, you have got a block wall, a gap to his backyard, and, then, the fence down Pine, so it's kind of -- Borup: It needs to be completed. Boyle: -- an unfinished corner that I'm sure the Birds would appreciate and that would certainly help with sorne of the noise from the traffic coming in at some of these entry drives that are on Pine and I think that was one of the concerns that the Birds had was just this was going to be an entry drive to the subdivision and the fence that was put in place to help mitigate some of those noise factors is short of extending all the way out. The location would be great. I think the particulars of it we haven't had a chance to really run through and, again, I guess I would have liked to have clarified that further. Unfortunately, like I said, there wasn't a neighborhood meeting with the developer and we haven't had the opportunity to put together one ourselves. to get kind of a general sense for how the overall neighborhood would feel on that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mer,dian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 37 of 55 Boyle: Thank you. Zaremba: I have kind of a sideways question. Boyle: Okay. Zaremba: Can we show either an aerial view or something that shows the whole subdivision? Thank you. I vaguely recall that as the ShopKo and other buildings were being built there was more done along here than is normally required. Do you know what all that buffering is, either it was a higher berm and a higher wall or a thicker something or other? Borup: I think along there just a block fence -- a cinder block fence was put in. Zaremba: At an additional height, though. It's not just a six-foot, is it? Borup: Yes. Other than there was a grade elevation between this site and some of the yards and so I think they went back and raised them. Does that sound correct? Boyle: And Commission Members, unfortunately, I don't have the historical knowledge that many of these neighbors have, because I'm fairly new to the neighborhood in this aspects, so there may be others here that would be better equipped to answer that question, but they do have the block wall. There is the landscape buffering and I'm not sure to the degree or extent of the height there that went in with ShopKo. Somebody else may be here that could address that, though, from the neighborhood for you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Maybe just a clarification from staff. In this zone are we allowed a higher wall height? Eight feet? Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, you are allowed a higher wall height, but, generally -- that's what I'm trying to look up right now. It might take me a second to look. You can do an eight-foot fence, but, generally, you can't do that within 20 foot of a right of way. Pine is a little unusual with the solid vinyl fence, because the fence was there and, then, the street was built. So, normally, there would be more of a separation between the street and that fence than what we are seeing. Typically we require at least ten, but that didn't happen with Pine Street. Borup: Okay. So, that might be part of the gap and, then, it would need to taper down, then? Canning: Normally it's a 20-foot setback on a wall. But I'm trying to figure out -- to give you the options. Just give me a moment. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 38 of 55 Borup: All right. Thank you. Does that conclude -- anything else, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: All right. Boyle: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue on. And Mr. Boyle hopefully did a good job representing the subdivision, but we do have others that are still signed up also. Mr. Patterson, do you still care to comment? Patterson: Mr. Chair, I have never spoken at one of these before, so I apologize if I do anything I'm not supposed to. I live at -- my name is Rance Patterson, I live at 3687 Presidential, just right in about there. And I purchased my home in 2000, so, you know, ShopKo and the stores were already in and I fully envisioned a commercial property and was willing to -- I was, actually, like Clint, excited about that. I dofeel, however, that the hotel is incongruent with the other developments around us as far as height and many of the things that Clint has discussed and I just wanted to reiterate that as a homeowner, our expectation was nothing more than one story with windows, you know, facing away and thank you. Borup: I think those commercial buildings -- even though they are one story, they are a height that -- Zaremba: They are a tall one story, but they don't, generally, have windows. Borup: Mr. Harper, did you -- okay. Thank you. And Parry? Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify, especially in opposition? I saw a hand back there earlier. Cuslidge: I'm also not good at this at all. My name is Sharon Cuslidge, I live at 3587 East Judicial. I don't know how this works. But I am right there. And I just wanted to address the vinyl wall on Pine. That was put in at the same time that the road was widened and it was put in in response to neighbors' concerns, because the road -- Pine is at such an elevation that it would have been almost as high as the neighbors' fences. So, ACHD put in that wall at the same time as they built the road, if that makes any difference whatsoever. One of the things that we had discussed, a few of us, with regard to the cinder block wall and the lighting issue, if they were to rnove the hotel further to the front of the lot or orient it differently, so that the parking is more toward the neighbors, if they could raise the block wall and mount the lighting on the wall pointing down into the parking lot and, then, perhaps any other lighting that's required to be on the building itself, as opposed to having tall lights that would really spill over into the neighborhood. That's