Loading...
2005 02-17 :&j Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina Februarv 17. 2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Craig Hood, Joe Guenther, Anna Canning, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Keith Borup X X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X -LChairman David Zaremba David Moe Michael Rohm Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. I'll call this meeting, regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February 17th, 2005, to order and we will begin with a roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: First item is the adoption of the agenda and I would mention for anybody who is interested, we have had a request from the applicant and staff to continue Items 15, 16, and 17 on our agenda to the meeting of March 3rd. It is very likely that when we get to that point in our agenda we will do that, continue it to March 3rd, and without discussion. If anybody is here for Bainbridge Subdivision on Chinden and Ten Mile, we expect to actually take testimony on March 3rd. Also Item 18, which is a drive-up window in a C-C zone, has been requested also to move to March 3rd. It's possible we may move that one to March 17th, but, anyhow, that will also not be heard tonight. The clerk will know which date we have picked to continue that hearing. If I have no other comments from the Commission, we will consider the agenda adopted. Moe: Mr. Chairman, actually, on -- we did get notice on Item 12. Zaremba: I saw the notice, but I didn't see it as a request to delay it. Are you looking at a request to delay it? Moe: Well, now that I say that, now I can't seem to find it either. Zaremba: They have submitted a revised -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba? Mendian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 2 of 76 Zaremba: Yes. Canning: The stenographer can't hear you. Is it on? Zaremba: I don't believe I have control of that, do I? I heard a click. Is it in place now? Canning: It sounds like it's picking up now. Yeah. Zaremba: All right. I will try and speak up then. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I must have been noting what's just in the hearing notes. So, 12 is in order now. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of January 20, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AUP 04-018 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five of fewer children in a R-8 zone for Pamela Catt by Pamela Catt - 2899 North Anston Avenue: Zaremba: We'll take 12 in order when we get to it. Okay. The next item would be the Consent Agenda. Commissioners? Rohm: I don't have any adjustments, so, Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Valley Regional Transit Presentation: Zaremba: The next item is a second in a series of educational presentations for -- that we are having. Compass made a presentation to us last month and we have the pleasure of having Valley Regional Transit to make a presentation to us this month. These are educational for the Commissioners, as well as the public who is here, and it's part of being informed citizenry. So, I will turn the meeting over to Mark Carnopis. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 3 of 76 Carnopis: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity. We will take to heart your little sign over there. I know Powerpoints are never -- talking about a mixed bag. My name is Mark Carnopis, I'm the public relations manager for Valley Regional Transit. By way of a little background, Valley Regional Transit is the local regional transit authority. We were formed through a vote of the public in Ada County and Canyon County in 1998. Our main two objectives, our main two goals, are to coordinate transit services in the Treasure Valley and number two is to develop a regional public transportation system and to that end we are pretty excited, it's a pretty exciting time for us. We have just completed a regional operations and capital improvement plan, a short term and a proposed long term, in which the City of Meridian, which has the dubious distinction of being the largest city in Idaho without a transit system, would greatly benefit from this either local high growth scenario -- I'd like to get into that in a minute. I'd like to go into a little bit of history and, like I said, I will be brief about it. We have got a lot of public outreach surveys. We do a lot of speaking engagements such as this and we gather comments, we listen to people, we track them, basically a way to summarize the feelings about public transportation is that the current system is inadequate, which, you know, I'm not here to defend it, I would wholeheartedly agree with them. Again, we have very limited service in Boise. We have fixed line service in Nampa and Caldwell. We have three routes -- inter-county routes that service Caldwell, Nampa, Meridian, and, then, Boise. There is general concern about air quality, economic development constraints, also not up there is the obvious, is just concerns about growing traffic numbers. Increased transportation options. People want those options; they want pretty much -- it's not a mandate, but a good majority are supportive of, for example, commuter rail, a continuing expansion of the van pool, car pool programs, which are operated by the Ada County Highway District. They just want the opportunity to be able to access transportation. Also mention existing resources to improve marketing. We have done an okay job marketing, but we are going to be much more aggressive as -- in the coming months and the coming years in terms of getting the word out. What we are going to do that with is through -- as an example, the fixed bus route system. Right now all our systems, except for the inter-county service, are wave down systems where you just flag down the bus. But in Boise by the summer we are going to have some route restructuring and we are also going to have fixed bus stops, in excess of 700, and we think that will be a good starting point or a good point in terms of people seeing actual bus stops and maybe wanting to learn more about public transportation. Right now, the way that it's set up right now, the fixed route system is in Nampa and Caldwell and Boise. We kind of have dual purposes and that's -- there is the social service model, which is let's cover as much area as we can. We can't get a lot of frequency, we can't -- it's not real conducive to attracting riders, but it provides service to -- pretty much focuses heavily on the transit dependent people. Like I say, it covers more area, but less frequency. And there is also the productivity goal, which is also the business model, you know, let's get more fannies in the seats, because, you know, that's -- we are getting more fares, getting more revenue, that when you see these kind of systems it's usually really condensed down to the growth areas in terms of jobs and housing and things like that, so -- go ahead quickly on this. This is a chart that we did a presentation to the interim committee on public transportation that kind of indicates transit trips for hours of service Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 4 of 76 and you can see a line, that's the mean. Boise, Idaho Falls, and Pocatello are below that line. There is hours of service per capita is the left to right and the up and down is - - I can't see it. That's the number of service hours provided per capita. So, as you can see, some of the systems, like Eugene and Reno, which have very extensive public transportation systems, you can see the rider ship -- if you're above -- if you're above the red line you're actually doing extremely well and you can see that the three main systems in Idaho are Pocatello, Boise, and Idaho Falls systems, and that's primarily due to the fact that, again, we just have very limited service. We don't -- if you want to attract riders, you basically, got to offer them a good vibrant service that they can use. This right here, just a quick run through, is the operating funds. You can see Boise is the third bar chart to your left. Basically, we rely on - we have no state funds, there is no state funding for public transportation. Local funding comes in the form of contributions from cities and for both operating costs and, for example, the City of Meridian part of this would be what we use for planning and administrative purposes. You can see some of the comparisons in some of the other cities. We won't get a lot of detail, but the key on this is the fact that federal funds, local funds, make up a huge majority of the funding that we use. Fares make up a very small portion of that. Short- term changes, again, I talked -- we have a regional operations in -- regional operations and capital improvement plan and there is two phases of that. There is a short term and a long term. The short term is about almost two years in the making here and what we are doing is we are focusing more in the business model I talked about. There is a kind of a condensing of the routes, there is less coverage area, so we can provide more frequent service, better service, better connections. That, in Nampa-Caldwell -- the main goal in Nampa-Caldwell to fixed routes was to actually blur the lines between Nampa and Caldwell. We had two routes in Nampa and one in Caldwell and what we did was -- we are just going to have one long loop. We see it as maybe an elongated cloverleaf with Nampa-Caldwell being the center. It's -- basically, we are going to have several buses running every day. Half hour service along Nampa-Caldwell Boulevard. These are things that really -- we really think that will attract more riders. Because currently right now the system right now is very much under functioning right now. I think they average about six rides per hour, which is a pretty bad percentage. Basic changes will be in place on March 1 st, which is just less than two weeks away. And, yeah, we are sweating, but I think we are going to make it. The key things again, simple, direct, and easy. And we think we can accomplish that in both Nampa-Caldwell and with the inter-county service and with the Boise service. The Boise service system, we are doing -- we are going to a fixed route, fixed stop system, bus stop system. We are going to have that in place this summer. And some frequency improvements, again, like in Nampa-Caldwell Boulevard it will be every 30-minute service, instead of every 60 minutes. And better regional coordination of our services. Here is the exciting part. Is here is how -- along the time we did the -- the existing resources, using our existing resources, and redoing the existing services -- that's one thing I forgot to mention, was that when we did the retooling of existing services we did so with just existing revenues. We also went -- I sat down at the table with staff and we met with our consultant and said, you know, let's have the -- let's develop a future list, if we can get some additional funding through one source or another, let's put -- let's put a plan together in terms a low growth scenario and a high growth scenario. The low growth scenario is not based Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 5 of 76 on population, it's basically based on a more conservative estimate of some additional revenue that we may see in the future. In the low growth scenario, Meridian would really benefit -- I'd like to read a couple of major areas of the low growth. The regional wide structure is focused on a new Meridian transit center on Meridian Road. And the local scenario, without commuter rail, it could be anywhere between Franklin and Interstate 84, within a block of Meridian Road. And, then, there is express service or commuter rail every 30 minutes during peak hours and the local midday service would also be 30 minutes. Midday commuter rail frequencies might be as low as 90 minutes, but they would be supplemented by express bus trips. I'm not expecting you to memorize this, but it's basically a -- it's kind of like an all-encompassing. We develop transit centers, we look at connectivity within Meridian and connectivity from Meridian to other larger population areas, like Boise and Caldwell and Nampa and that's -- under low growth we will put some things together on that. There will be some additional routes. Right now Meridian is serviced via two express routes that originate in Nampa and they make a couple of stops south of the interstate, Gold's Gym, the state police, some other basic stops down there. Basically, it's a southern route that provides commuters with -- commuters basically have to drive to a park and ride lot to access those services. We also had a northern route at one point in terms of inter-county service, but because of financial constraints, we had to drop that last April that was a Highway 44 route that provided service to Star and Eagle. Right now I get calls all the time from people from Eagle saying how can I catch the bus from Eagle to Boise and they can't right now. I mean there is no service at all. And, again, in Meridian currently right now we are basically -- the services that we do provide are basically just for the commuter people coming in from Meridian, coming in from Nampa, and working downtown or working at BSU. Again -- and, then, there is the high growth scenario, which is if we can get a lot more money, what we could do. This one would develop a -- we would develop a true regional system. You see the red lines on there, those are good, those are 15-minute service to route today. You see the map -- the current map, you see a lot of green, which is 60-minute service all day. Again, it's a tactic used with great success in terms of, you know, if you miss the bus you know you don't have to wait an hour to catch the next bus. So, frequency is going to be a main key to that. We also have these little flex zones, which provide service to large areas that are not really built up to -- for a fixed line service, but it would be beneficial to have a smaller vehicle work within those flex zones, those brown areas, to do the pick up. We would have some variations in there. There would be leeway in terms of picking people up. You could call, there would be a couple of fixed bus stops, but you could also call to be picked up in a particular area. And that would mainly -- those are mainly designed to take you to some of the connections to other service. Again, connectivity is the main elements -- one of the main elements in terms of the high growth area. The main difference between the low growth and the high growth plan is that the high growth plans incorporates a commuter rail line. As you well know, we have an existing line that goes from Caldwell down to Nampa and, then, over to Boise. This proposal would provide service to -- from Nampa right now to Meridian, there would be a stop in Meridian. Under low growth scenario the transit center, like I said, would be -- would not be related to commuter transit, but if we did -- were able to get the funding for the high growth scenario, we could locate a transit center, which would include buses and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 6 of 76 cabs and things like that along the light rail, along the commuter rail line. The cost -- right now we currently spend about 6.5 million dollars in -- 6.5 million dollars in Ada and Canyon County. Under low growth scenario it would require somewhere around15 million dollars more a year. That's -- and under the high growth scenario we are looking at an additional 50 million a year -- or, excuse me, not an additional 50, but 50 million dollars total above what we get right now. Our sources tell us that under the low growth scenario we would still be under-serving the public in terms of the growth -- the projected growth and the current growth. Under the high growth, which would provide I think somewhere around 600 percent more service plus in the area, that would actually put us on a par with such successful transit systems as Eugene and Reno and places like that. I want to give you just a real quick update on where we are at in terms of -- again; this is another exciting time, because we are actually making some leeway in terms of the legislature. Right now we are one of just a handful of states -- I think six or seven that cannot do a local referendum for public transportation. Basically, we have been working hard over the last couple of years in trying to accomplish that. The status right now is we -- likely if we get this type of legislation introduced this year, it will be just for discussion purposes. Likely what we will see passed is a statewide public transportation policy, which clearly outlines the role of the state and the role of local providers in terms of public transportation. It's kind of a position statement, but we think there is a potential that may open the door for getting a legislative committee, a long- term legislative committee to look at the transportation, either the state with a large part of that being public transportation. So, again, we think we are still probably a year or two away. We have talked about what we would like to see is proposed legislation that would give states -- excuse me - give counties, cities, and regional public transportation authorities, such as ours, the power to take a vote to the people. It wouldn't be a mandate, but it would be just let us take a referendum to the people and let them decide. We also would like to see a variety of options, since all the research we have done and all the outreach we have done in the state, what works in one area wouldn't necessarily work in another area. So, we would love to see a possibility of different options in terms of funding. A percentage sales tax. Potential of a title transfer fee was one of the ones that we looked as a possibility. And, then, an assessed value property tax based on the assessed value of the motor vehicles. Again, we are probably at least a year or two away from that. In the meantime, we are going to continue our public outreach. This is the -- I think the sixth meeting that we have had this year. We are planning in excess of one hundred. We will be talking to governing bodies, civic groups, anybody -- social agencies, anybody that will have us. We have, actually, six of them scheduled this week, so we are starting to get on -- get on our horse and ride, as it were. Again, continuing to explore funding options. We will continue to do research and we think the common theme right now to have successful public transportation systems is the fact that they have a local funding option. When you have that, you can improve and increase service. Increase service. Federal grant dollars are often based on the hours of service you have, so we can also hedge that, those dollars, with additional dollars from the federal government. Implement service improvements. We talked about the short term. We will continue to look at ways. One thing we are working on right now, in the very early stages, is trying to get grant money to put together a west Canyon County loop, which would service Notus and Greenleaf and Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 7 of 76 Parma, those areas, and it would be a very basic system, it would be a couple trips a day on the loop. It would basically feed into Caldwell and -- but that's another baby step in terms of I think really developing a true regional transit system. Monitor system performance. We want to know that -- you know, we want to make sure that the changes that we are proposing, you know, the changes that will be in place in terms of the route restructuring are doing well and we are actually meeting the projections. We think in Boise, with these changes, we can increase about 12 percent our rider-ship and we can increase the inter-county service rider-ship about 50 percent and we can double -- within two or three years we can double the rider-ship within Nampa and Caldwell. And, of course, marketing existing services. I think we hear still a lot of people are confused, some people may even -- I still hear the term Boise Urban Stages, which was the bus, which was the name when the City of Boise owned the bus system. And Valley Ride, still hear Valley Ride, which is the name of the services now. So, we have got a lot of work ahead of us. We have got some additional grant dollars to do that, but our outreach is going to be fairly extensive in the coming months. We think it's a good overview. I'm open to any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Carnopis: I left you some sheets that kind of explain in a little more detail. We also have -- I didn't talk about all the other -- the research we have done over the years, which was kind of the necessary evil. But, again, we are pretty excited, the fact that we are getting to put rubber on the road, for lack of a better term, and we are actually doing some tangible things and we are excited about the prospects of actually accomplishing that second goal, which is developing a true regional public transportation system. Our website is www.valleyride.org and I work two blocks away, if anybody wants to give me a call and learn more, I would be more than happy to, or anybody in the audience wants us to speak to your organization, I'd love to. Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you, Mark. And I would reemphasize for anybody that's interested, the public transportation, we need our state legislature to enable us to take a vote on whether we want to pay for it or not. And that's a very important thing for there to be a next step for Valley Regional Transit, so thank you, Mark, very much. Item 5: Recommendation: VAC 05-002 Request for a Vacation of existing power lines, sewer, irrigation and storm water drainage easements for Boise Valley Commons by CSHQA - 2400 East Overland Road: Zaremba: The next item on our agenda, Item 5, is a recommendation on VAC 05-002. This is a request for a vacation of existing power line, sewer, irrigation, and storm water drainage easements for Boise Valley Commons for CSHQA at 2400 East Overland Road. This is not a Public Hearing, but we will have staff comments and discussion among the Commissioners. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 8 of 76 Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. While Brad loads up the map, it helps to see where these easements are at, but I won't -- even if it doesn't get up in time, I'll just let you know there are four easements that the applicant is proposing to vacate within the Boise Valley Commons Subdivision. It will be final platted as Destination Place, is my understanding. That won't come before you. Since this staff report went to -- went to the clerk, I have received a letter from Idaho Power, ACHD and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District regarding their interest in these easements. All of them were supportive of the easement vacations, however, they aren't willing to relinquish their rights to those at this time. During the platting process those easements will be vacated, so that's how the staff report is -- has been written, is that prior to signature on the final plat by the city engineer we need those relinquishments from those applicable agencies. If Bruce wants to -- what I found out on the city sewer is he believes this line is actually on the east side. of the property line and this 20-foot wide easement is not applicable. There aren't any sewer lines within that. So, he has to do a little more research, but he thinks the line is actually on the other side, so we don't think that from the city's perspective we would. have any problem vacating that, so -- I believe the staff report is pretty straight forward, so if you have any questions I will stand for those. Zaremba: Does there need to be any kind of a trade? For instance, if the sewer line does run elsewhere on the property, is there an easement existing over that that -- are there double easements and we are getting rid of one of them or do you need to trade easements? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the -- at the time the sewer was extended underneath the interstate, we were negotiating easements and I believe what happened is we ended up getting easements on both properties. I think that the sewer actually got built on the property to the east of Boise Valley Commons and that that easement would be non-applicable at this point. So, I've just got a -- it's on my list of to do's. I'll get it verified prior to Council. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: I guess we have had a function, then, we could recommend, pending Bruce's findings, that we could go ahead and vacate, so with that being said -- unless there is any other comment. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: None. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending vacation of 05-002, including all staff comments. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 9 of 76 Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: And I failed to mention earlier, I should note for the record that Commissioner Borup joined us at the beginning of the Valley Regional Transit presentation, so we are all present. Item 6: Recommendation: VAC 05-003 Request for a Vacation of the golf course easement located on Lots 44,45, 46, &47, Block 1 of Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership - North of Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Zaremba: Next is another recommendation, VAC 05-003, request for vacation of the golf course easement located on Lots 44, 45, 46, and 47, Block 1, of Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing limited partnership, north of Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road. And, again, I will ask for staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Spurwing Subdivision is outside of the Meridian area of city impact and Spurwing Subdivision is outside of the Meridian city limits. State code requires the City of Meridian to make comment and authorize Ada County to vacate these easements if they are within one mile of the city limits. Staff comments were basically we have no comment or no concern with vacating the golf course easement and would forward the same onto Ada County to allow them to vacate this easement. Rohm: That's pretty simple. Zaremba: A golf course easement just gives room for the golf course? It doesn't have any utilities in it or -- Guenther: No utilities. No public services. Zaremba: Okay. My only comment is, actually, a typo, I believe, on the first page of the staff report, the first paragraph under application summary, you begin referring to Spurwing and, then, transfer to talking about Ashford Greens Subdivision, which is a different -- at least in my copy of it. Guenther: Yes. Moe: they're all the same. Zaremba: So, I would say before City Council, clean up the typo. Guenther: I got you. That one. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 10 of 76 Zaremba: The rest of it appears to apply correctly to Spurwing. Guenther: Okay. I got you. That one. Zaremba: Commissioners? Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Seeings how there is no other comments, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending vacation of 05-003, including all staff comments for the memo dated February 14, 2004, for the meeting date February 17th, 2005. I said four. I meant five. With the one change on line two of the application summary, change Ashford Greens Sub to Spurwing Limited Partnership. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from January 20, 2005: RZ 04-017 Request for a Rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L & L-O to CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from January 20, 2005: CUP 04-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Conceptual Planned Development for commercial/retail uses for approximately 6.15,430 square feet of building areas in a proposed CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC by Hansen-Rice, Inc. - SWC of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue: Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the beginning of the public hearing section of our meeting tonight and I will just make a comment about the procedure that we follow, for those of you who don't attend these meetings very often. The city professional staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of time together, so we begin each public hearing with a report from the city's professional staff. They will present to us the location of the project and the major features of the project and some of the discussion that they have had with the applicant. Following that, the applicant has an opportunity to get up and respond to anything that the staff has said, clarify, add anything they want. We give them 15 minutes to do that and that includes the applicant or any other engineers that are part of a team, all speak within those 15 minutes. Following that anybody from the public who cares to comment is welcome to make comment. If you signed up on the list, I'll actual starting asking the people who signed up first, but, then, there will be an opportunity for anybody who didn't sign up to just speak. We do ask a couple of things. One, since it's important enough for you to come Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 11 of 76 down this evening and speak, it's important that we hear you, so we ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone. Come forward; speak into the microphone, that way we can hear you and our recorder can get it into the public record. I know many of you are not accustomed to public speaking, but, please, don't be afraid of the microphone. Speak up, so that we can hear you. We do limit individual public testimony to three minutes, so that we don't end up going until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning with our meetings. We do offer, if somebody is representing a group, for example, the president of a homeowners association or other spokesmen, we allow them extra time if there are people in the audience who give up their time to that spokesman. At the end of the public testimony, then, the applicant, who has taken notes during your comment, is given another ten minutes to respond to any issues that have come up and, then, we will have discussion among the Commissioners and, hopefully, make a recommendation to the City Council on what to do with the project. That being said, we are ready for Item 7 and, actually, Items 7 and 8 are the same thing, so these are continued public hearings from previous meetings. I will open and re-continue the hearing for RZ 04-017, request for rezone of 61.63 acres from I-L and L- 0 to C-G zones for Ten Mile Development and also continued hearing CUP 04-051, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a conceptual planned development for commercial retail uses for approximately 615,430 square feet of building area in a proposed CoG zone for Ten Mile Development, LLC, by Hansen-Rice. This is on the southwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Pine Avenue and we will begin with the staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. Since you have already heard most of the background on this, I won't spend much time on that. Suffice it to say that you did, at your last meeting, forward onto the City Council a recommendation for approval on this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. That was on City Council agenda this week, but the item was tabled at the applicant's request to have that Comprehensive Plan Amendment and these two applications that you have on your agenda tonight, the rezone and the CUP, be together. So, just was thinking you might be able to have some information tonight on that, but, unfortunately, I can't give that to you as far as the Council's position on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. What's on the screen is the Comp Plan Amendment and staff -- and just for the record, we, obviously, have been working with the applicant on, you know, amending some of our conditions and whatnot. We still, for this record, want to state that we believe that this is not the correct place for this. We did recommend denial of the Comp Plan Amendment, but the game continues on here, so what you have before you tonight is the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit. Again, the property -- both of these items involve the entire 62 plus acres. The rezone, I think as was pointed out last time, there might have been a little question about the limited offices and that was noticed correctly, so we will hear that -- that will be a part of the City Council hearing and part of any future rezone on this property. The entire 63 acres would go CoG, commercial general zone. You should have received a February 14th memo from myself, as well as the February 16th reply to that memo from Dave McKinnon and those two documents, basically, summarize the background on the conditions that we are talking about tonight. I think the only other document that you received or that the city clerk received Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 12 of 76 as a part of this, in between your last hearing and this one, was the letter from Ned McCall, who was the property owner of the approximately eight acre parcel that is undeveloped here at the southwest corner of the site. He primarily is -- continues to be concerned about his rights to the ingress-egress easement that he has, which is the Commercial Court easement that cuts across through the center of this project and the access onto Eagle Road. So, I just wanted to point out that if you hadn't seen that, we did receive that letter in the record in between this meeting and your last one. What you see on the screen is the initial conceptual site plan that they submitted with their application and the one that was talked about at your January hearing, they did modify that and here is the modified site plan, which you should have received in your packet. The applicant did submit this ten days before the hearing, as was requested. As you can see, one of the main changes they made was to open up that 50-foot wide ingress- egress easement that I had just mentioned that is in favor of this McCall property. They had pulled back some buildings into this southern area. Before they had the large ones backed up to what they show as the future transit station here on the Union Pacific Railroad right of way and if you look at this alignment here, they have, essentially, created a main street boulevard concept there that does provide, we think, a lot more orientation and user friendliness, if you will, to the transit station, should that ever go in. The other change, they have shown a possible hotel site on the property in this corner. If you recall, that was originally shown back on the west end of the property and I believe one of the Commissioners made a comment about that. So, they have also accommodated -- we had three or four other site plan related concerns and they have generally been addressed by this plan we feel, particularly this north-south movement, they have these three main drive aisles in the site, which connect to Pine Avenue and these do not have any parking adjacent to them, I think they provide a much better flow of traffic in the site. There is a few other, as I mentioned, concepts that are reflected there that I won't go into right now. I did want to touch on just a couple of changes and comments on the staff report -- or the staff memo dated February 14th and Dave McKinnon's February 16th reply. On the front page of my memo, before the conditions are actually listed there, in the last paragraph I mention that one of the items that we talked about, the staff did and the applicant related to this main street concept and I think this goes back to what -- what this is that you're looking at. You know, what you're looking at is a conceptual planned development that is not -- if it's moved on by this body and approved by City Council, still does not give them building permit authority. It basically gives them the -- the confidence that the city is going to support this basic plan and concept. They would have to come back. We feel that -- that that's a pretty central part of this concept, you know, this main street, pedestrian friendly, kind of area that people can come to in this project. They have -- there is currently nothing in the conditions that says you must retain this. I think if we approve the concept, then, essentially, this plan generally has to be complied with, but we do feel that a main street really isn't a main street, if you're trying to sort of replicate that feel, unless you have historic construction on both sides and the building is fairly close, is a fairly wide sidewalk and, you know, it's long enough to kind of do a loop around the block, if you will. And that was not reflected in the .conditions that the two story -- we had a little bit of conversation back and forth about that. We do still strongly feel that as a concept that that two story construction is an important element of that area and that it's -- we would Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 13 of 76 recommend that that be included in the conditions, but I wanted to point that out for the Commission and ask Dave McKinnon to address that tonight as well, as to where they feel they stand, but my understanding is they are not really ready to commit to that, but staff feels it's an important element. In Dave McKinnon's memo he does ask that condition number three, bullet point three and four, be addressed and, again, this is referring to the development agreement that would be entered into between the developer and the City of Meridian with this rezone and one. of those development agreement conditions, the third bullet point and the fourth bullet point, deal with the access onto Eagle Road and they are -- this plan does still show three new -- well, their commercial is existing and they are showing an access on the south side and, then, an access on the north side, in addition to Pine and we -- while ITD, obviously, has the final authority for the approach permits and the applicant is working with ITO very closely on that, but I think to be consistent for what the city has done in previous developments on Eagle Road, we have said you have to go and get your approach permits through ITO, but we want to communicate to ITD what the city's position is on.these Eagle Road and other state highway corridors and staff's position is that at the most one of these three would be approved and, if it was, it would only be a right-in, right-out only. And that is a -- that is consistent with what the Eagle Road corridor study shows is having a future median in the middle of this -- of Eagle Road, which, of course, would -- would force right-in, right-out, unless you happened to be lined up at a signal. But because of its proximity to Pine Avenue, which has the light, that's something that we do feel is an important piece to keep in the development agreement and we do think that the city is -- in the past the Council has wanted to support ITD -- this corridor arterial study that they just finished a few months ago and we think that this is consistent with that, so -- and, I don't know, maybe if Mr. Nary, the attorney, wants to make a comment on the question about -- that Dave McKinnon raises in his memo about the easement and right that Mr. McCall has to that easement, particularly as it relates to full access. Did you want to comment on that? Nary: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we did receive a -- the city did receive a letter from Mr. McCall regarding his preference on the comments and the recommend by the planning staff regarding the right in and right-out. It's my opinion that -- and the reason it does give him access, the right-in, right-out is not prohibited access, I think the city is planning and does have the ability to ultimately make that decision on where the access points along Eagle Road should be. The City Council has done that previously along both the Kuna-Meridian Highway and Eagle Road to be able to make a determination on the developer on the project and where the access points should be and I don't believe it would be restricted. If the right-in, right-out were to be a commercial court where Mr. McCall's easement is, he still would have access to his property and the fact that it's more restricted, I don't think it's a legal issue for the city. It may be an issue between him and the developer for access, but it's not an issue for the city. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 14 of 76 Hawkins-Clark: And, then, going down on -- still on the development agreement, which is on the conditions -- condition number three and, then, the third bullet up from the bottom, which is the fifth bullet down, that says prior to detailed CUP application being approved on this property, the owner shall provide written documentation to the city that Commercial Court access has been relinquished and this site plan, if this is the one that you approve, really addresses that subject. That could be omitted and that is what Dave McKinnon is requesting that we do and I agree that that doesn't make any sense now with this new plan. As far as the truck route, which is the second to the last bullet on page two of my memo, that talks about the site currently would allow trucks access to Eagle Road and I think the main change I would recommend on that is just instead of saying the applicant shall redesign the site - this is the second sentence in that bullet -- just say the applicant shall design the site to limit the need for Eagle Road access for trucks, this -- you know, the plan -- I think that would be really something we would deal with at the detailed CUP level and, again, as Mr. Nary stated, I think as far as Mr. McCall's access and being able to use trucks back and forth -- nothing's built on this property today, so if anything does happen on there, this body is going to see that application again and we will deal with truck access at that point, but I think the goal here being you have Pine Avenue, it's signalized, that's where we want to encourage the flow of the traffic movement of trucks and not having to pull out directly onto Eagle Road. Then, there was two last issues for my presentation. One of them is on the phasing plan for this project and that's on page three of the memo, item number two, subparagraph C, identify the project phasing plan. As with most subdivisions, you know, there is usually a phase plan submitted with the subdivision. These commercial projects are a little bit different animal in that, of course, they, understandably so, don't know who the clients are going to be, if they are going to have anchor tenants, major tenants usually in these kind of situations, you know, they need a way for a major to come in, so we understand that they are not necessarily going to be able to tell us right away exactly how they are going to pave it. We assume that they are not going to build all of this infrastructure for the full 62 acres right up front and our main point there was just to insure that we understand generally for infrastructure, you know, how it's going to be extended, sewer and water and irrigation and which access points are going to come in, who it relates to the Hickory signal. They will require, the Ada County Highway Districts, if you put money up for the construction of a signal at Hickory. The decision relates to that and what Dave McKinnon is suggesting is to have the detailed -- the first detailed conditional use permit have the phasing plan at that point and I think if the Commission is comfortable with that, staff is. Related to the phasing,. though -- and I should apologize, because I haven't had a chance to talk with the applicant about this, but one of the things that came up in the traffic study related to Pine Avenue and, as you know, today Pine does not connect over to Locust Grove Road. Mr. Funkhouser's traffic study, though, stated that -- that once Pine does connect to Locust Grove Road, it's going to, you know, significantly reduce the impact on Eagle Road. I think his number was about 31,000 trips that would be generated at build out by this site and you would have somewhere between 15 and 16 thousand less trips that would need to use Eagle Road if Pine is connected over to Locust Grove Road. I mean it makes sense, since a lot of this will come from the west and you have the future Locust Grove overpass and Pine being five lanes and so one of the things that we talked about at the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 15 of 76 staff level was should this project have a limit on the amount of building that can go in here until Pine actually is extended. Obviously, this applicant does not have any control over the land where Pine would connect to Locust Grove. That being said, they are proposing a project that has a significant impact on Pine and on Eagle and so we are suggesting that that -- that no more than 300,000 square feet of this project be built until -- until Pine Avenue is extended. And I should point out that we have application submitted to the city that proposes to extend Pine Avenue that you will be seeing in the near future. The last point on item number six on page four, I think that's just basically an error on my part. I didn't really finish that condition. It talks about a minimum perimeter landscape strip on the south property line, but that was already included in item number two, to item number six could be omitted. And I think that ends staff comments. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions for Brad. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Brad, you just talked about the point on the 300,000 square foot to Pine. Where is that noted? Hawkins-Clark: It's not. As I mentioned, we just talked about that before the meeting and I haven't had a chance to talk with the applicant about it, so -- Moe: Okay. I do have a couple other things for you. And, actually, I have been -- on your item number three, bullet point number one, where you talk about the developer shall be required to incorporate some professional offices or non-retail use in the development when they get 300,000 square feet. What kind of square footage are we talking about for the professional office or non-retail? Is there -- are we looking at a certain amount of square footage? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, that's a good point. We have struggled with this issue on mixed-use developments on exactly how to enforce this. Since the ordinance doesn't give us the direction, we are relying on the Comprehensive Plan, which says this should be a mixed-use area and they are asking for a mixed use regional designation and yet they didn't propose a mixed use. So, we have -- this is -- this almost identical language that we had on Market Square, which is where the Lowe's is going on Ustick and Eagle, they had 38 acres there, that was also mixed use. On that site we said similar language and didn't put a minimum square footage. Open for suggestions on that. I think it's a good point on how we track that. It's a little bit above - - balanced between complying with the Comprehensive Plan and the market and should the city be -- set, actually, minimum square footage of non-retail. Moe: Well, my point to that was -- is that I was glad to see that there was some possible plan for office or non-retail, but not so many type of a square footage noted. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 160f76 I'm kind of curious about that. And I wanted to just kind of make sure -- we are anticipating if the city wants to have one right in, right-out onto Eagle Road; correct? So, I'm assuming, then, that that would be the portion for the easement right there, that would be the one and only that we would be anticipating; right? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. If that. I should point that out. I mean, you know, there is other -- Pine Avenue is five lanes and a full access and I think With the median there, that was basically a compromise, if you will, from our position. Moe: Well, already having an easement there, the problem is we don't want to detour from the -- from Mr. McCall's access to that point, so that's why I would anticipate that to where it is as well. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Moe: Thank you. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, if I might. Commissioner Moe, just because staff didn't put a square footage for the non-retail use, that is certainly something that the Planning Commission could consider in their deliberations tonight for the Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: It certainly sounds to me like it would be a good use for a second story along the main street part of it and maybe other square footage as well. I just wanted to comment that me personally and I think all of us as Commissioners, are aware that staff had a strong recommendation to not only deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but also this, and we do take the staff's comments and recommendations very seriously. As you know, it was kind of a close decision not to follow your recommendation and I just want to say I appreciate the effort that you have put into going a different direction and giving us the study and the analysis of the direction that we, at the moment, seem to be going. So, I just wanted to appreciate that and make a point that we take your recommendations very seriously and struggle with it. That said, are we ready for the applicant? Any other questions? Borup: Yeah. I have one, Mr. Chairman. It's related to something that Commissioner Moe had mentioned and that's on the Eagle Road access. You had mentioned that the one access point you felt was in compliance with ITD's recommendations. Are their recommendations general or do they have some specifics as far as distance between access points or access points per piece of property or is it -- you know, anything a little more specific in their -- what they are recommending? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Borup, you're referring to the Eagle Road arterial study? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: And the recommendations in that study? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 170f76 Borup: Yes. And I assume that's what staff's comments were based on. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Well, they included several exhibits in that study, which did zoom in on, you know, segments on Eagle Road from 1-84 up to the city of Eagle. Or maybe it was Chinden. But, anyway, so they -- and they generally are saying they have signalized intersections identified pretty clearly in their study, but -c and they do have a pretty detailed concept of how the landscape median and the turning movements in the median and how it relates to the existing streets that are there. They did not specifically state a distance, I don't believe, on separation offsets for the driveways or the streets. Borup: You had mentioned that you thought that the one access was in substantial compliance with what their -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess my point there was it may work with a right in, right-out -- Borup: Well, I definitely agree with that. That should be the only option, is a right in, right-out. But I was just wondering about one access point only. Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think that was my point was that the compliance would be that it was right in, right-out. Borup: Yes. But didn't he also state there would be only one access? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I don't -- yeah, I don't think that that -- like I said, they did not include separations in that. I think that's -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. I certainly agree with the right in, right-out completely. That's all. Zaremba: As long as that's a topic, I will chime in with an opinion also. ITD has been very plain that they want to limit access to Eagle Road. The City of Meridian has also been very plain that we support that and want to limit. I do think it's fair for the city to signal to ITD that we agree with them that there should only be one access. If it appears, because of the existing easement, where that access is is pre-established, but I also agree with the city attorney there -- it is not terribly restrictive by causing that to be only a right-in, right-out and I have agreement with the staff, and I think the other Commissioners, that we should signal to ITD that Meridian is in support of a single access and that it would be right-in, right-out at that point. Borup: Well -- and that was my question was whether another access would really cause any traffic problems to the extent -- being that there is a signal right there close and that's a break in the traffic. But I would -- I would think I'd need to see a traffic study that would indicate that -- you know, that the turning from both directions on Pine, you know, may impact that to extend, because it wouldn't be practical or not. And I don't know the answer to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 180f76 Zaremba: Okay. Any other comments before we -- Rohm: I guess we will hear from the applicant. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. Mr. McKinnon, you must be here someplace. Canning: Mr. Zaremba, I just wanted to follow up on that note before Mr. McKinnon starts. There is -- in some ways the Planning Commission -- or the City Council may have a little more tools for restricting access than ITD might have, because ITD struggles with a number of access agreements that they have made in the past that there seems to be a little bit of question of when development occurs if they need to fully honor all those existing access points, whereas the city, with the request for a rezone or for annexation, when that's the case, has a little more ability to have -- place conditions on the property. So, I did want to -- you used the words support their decision, but in some ways if it is your own decision, it might even carry a little more -- help them out more if it's a decision of the city to actually limit access. So, I just wanted to -- to bring that to your thoughts anyway. Zaremba: Thank you very much. McKinnon: Good evening. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber, representing the applicant tonight. And just to jump in where everybody else has been talking about tonight with our right-in, right-out, and the multiple access points, I'd love to come up and say to you tonight that I'm an expert on traffic engineering, I'm not, but I brought one with me tonight and he's here and Gary Funkhouser can get up in a little bit and address the issues concerning the traffic access points. Brad. talked about them just really quick. Currently there are two access points to this site. Those of you that are familiar with the site remember that there is two basically cinder block buildings on the site. There is one located right here and, then, there is the old Club Wholesale building about right here. There is an access currently on Eagle Road right here that's being utilized by the occupant of the small building and, then, Commercial.Road is the access point right now for the old Club Wholesale building. And, then, further back it goes back to Ned McCall's property. Brad basically let you know that already and the things that he had to say we are in agreement with for the most part. Items number -- oh, item number three -- condition number three, bullet points three and four, this is Idaho Transportation Department's jurisdiction on Eagle Road and we haven't heard back with their comments on Eagle Road and what they will and what they won't recommend. I have talked with District Three. District Three would like to see the recommendation -- would like to see the recommendation to the super committee to have one access point on Commercial and eliminate the other two access points, that would be the north point -- the northern access point above commercial and the one below Commercial and that was District Three's recommendation to Idaho Transportation Department's super committee. And I don't have a result back yet from their super committee and what their determination was, but that's what I can update you with with Idaho Transportation Department. So, seeings how they haven't made a decision yet, it's hard for me to Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 19 of 76 comment onto what Idaho Transportation Department will finally do, so that's why we are asking at this time to leave it up to Idaho Transportation Department, because they have the expertise and they know how to determine what is and what isn't a safe access point to Eagle Road. So, that's the reason for the recommendation from us to wait until ITD figures that out and if ITD comes back and says one access on Commercial Road, right-in, right-out, we are happy to abide by that. And coming from District Three that was the request at that time. So, it is at headquarters right now. You have the letter from Ned McCall. Ned McCall does not want to see his access point limited to right-in, right-out, and he may have some discussions with Idaho Transportation Department with that as well and I appreciate the comments from Mr. Nary concerning that tonight. Condition number three, bullet point five, I'll ask you to strike that. Again, I'd just ask you to strike that when you make your motion tonight. Condition number three on page two, bullet point number four, the truck routes. The truck routes in my comments in my letter I mentioned that we do have an access -- full access at Pine, besides the three north-south access points coming onto Pine Street, which would allow truck access to come in and out on this site. With the construction of a median in Eagle Road I don't believe any trucks are going to try to turn out into Eagle Road during the peak p.m. and peak a.m. hours. I believe that most of the truck traffic will all be moving up to Pine Street to gain access to Eagle Road, because that's the only place they are going to be able to do it during peak trip hours. So, that's where that's going to go, but we can't restrict Mr. McCall's access to be able to take trucks back there. He has a use for that piece of property in mind and he wants to leave that open and so we have accommodated that by this site design. Onto -- actually, let's go to my letter, condition C -- condition C-2 on page tree. As Brad, pointed out, we have some suggested language for that and Brad said if you were comfortable with it, he was comfortable with it. I want to tell you that I'm comfortable with the language I suggested to you as well and ask that you adopt that tonight. Onto page five, condition number 18. This condition was discussed by Brad and I just before the meeting and there was some misunderstanding on my part. We were concerned that Brad was asking for all of the site improvements to be done at once prior to a certificate of occupancy for just one building and Brad and I talked about that just before the meeting and he said, no, that's just for each individual building or each individual phase. And so we don't have a problem with that. We just were concerned with the wording and I just wanted to make sure that it was understood that we would do all improvements for each individual building and phase, rather than all the improvements all at once prior to a certificate of occupancy. So, we are on the same page, we just read that a little bit differently. Brad mentioned a couple things that -- let me touch on just a little bit concerning the build out of Pine Street. It's not a condition that he has anywhere in his staff report, he just recommended to you tonight to limit the amount of uses that can go onto Pine Street to 300,000 square feet of retail and other uses until Pine Street is extended. That's a curve ball. It's not anything that we have heard until tonight and Brad did apologize and I just want to address that a little bit. We are talking about Pine Street is going to be, essentially, an arterial roadway, it's a 96 foot street section, it's going to be five lanes, and the cost of the improvements for all of Pine Street fall square around the shoulders of the developer, in addition to the cost of constructing that road and dedicating the right of way for that road, he also puts in 105,000 dollars for the construction of a stoplight at Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 20 of 76 Hickory and Pine. To incur all those costs, yet still not be able to construct beyond the 300,000 if that becomes the limit. Brad mentioned that Pineridge Subdivision has been submitted to the City of Meridian. It has been submitted to the City of Meridian and part of that application as well, it will be coming to you soon. The size of these two projects are large, over 180 acres in size. It's hard to determine the phasing of this and the timing of this project. We don't know when Pine Street will be connected completely. However, because of the size of this project, build out for this project is not going to be alleviated. There may be a number of buildings that come in place and be placed on this site. Maybe 100,000 square feet of building. Pine Street will have to be constructed moving back. The 300,000 square feet, if we pay all that money and we can't go any further, it's really hard to recoup those costs. And so we would ask that you not make that a condition of approval tonight, because the timing of this site -- and we don't know how fast it's going to develop and if it did that as quickly and there is a demand for that, we don't want to be restricted to somebody else completing their roadway. It's in -- the application's in, but we don't know the timing or the phasing of that project yet either. That's in for a Conditional Use Permit as well. And, remember, this is conceptual. We will have to come back to you with one of these individual building plans and each one of these individual phases, so you will have a chance to look at this again in the future and if the traffic study support more than 300,000 square feet at that time, since Pine Street is not constructed, I don't think that right now is the time to limit that and we can limit -- we can see where we are at once we get to that point in construction, because you will be seeing a detailed Conditional Use Permit for each one of these projects as they come in. Even though it is just conceptual right now, we don't even know who the users are going to be, we don't know how many square feet they need, and we don't want to be limited at this, because the traffic may justify what is there, so, please, don't pick an arbitrary number tonight and limited us to that, to just say 300,000 is all we can do before Pine Street is connected. On to some fun stuff. Brad asked about two story buildings. Two story buildings are great and they are fun, they are neat, they are expensive to construct, especially with retail and office together. This project, like you said, was a very close decision last time and we have some things to workout with their site plan. We have been working with staff and staff has been very generous with their time in working with us on this project. We haven't done a detailed market study to determine whether or not the two story office buildings will work on top of the retail in that area, but that's something we will definitely look into and you will, again, have the opportunity to review these projects as they come back to you with a detailed Conditional Use Permit. We understand staff's recommendation for that. It's not a condition of approval that they put in tonight and we are happy to leave it out of the conditions of approval tonight. We will look into it. You will have the opportunity to see it again in the future, under a Conditional Use Permit, the main street right through here. As that project comes in, you will have an opportunity to review that and we'd ask that you review that at this time. Please keep in mind that we are dealing with this on a conceptual nature right now. Brad mentioned that we are just about done with this game and I think that you have been very helpful, you have worked with us, you have asked us to do a lot of things, which we have tried to comply with. We have increased the open space. We have added a pond for ducks and geese up in the corner to try to match up with what -- the wonderful things that Blue Cross has done and we have Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 21 of 76 increased the open space. We valued the pathway and we have increased the plaza areas. The request that staff had to improve this project, we have tried to incorporate into this. We feel that we have got a. project right now that you can move forward and will become an asset for the city in the future. We'd ask that you approve it tonight and I'd ask if you have any questions at this time. Zaremba: Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple. I'm still going back to your first comment on access points. Do you know how many access points there are in Crossroads Subdivision across the street and how many square footage of space they have? McKinnon: Brad, can you go to the overhead, the aerial photo? We have Presidential that comes into Crossroads Subdivision. Above Presidential you have the access that runs across basically from the access into Kinko's, Starbuck's, Wendy's in here. It doesn't go far enough up. There is one more access point just north that goes into the Applebee's area. Borup: So, there is three on Eagle and how many on Fairview? McKinnon: On Fairview they have one, two -- they have the traffic light at Wal-Mart and, then, the one passed Wal-Mart, I believe. Borup: So five? McKinnon: They have got a number of them. Borup: Okay. And you're not sure -- how many square foot -- McKinnon: Square foot is the entire project minus Wal-Mart -- boy, I saw projected build-out numbers when I worked for the city. I don't know the complete build-out numbers at this time, because that was conceptual as well. So, I don't know the complete build out at this time. Borup: Then the other -- and maybe just a comment and that's on the Pine Street extension. I know for me one of the major pieces of information has influence when we were discussing the Comp Plan Amendment was that Pine Street would be extended. I know if I felt that that was not going to happen, my opinion of the whole project would have been different. So, I thought that was a major piece of information as a necessity of that extension for this project to work. McKinnon: I'm sure it is going to be extended. That project has been submitted, so -- Borup: No. I understand that, but I'm just making my personal comment on your concern on the full build out of the project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 22 of 76 Moe: Mr. Chairman, a couple questions. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I know you have made mention in regards to possible office use and whatnot, but realizing it's conceptual, do you not have any kind of a square footage idea of what may be put into this project? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we have gone over that issue a couple different times, just like staff has, and we sat down with Brad and said, you know, is there a cut and dried number and we didn't come up with a number as to how much. We added the hotel, which takes us out of the straight retail uses. So, there is the hotel site. There wasn't a hotel site on the original application. What Brad mentioned in the far west end was, actually, another anchor tenant, it wasn't a hotel. So, we have added to hotel to have a mix of uses beyond just straight retail. Six hundred thousand plus square feet of building is a lot of area and there will be plenty of room for office use within that area. As far as picking out an individual pad site or individual building site, there isn't one specific to this site, but there is a great deal of area that could accommodate office. Moe: Okay. That's alii have. Zaremba: I have a question about what I think is Hickory. Maybe we can tell -- is this the intersection you're being required to signalize? Is that where Hickory is? McKinnon: Uh-huh. Zaremba: The aerial view that was here before didn't show that this connected. Do we know if it now connects? McKinnon: It does. It's part of the Gemtone Five project. Zaremba: And do you or anybody else -- now I know at Fairview -- where Hickory crosses Fairview there is a plan to signalize that I think within this year. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Does this one connect all the way through? Does Hickory go all the way through to Fairview or is there a break in it somewhere? McKinnon: Yeah, it does go -- Zaremba: It does? McKinnon: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 23 of 76 Zaremba: I think that gives us some extra traffic options until -- until Pine connects through to Locust Grove, Eagle isn't, actually, the only choice. McKinnon: That's correct. It will have a secondary access out. Thanks for helping me out. Zaremba: Well, it doesn't depict it, but I was thinking that there is a connection. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have got a couple of things that I wanted to just kind of throw out, here. Dave, when we -- listening to this project last time, there was a lot of opposition from the staff based upon the fact that Eagle Road is so congested already. You gave us some compelling arguments that said that even though you should be allowed development -- and, obviously, gave us enough to sway us to go your direction, but what I'm hearing now is now that you have got us leaning your direction, you want the whole thing and it seems to me that there should be some give and take on -- like you mentioned the ITD -- part of staff's reluctance was not to have that additional ingress-egress off of Eagle Road and if, in fact, you can find a way to develop this commercially and not have multiple ingress-egress off of Eagle Road, I think you'd get a lot more support from this body and we would be in a lot better graces with the folks that we work with everyday. Would -- could you comment on that? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, can I put a smile on your face? We can live without the access point above Commercial and the access point below Commercial. Commercial is the one we definitely need to have happen. So, if that was, you know, your recommendation that you would like to see those gone, we are okay with that. Rohm: Okay. Well -- and now we are moving in the direction I'd like. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Rohm: Now, onto the non-retail. You have been at this game quite awhile and I think that it would be appreciated if you could give us some sort of a ballpark idea of out of 600,000 square feet can you have 50,000? I mean you ought to have some idea of what you can commit to from a non-retail perspective. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, when I get back up for rebuttal I will be able to have a better answer for you. I want a chance just to talk with the developer, find out what he's comfortable with. Just one other thought on that. We do have a large number of office spaces orbare land that's located immediately north of this site. The Gemtone project provides high quality office space. And we have Blue Cross, which is a very large office building just north of this site. I will have a number-- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 24 of 76 Rohm: I want you to know that I'm not trying to kill what you have going here, because I think that there has been a lot of give and take both ways, but I really want more than just, well, we will see as -- and each project will come before you as a conditional use. I'd like to have some feel for what you think you could manage as part of this project. Thank you. McKinnon: I'll get you that. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to -- I don't have any questions, but I want to make some comments. I believe I was the one Commissioner who did vote against this project and I just want to go on record again, I don't think this is the appropriate place -- could we go back to the aerial view? And I have been thinking a lot over the last four weeks as I drive down Eagle Road everyday, why I think this is a bad place for this project and I drive down Pine this way, go all the way over here to Cloverdale, with the exception of Lewis and Clark Middle School and this subdivision here, You have industrial uses, industrial land for sale, industrial uses, industrial uses and industrial uses. You have the Coors Distributing, you have a utility truck place here. Sorry, I can't remember the name of it. You have a distribution center here. I think we show a pattern of a lot potential for industrial growth in this. I think that Pine Street to the north -- I think Pine Street creates a good stopping point, if you will, for commercial development on Eagle Road. There is a lot of land here to the north that is already designated with the mixed use regional where commercial development, I believe, would be more suited. I -- now, granted, I'm not a land planner, the Mayor did not appoint me to this Commission as a land planner, but in the time I have been on this Commission one thing I have learned is that a Comprehensive Plan was designed for future land planning and I believe that future land planning takes time and amending a Comprehensive Plan that is approximately three years old I think is rushing future land development along at an unnecessary pace, if you will. And I don't think the time is right for this project. It seems like a very nice project, but I just want to go on record saying I am wholeheartedly opposed to it in this area. End of comment. McKinnon: I have just been handed a note. Moe: The number is? McKinnon: Fifty thousand. Rohm: Thank you. McKinnon: You're welcome. Rohm: I appreciate that. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I appreciate the levity tonight. We have been at this a long time with this project and we have been at it a long, your staff has been at it a long time. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I appreciate your Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 25 of 76 comments. We do have this Comprehensive Plan. I was part of the Comprehensive Plan. The area was specific for mixed use, not industrial as it was zoned. You mentioned that it goes back along Pine Street; it's not industrial on the Comprehensive Plan. That is all mixed use regional and you're going to see some more additional -- Newton-Huckabay: It's being marketed as industrial along the for sale signs. McKinnon: Well, yeah, it's been marked that way, but as far as complying with the Comp Plan and if the Comp Plan is to be taken as what it is, the Comprehensive Plan does not intend that to be industrial. I appreciate your comments. I know we battled through that last time and the recommendation went through and I do appreciate your comments. I really do. Although I disagree with them. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba? Or Chairman Zaremba, it would appear that the applicant is testifying again. McKinnon: I can get down and finish my testimony. Thank you very much for your time. Zaremba: I have been electronically challenged. Am I able to be better heard over this microphone? Okay. Canning: If you pull it down can we -- can we test it out for you there? Zaremba: Well, we didn't change it. I'm using the hand held one, although I'm just resting it on the counter. And if I can be heard that way -- Canning: That's working. Zaremba: We will proceed with that. Let's see. I failed to mention that we had this handy-dandy light system here. When the light is green you have time to talk. It will go to yellow, that gives you about 30 seconds to conclude, and when it's red we do ask that you conclude. I didn't see it light up. I saw it was green for a while. I didn't see what happened later. Okay. The applicant has spoken. The only other person signed up is Gary Funkhouser. Would he care to come forward and add some comments? Apparently no further comment. Okay. The meeting is open to anybody else who wishes to comment, even if you didn't sign up. That being said, we will give the applicant an opportunity for his closing remarks. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Dave McKinnon. No rebuttal to my previous testimony. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: That was perfect, Dave. Meridian Planning & Zoning Febr~ary 17. 2005 Page 26 of 76 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I actually have one question for him and that would be would that bea minimum of 50,000 square feet? McKinnon: Yes. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: That truly helps with the nature of the -- even compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in mixed use, as staff pointed out, all retail is not mixed. The hotel helps, if it does turn out to be a hotel, and if there is some concept that maybe another 50,000 could be a different use than retail, I believe that helps. Thank you. There was an original staff report, but I -- I think the staff report of February 14 addresses enough issues that I would probably refer only to it. Staff is nodding that this is now the operative staff note. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, it appears that all discussion has been had. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 04-017 and CUP 04- 051. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Sometimes we all speak at once and sometimes nobody speaks. Another motion would be appropriate, unless there is some further discussion. Moe: Well, if that was a comment to me, Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to get my thoughts in order here first. I guess I'm going to ask the one question I'm a . little bit unclear on and that would be we are -- I do have some changes that I do want to address on that. Am I addressing that to the CUP or the rezone? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, are you referring to the square footage? Moe: Well, a few things here, I guess. Hawkins-Clark: The rezone, Commissioner, is the development agreement. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 27 of 76 Hawkins-Clark: So, essentially, if this site is rezoned to commercial general, all of it mixed use and if, for whatever reason, this project doesn't happen, what things would you like to stay with this land, regardless what goes there. Maybe that's just one way to help you think about a development agreement. The Conditional Use Permit is also an option to put the conditions, but I think the development agreement is for that longer term view of this site, so -- Moe: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, now, having said that, Mr.Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-017, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of February 17 and -- hang on here. Hearing date February 17th. Zaremba: The staff's memo date is February 14th, 2005. Moe: And that is correct. And the staff memo date February 14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page two of the staff memo of February 14th, item three, bullet point one, in the sentence where the developer shall require -- be required to incorporate some -- I'd like to change some to read to incorporate a minimum of 50,000 square foot of professional office or non-retail use in the development. Under bullet point five I would like to admit that in its entirety. Bullet point six, under the applicant shall redesign, I would like to delete re and make it that the applicant shall design the site to eliminate the need for the Eagle Road access for trucks. End of motion. The number of access points are already fairly noted in four as one -- one only and that's exactly what I'm asking for. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, is it possible for staff to ask for a clarification as we prepare a recommendation -- Zaremba: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: -- for Council? Commissioner Moe, did that 50,000 include the hotel or not? Moe: No, it does not. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Borup: Oh, it doesn't? Moe: That's what I got out of that. Borup: Well, it says -- okay. But the -- excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Then, that may need rewording, because it says professional -- it says non-retail. Professional or non-retail. Wouldn't a hotel be non-retail? Meridian Planning & ZonIng February 17, 2005 Page 28 of 76 Mae: I took it they made a point of a hotel and, then, this would be over and beyond the hotel square footage. Newton-Huckabay: I concur. Borup: Ifs not worded that way now. I was assuming you meant the hotel was included in that. Zaremba: As part of the motion do you want to revisit that first bullet under paragraph three on page two? Mae: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend my motion in regards to item number three, bullet point one - I forgot what I wanted to say. Borup: I think you were going to say in addition to the hotel. Mae: Oh. Basically, where it says to incorporate a minimum of 50,000 square foot in addition to the hotel, of professional office or retail use. Borup: Or non-retail use. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Zaremba: Okay. And we will clarify that all other elements of the motion as previously made are included with that one amendment. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion does carry. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES; ONE OPPOSED Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-051 to include all of staff comments of the meeting date February 17th, 2005, staff comments of February 14th, 2005, with one change. Under site specific conditions on page three, item two, item C, like to have that point stricken and changed to read: A phasing plan shall be submitted with the first detail Conditional Use Permit application for this project. Revisions to the phasing plan shall be approved by the planning director or hislher assigns if changes to the plan are requested. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 29 of 76 Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES; ONE OPPOSED Zaremba: Thank you all. Traditionally somewhere in the neighborhood of 9:00 o'clock we take a break and I believe this would be an appropriate time to take about ten minutes and reconvene. (Recess.) Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 6, 2005: AZ 04-033 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Stor-lt by Avest LP - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting. Let the record show that all Commissioners are present again and we will move on to Item 9. I will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 04-033, request for an annexation and zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Stor-lt by Avest LP, 355 North Ten Mile Road, and we will begin with staff comments. Guenther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. I will try and be very brief with this one and if you have any questions, please ask. This is an annexation. The location is right off of Ten Mile just south of the railroad right of way. This is bisected by Ten Mile Creek. The east portion is the C-2 zone and the west portion is the RUT zone. At this time the front - there is the aerial photo. At the time the front here has existing storage units on it. The bridge in this location recently was completed, as well as they are going - they are proposing to put in new buildings in this area in the rear and two new ones in the front. This is a conceptual plan. There is no approval for the actual buildings at this time. What we are looking for the - being addressed in the development agreement for the site would be the compliance with the five year work plan along Ten Mile Road, as well as meeting the Comprehensive Plan for the multi-use pathway along Ten Mile Creek on the western portion of the site. This site is also bordered by a proposed multi-use, multi..family high density to the west and this is all proposed, since everything there is vacant currently. And a church site to the south. We have met with the church site and they will be putting the pathway to the Avest property off of Ten Mile Creek and that's part of the reason why this pathway needs to continue up - continue through. To the north is a recent R-B development that has also continued the pathway on the west side of Ten Mile Creek. At this time it's - the staff report reflects what our comments would be. We believe that all of the issues for the site can be addressed during the development agreement and the site would just be redeveloped through certificate of zoning compliance in the future. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for the staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 30 of 76 Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only one I have is how does that pathway continue to the north? Guenther: At this time it would cease at their property until such time as the Union Pacific Railroad grants a crossing to the north. Borup: Okay. That's what I was wondering how it crossed the railroad. Thank you. Zaremba: We have been provided with a letter that discusses that pathway and, essentially, suggesting that they commit to building it, but be allowed to build it later as a security issue with them. It is -- have you read the letter? Guenther: I have read through the letter. Like I say, I just provided that to Jessica. I was not aware that it did not make it to your packet, so I have provided you -- we can make copies of that for you. I discussed this with Mr. Nary earlier today. He might have an additional thought on the matter. Right now we believe that it can be addressed through the development agreement. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: And it has potential that they could bond for the construction of the pathway or come to some other agreement with -- within that development agreement. But the preferred method is to have it constructed upon the certificate of zoning compliance and the development of the site. Zaremba: Mr. Nary, anything to add? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct, that has been pretty much the standard practice of the Council is to have these constructed at the outset. Certainly bonding is an option. The problem always ends up being of the enforcement later and when is that start point going to be when it connects and what's going to be -- what's going to determine that connection and how they are going to get enforced by staff at some point in the future. That's the reason for that. It's just from an enforcement standpoint it's very difficult to do these and I guess the only other point I'd make is, philosophically, again, that has been fairly standard, almost all developments that have pathways are required to construct them at the outset. Very few, if any, have been allowed not to do that. If the rationale were simply that we have to wait for connectivity, then -- and to bond for them, then, we would still be holding millions of dollars of bonds waiting for the magic point that they all connect and, then, everybody would construct them and at that point the bonds would probably be insufficient to cover the cost of construction, if that's the case. And those are the things I would think are difficult from both this Commission's standpoint or the Council to try to address, which is why they are simply asked to be done right at the outset to get them done. They are working very diligently to get the connection points done and just from that standpoint I think that's the reason for the staff's recommendation. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 31 of 76 Zaremba: Thank you. Let see. No other questions, I guess we are ready for -- Borup: Just one maybe along that same point, Mr. Chairman, and that's on the connectivity issue. I could -- and that's on the comment of that needing to connect at both ends. There is, obviously, some merit to that, but it may be awhile before it's going to be able to connect to the actual pathway on the north end and I would not be in favor of waiting until that point comes. I'm not sure how long the one to the south -- it sounds like, from what staff said -- is that church development in the near future plans? Guenther: The church development, when we met with their representatives, their plan is to develop this site to the south, which is roughly 35 acres, over approximately the next five to ten years. They are looking at starting their development in the next nine months to a year. Borup: Okay. Guenther: But their development is contingent on the annexation of this property, so that they can be contiguous to the City of Meridian for annexation eligibility. Furthermore, immediately to the north of the railroad tracks is where the connection would be. It would not be on the property north of there. The pathway continues along Ten Mile Creek, but connectivity would be maintained, as there is a location in the right of way for the UP Railroad, as per the Comprehensive Plan. So, there would be a pathway all along the railroad to the north of the railroad. Borup: Could -- okay. The pathway would be in existence now you mean, basically? Guenther: No. Borup: But the -- I mean the right of way -- the location for it -- Guenther: The location for a future pathway would be within the UP route right of way immediately to the north of the property. Borup: Okay. Guenther: Or immediately north of the actual tracks. Borup: So, it still has to cross the tracks? Guenther: Yes. Borup: Okay. Well, as was stated -- but they have to start somewhere. Or the pathways. Or if no one put it in there would never be a connection for anybody to make to. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 32 of 76 Zaremba: That's a good point. Let's see. You mentioned the bridge. Did you say that it's already constructed now? Guenther: Yes. They constructed that through an agreement with Ada County, one of their development applications through the county, and it has -~ Zaremba: Do we know if it meets fire department -- Guenther: We have discussed that with the fire department. I brought this to a comments meeting and their comment was that they were more concerned with having a secondary access. The fire department actually asked for an access here and they also provided an access in the rear of the site, so that the route -- the fire trucks could get across this bridge, as well as have multiple accesses to the site. The minimum constructed width of the bridge is 20 foot of paved, which is required by Ada County code on the recommendation of the fire code to meet their 70,000 pound standard in width requirements. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. That will -- Canning: Just a quick reminder that the rural fire district is the same as the city fire district. So, the rural fire district looked at it for Ada County. So, it was reviewed by them before it was constructed, basically. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant. Callahan: Good evening. Craig Callahan, 6170 Shandee Road in Meridian. Mr. Chairman Members of the Commission, I'm here to represent the owner Avest and respond to any questions that you might have. As we have just been talking, this is an area that's just under development right now and it's a very dynamic process going on. We wanted get in the loop of everything, so that the utilities could be extended to us and everything could be brought up to this site and kind of work with the new neighbors, the church, the high density that's planned to go to the west of it and to follow up with an agreement that the previous owner had to annex once it. became available for annexation and it's now available for annexation. The city previously provided water to the site and so we are following through with the previous owners deal that they had. Like I say, it's a dynamic process and the whole thing about the path is they want to make sure that that's where everybody wants the path before they build it. They have another project similar to this in Boise where they built the path and nobody can connect to it now. So, we just wanted to hold off long enough to make sure that's where everybody decided it should go before they go to the expense of getting it built and that was why we sent the letter in requesting that. This is the second Stor-It storage unit project in the City of Meridian. They started the other one about 12 years ago and it took probably six years and four phases to get it all flushed out to its final full development and this is going to be the same way. It's going to take them awhile to work their way around this thing. It's kind of demand driven in that as the area grows around it, you start determining what kind of storage units you need inside of it as per Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 33 of 76 the demand. So, the first thing they'd like to do is start with the outside, get the screen walls up, so that everybody is not looking in at a bunch of parked vehicles and things like that, and keep marching forward like the past one did. I think all the things that staff said can be worked out in the development agreement process that are outstanding at this point. There is no issues that the owner is not willing to work through and enter into in a development agreement with at this point. And that's basically alii need to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Moe: I have none. Zaremba: Okay. Callahan: Could I add one more thing? Zaremba: Certainly. Callahan: The bridge was built to fire department standards. Zaremba: Thank you. Callahan: Nice concrete bridge. Zaremba: Okay. This is the opportunity for anybody else to offer testimony. On our sign-up sheet there is no one signed up for this issue. In that case, the applicant doesn't necessarily need to rebut anything that's been said. Commissioners, discussion? Newton-Huckabay: My only comment is I would hesitate to -- as Mr. Nary stated, deviate from our general practice on the pathway. We generally require the pathway to be built to continue on this with project, otherwise, we could create a tracking nightmare. End of comment, which is much shorter than my last comment. Zaremba: You would propose to leave the staff comment the way it is -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I would. Zaremba: -- on that issue? Rohm: Well, if there aren't any additional comments, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on continued Public Hearing AZ 04-033. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Meridian Pianning & ZOning February 17. 