just a suggestion. Mefidian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 39 of 55 Borup: Okay. Thank you. We had a couple others. Anyone else? Is she the last -- okay. A couple others that also signed up in favor. Are they all with you? Okay. Simons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Andy Simons, I'm with ABC 2, LLC. We are the landowner of most of the rest of the land in that 11 acre subdivision. We wholeheartedly support this application. We concur pretty closely with the staff report. I wish they had recommended it outright, but I'd like to address just a couple of the issues that I heard a little bit earlier and I can't speak for the developer of the hotel, I'm just speaking as a landowner, but at least a couple of the things that I think the developer has tried to do to mitigate things for the homeowners behind that. The main ones in my mind have to do with traffic and also any -- oh, intrusion into their privacy and so fourth. As far as traffic is concerned, this hotel is exceptionally likely to generate less traffic than any type of retail use. I think if you check with the Urban Land Institute or anything else, they'll find that traffic that it generates tends to be somewhere between 7:30 and 8:00 o'clock when the peaks are and, then, about 6:00 o'clock to just before 10:00 o'clock. Now, this developer has also tried to push all that traffic away from the homes. Earlier tonight I think from one of the speakers, he mentioned that the hotel is a hotel 24-hour operation. Well, that's true, but, again, most of the impacts will be 7:00, 7:30, to 8:00 o'clock in the morning and before 10:00 o'clock at night. And, again, they have directed that traffic away from where the homeowners are. They have directed the noise away from where the homeowners are. Another itern about the privacy, I guess, has to do with just that block wall. My understanding is that block wall is well over seven feet tall as it is. There is plenty of evergreens and other things that block the view. The building itself is 55 to 65 feet away from the property line. If a two- story house was there, a two story house would likely be as close as I think 20 feet from another neighbor's house. So, somebody in a two-story house could be looking down into a neighbor only 20 feet away. This is a three story and it's 55 to 65 feet away. So, that distinction I think from a line of site standpoint is pretty important to keep in mind. I'll let the developer address that even more if he wants to. It was mentioned that the nearest building is 77 feet away. Well, between that 77 foot building -- or 77 foot distance, there is a drive aisle that trucks, cars, and other things are constantly zooming around back there, going around the ShopKo and the Wal-Mart and so forth. Borup: You need to summarize up. That was your-- Simons: In this circumstance there won't be any cars going through there. So, I think the developer has done a good job trying to take into consideration the main concerns that any of these homeowners would have. With that I will try to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Simons? Thank you, sir. Okay. Mr. Hennings? Or were you going to -- Canning: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Okay. I'm sorry. You are Mr. Williams. Was I right? Dave Williams? M<¡ridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 40 of 55 Canning: No. You go ahead. I thought you were summarizing. Borup: No. He had signed up, too. I didn't realize -- go ahead. Come on up, Mr. Williams. Williams: My name is Dave Williams, 777 North Cobblestone Way, Eagle. Although I live in Eagle, I own several properties in Meridian. I love the City of Meridian. I have been in the real estate business. I'm a broker; Diamond Properties is the name of my company. I have been in the real estate business since 1975. Lived in this valley since 1961. And I love what you folks and your previous Commissioners and Council Members have done with the City of Meridian and I, too, want to see it continue to grow and be prosperous and be a beautiful community. I represent the applicant in the acquisition of the property from the present property owner and we thought that the motel would -- the way we were designing it and placing it on the lot with the buffer of the landscaping and everything would be much better than what the I-L zone allows. I represent about 150,000 square foot in the City of Meridian in four different locations that are I-L zoned and one of the large projects is in Meridian Business Park. We have 86,000 square foot. Typically, what we will do is we will build a building that could be 28 foot and we will have store front in the front and in the rear we have 12 to 14 overhead doors and we lease out to cabinet shops, body shops, mechanics, all kinds of people that if they were to build on this site, the neighbors would be having that traffic, those overhead doors that in the summertime go up and can make a lot of noise. We just thought maybe that this would be a great site for a pretty motel that would be designed more along a residential look. It's too bad the one picture that shows a black wall doesn't really depict what we would like to have had you seen. However, the front elevation here gives you a little bit of an idea. It's not just a wall, it has some dimension. It has some style. It has some rooflines. And I understand where the residential people are concerned. Before going into commercial full time I was a residential broker. I had 38 agents working for me. Borup: You have got 30 seconds. Williams: We worked the residential market, so I understand their concerns and I would think that the applicant would be willing to mitigate what concerns we possibly can and that's alii have to say. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hennings, would you like to -- oh, do we have some information from staff? Canning: Well, I thought I had clarification, but I have read further and now I'm confused again. Generally, the sign -- or the fence ordinance has one specific mention to -- for commercial and industrial properties and that says open vision fences. Open vision fences may be built to the property line in commercial and industrial districts and, then, it ends. So, it doesn't say that you can't have closed vision fences, it says that you can have them all the way up to the property line is all it says. And, then, there is a very M~dian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 41 of 55 specific section on residential and limited office districts where you can go six feet to a height and, then, you have to step down to three feet. But it -- again, it's very specific to residential and limited office. The maximum fence height for the I-L district is eight feet. Borup: Okay. That's what I was remembering. That was the part I was referring to, but Canning: And, then, there is an asterisk -- not on that section, but on the previous se.ction for the commercial districts that says provided, however -- and, then, it has a long subsection reference. I love our code. That is with your permission. So, probably one way or the other it would be good to have the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on what they want to do there. In this case where the code is silent as to closed vision fences and where we already have closed vision fencing going all the way up to the right of way, I think that it would be okay for you all to recommend that that wall be continued, to match up with the vinyl fence. It appears that -- there is one section in the landscape section that would apply when that's the sight triangle for road driveways, but because it's a least about 30 feet off from the property line, the driveway is, it shouldn't present a problem for the vision triangle, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hennings. Hennings: I won't try to rebut what the residents said. I don't think I'm likely to change their mind. I guess what I would say is that we are interested and willing to try a different site arrangement, but before I spend more effort on that, I guess I would like to get some opinion on your views of the appropriateness of a hotel on this site. You know, if you feel that that's an appropriate use and could be approved under some circumstance, then, we would like to try some different site arrangements that would address a lot of the concerns that were expressed tonight. But if the concerns expressed by some people of no hotel on this site at all, that doesn't seem -- Borup: And I think that's a reasonable request for this Commission. Zaremba: I think it's an excellent question and I will jump in with an opinion. It seems to be that most of the projects that I have a struggle with are I-L zoned projects and I don't know what is it with me and I-L zones, but I always have an .issue with whatever is coming in an I-L zone. First, I appreciate Country Inn and Suites wanting to look at Meridian, wanting to locate in Meridian, I have seen other projects of theirs and I think they'd just be fine in Meridian. I don't feel that this is the right location, though. And I consider even with the drawing that you have given, if we took the whole project and mirror imaged it, so that the building was right on the private road and all the parking was close to the residences, I would still have the issue that there are still tall windows that could -- even frorn that distance be looking in on the privacy of the residences, that it is a 24 hour operation, even if some of the other things that are permitted in an I-L zone were built on this property, we would put our conditions --time limit conditions on them or very likely would if we thought that there was going to be a problem with it. I don't have a problem with a hotel being in this area. If this were actually on the piece of Me(idian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2,2004 Page 42 of 55 property that fronts Eagle, I'd be very enthusiastic about it. I don't see, in my opinion, even flipping it, how it could be satisfactory on this piece of property. So, I guess I would have to say I would rather see something else proposed on this property and find another location to have your hotel here, because we would certainly welcome it sornewhere, just probably not this one particular piece of property. That's my opinion. Borup: Okay. Others? Moe: Go right ahead. Newton-Huckabay: That's -- I feel very much the same way as Commissioner Zaremba does. Moe: Well, okay, then, I'll speak, then. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think -- I mean I -- if I lived where these folks live, I'm not sure I would want a hotel. This is a very nice hotel. I don't -- I don't believe that -- but moving into Crossroads Subdivision -- you probably moved into Crossroads Subdivision fully with the expectation of having a continuation of the Crossroads Mall, which is what I fully expect to see as a citizen of Meridian, expected to see, and I believe that it's just not the right place for a hotel. I do believe turning it the other way would improve it, but I do believe another location would be better suited for -- for Meridian and also Eagle Road. And I'm done. Moe: You're done now? Okay. Well, quite frankly, I don't really have a real problem with the location of the property there, but I definitely have a real concern with the way it's laid out at the present time. I guess my opinion is I did hear a couple folks discuss that they really would rather not have a hotel in this area, but at the same time I also heard that if they were able to work with the applicant to come up with some solution as to how this hotel could be put on this property and that would appease the neighbors, that I think that's something that should be looked into and worked on before we just flat deny this application. Borup: Okay. Any comment, Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: That's what I was going to say. Seriously, the way I look at this is this is a Conditional Use Permit and it's just that, upon condition, and if, in fact, the developers and the people that live in the area can come to some agreement as to what's acceptable both from a development perspective and from the existing residents, but it's, in my opinion, not us to decide what is an acceptable condition, if, in fact, you folks can work together and come to some consensus that's acceptable. If, in fact, after having a community meeting you cannot come to a consensus, then, it would be our responsibility to either rnove forward to the City Council with recommendations one way or the other. In any case, my suggestion would be that we continue this and allow you an opportunity to have your community meeting and, if, in fact, upon that conclusion you Meridian Pianning & Zoning Meeting Detember 2. 2004 Page 43 of 55 come up with something that's acceptable, then, come back and we will finish this up at a later date. That would be my recommendation. Borup: I don't know if that answers your question, Mr. Hennings. It looks like we are saying 50-50, about. I do -- and I'm a little -- I mean I have to look at things how I'd feel if I was living there, too. And to me, the only way it would be acceptable would be with it oriented the other direction and have no -- none of the room windows facing the subdivision. There is a couple other things that could be done, too. We have seen projects where -- where the -- it would only be two stories, perhaps, closer to the subdivision and step up. We have seen others where it will step up from a two story to a three story as it gets further away, something like that can lessen at least the visual impact. I think that is correct, that the traffic on a project like this for the space that's taken is much less than retail would be. Again, I don't know if the noise is even as much, but I'm -- I guess that's as much as I have got an opinion on at this point. Rohm: I guess before we close the -- Borup: Well, yeah, Mr. Hennings still has an opportunity to -- Zaremba: I would be willing -- if there were a neighborhood meeting and they came up with something that seemed to be satisfactory to everybody, there would be no reason not to listen to it and consider it. I just see it as being a difficult location for a hotel. I would be open-minded if there were a neighborhood meeting and it resulted in something, however. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, just to remind you that the zoning ordinance does give you the authority to require a neighborhood meeting. You haven't quite phrased it that way, so I just wanted to make sure that the applicant is clear and that you're clear that you can actually require them to conduct that neighborhood meeting. Zaremba: I guess what we are trying to feel is whether there would be anything gained from having a neighborhood meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I question if we have -- we have, obviously, opened the door that we are considering denial. Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And if -- Rohm: Well, maybe it's appropriate to take a five-minute recess and let them kick it around -- Borup: Well-- Me.dian Pianning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 44 of 55 Newton-Huckabay: I still feel - I would recommend denial. I just strongly do not feel this is the appropriate place on Eagle Road to place a hotel. Borup: Okay. One other thing that I was going to mention and I forgot, but my other condition I would maybe look at an eight foot wall along there. It would need to be raised and maybe some more intense landscaping, too, but -- Mr. Hennings, you still have an opportunity to -- come on up. Hennings: Just to point out, I think the wall is already close to eight feet high on the homeowners' side. In other words, there is a berm that comes up and the wall is, actually, part-retaining wall. You know, I wouldn't have any objection to it being higher on the hotel side, but I think once the wall starts getting passed eight feet on the homeowners' side, it will start feeling like a prison or something. So, more landscaping I think is probably a viable answer, but raising the height of the wall might not be a good answer from their backyard standpoint. At least I wouldn't think it would be good, so -- Borup: Okay. Any other final comments you have? You have kind of heard the initial consensus. Nothing else you want to say? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, the applicant has expressed a willingness to reconfigure it, I guess even starting from scratch. Is it appropriate to ask Mr. Boyle as a representative of his neighborhood to express opinion whether there is a workable solution or not? Borup: Yeah. Mr. Boyle, would you like to -- oh, the neighborhood would like five minutes? Yeah. I think we could do that. We will take another five minute break. Maybe settle some things tonight, rather than stretching it out. (Recess.) Borup: Okay. Mr. Boyle, have we got some ideas? Boyle: Commissioners, again, Clint Boyle. I apologize for that. I was just meditating for a few moments there, hoping for some inspiration here. No. Actually, I have had a chance to briefly talk about this with the neighbors that are here and the general consensus from the neighborhood is that they are in favor of a Barnes and Noble being located on the site. Actually, that aside, with that comment, after talking to the neighbors -- again, the concerns of the sheer bulk, the windows, the inconsistency with the compatibility of the surrounding -- not only neighborhood, but shopping center, it led us back to a couple of points and that is when this Commission looks at a Conditional Use Permit, you look at, as one of your requirements, that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. Point B. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity and in the existing PUD on this site it even indicates the uses proposed within the subject application will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. With those comments in mind, looking Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 45 of 55 at the perceived at least at this point, negative impact on property values for those people that are adjacent, the lack of compatibility based on the sheer scale and size and mass of the building, the indication as was mentioned by some of these Commissioners and was mentioned previously in the hearing that all of the homeowners are fully aware that this is a commercial shopping center. However, nobody that was polled this evening anticipated a three-story hotel within this area. The I-L zone right now on this site is a planned development to allow specific uses. Obviously, the intention from day one on this was to develop a commercial retail center on the site and that is what has historically occurred up to this point. The hotel, again, is a Conditional Use Permit, which means not that it's an allowed use, it means that something that is a Conditional Use Permit may be appropriate in certain locations. This Commission evaluates those individual sites to determine the appropriateness and whether or not it's detrimental to the surrounding uses in the neighborhood. With that said -- and I know that was kind of a long summary, the consensus of the neighbors that are here tonight, along with those that were submitted on the pages of the petition previously, the consensus is that they would not support and not be in favor of a hotel at this location. There is substantial concern for many of those items that I have indicated, including on safety of children was mentioned just now. We have a common area that this hotel would look essentially right on, a long common area where many kids recreate, so there is some perceived safety issues there of having -- I don't even remember the window count now -- 63 rooms looking out onto common areas, looking out into people's backyards, et cetera. So, the consensus from the people here tonight, from the petition that was submitted, is that this is not an appropriate location for the hotel and certainly with that said there were many people in the neighborhood that indicated that they did like the elevations of the hotel from the standpoint of a standard hotel. It definitely is an attractive elevation considering some of the hotels out there, they would just rather see it on the other side of Eagle Road, maybe across from Blue Cross or in a location where it's not up against the neighborhood. The final point I wanted to make is to my recollection and to the neighbors here, we cannot think of a single hotel use in the City of Meridian that immediately abuts a residential neighborhood. Borup: Except the Knotty Pine. Rohm: Maybe I should back up and say a recent - any recent hotel. And so we just don't feel this is appropriate. Would it be appropriate in a location generally in this vicinity? Sure. Just the adjacency of the neighborhood and how the proximity is perceived to be detrimental to the neighbors here tonight. So, with that -- I mean the neighborhood is requesting that this Commission deny this Conditional Use Permit application at this time. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 46 of 55 Borup: I think that was maybe a long way of answering one of the Commissioner's questions, is would it do any good to have a neighborhood meeting and it sounds like the answer is no. Boyle: I would say no based on the neighbors that are here and the petition that we have circulated. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. I don't know if we have given an answer to Mr. Hennings for what he wants. Okay. Something new that we haven't heard. Simons: Andy Simons, ABC 2, LLC, P.O. Box 15407, Boise, Idaho. I ran out of time, I didn't have time to mention one more very important point and that is that the entire 11 acres has a deed restriction on it that limits the amount of retail space to 25,000 square feet. Of that 25,000 square feet, about 6,000 square feet is already taken up by the Ram and another restaurant will be announced pretty shortly that's going to take another 6,000 feet. The bank doesn't count, but, ultimately, there is only about 12 or 13 thousand square feet of retail uses left -- left and allowed on that site because of that deed restriction. The developers Versified Realty Company that developed the entire Crossroads Shopping Center did not want more retail on this 11 acres. That's very important to remember, because if we can't do the hotel as a commercial use, we will come up with maybe another commercial use that mayor may not be, you know, appropriate either, but it might not even need a Conditional Use Permit. What we want to do is do the right thing and I think the hotel is the right thing, but that gives the neighbors some input here and if we came back with an office project or something like that, it might not even give them any input. Borup: Do you know how many -- how many square feet can be developed on that site? I mean I know it's going to -- the parking mix is going to change by the use, but you're saying you could only go up to 25,000, so what's the maximum potential for the 11 acres? Simons: Well, again, the -- maybe I don't quite understand what you mean. Borup: I'm talking both retail and other uses. Total use. Simons: Oh, we have never done a study for that. Borup: Okay. Okay. You're saying there is only 25,000, but to me that doesn't tell me anything, because I'm not sure what the total could be. Maybe you can only do 28,000. Simons: Well, for a -- no. I mean it really depends on how much parking would go with the retail use. Borup: Right. I understand that. Me.dian Piannlng & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 47 of 55 Simons: You can expect that your land coverage would be somewhere on the neighborhood of 20 percent, so on 11 acres you got to figure that 20 percent of that would be, you know, two and a half acres worth of building area. So, you're looking at close to 100,000 square feet of retail if there weren't any restrictions. Borup: Right. Okay. Are you aware -- do you know why that deed restriction was put on there? Simons: Well, I do know the developers, Diversified, did not have any interest in having the retail go all the way down to Pine. They never intended that. Borup: They wanted to diversify it a little bit. Simons: Well, I think they felt that by the time they got to where the present craft warehouse is that was going to be a big enough shopping center. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Well, at one time they were proposing a grocery store. Was that on this piece or on the other side? Simons: They can't do a grocery store. Borup: No. I mean -- Simons: Even with the deed restriction at one time -- and I don't know if it still exists, but the Wal-Mart insisted on a restriction. Borup: Before Wal-Mart they had a grocery store proposal there. Simons: The Wal-Mart insisted on a restriction on grocery stores. Borup: Yeah. No. Actually, that was before Wal-Mart was even looking at the site. That was discussed -- I didn't know if that was on this piece or to the north. You don't know either? Simons: I don't. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Unless there is anything else from any of the Commissioners. Okay. Anything else you'd like to say, Mr. Hennings? So, you're just - - I assume you're looking for some type of input from this Commission on the direction you may want to go. What -- I don't know if we know what direction you'd like to go at this point. Commissioners, anything else we'd like to say to the applicant? Zaremba: I had an instinct that this is inappropriate. I'm not sure I have changed my mind. . ME\lidian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2.2004 Page 48 of 55 Borup: Okay. All the other Commissioners still feel the same? So, basically, at this point, you're about 50-50. Hennings: Rather than continue it, we'd just like to have you make a decision and let us know where you stand tonight, so -- Rohm: Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman -- oh. Zaremba: I was going to say, I think we have a direction that a neighborhood meeting is not going to generate a workable solution. Rohm: I was just going to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing. Borup: Maybe one quick question and, then -- Mr. Hennings, you say a decision, are you saying a decision based on the application before us or the orientation we have before us? Okay. Zaremba: I will second the motion to close. Borup: Okay. Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Any other discussion? Zaremba: I, again, appreciate the thought and I think somewhere nearby there would be an appropriate location, but I don't feel this is appropriate and, as I say, even if you flipped it 180 degrees mirror image, I'm still not convinced that I would want to live behind it. A little bit farther away, like between the private road and Eagle Road, I would have no problem with it, but I could not recommend approval. Newton-Huckabay: My original opinion still stands. Borup: Okay. I think everyone still feels the same. Which I'm not sure who is going to make the motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion. I move that we forward to the City Council -- that we forward to the City Council recommending denial of CUP 04-050. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Moe: Nay. '. - Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 49 of 55 Rohm: Nay. Borup: Two ayes, two nays. Well, I was going to vote nay. I still think something can be worked that could be acceptable, but the applicant said, as I understood, as we see it before us tonight with the same orientation, so I would go with aye. Three ayes, two nays, then. Nary: Mr. Chairman? I just wanted to make sure for the staff's sake in preparing the recommendation that there is enough information on what your specific recommendations are on these particular points as required by the ordinance. Borup: Okay. I think most of-- Nary: Do you have enough information, Mrs. Canning? Borup: Probably some of the things that was mentioned in the -- each of the Commissioners' comments earlier. Does that need to be summarized again? Nary: No. I mean we have the minutes, so I mean I just wanted to be sure you felt there was adequate -- I mean I think there is, but I just wanted to be sure that you think there is adequate for the recommendation to be done. Canning: For staff's benefit, if the maker of the motion could just summarize briefly what their reasons for denying the CU are, then, it helps us to weed through the hour long of minutes, if you wouldn't mind. Zaremba: The short answer is that some of us feel this is not the appropriate location for this use and some of the reason that goes into that is having third story windows looking right into nearby residences, 24 hour operation -M am I missing any? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, the ordinance uses the language design, construction, operation, maintenance is compatible with the general character of the neighborhood and I think, if I understood the comments, that's -- those were some of the areas that you would like highlighted in the recommendation for denial is the design, construction, and the like, the impact on the general vicinity of the neighborhood by that and, then, in the provision of the ordinance it talks about if the proposed use complies, will adversely affect the other properties in the vicinity for, again, the same reason, design, construction, location, those types of things. Would that be correct? Was I reading you correctly? Zaremba: That is exactly what I meant to say. Borup: And I think the other -- Zaremba: May I quote him? , - Me¡:idian Planning & Zoning Meeting . December 2, 2004 Page 50 of 55 Borup: Okay. Nary: Is that enough, Mrs. Canning? Canning: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. And I think the other opinions were that it probably could be designed that those things could maybe be compatible. Rohm: With a lot of work. And thank you all for coming in. Borup: Okay. So, in case -- so that is the recommendation that will go to City Council. There is another hearing before City Council and they will make the decision. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS: Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.8 acres from RUT to a CoG zone for Southern Springs No.3 by the Land Group, Inc. - east of South Meridian Road and south of East Overland Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-041 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for three (3) building lots on 1.8 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Southern Springs No.3 by the Land Group, Inc. - east of South Meridian Road and south of East Overland Road: Borup: Okay. Our last Public Hearing -- let's just wait a second. Okay. We'd like to open Public Hearing PP 04-041, request for preliminary plat and start with the. staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Borup: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I only opened one of the hearings. We do have two. Let's also open AZ 04-030. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. Guenther: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. This is an application for annexation and a rezone from an Ada county zone RUT to a C-G zone. This property contains 1.8 acres and it is right in this location south of what is in red here is Southern Springs No.1 and No.2 is up here for Southern Springs. So, this is, more or less, a continuation of the existing commercial development. This will be a three-lot development for three commercial buildings on the same property. Now, Mr. Steve Siddoway was the staff member who actually drafted the staff report for you and in his staff report he had a special condition, which showed that there is two issues that carne up. The first one was the extremely large number of trees on the property and he recommended that the applicant -- to get a hold of the city arborist Mr. Elroy Huff and '. 'Morldian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 51 of 55 the applicant has already done that and has created a mitigation plan in order to retain the best and healthiest species that are on the site. What the arborist did come up with was that there is a lot of scrub brush and volunteer trees on the site that will be removed and the mitigation plan will conform to the Meridian city code. This is going to be with a thoroughfare for a continuation from Southern Springs No.2, as well as the micro-path for the multi-use pathway along Ten Mile Creek will actually not follow Ten Mile Creek across to this property, as this property will -- is not potentially going to be developed in the near future and in order to -- yeah, there is a house on there, so it's probably not going to be developed anything commercial. So, therefore, the path will come through this location to Calderwood Drive and, then, continue on down Ten Mile Creek from that location. Those are the only two outstanding conditions and the applicant has proposed this as his landscape plan to actually mitigate some of the conditions and staff's recommendation is for approval with conditions that are stated in the staff report. Borup: Thank you. Questions from the Commission? Mr. Koga, anything you'd like to add? Koga: Just clarification. My name is David Koga with the Land Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Joe did a good explaining this project. I just want to go a little bit further on those trees. We did turn in -- we met with Elroy on the site and turned in a mitigation plan. Basically, Elroy suggested of all those trees 14 of the trees should be saved, which comes to a total 168 total caliper inches. Of that we saved -- able to save six of the trees and are we going to remove eight of the trees, which is a total of 106 caliper inches. That's in proportion or I should say is equal to 53 two inch caliper trees, which we have redesigned those throughout the site of a combination of both this phase and the previous phase to the north of that. So, basically, we've added 53 more trees to go through this mitigation. And also just a little bit further on the special conditions. I think the battery is going out here. This area we did continue the regional pathway system here. We did meet with the neighborhood, this gentleman, Mr. Neil, Kevin Neil, and he was very aware of this development is going to happen and he does appreciate that we did take in consideration his place and provide enough area on that landscape buffer, with a combination of fencing, the berming, and some trees along there. Mostly conifer trees. So, I think that kind of answers more those specific conditions. If you have any other questions on the site -- Rohm: I guess my only question is do you have anything in the staff report that you're not in agreement with? Koga: No. We cornply -- we went over the whole thing and we comply with all of the site-specific conditions on there. Rohrn: Thank you, Mr. Koga. Borup: Thank you. '. 'Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 52 of 55 Zaremba: Thank you for having a neighborhood meeting. I think you can see it makes a difference. Koga: Well, I'm a strong believer in that. It makes a big difference. Zaremba: I'm surprised there aren't people from Meridian Greens here and -- Koga: Well, we did them plenty of other times. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on AZ 04-030 and PP 04-041 be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-030, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 2nd, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-041, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 2, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: All right. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, just -- I'd like to make a recommendation that -- for the record that a new battery be put in the podium pointer. Canning: I already put it on my to do list. Borup: And I talked with Will about that about a month or so ago and he said he just put a battery into them. Maybe it's time for a new -- , - Me¡idlan Planning & Zoning Meeting " December 2. 2004 Page 53 of 55 Newton-Huckabay: We need a new pointer. Rohm: We need a new pointer. Canning: I'll look for a better pointer. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 04-029 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 8.58 acres from RUT zone to C-G zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom Holliday/Cottonwood Land Partners, 984 East FreeliVay Drive: Re-noticed to December 16,2004. Borup: Okay. Last item, No. 14, election of a chairman. This is the time -- oh, I'm sorry. What did we decide on this last one, Cottonwood? That's already -- that was noticed for tonight or never been noticed for tonight? It was just re-noticed, so we don't even need to do anything, do we? Nary: It was -- no, you don't need to do anything. It was noticed on your agenda for tonight, so you should probably -- even though it was indicated as being continued, to simply acknowledge that and you can motion to move it to the 16th as it was noticed on this agenda. Borup: And we don't need to open it and -- Nary: You don't need to open it. Borup: All right. Okay. Well, let's just make note of that. This Public Hearing AZ 04- 029, request for annexation and zoning of Cottonwood Lane and that will be on the -- it has been re-noticed to the December 16th meeting. Item 15: Election of Chairman: Borup: Okay. Next item, last item, is election of chairman and does anyone need any refreshing on the bylaws that were passed a few months back? Everybody have that? Newton-Huckabay: Somebody gave them to us. Borup: Was that in the packet? So, procedure is time to elect a new chairman and a vice-chairman. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Go ahead. Rohm: I'd like to nominate David Zaremba as our new chairman. . ~ Me.ridlan Planning & Zoning Meeting . December 2. 2004 Page 54 of 55 Borup: I would second that. Anybody else? All right. Any other nominations? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: No. Borup: We seem to not have any other nominations, which kind of -- Newton-Huckabay: We have all decided he's the heir apparent. Borup: So, that means we do not need to vote. I mean we don't need to do a written vote. Newton-Huckabay: Well, would Commissioner Moe - Moe: Oh, I'd vote for him. Nary: You can simply do it by voice vote, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Yes. Voice vote. All in favor of Commissioner Zaremba as the new chairman? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Moe: Now, are you the new chairman, then? Zaremba: No. Actually, the term doesn't start until the first meeting in January. Borup: First meeting in January is when he starts. Moe: All right. Borup: So, nomination is now open for vice-chairman. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I nominate Michael Rohm for vice-chairman. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to nominate Commissioner Rohm. nomination, I assume? You accept that Rohm: I do. Borup: Okay. Any other nominations? , ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2. 2004 Page 55 of 55 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the nominations cease. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second the nominations cease. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. All in favor of Commissioner Rohm? Do we need to do that? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: That was easy. Short. Canning: Chairman and Commissioners? Borup: Yes. Canning: Mr. Nary and I were talking about this earlier. As the chair you can still vote. I don't know if -- Dave, if you would want to. It's just been an inforrnal policy that you not vote, but you're actually allowed to vote. Borup: I went back and read that a number of years ago and, yeah, it was kind of a tradition that -- it doesn't accomplish anything unless there is a tie. Were you aware of that, Dave? That the chairman can vote if they want to? Zaremba: Uh-huh. And my opinion -- and we discussed this a little bit before we were on the record. Canning: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: And the discussion there how we are different from the City Council and the Mayor. The Mayor is not a rnember of the City Council, even though she's there at the meetings. In our case, we are, essentially, all equals and among ourselves we elect a chairman. My feeling is that shouldn't preclude the chairman from voting if he or she wanted to. So, I think that's a conclusion we all came to. Borup: Okay. Any other items that need to be brought up tonight? Do we have a motion to adjourn? Rohm: I move. Zaremba: Second. Borup: All in favor? , Á Mepdian Planning & Zoning Meeting December 2, 2004 Page 56 of 55 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:26 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~~ k' ~ ItJy- :;ES~ORUP - CHAI -MAN a TE ~ Jllim~kWY\'D .d ~~~ . ~~ '\ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR" c,W CL~K . - ~~