2005 Page 34 of 76 Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of application AZ 04-033, to include all staff comments for the hearing date February 17th -- and I don't have a date of the staff comments. Newton-Huckabay: Here it is right here. Rohm: Staff comments dated January 3rd, 2005, for the hearing date February 17th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from February 3, 2005: CUP 04-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit I Planned Development for office, retail and daycare uses in an I-L zone as required by CUP 04-009 and a request for a building height modification from the previously approved 40- feet to 52-feet for DBSI Realty Corp. by DBSI Realty Corp. - north of West Overland Road and east of South Linder Road: Zaremba: We are ready for Item 10 and, Mr. Moe, you have a comment? Moe: Yes. Before you open this hearing, I need to make a point. I received a phone call this morning from the applicant of Item No.1 0 in regards to what she explained that the company I work for at a later date will be one of the companies able to bid this project when it comes up in a couple months. We have not done any work for DBSI in the past, but because they did call make and that statement I wanted to go on record as stating that I think I probably should -- I'm a little bit concerned, a little bit of conflict of interest, come two months from now, if, in fact, we bid the job and we were awarded it, that even though this is a height issue on this, I'm not sure that I should be in this hearing, so, therefore, I'm asking the Commission your opinion as to whether or not I should excuse myself. Zaremba: That is something that I would ask for input from our legal counsel first. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commission Moe did speak to me before the meeting. Under Idaho Code, the only conflict of interest that the Idaho Code addresses is financial interest that a Commissioner would gain or benefit from. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 35 of 76 Commissioner Moe indicated that certainly his company -- his position in the company, the salary he receives, and all of those things, have no pecuniary benefit by any particular individual job that he may -- that they may have, so there is no financial gain for him to be received by the relationship between his company and the applicant in this case. So, there is no legal conflict of interest. But there is also in government a very strong perception of conflict of interest that I think is just as concerning to the public and his fellow Commissioners and so that's why he raised that. Basically, from a legal perspective I think Commissioner Moe has raised the appropriate concern that there may be a member of the public that might have a concern or a member of this Commission that would have a concern. If you don't have a -- if he doesn't have a personal conflict to participate with this, then, I think it's up to this Commission. If the Commission has a concern, you should probably raise that concern and you folks can vote on that if you wish on whether to re-cuse him from participating. If you have no objection, you should all make note of that on the record and he can certainly continue. But there is no legal conflict, just the perception of a conflict. Rohm: Well, Mr. Chairman, with that being said, I think, Dave, you have been a welcome part of this Commission and I appreciate you sticking with us, along with that. Zaremba: Yes. I would have him participate in this item as well. I'm not sure that there is a direct financial interest in this decision. I think you can -- I think he can be fair and that's not an issue. I would ask legal counsel if during public testimony the applicant or someone else from the public objects, could we at that point maybe suggest that he not vote? In the meantime, I would include Mr. Moe. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly in the course of this, as the testimony evolves, what I told Commissioner Moe before the meeting is I certainly would never advise someone that they have to participate for some reason if they personally felt uncomfortable with it, as long as he's comfortable with it and this Commission is comfortable with it, he can continue to participate. If, during the course of testimony that position may change, I think the Commission certainly always has the opportunity to revisit that and, again, articulate the reasons for that. Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to comment that by -- if Commissioner Moe recuses himself, we don't have to deal with any of those issues and I think where we have a full quorum tonight, it wouldn't present a problem. And we can maintain the appearance of it without having to deal with those potential issues down the road. Borup: And my only comment would be along the lines of has been said in this situation -- I mean and under these circumstances I have no concerns. It's a very very indirect relationship. Zaremba: In that case -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm really not concerned, I think it would simplify the process. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 36 of 76 Zaremba: All right. And we have some support and one suggestion that perhaps not and let's leave it up to Commission Moe -- Moe: Well, having said that -- Zaremba: -- for participating. Moe: -- I'm fine with it. I'm not too concerned. Again, we would still have to be awarded the project in a bidding mode, so I'm not too concerned with that. But I did want to bring it up to the Commission tonight. So I will stay. Zaremba: Thank you for your candor. We will now open the Public Hearing on CUP 04-055, request for a Conditional Use Permit planned development for office, retail, and daycare uses in an I-L zone as required by the previous CUP 04-009. And also this is a request for a building height modification from the previously approved 40 feet to 52 feet for DBSI Realty Corp by DBSI Realty Corp, north of West Overland Road and east of South Linder Road and we will begin with staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This, actually, was approved under CUP 01-009 back in 2001 on April 3rd. The site is, actually, 32 acres-- a little over 32 acres, but the actual building pad that we will be looking at tonight is in the south and west corner of the site fronting Overland Road. With this, the commercial uses that were approved through the original CUP planned development do include all of the proposed uses that the applicant is requesting tonight under the CUP that's 04- 055. Again, this site is located about a half a mile west of Meridian Road, directly north of Overland Road. The Western Electronics is on this site, as well as it is the only development that has occurred on the DBSI's site that was approval in 2001, until this application is heard here. The only significant feature on the site is the Kennedy Lateral, which was in the original condition of approval that I have restated in the staff report that it must be relocated as per the conditions of approval for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. With that, the site plan shows that they have an access directly to Overland Road. That would be shared with Western Electronics, as well as they are proposing another access point for the two buildings in the middle of the location here and, then, on the western portion of the site would be, I believe, Stoddard Road. With this, ACHD has made the comment in their staff report and I have discussed this with the applicant that they do not wish to have this access -- take access to Overland Road. The applicant has filed an appeal and that has not been finalized through ACHD. However, as a condition of the certificate of zoning compliance when they actually come in to get their landscape screening, final site approval, and condition -- and assure that the conditions of approval have been met, they will be bound by whatever conditions and agreement they work out with ACHD. So, that might be a future modification to the site plan that we see in front of us, as well as they have just some minor modifications to the landscaping and screening plan that you received in your application. This is for two buildings and each approximately 60,000 square feet. The site plan does show that the drive aisles and the width of the drive aisles would support the fire trucks that would be required to serve the 52-foot building. When it was discussed at the fire department, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 37 of 76 they made their comments and said that they would have no problem servicing the height of the building and in the location that this is it should not -- the height requirement -- the additional height requirement over the 40 foot should not affect any of the health, safety, and welfare issues. Again, I will try and be brief, so if there is any questions, please, feel free to -- oh. Okay. I think -- yeah, she did put in the elevations. There we go. Zaremba: I'm glad you went to the elevations. My only question would be the confusion about what architectural height is, where would the 52 feet be -- Guenther: The 52 feet would be measured from ground level to the top of these features that -- Zaremba: Okay. So, theoretically, you could fly an airplane across this property at 53 feet and not hit anything. Guenther: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Sometimes when there is peaks and other things, those aren't' the highest point and just wanted to clarify that. Moe: Mr. Chairman -- Guenther: I'll just ask that you clarify that with the applicant's engineer, who is here tonight, just to be a hundred percent sure. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, and, then, just to further confuse matters, the building ordinance measures it one way and, then, the building department measures it another way. So, if you want to clarify a maximum height to the top of any structure, then, you can go with that, if you want, just so -- if you have concerns about it. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for Joe. Under the conditions of approval, Item number two in regards to the landscape and parking, you are requesting that the applicants submit a new plan. Has that been done yet? Guenther: No, it has not. I believe that can be better addressed through the certificate of zoning compliance. This is such a small scale, it doesn't show up very well. When the applicant's landscape architect brought it in, the only issue that I really found that stood out was that they had 13 parking stalls before a landscape island and our code says 12. In the long run it's not going to be that big of an issue to amend that. That's why it was not approved with this. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 38 of 76 Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the applicant to provide further discussion. Yancey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Yancey, 2621 Autumn Way, Meridian, Idaho, and I'm with DBSI Realty Corporation and we are the developers of the property and I think pretty much we are in full agreement with the staff report. The main exception is the -- we are making an appeal to the ACHD Commissioners next week and that will be Wednesday and the basis of our appeal, actually, is they have allowed for one additional drive, which if we were restricted to that, we would make that on the west side of the property, so that that would serve industrial buildings for the two north. With the center -- first of all, the drive access points meet the ACHD policies for location and distance apart on an arterial street like Overland. Secondly, we feel that it would be better for emergency vehicle access to these buildings that there is direct access. The building on the -- the access from this west point of entry to this property -- or to the buildings would be, actually, along this drive and, then, around and so you have more direct access for emergency vehicles at this location. Second -- or another point that we are making with that and just for your information, we will actually be -- we'd like the City of Meridian -- we were supported that -- available from the fire department and emergency people. Another issue in that regard is separation of types of traffic. The west would probably be supporting industrial or truck traffic. The center drive would allow for traffic directly involved with these two buildings. And the last comment that we have in front of them is that this would also support some retail development on the first floor. It's our intent to initially build the building on the west to be occupied by offices for DBSI. We will occupy on the second and third floors. And I'm available for any other questions. Guenther: Can the applicant clarify the overall height? Yancey: The overall height is -- actually, what we would like to do is measure to parapet height, the building standards height. What we are looking at for floor to floor height is 58 feet on the -- 15 feet on the first floor, 14 and 14 on the second and third floor, with four foot parapets. We, actually -- we allowed for the building probably would be -- parapet height will probably be less than the 52 that we requested, in reality. Zaremba: So, the top of the parapet is the absolute highest thing on the building? Yancey: The top of the parapet would be -- if you go back, would be this location right here. Zaremba: Okay. Yancey: There also would be a penthouse to service for mechanical that would be on top of the roof as well. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 39 of 76 Newton-Huckabay: I might have missed it. So, how tall is the building with the -- I think I'm getting caught in semantics here. That's the parapet or that's the -- Yancey: This is the building parapet. This would be an architectural extension of the parapet here. Borup: You mentioned -- you just mentioned earlier are different from the plans that are submitted, though. Is that your understanding? Yancey: I think that that's -- Borup: This shows 14 feet per floor, 42 total. Yancey: Well, we would -- what we would like to do is make an amendment to that 14 feet to allow for additional attic space within the -- Borup: Okay. Yancey: Well, we would like to design that right now, 16 feet for second floor elevation, and 14 -- or 15. And that's primarily just for attic access for -- Borup: But you still have 52 to the top of the parapet. Yancey: Still not getting to 52 anyway. Sixteen and fourteen and fourteen is 44, plus four feet is 48. We could live with a 52 restriction to it. That's the protrusions above roof line. Borup: That design there but it says 51.4. Yancey: It might be -- Borup: But you have added -- where you have added several feet and you only have eight inches to spare. Yancey: You would have six -- Borup: Six? Okay. I was off two inches. Yancey: I think we were looking at rounding the numbers off. Borup: But 52 is still the number? Yancey: Fifty-two is doable. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 40 of 76 Zaremba: Any other questions? Yancey: The other thing I'd like to add, if I could, is this is consistent with the master plan that was done in 2001. In that plan it provides for a Conditional Use Permit for each of the buildings as they were being developed. So, we are at that point now, so that's why we are coming back. Okay. Zaremba: We don't appear to have anybody signed up. Does anybody care to add any testimony? Any comment? All right. Thank you. Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close Public Hearing CUP 04-055. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-055, to include all staff comments and conditions of staff's memo dated February 3rd, 2005, for the hearing date February 17th, 2005, as written. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Allin favor say aye? Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 05-001 Request for an amendment of the Preliminary Plat for phases 7 & 10 of Saguaro. Canyon Subdivision consisting of 21 single family residential building lots on 6+/- acres in a R- 4 zone by Farwest - 6210 North Meridian Road: Zaremba: Next is Item No. 11 and I will open the Public Hearing for PP 05-001, request for an amendment of the preliminary plat for phases seven and ten of Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, consisting of 21 single family residential building lots on six plus or minus acres in an R-4 zone by Farwest, 6210 North Meridian Road, and we will begin with staff comments. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, Josh went home sick today, so I'm filling in for him tonight. This is just an amendment to the original Saguaro Canyon Subdivision approval. As you may recall, it's located north of McMillan Road between Meridian and -- that would be Locust Grove; right? There we go. And this is the proposed preliminary plat at this time. I'm going to come back to it. I want to show Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 41 of 76 you the original one. The area in question is circled and, in particular, you will notice the large six-acre property that's under developed with this -- as a single lot. And I also noticed that the angled road lines here -- go back to the proposal before you tonight. This is a proposal for approval of 21 single-family residential building lots on approximately six acres. It was previously parts of phase seven and ten of Saguaro Canyon Estates. The proposed preliminary plat depicts lots, which range in size from 6,808 square feet to 20,861 square feet. We haven't drawn an exact circle around it. You can see the area generally in here. You can mostly see the phase lines here, but it is an amendment to this area in general. It had been shown as the large six acre piece on the original Saguaro Canyon, because of the property owners, the original property owners, the Boyaks, wanted to retain that property and you may recall they wanted to put a single family home on there, probably previous -- or before the rest of the development got up there and there was quit a bit of discussion about a little 24 foot flag that goes out to Meridian Road to access -- or provide access for that one single lot. So, that was this area that's being amended. Okay. I told Mr. McKinnon, since I cut him off earlier, I'd try to make it short, so I'll move on. If you go to the preliminary plat special considerations, I did want to point out a couple things. The phasing of the subdivision, we did add that, just so that this area could be phased with the rest of the development. Once you -- once City Council approves the preliminary plat, they have a certain amount of time before they need to get in the final plat. All we have said is that this amendment doesn't need to follow a different course than the original Saguaro Canyon. So, this will just be phased according to the original approval. So, each year they have to get a successive final plat, then, and this will just be one of them. So, if they take a year for each plat, this might -- the first one of this approval amendment may not be for seven years, would be -- it's not likely to happen that slowly, but theoretically. I wanted to point that out. The street sections, the applicant did work with the fire department and we are proposing that -- well, the question was how to measure the 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb on a rolled curb and the fire department has gone back to the measurement of 33 feet from back of curb to back of curb. So, relating to that, we are proposing to eliminate condition number two on the site-specific conditions. And, then, we are also proposing that the -- or would recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission add a condition of approval that is not included in here. It relates to the private drive -- the original private drive. The original Saguaro Canyon had a condition of approval and I have a copy of that, but the applicant is in agreement with what I'm going to say, so I don't think it's necessary to go into the full details, but, basically, the condition was that 24 feet -- you can't take access from it once this re- developes and you may need to sell it to somebody either to the north or the south. Well, the applicant's representative had said that they are going through negotiations to sell it to Mr. Priddy, who is on the north side of the drive. so, we do believe that condition will be taken care of, but we ask that the condition still a condition just referencing back to Item No.8 and page eight of the development agreement regarding removal of the 24-foot lane. Finally, on general conditions -- or fire department conditions. I'm sorry. Number eight, again, that references 33 feet of measuring from face of curb and it should be changed to back of curb. I also noticed on condition number nine, that Josh forgot to fill in the X's. That would be the proposed 21 lot subdivision, would have an estimated population of 61 residences at build out, and the Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 42 of 76 applicant is in agreement with all the conditions of approval, even as amended on the fly here. So, if the Commission has questions, I would be happy to answer them. Zaremba: Commissioners? I did have questions, but you hit them all and answered them. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: The easement was one of them. Borup: No questions. Just another typo on -- it's the top part of this -- I don't think -- it wouldn't be part of the motion, but on page two, owner of record, I'm assuming that is incorrect. Canning: One would think, but I'm not sure. We can ask. It says Tuscany. No. Zaremba: Okay. No further questions, we are ready for the applicant. McKinnon: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber representing the applicant. We have read the staff report and we agree with the comments that Anna has made tonight, and ask if you have any questions. Zaremba: Would you clarify who the owner of record is? McKinnon: The owner of record would be Farwest Development. It may be under one of the owner's actual names. It may be under Justin Martin's name. It is part of Farwest development. Zaremba: If there is no questions, anyone else? McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Again, I don't believe we had anybody else signed up to speak on this issue. If anybody wishes to, speak now. All right. Thank you. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: If we need an opinion, it seems pretty -- it fits in with the previously approved plan and it just continues it. Newton-Huckabay: I think it's an improvement. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-001. Moe: Second. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 43 of 76 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries. Newton-Huckabay: I didn't make good notes to make the motion. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Maybe I made enough notes. I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing PP 05-001, to include all staff comments and conditions of staff memo dated February 11 th for Public Hearing date of February 17th, with the following exceptions. On page three under street sections, delete paragraph two on the preliminary plat condition. And was that the place to add the other notation, director? That would be the appropriate place to add the reference to refer to? Canning: You could substitute the reference for that. Borup: Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, for paragraph two, substitute -- that should make a reference to item eight, page eight, of the development agreement of the previously approved Saguaro Canyon and also on page six, paragraph nine -- paragraph eight, last sentence, these measurements shall be based on the back of the curb dimensions, paragraph nine, of the proposed 21 lot subdivision, it should read in the first part of the sentence, but a total estimated population of 61 residential at build out. That concludes my motion. Canning: And, Chairman Zaremba, just for the record, on that first - regarding number eight, page eight, that was of the development agreement. Borup: Okay. Oh, I didn't mention that. development agreement. My notes said it -- but, yes, it was a Rohm: Did you want to state the owners of record to Farwest Development? Borup: Well, yeah, maybe if -- yeah, I don't think that is necessarily in the staff recommendation. About page two of the -- a report, the one of record, is Farwest Development. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for retail uses in a CoN zone for The Shops at Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 44 of 76 Cherry Lane by High Point Equities, LLC - SWC of West Cherry Lane and North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: We are ready for Item 12 and I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 04-054. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for retail uses ina CoN zone for The Shops at Cherry Lane by High Point Equities, LLC, southwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Ten Mile Road. And we will begin with the staff comments. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, as stated, the proposed -- the subject property is near the intersection of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile. It's here along the canal. Albertson's property and Grocery Bag Subdivision is immediately to the east. As you can see, there is quite a bit of residential development on the other side of the canal and across the street. I believe staff -- the site plan in the staff report, the original landscaping plan, is based on a different site plan than what's being proposed by the applicant tonight. As you read through the staff report you might have noticed that there was kind of two options flowing around for this site plan. The applicant has selected a site plan and that's this one that's before you. I believe you have received it in a memo from Mr. Wilson as well. It didn't make it into my packet. It made it into Bruce's packet. Hopefully, it made it into yours.. Okay. Okay. So, that's the site plan I'm going to be referring to in my description. The applicant has proposed just two structures. They are retail -- this is also going to be a bank in this location and, then, two drive-thrus as well. The first drive-thru would come -- as you come in off of Cherry Lane, you'd both come down and if you come around the east and, then, north side of the building where it says drive-thru being on the west side of the building. The second drive-thru comes down -- and you will notice the entrance to it here and, then, it would exit to this drive aisle next to Albertson's, which is located over here. The major issue from the planning department said was the provision of parking in addressing some of those issues, the applicant is actually proposing to removed six existing parking lots on the Albertson's property. This is the property line. But in exchange they would build what appears to be now 20. I think the staff report says 21, but I knew it would be 20, as shown here. And, then, the applicant is proposing parking on their own site as well. Joshua went through quite a bit of work comparing the necessary parking for the Albertson's, as well as this combined, and they do have sufficient parking to meet those -- the requirement for retail. this development. Wanted to point out this is a request for multiple buildings on a single lot, so it does require a planned development approval and that's why it's before you as a PUD and, as you know, they are required to provide another voice with a planned development and let me point this out for you. We are worried about the edge. The open space along the creek. The other one is an eight- foot sidewalk along Cherry Lane and, then, there is a park bench amenity located down here between the drive aisle and the trash-can and a parking space right in front of it. I talked to the applicant -- at a minimum I'd like to see the parking space in front of that amenity go away and so that there is a little more room, an opportunity for some landscaping in that area, if deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Right now it's just a single parking space. There is not another one next to it, but there is just one long parking space on the other side of this drive-aisle. There Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 45 of 76 were initially some concerns with the police department regarding the drive-thru windows, particularly this one back here. There are two conditions in the staff report that cover that currently. One is that they still need to meet with the -- that police department to insure that they have satisfied their concerns about the drive up. Staff added another one that this could not be subsurface uses, such as, in particular, an A TM machine back there, so -- but no matter how much lighting you did back there, this would not be a good place to have an ATM that's far too secluded. So, we offered that condition and I think the applicants were fine with that as well. The bank that's proposed is up in this location, which was much more visible to the rest of the site. I'm going through some of the special considerations that Josh has pointed out. They are asking for a reduced width of the street buffer. When the landscape ordinance was written, we anticipated circumstances where you had shallower lots with a lot of frontage or odd shaped lots with a lot of frontage, exactly like this, where the full requirement of the landscape buffer, in this case 25 feet, would pay an undue burden on the property and this appears to be one of those case. They are proposing 20 feet. They, then, need to request for alternative compliance or for a reduction in the width of that, but staff is generally supportive of that, because they are kind of an odd shaped property and they don't really have much effective depth when you consider that most of their depth is gone by the time they get to this part of their property, the lower two-thirds. Mitigation of trees. There are a number of trees on site and they will need to mitigate for those existing trees. I already spoke about the police concerns. We also have added conditions that they need to get a cross-access agreement and consent of the adjacent property owners, because this project does rely heavily on these 20 parking spaces that are actually on the Albertson's property, we felt that we need the consent of those adjacent property owners and we have asked that they provide that prior to the City Council hearing on this application. And, then, associated with that there is a cross-parking or cross-access agreement with them as well. And I think those are the significant issues from the planning department side. I know that there was some public works issues that were originally raised. I don't know if Bruce wants to talk about them a minute. Freckleton: Thanks, Anna. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, at the time the application was submitted and I did my review, the thing that jumped out at me, first of all, is that when the Albertson's store was constructed and the shops adjacent to the west -- we do not have any sanitary sewer in Cherry Lane through this stretch, so when Albertson's was constructed, we pushed to have them install a sewer -- sewer line across the front of the store to provide service to this out parcel and ¡¡Iso to get water to this out parcel. One of the requirements for Albertson's was that they had to have a fire hydrant on this location, so they did extend the water main down and put in a hydrant right at this -- this location here. We pushed for that water main to be extended on over to this parcel. There was a lot of debate, a lot of time spent .on that issue, and the results of all of that was that it did not get installed. However, easements were provided from the ends of the existing mains over to this parcel, so that some day it could be extended in the future. So, after the date of my report we had quite a bit of dialogue with the applicants and they did provide me with quite a bit of documentation on the easements that they have and provided me with ¡¡ lot of the detail of conversations that Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 46 of 76 they have had ongoing with -- with the Albertson's folks and I believe that they can get it all worked out and as long as the applicant is willing to do whatever it takes to get services to that site, I would withdraw my recommendation for a continuance. Zaremba: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioner? I had one to begin with on the landscape street buffer. Do we know the depth of Albertson's street buffer? Canning: I don't know offhand, although I think Albertson's was developed long enough ago that I doubt they had to do as wide a street buffer as would be required at this time. The applicant may -- Zaremba: So, a reduced street buffer for this project would, actually, make it in line, probably, with what Albertson's has. Canning: There appears to be a line on Albertson's. They appear to be using the same line of parking that Albertson's does. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Canning: The applicant may be able to answer that question a little better. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Okay. Is the applicant ready to speak? Come forward. Canning: Sir, we have it figured out. It lines up with the Albertson's one. You can see it here. So, it lines up with that location, because, then, they have got the drive aisle. So, let's say from the drive aisle up it would be less than what Albertson's has, but before that point they have lined up with what appears to be about 28 feet for Albertson's. I'm sorry, that -- Zaremba: They have to make a transition, because I think on the other side of that canal or creek or whatever it is, there is a short landscape area and, then, a fence, which is not 25 feet from the roadway I'm sure, so that -- I'm trying to justify not requiring 25 feet on this property, that the surrounding properties probably don't have 25 feet. Canning: I remember a few years ago I did an analysis of this general stretch and the landscape buffers varied from about five feet to 20 feet or 30 existing. So, there is quite a bit of variation along Cherry Lane to break this -- in this kind of two-mile section. Zaremba: So, this would not stand out noticeably -- Canning: Not at all. Zaremba: -- with everything else that's around. Canning: No. They are, actually, asking for not really alternative compliance in the usual sense that you see it, it's in the sense that there is specific allowance for a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 47 of 76 reduction in the buffer when you do have a property that meets certain criteria and this one does meet those criteria. The short distance from here to here being -- and the average distance from here and here ends up being about mid. point between the line, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Sir. Dixon: My name is Brent Dixon. I am the applicant. My address is 23675 Southwest Robson Terrace, Sherwood, Oregon, 97140. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Commission for holding this hearing tonight. Could we go back to the aerial for a moment? I'm currently in the process of purchasing this parcel of property right here, which is just over an acre. It's immediately west of the Albertson's shopping center. The property is currently zoned commercial. However, it has the same zoning designation as the Albertson's store. Unfortunately, unlike the Albertson's store, which in the mid '90s went through the CUP application, this parcel of property did not get the conditional use permits which would allow neighborhood retail, hence, we are -- I'm here this evening. In 1996 when the Albertson's was developed, there was some talk about developing this property right here. Ultimately, Mr. Wylie Levan, who was the property owner at the time and the developer of the Albertson's center, he just couldn't come to terms on -- on a fair price, consequently, it wasn't developed. Although the numbers that the City Council and the Planning Commission I think recognized the fact that at some point this area would be developed and it was compatible with the shopping center use here and as a result, as a condition of approval for the Albertson's center, a right of access was granted to the Levan property and I will go ahead and get that -- Canning: It will take me a minute. It will take a moment. Hold on. Dixon: Okay. Very good. So, here is the Albertson's center right here. Here is the -- what's referred to as the Levan property right here. And, then, here is the drive aisle coming into the Albertson's center. And, then, where my -- this pointer is right here is this private access road, which is already in place. In addition to the private access road, Mr. Freckleton has referred to a couple of other easements, which are the utility easements with the water and the sanitary, that have been provided to this area. And, then, in addition to these three easements that I refer to, there is also in place a cross- easement agreement between Albertson's parcel -- there is actually three parcels in file. There is the Albertson's parcel, which is parcel two. There is the shop space next to Albertson's, which is parcel one. And, then, this is referred to in the legal documents of the Grocery Bag Subdivision as parcel three. And there is already in place the cross- easement agreement, as well as the declaration of uses and restrictions between Albertson's and the property. In terms of retail, if you want to go back to the site plan. We are proposing neighborhood retail, which would be compatible with the adjacent center. I have had a lot of interest from different types of retail tenants. Planning director Anna referred to this space right here, which I have got a letter of intent from a bank. The types of retail that I'm not interested in doing is fast food. I don't think that that lends itself to this area. I don't think -- I don't think a service station would be appropriate for this area. But shop space similar to the Albertson's center, which is right Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 48 of 76 here, I think does and my idea for this development right here is really to give it the same look and feel of one development. What would this have looked like if this had been developed simultaneously in 1997. And so one of the discussion points that I'm having with Albertson's right now certainly is what can we esthetically do with the architectural elements to make it feel like one center and that's also why you see the site plan the way it is. It's really designed to get customers the vehicular circulation between both parcels, just kind of the same -- the same feel. I'd like to briefly just talk about compatibility with the surrounding area. Certainly it's compatible to the area east, which is the Albertson's center. In my judgment retail -- commercial retail use here is compatible with -- with the frontage that you have on Cherry Lane. You know, certainly, your retailers; they love that exposure to the intersection. They love the exposure to a five-lane highway. And, then, in terms of something that Anna had mentioned a moment ago and that's residential and I am sensitive to the -- some of the comments that perhaps we are going to hear in a moment from some of the neighbors and I want to be a good neighbor and do the right thing. I believe that -- that this canal area right here does act as a somewhat of a buffer. You have a canal easement here of 30 feet on this side, you have a canal easement on this other side of another 30 feet, so you have -- you have some barrier, so to speak, between -- between the retail and the neighborhood residential in the area. I have got a few more items, but I will probably hold off on those until we hear perhaps from some of the other people who had signed up to speak and so I'll sit down at this point, unless there is some questions. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Dixon: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: On removing the parking space on the south -- Dixon: Yeah. That-- Newton-Huckabay: -- are you in agreement with that? Dixon: Yeah. That should come out. Sometimes when you're -- when you have looked at so many iterations of site plans they become a blur and I appreciate staff for picking up on that, because that -- you know, I guess the only person that could park there is the -- well, I don't know who would park there, but it's just one space, so I'm okay with that. Thank you. I will be back. Zaremba: I do have a question for you, too, Mr. Dixon. On the Conditional Use Permit application, the description of the present use does say resident slash equipment maintenance and storage. Dixon: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 49 of 76 Zaremba: The equipment maintenance storage is the maintenance facility for the city's golf course leased to the present owner of this property and that's the only maintenance facility. Do you know what's going to happen to that? Dixon: I don't know what's going to happen to that. That's a fair question and I think that would probably be best answered by Anita Levan, who is the current property owner and she's not here this evening. But that's a fair question. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Dixon: Okay. Zaremba: We do have people signed up to testify. Stan Kelly is the first on the list. Please begin with your name and address for the record. Kelly: Stan Kelly at 3492 West Fir Creek Court. Thank you, Commission and Mr. Chairman. I wanted to add this, that I have 28 signatures and it's basically the people that are just affected around the perimeter, it's not -- I didn't go clear back into the neighborhood, it was the ones that this would directly negatively impact on these two streets right here and right here. And so -- and they are all unanimously -- I didn't find one that said this was a good idea. I mean it's very obvious that you take one resident out of there and, then, put an entire shopping center in there and if you would go to even Albertson's during Valentine's Day or Super Bowl or something, this parking lot is already full up there. Now, Mr. Waller that did own -- that's passed away, the family there, did argue against a service station and thank goodness the Planning and Zoning made the right decision in not putting a service station there, because of various reasons. There is a lot of reasons for a shopping center and residents backed up to the backyards. The buffer zone here, just to give you an idea, that's about -- to the other side of the canal is about less than ten yards. There is a small road in there, but that's about ten yards. So, that's how much -- that's how much buffer zone we would have in our backyard with the -- with the lights -- headlights, signage, and neon lights here, parking lights here, maintenance -- parking lot maintenance -- it already keeps you awake when the trucks are going by there at night sweeping things and so it just makes sense that the esthetics, just lighting, the size of buildings up there, or possibly even a big -- even a big -- some kind of fence or something back up there -- we are kind of a way spot where we have -- because the canal, the way it had to come up to go over the top of the canal, and the next one would be noise, all hours of the night, especially if you had a -- and I don't know why this isn't a drive-thru when there is cars driving through there. So, that's headlights affecting all of these houses here, affecting these houses here. The next thing is cut out all the -- they did ask to cut down all of the trees in here and so that has offered us some buffer between Albertson's -- the nuisance that Albertson's is already and the main one that I would think, besides dumpsters and car doors slamming at all hours of the night, which -- in our backyard, the other thing would be decreased property values. You know, my property probably is assessed at 190,000. With this it would probably be somewhat less than that, 190 to 200 thousand. So, while the developer takes off with a pocket full of money, you know, he leaves us Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 50 of 76 with lower property values. And, then, the last thing is I think that there is a good reason for not wanting -- for the zoning laws the way they are. Now, I can't speak for everybody that signed the petition, but I can speak for myself. I wouldn't mind if like on the other -- can you put that other thing up there? This is the -- Canning: What other thing, sir? Kelly: The aerial view. Canning: Okay. Kelly: I wouldn't mind if like, for instance, they put in a daytime office or, you know, this is a doctor's office or possibly even one bank or something, without all the obtrusive parking lot lights and noise and everything. But retail just doesn't fit to move one re$idential house out and cram a shopping center in a residential neighborhood to me is just kind of a no brainer. Now, Albertson's was built here, so that everybody that built in here had the decision to make, well, I'm going to build it -- you know, Albertson's is already built here and this was already zoned, so those that built around here, you know, had that decision to make, do I want to live next to Albertson's. Well, we don't have that same choice right now. So, I'd like to just submit thank you for your time and - - well, I do have one question. I don't know if you can answer it. It's -- again, it was brought up about the -- the golf course maintenance vehicles that are there. I just want to make sure that there is no conflict of interest, that this is decided on its merits without any kind of a back door deal with -- you know, with the city golf course, because that has been a concern about the family that's leasing the golf course has this long term lease that really wasn't open to public - you know, that's just -- I have lived here for 26 years, so that's why I know about that, but -- so I'd like to submit all these 28 scriptures that are asking you not to change the zoning at this time. Zaremba: The city clerk will take that. Thank you. Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Kelly, I have one. Is there -- isn't it a concrete wall that runs behind Albertson's and where does it end? I failed to drive by there again to double- check that before the meeting. Kelly: I'm not exactly sure, because I live up in this area, but maybe -- but it's not like a sound barrier of any type. I mean you can hear the refrigerator trucks -- Canning: Sir, you need to talk into the microphone. Kelly: Okay. I think, you know, you still hear sound from refrigerator trucks clear back here. This is the only place I know about a wall is back on this side. There is no wall over in this area. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 51 of 76 Kelly: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, a couple questions. One concern -- you had mentioned that there is only a 30 foot buffer. Are you saying that this information is incorrect? It shows a 60-foot right of way for the Eight Mile Lateral? Kelly: Well, alii can say is from the corner of my fence here it goes to across this canal, about above -- to the far side of this canal -- not the clear side. The clear side is probably about 12 to 14 feet is all. Borup: You have measured that? Kelly: No. No. But it's pretty obvious it's not -- it's pretty obvious that it's not 20 yards or 15 yards, it's pretty obvious -- Borup: Do you know whether your fence is into that easement area, the irrigation easement? Are you encroaching on the easement, then? Kelly: No, we are not. There is, actually, a road and that's -- there is even that part there. And this is way farther -- there is a common green area. You can kind of see it here. And so most of the neighbors all there have added to that green area with just their traffic lane. Borup: Our testimony previously and the submittals we have show a 60-foot easement for the canal. Kelly: Possibly. Their easement -- I don't know. I'm telling you that -- or I'm, in fact, sure that this -- from the edge of this fence line here to the far side of the canal, to where the canal is cut in is -- Borup: The easement is 30 feet from the -- Kelly: From the middle of the -- Borup: -- canal here. On your side 30 feet -- Canning: Chairman Zaremba, could I ask a question? On this copy of -- that the applicant has provided of Grocery Bag Subdivision, it does show the easement and it does show Rod's Parkside Creek, which must have been existence when Grocery Bag was platted and it does show a 60-foot easement, but it also does show that those homes go to the center line -- to the edge of that easement. It goes to the centerline of the canal. Borup: So, the fence would encroach over the easement? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 52 of 76 Canning: Probably. There seems to be a fence line, but that label is not shown on this copy. Borup: Okay. The other thing just you might want to point out -- you may not be aware of what was up here, but our site plan does show a fence all along the property line. Kelly: Is that a noise -- how high -- I don't know how high it is, if it's -- if it's a 20 foot noise barrier, that would have negative affects of its own. If it's less than that, it doesn't shield us from anything. Borup: It shields you from the lights that you were talking about. Kelly: From neon lights on the street? Borup: No. You had mentioned car lights was your concern Kelly: Yeah. Most all these houses here are two story. It would not. Unless it's -- unless it's 20-foot high it would not. Borup: Okay. That's a tall car. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Nancy Kelly. You need to get to the microphone, please. N.Kelly: Nancy Kelly, 3492 West Fir Creek Court, Meridian, Idaho. And I'd like to go on record as being opposed. Zaremba: Thank you. Becky Odle. Odle: Becky Odle, 3416 West Elm Creek, and I would also like to go on record as being opposed. I'm directly behind that little drive-thru that -- that one. And, like he said, from our back fence to the center of the canal is just a short short distance. Zaremba: Would a quieter business without a drive-thru be less concern to you? Odle: Yes. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Commissioner Rohm, did you -- Rohm: That's what I was going to ask. What would be acceptable? I think the thing about this application that hadn't been brought out is this is a Conditional Use Permit, which is in a parcel of ground that's already zoned commercial, and so it's not like they are trying to change the zoning, they are just trying to find something that would work and I'm kind of struggling with -- from the comments made what would work for you folks that are adjacent and that's kind of where I'm -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 53 of 76 Zaremba: We will deal with Mike Odle first. Canning: Is the public testimony done? Because this applicant -- or this fellow has already testified. Zaremba: Let me go through the list before -- we may ask you a question again. Mike Odle. Borup: Maybe while he's coming up, just a quick question for staff. If this was only one building on this site, would the Conditional Use Permit even be required? Canning: For the drive-thrus it would. Borup: Just for the -- if there is a drive-thru. Okay. Because we have the bank. Right. Thank you. M.Odle: Mike Odle, 3416 West Elm Creek. On the plot map it's Lot 15, which is the -- if you look down the headlights of them cars, it's the lot right there behind it. And that's the biggest concern. As was stated, our lots are a little bit depressed because of the build up. They are all two-story houses there, second story, which is where all the bedrooms are. It's very bright. We have blackout curtains in our upstairs bedrooms due to Albertson's and even with Albertson's, they reduced the light height and put shields on the residential side. That helped a lot, but it's still awful bright. Their lights do shut off .at night. We get a lot of hot rodders in that parking lot, so the noise is definitely there. The drive-thru I agree will not work or am totally opposed with that. Office, the 8:00 to 5:00 hours, medical plaza with 8:00 to 5:00 hours, would be perfectly acceptable. As far as the canal goes, there is an access road on our fence side of our fence. The canal access road, a canal, and, then, it's immediately the property of the farmhouse that's there or the Albertson's fence. There is no walkway or anything on the far side of the road, so that 60 foot buffer there, I'd kind of be curious about. Albertson's also has this very large buffer on the Cherry Lane side. It's a great big grass knoll with trees on it and it's at least 25 to 30 feet wide. It's a big buffer. I would be curious to measure that. Like I said -- Rohm: Well, that's just right here. M.Odle: Yes. Exactly. They have got a great big grass knoll here. On that was stated right now there is some reefer trucks that will park in there at night and they will leave their reefers running all night long. They are a problem. Albertson's sends their little sweeper through once a month. They are a noise issue. So, something of low impact would be great and would be preferable, something other than drive-thru with headlights pointing in the backyard. Like I said, our houses are depressed in that neighborhood because of the canal, the way they had to build it. So, everything comes in the second story. And so, yeah, you could put up a fence and knock it all out, but, then, we do have somewhat of a view and them trees that are there are pretty nice trees" so I would be kind of sad to see them all get cut down, too. So, there is a lot of issues that need to be Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 54 of 76 addressed before you just put a -- you know, a Jack-in-the-Box or a Taco Bell there or something, so -- I definitely wouldn't want to see that. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Just one for Mr. Odle. You talked a lot about the car lights. Are you concerned with the car lights from the bank or from the retail building? M.Odle: From the building at Retail B, I mean it looked like to me that that's a drive- thru. I mean why else would you put a -- Borup: Right. No. And I was trying to -- if you're talking about -- and I understand on the Retail B, I think you said, but are you concerned about the bank, too? M.Odle: It depends on where their drive-up teller is, because that can be 24 hours a day. I mean if they put the drive-up teller or the ATM out front where the headlights wouldn't be an issue and, then, maybe limited the access around it at night that would be something to consider. But, you know, something that would be open 24 hours a day, like a Taco Bell or a Wendy's or something like that, that would be way out of line, because Albertson's doesn't stay open 24 hours and they do shut down at night. The lights do go off, they come back on at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, I'll have anybody over at my house -- when Albertson's lights are on, it's amazing. You don't need lights in the upper bedrooms. That's why we have blackout curtains, as I say, so -- anything else? Borup: Thank you. M.Odle: Thank you. Zaremba: I believe Commissioner Rohm would like to ask Mr. Kelly a question. Rohm: Oh. I -- yeah. Zaremba: And maybe -- you alluded to it, but part of the issue is this property is already zoned CoN and it is a commercial property, even though there is, apparently, a residence on it, so -- Rohm: Yeah. And, basically, I was just going to say what business would you support going into this -- Kelly: Well, the same kind that's backed up -- you know, if you can go back to, again, that other property. Doctor's offices. Dentist's offices. Consistent with this -- you know, good neighbors. Basically it's that simple. It's just somebody that's a good neighbor, that's not 24 hours a day, that's a daytime office type. Newton-Huckabay: But that's a different type of zoning. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 55 of 76 Zaremba: Things without drive-thrus? Kelly: Things without drive-thrus. And not cramming -- I mean right now do you think probably -- you know, you cram three retail centers on that little lot and that's the reason that the City Council gave for -- that it wasn't a good idea to put a gas station in there in the first place. This parking lot is full on Valentine's Day, Super Bowl days, and that's without even all the rest of the - Albertson's is the only game out there. That's without even all the residences going in. You have enough cars trying to park every which way and it's just a bad idea. You know, if you had something that was closer, just a little bit away from the neighborhood, a little smaller over towards Albertson's, back to where we do have some esthetic views from -- I don't think Meridian wants to just, you know, have strip malls from here until Losangelesidafornia type thing. I think if you -- if you back this up a little bit, put it out here away from the neighborhood, that would have -- then you could have a buffer zone here, leave some of the trees in, make it nice looking, and still -- and I'm not suggesting -- again, I'm not speaking for my neighbors, I'm just speaking for myself, I would be fine with that. But this is just kind of -- this just doesn't make sense, really. I don't know how you're going to park -- have three businesses in here and park all the cars in here when Albertson's is over -- is pretty much overflowed now, so -- without all the new residential development that's going every which side. Every which side. You guys know, so -- Rohm: Not speaking for the Commission, but just asking a question, this drive-thru associated with the bank seems logical and it's -- normal traffic is going to be during regular business hours. There may be -- on occasion there will be an ATM vehicle that will pull through, but this one here I can see more concern for the drive-thru here than I can for this one, just because of the nature of the business that will be occupying that front property. Would you be in more support if, in fact, this Commission moved to have this drive-thru either eliminated or relocated? Kelly: I would be in support of having -- if you go back to that plan again, if you had a bank that was backed up off the street, the same -- you know, because, see, you're going to have something way out front of the retail that's there, way out front of Albertson's, and if it was just kind of -- you know, just a -- put as much space as you can with, you know, the same kind of buffer zone that's in front of Albertson's all the way around here and put one right there, so that you have the parking for it, I personally wouldn't be opposed to that. I would be opposed right now to putting up big, high 19 foot signs right here, you know, a low sign to drive in, the signage is a big issue, if you had a -- and, you know, Albertson's has got a 19 foot sign, but that's clear out on the intersection where it doesn't really affect, but if you put in above -- or at eye level to all these bedrooms here, put a small -- like a bunk sign -- like the bank that's on the other corner would be fine. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think he's up to answer Commissioner Rohm's question. Did that get answered? Rohm: Yeah. I think so. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 56 of 76 Kelly: Yeah. I would be fine with that bank. Not this close. If you made it -- this is -- that the lighting would definitely affect us right here. If you moved it back to where you had parking to support it, I would be fine with that. Zaremba: Thank you very much. Kelly: Thank you. Zaremba: Do we want a discussion before the applicant comes back? Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Zaremba: Any questions for the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: No, but I have a question -- when we recommend -- if we recommend approval for this CUP, does that also allow both those drive-thrus or does the rule of having to have another CUP for a drive-thru to precede that and they have to come back again for the drive-thru? Canning: No. We are also requesting approval of the drive-thrus at this time. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Dixon. Dixon: I have been taking notes as fast as I could and -- very good. The 28 signatures, I -- I'd like -- I'd like this Commission to know that I did offer a neighborhood meeting last week. I had the clubhouse secured and sent out my letters to all of the adjacent property owners, it was from 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock, and I was fortunate that there was a television in the clubhouse, because that's what I did from 7:00 to 8:00, because none of the residents in the neighborhood came to the neighborhood meeting that I hosted to voice any of their public concern. Let me address one issue and that is on the use. Earlier I had mentioned that there was a cross-easement agreement and a declaration of uses and restrictions between the Levan parcel and the Albertson's property. Part of that declaration of uses restricts what can be used on parcel three. No part of parcel three within 200 feet of the building on parcel two shall be used as a restaurant or as a medical-dental professional or building office. So, in terms of the uses on that property, I am restricted on what I can do in exchange for having access to the Albertson's parking lot. Some of the concerns that Mr. Kelly addressed, as well as the others, surround lights, they surround noise, and one of the issues that they didn't bring up, but often is a concern for residences that are close to a commercial development is any kind of odor or smell that might -- that might drift over. In terms of -- in terms of the lighting, there is a few things that we can do -- that developers can do from an engineering standpoint to try to minimize some of that overflow of lighting. We are open to doing all those things. My architect is here and he whispered in my ear on my way Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 57 of 76 up that there is some things we can do to reduce the candle light, that there is certain reflective lighting elements that can be installed in the parking lot lights to minimize those and we are open to all of those suggestions. In terms of noise -- and before I move passed lighting, some of the drive-thru concerns of lighting, these were identical to the concerns that the City Council and the Planning Commission had heard in approving the Albertson's application several years ago and those concerns were mitigated by the construction of that wall and I do know where that wall runs. If we could put that -- the aerial photo back up, I can show you exactly where that wall goes. It's just the aerial. Yeah. So, here is -- you have got this -- this -- it's really nicely done. It's -- the wall -- and the wall is intended to do two things, it's both for lighting and for noise. It's not a cedar fence or anything like that, it's a -- you know, it's a sturdy wall and I would be open to continuing that wall up the property line. But that wall goes to this point right here and, then, beginning at this point right here there is a cedar fence that divides these two properties. So, those are a couple of things that we can do to address the lights. And, then, in terms of the noise, I think that wall will negate some of the noise, but also on the noise component, here is Cherry Lane right here. This is, as you all know, a five lane major east-west arterial. I don't think that there is going to be anything that we can do right here that will overshadow the noise element that really exists there in that area as is stands today, but I am open to, as I said, putting up some sort of rock -- rock wall to act as a barrier. What other-- Newton-Huckabay: Put up a six -- or a six-foot rock wall? Dixon: I would be open to just the existing rock wall that's there now. And I think it's six feet. Is it about -- four feet. Okay. If as a -- then, as a condition of approval if this body would like to have a six foot fence, that's okay and even though the existing one might only be four feet, I'm okay with making it higher and doing whatever sound proofing we need to do to eliminate that. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I think that the term the applicant might be looking for is a six-foot concrete masonry wall, rather than a rock wall. Just to clarify that. Zaremba: Yeah. I think the existing wall is cinder block, if that's what you mean. Dixon: Yeah. Other questions or concerns? Moe: Yeah. I have a couple. In regards to the drive-thru area basically on the south side, how important is that and -- I guess I have a couple c- I'm going to play junior designer here, with your architect behind you there. Dixon: Okay. Moe: The other shops over, you know, to the west of Albertson's, they do not have any access from behind, do they? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 58 of 76 Dixon: They have a little bit of -- Moe: They are in front of both those facilities? Dixon: The tenants themselves have the outdoor access and they have a little common area where the employees to go take their breaks. Moe: Well, I just -- a couple things I'm curious is that -- if they were even thought about was basically moving Retail B back, getting -- forgetting the drive-thru to the south and taking Retail B back towards the property line and, then, taking -- Dixon: This in here? Moe: Yes. Taking it right down to the south, Retail A and A 1, bringing those down to the south to where your drive-thru would then be in line with Cherry Lane, as opposed to where you are at now. There is a similar drive on Idaho Credit Union on the other comer where they have got their drive-thru and that -- Dixon: You're talking about this southern drive-thru? Moe: Well, number one, I want to get rid of your southern drive-thru and push the building to the south. That way, then, the building is up -- A and A1 could, then, scoot south so you could put your drive-thru on the north side, as opposed -- and facing Cherry Lane as well. Dixon: I think -- I think I understand what you're saying. Moe: Then that takes care of a lot of the lighting for cars and whatnot through your drive-thrus. And the other thing, I'm kind of surprised that I didn't hear it in testimony. Quite frankly, I live right across the street from your -- of the publication or I would have got that notice, too, and your drive-thru on the south, that goes to the south there, that's going to be a nice little raceway for quite a few people to go hit Albertson's, so they don't have to go through the other main parking entrance there. Dixon: You're talking about this way right -- Moe: Yes, I am. Dixon: -- like this. Moe: Yeah. That just really bothers me, so -- but I am kind of curious as far as reconfiguring your building. Dixon: Yeah. I shouldn't have touched that, but it still works. The issue with moving Retail B closer to the property line has to do with that canal easement and encroaching Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 59 of 76 upon the canal easement. We have had discussion already with the irrigation district and they are okay with us encroaching on the easement with some of our drive aisles. Borup: If I can interrupt. It looks like you have only got about seven feet that you -- Dixon: That's -- I don't know if it's exactly seven, but that probably would be pretty close. And so moving one of these permanent structures onto the easement -- and I'd love to do it, but I don't think our friends at the irrigation district would allow that. Then, something else that Mr. Kelly had mentioned, though, and that is just that it's just -- he said, I think, basically it just feels really, just feels really crammed, but, you now, in reality, we are in compliance in totality with all of the parking requirements for the city and, then, not to mention, you know -- this is an entirely new -- all of the parking stalls that have proposed that -- that really eases the parking in the center and I'll tell you, I have been to this center at many different times during the day and, you know, it's never an issue of kind of finding a parking stall or not, it's more of an issue of how far will I have to walk. Because there is ample parking there. At least during the hours that I have been there. And, then, what is an issue, though, that I think lends itself to this configuration and that is the fact that Cherry Lane becomes more and more of an arterial, one of the issues that you could have -- if you can imagine that the intersection is about where my pointer is right here and you have -- you have car stacking from that intersection at certain hours during the day, which makes -- which makes access -- really, you have only got one access point right now into the center from Cherry Lane and, then, you have, you know, at 5:30 in the evening where you have car stacking at the intersection and it becomes a little bit problematic. By adding this additional entrance lane here, you take some of that off of the -- you know, just in terms of safety away from the intersection. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple questions. If you could address the building that you have labeled as Retail A. is the bank the only business in that location? Dixon: No. It would be -- Borup: There is two businesses? Dixon: Yeah. It would be -- it would be two retailers. Well, I should say this space right here, as it is configured, is just one retail, but there would be nothing that would prevent me from subdividing that and having two businesses -- Borup: Okay. But the bank is taking the -- Dixon: Yes. The bank is committed, they are taking 3,500 square feet. Borup: Well, I realize this is preliminary at this point. Has there been any -- do you know if there is any indication if they would have an ATM and where that would be? Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 60 of 76 Dixon: Yeah. They would have -- there is two places that they sometimes have their ATM. Sometimes they have them in kind of an entrance, a vestibule type area and, then, sometimes they like to use one of their drive-thrus as ATM compatible. Where they are going to put that, I don't know at this point. I can tell you, though; that this drive-thru right here, their site plan calls for a small canopy to overhang their drive-thru. If you have seen some of the modem banks, they like to have the canopy, so that what that canopy does -- well, there is a couple things. It means that you don't have to have overhead lighting right here that will filter over into the neighborhood, because it's much more contained. And, then, there is also because that lighting helps on the security for the ATM. Borup: One final question. You had mentioned at the beginning that you did not see fast food as one of the uses here; is that correct? Dixon: That is correct. And as a condition of approval, we want to list Wendy's and Taco Bell and some of the fast food restaurants and - Borup: So, you're anticipating possibly a restaurant? A sit-down restaurant? Dixon: No. Borup: Okay. Dixon: And also -- Borup: Well, you had said earlier and I -- Dixon: Yeah. Then, the restaurant use -- although the restaurant use -- it would not prohibit like a Subway, you know, some sort of -- Borup: Fast food. Dixon: Well, fast food in the sense of like a Wendy's or a drive-thru, you know, where they are all about volume, that's not what this is. But a sandwich shop, a Blimpie's, that kind of thing. Borup: Okay. Dixon: But I should confess, I have not received any interest as of yet from -- from that -- Borup: And the reason I ask that was the use of the drive-thru, so if it's not a fast food, I was wondering what business would use a drive-thru, other than a fast food -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 61 of 76 Dixon: Your coffee shops. Right now your mocha -- basically, your -- basically your coffee shops and, then -- and, then, they use the drive-thrus usually during the morning hours. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's a big coffee shop. Dixon: But it -- yeah. Right. It would c- that if they took all 3,200 square feet, that would be a monster coffee shop. Yeah. And I will pursue the coffee shops. Right now Starbucks is taking about 1,500 square feet. In fact, most of them aren't taking -- taking it, really, anymore than 15 or 18 hundred square feet max and so what this -- what this would allow is perhaps a coffee shop adjacent to another small shop user. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, a moment ago you looked like you had another question you were going to ask. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. I was just curious what type of retail user you are marketing to. Dixon: Yeah. That's a great question. Banks. Cell phone companies. Sandwich shops. Hallmark. Ice cream. Those are the ones that -- a video. Those are the ones that come to my -- to mind immediately. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. Rohm: Could you live without the south drive-thru? That would be this one right here. I think that the opposition to your project is more centered on the drive-thru than the other. If I were to try and encapsulate what I have heard, it seems like this one is more objectionable. Or maybe it's more objectionable to me. I don't know. Dixon: Right. Zaremba: Your suggestion that even in the A building, that the drive-thru be either on the north or the east side, as opposed to the west side. Dixon: on the east side or the north side -- you all are not in an enviable position trying to compromise, you know, some of the testimony that you have heard and I think that, you know, at the end of the day we all have to live and work together and so in the spirit of compromise I think-- I don't think you're asking for anything that's really unfair. Rohm: Thank you. Dixon: And so, you know, to the extent that -- that I need to compromise to move this forward, it doesn't feel good, but I'm willing to give up -- give up that drive-thru. Borup: Maybe a couple of comments. I don't have a concern with the bank building, the drive-thru, where it's located. And I don't know that something still couldn't be done on the other building limiting the hours of operation, so it's not an all-night establishment Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 62 of 76 or .even a drive-thru on the east side may be a design possibility. That's -- it would be up for your architect to decide, but -- Dixon: Could we word the approval in such a way that -- that Retail B does not have a drive-thru that is on the -- that is on the south or the west side? Zaremba: That, actually, is a condition staff asked for already. What the Commission is discussing no direct -- Dixon: Right. Well, what they are -- what they are asking for is specifically is the ATM. A self-service facility. Zaremba: Yeah. That's true. In my notes I added drive-thru, as they didn't. Dixon: Commissioner Rohm, I would -- I would defer to the Commission's -- you know, deliberations on that. My preference is, obviously, to have the drive-thru perhaps reconfigured on the east side. I understand what these good neighbors are feeling, though, and, obviously, the concerns that they have are real and so I leave it in your hands. I would ask for -- for one change. I'm okay with all of the conditions that have been -- that staff has recommended, the tree, the application, that I need to submit in writing, perhaps we can change the wording, though, on point number three. It reads -- Zaremba: Is that page seven? Dixon: Page seven on point three. The way it reads now is prior to the City Council hearing on this application, the applicant shall provide notarized consent of the adjacent property owners. There is two adjacent property owners. I can provide the necessary notary on the parcel right here, that's just one single owner. .on the Albertson's center, they are a big company and they just move so slow. I think that we could probably have that before the City Council meeting. If we could substitute some language in there, if it read something like prior to the issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance or building permit on this application, the applicant shall provide notarized consent of the adjacent property owners, specifically Albertson's. Like I said, I received some of the verbal commitments, there is already a cross-easement in place, there is already the right of way that's in place, but they are a big company and they have got a huge legal department and I'm just, you know, another -- another guy waiting for a telephone call to be returned. Zaremba: That comment is noted. Rohm: Good comment. Dixon: Okay. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 63 of 76 Dixon: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, before Mr. Dixon gets sat down, if I could ask him a question. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: If now is the appropriate time. Could you just address the sewer water situation? Dixon: Yeah. The sewer water -- right now we have -- we have a sewer -- we have to tap into the sewer right here, which is in front of this -- this shop that's right here. There is not an easement granting the Levan property access to the sewer across this property line. Our easements are north on the Albertson's side. So, I need to -- I need to secure the property owner of Lot 1 the right to connect to the sewer at that point. That's where the stub is. And I'm - and I'm okay with that condition, by the way. You know, all of the -- getting his -- his permission. And, then, as far as the city water, right now there is a -- there is a six inch line and we submitted to staff the plat map that shows where that easement line goes. It runs right along Cherry Lane right here and that's where we will be connecting to water. So, again, water up here, sewer down here. Zaremba: Thank you. I think we have had some good discussion and since this is already zoned commercial, there are elements of this that can be attractive. I agree with - what I think is the sense that there should not be a drive-thru on the B building. However, the applicant has already said he can't help with my biggest hurdle and that is the current use of this property as the maintenance facility for the golf course. If there is no other arrangement made for the maintenance facility of the golf course, the city's golf course -- or the city itself as the landlord, if we lose this property as a maintenance facility, the city will be in a position of possibly having to emergency agree to something even less desirable than what we already have and I don't think it's in the best interest of either the general taxpayers or the City Council representing the city, to not have an answer to where the -- to where the current use of this property is going to go. If the city's golf course needs to have maintenance and -- Newton-Huckabay: I think Director Canning has a comment to that. Borup: I think that makes sense, but you're assuming that there is no other provision for maintenance on the golf course property -- no provisions for a location to put something? Zaremba: No. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think you have raised a legitimate concern. I guess my only advice to you -- legal advice to you is that it isn't really the subject of this application. The obligation of the tenant of the golf course, the vendor of the golf course, is to maintain it. There isn't an obligation in the lease to the city that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 64 of 76 they maintain it by having a maintenance shop. It isn't required that they maintain it in a building. There isn't a requirement - they can rent equipment every day and mow it and spray it. It does not require that they own it or keep it or fix it. They don't have to do any of it. So, the lack of a facility -- although you have raised a very valid concern, isn't a requirement of this lease that they currently have. So, the fact that this could eliminate their maintenance facility and their traditional way of maintaining it was to own the equipment, repair it, fix it, and maintain it, they aren't required to do that. So, there is no impact to the city for that reason for you to have to concern yourself with this application. If that's of any help to you. Moe: I guess I would just ask the question -- one other thing and that is this applicant is wanting to purchase the property and whether or not -- and it is already zoned for commercial use. I mean what is to say that he doesn't go ahead and purchase it anyway? That equipment has to go at that point anyway. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner, you're exactly right. I mean there is no -- there is nothing that is part of this application to indicate that that vendor isn't going to maintain that equipment in some other location or in some other fashion. But their arrangement or their requirement with the city is to simply maintain the property. How they chose to maintain it -- they could hire a landscaping company to main the facility if they wish. They can rent equipment to maintain it. So, they are not required to have a maintenance facility anyway. And, you're right, if he purchases the property there is no prohibition that would prohibit that regardless. Zaremba: Okay. That leaves me with one related question and I guess this would be for Mr. Freckleton. The current use requires storage of fuels and solvents and fertilizers. Is there any environmental protection -- is there responsibility, if any, toward perhaps the new owner to make sure it's a clean property, that there hasn't been leaks or spills or -- Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the vender that's been operating the golf course and using that maintenance facility, there is a private entity, so that's not the city's responsibility. So, if there is environmental concerns, then, that would be this purchaser's due diligence responsibility to verify that, but that's not the city's concern. Not an issue for the city. Zaremba: I'm the person who always has the side issues and those side issues have been addressed. I'm uncomfortable with the answer, but, apparently, that is the answer. Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on CUP 04-054 be closed. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 65 of 76 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: What can we resolve? Rohm: Where in the staff report does it speak to the two drive-thrus? Borup: Page seven, number seven. Zaremba: Page seven, number seven. It talks about the automated teller and I would add drive-thru to that. Rohm: What I'm trying to do is find where we limit to one drive-thru for Retail A and no drive-thru for Retail B. Zaremba: I would adjust paragraph seven on page seven to say what you're desirous to say. Rohm: Got you. Does anybody have a significant concern of the way the drive-thru for the proposed bank is oriented right now? Zaremba: I personally would like to see it on the north or the east, rather than the west side. Borup: Banks close at 6:00 o'clock. Zaremba: Banks have shorter hours. Newton-Huckabay: I think that the flow of traffic -- somehow put the vehicles facing this way. I mean all the traffic flowing here is like, you know, down to here. Could be -- Zaremba: I'm not hearing you. Newton-Huckabay: Could it be reconfigured so that the -- the cars are now going through this way, instead of this way? Okay. Could you move the building this way -- I mean -- I don't like the fact that -- the way this -- that the back of the building faces Cherry Lane. All of these buildings the front of them face Cherry Lane. I think it would look nicer if somehow this was more oriented towards Cherry Lane. But as I am not a land planner, I am also not a land developer. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, I know the Public Hearing is closed, but just to follow up on -- Zaremba: We are holding a discussion amongst staff and Commissioners. Canning: Okay. In looking at this, I mean the staff hasn't had a long time to review this and I think that sitting here tonight we have some concerns getting this in a build-able Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Paga 66 of 76 fashion that allows this car to pull out and come back here, so I would anticipate that you will see quite a bit of redesign on this little area right here. It looks like they are going to have to lose one of their -- one of their drive-up windows there, but they do need to be able to -- because they are entering the site this way, they do need to be able to loop around and they do need to have it on that side of the window, so that people are -- the driver is making the transaction, so that -- that's what was meant by it would work in London, but not here. Newton-Huckabay: Right. I understand that. I mean, you know, you could turn the building another way, so they were coming -- you know -- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: It's late, Director Canning. Nary: I don't know if this would be available or if you are interested. It sounds as if the applicant had a neighborhood hearing and nobody came. It sounds like tonight you have had a lot of information that you have all gathered similar to a neighborhood meeting, as to some configurations, locations, and those types of things. I don't know if the applicant is interested in having this set over for two weeks and giving the staff and the applicant another opportunity to talk about some of these issues you raised tonight. Since you have all raised different concerns as to where the drive-thrus are, where the locations would be, maybe that would be helpful, rather than continuing, but just a suggestion. Rohm: I'd just like to read what I have reconfigured item seven to be and see if we have a consensus among the Commissioners. Except for the facilities, such as automated teller machines, ATM's, or drive-thru, shall be prohibited for Retail Building Band acceptable for Retail A. And that way we eliminate the one on the south building and leave the configuration on Retail A and staff can work with applicant to make that drive- thru workable, whether they have to eliminate one of the lanes, so that it all works with the staff and leave it at that. Moe: Well, I guess I would ask one question, then, because the applicant did bring it up that the ATM's are sometimes at the front of the building and I would make another condition that no ATM on the west side of the bank building or Retail A, therefore, when the bank closes at 6:00, there is no more traffic, so lights wouldn't be a real problem and they'd just have to park and walk up to the ATM at the bank. Newton-Huckabay: I think that's a bad idea. Borup: I think she's probably concerned about safety aspects. Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, getting out of your car in the dark and -- if I owned a bank and you told me I couldn't have the ATM in my drive-thru, I likely would not -- that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 67 of 76 would be an issue, because most people want to stay in their car to use the ATM, you have a small child or it's cold, it's dark, and I'm not using an ATM in the dark. Borup: My preference would be number seven as written by the staff, with the addition of: Or a drive-thru. And that being the only change. Rohm: Just elimination of the drive-thru for Retail B? Borup: No. I'm saying as the sentence -- as staff has written it and adding the phrase: Or drive-thru after ATM. Zaremba: Well, you're saying the same thing. Retail B is the southern most building. Borup: Right. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to suggest that we take Mr. Nary's stance and continue -- Borup: Well -- and that may be good, but one of the -- and I do have a concern that, you know, there was opportunity to handle most of this stuff at a neighborhood meeting, which the neighbors didn't feel too concerned to attend. Rohm: I just don't think that there is going to be anything we are going to be able to come up with in the next two weeks that we don't already know and it seems to me that if we can come up with something that's acceptable tonight, get it off the table, and move forward. And it seems that we have got an agreement by the applicant to eliminate the drive-thru on Retail B and staff has commented that the drive-thru on Retail A may have to have some modification to meet just the configuration of the property. And those two things being said, the rest of it is -- in my mind, has been resolved. Zaremba: Well, I would add to that that the applicant has agreed to continue the block wall all along the rest of the property, at least I think that's what I heard. Has agreed to modify lighting to make it less of -- less intrusive and to have a canopy over the bank drive-thru. There are issues that I think can be satisfied tonight. Borup: Well, I still think the drive-thru concerns can be handled. by eliminating on the west and south side and perhaps hours of operation Rohm: You want to make a stab at it? Zaremba: You're saying we would eliminate the drive-thru for the southern most Building B and put hours on Building A? Borup: What I'm saying is that -- Zaremba: Maybe I didn't hear you correctly. That's why I'm -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 68 of 76 Borup: Okay. No. I'm saying I think the issue of the drive-thru can be handled by eliminating on the west and the south, just as the staff report says, and, then, go beyond that to limit the hours of operation. Moe: But the staff is -- that's just the southern most building? Borup: Right. Moe: Okay. You're saying Retail A would stay as is. Borup: Yes. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I'm more comfortable with no drive-thru on B, because the stacking lanes are going to have to be somewhere. Even if the drive-thru window ison a different side, the cars are going to circulate the building just exactly in the same way they are going, the only question about moving the window is where they stop. My instinct is to have no drive-thru on Building B. Rohm: That's what I -- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, I believe -- Borup: Yeah. And it's not up to us to redesign the project, but, you know, the traffic could come down here and right through here and have as much or more stacking than they have now. I mean it is possible. I don't know, you know, that the architect or a site planner would have to determine that, but -- I mean there is other options. Canning: Commissioner Zaremba -- it's getting late. But the kind of things they would need to do to get parking and have the drive-thru on something other than where it shows for Retail Building B, would be a substantial change from what you're seeing here. I think that of the other things you have talked about tonight, this is a small site, I mean we can hammer out these details before it gets to City Council, I'm confident, but I do think that that one would be a substantial redesign of the project if the -- if the Commission and the applicant are interested in pursuing that, then, that's probably one that should come back to you. The other ones are -- are easy enough to accommodate before City Council. Borup: I would be interested if the applicant has a preference there, maybe he could let staff know. And the question would be whether he would like to do the redesign or it sounds like the direction that the Commission would be going is no drive-thru at all. If you would let staff know that, then, we don't have to open the hearing again. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 69 of 76 Zaremba: The other question was on the timing of the notarized consent. Are we flexible on whether that's -- it would be desirable before City Council hearing, but do we want to put some other limit on it? Rohm: Yeah. Let's -- I agree with the applicant that large corporations can move rather slow, so, let's see, I'm just -- maybe a slight modification to three. Borup: And he did give some suggested wording. Did anybody write that down? I didn't get it all -- prior to the issue of zoning compliance or building permit and that -- was something else said? Rohm: I think just if we change provide to initiate, then, they are working towards it and they will get it when Albertson's is so inclined. That would -- Borup: Well, it has to be before some point. Zaremba: I think there needs to be a result. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, maybe some suggested language would be to strike the words the City Council hearing and insert issuance of CZC, certificate of zoning compliance. Zaremba: And I think that's one of the suggestions the applicant made as well. Freckleton: Correct. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. That being said -- Moe: Are you ready to act on the sewer and water as well? Rohm: The sewer and water is an issue between the applicant and the adjacent property owner and they got-- Newton-Huckabay: They were in agreement with the -- Rohm: Yeah. They were in agreement with staff -- Moe: It says it may be necessary to provide a level of service different from a residential use. I think it needs to be, will be required, not just be necessary. Rohm: Where are we at, Dave? Moe: Page eight, item eight. Borup: I don't think that other property has city services, does it? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 70 of 76 Zaremba: I thought the testimony was there is service that could be brought to it, but they are like a hundred feet away or something. Borup: Yeah. But the existing house that's there doesn't have city service. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, if you want to scratch the last sentence of Item 8 on page eight. Rohm: Got it. Freckleton: That was carry over. It shouldn't have been in. Rohm: It's gone. Moe: All right. Borup: Then, Mr. Chairman, did we have any comment from Director Canning? Canning: Sorry. The applicant would prefer to move forward tonight, rather than come back with a redesign. They are willing to give up the drive-thru and Retail B. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I'd like to move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-054, including all staff comments, dated February 11 th, 2005, for the hearing date February 17th, 2005, with the following changes: On page seven, item three, change the first sentence to read: Prior to issuance of zoning compliance on this application, the applicant shall provide notarized consent of the adjacent property owners for the application, so on and so on. But the issuance of zoning compliance is the operative portion of that. On item seven, self service facilities, such as automated teller machines, ATM's, or drive-thrus, shall be prohibited for Retail Building Band acceptable for Retail A. Add Item nine. Applicant will construct a six-foot block wall along the southwest property line from one end all the way to the other. And item eight on page eight, delete the second sentence starting with upgrading. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: RZ 04-016 Request for a Rezone of .27 acre from R-4 to O-T zone for Serendipity Place Subdivision by Susan Howard - 1305 West 1st Street: Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 71 of 76 Item 14: Public Hearing: PFP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 single family attached residential building lots on .27 acre in a proposed O-T zone for Serendipity Place Subdivision by Susan Howard - 1305 West 1st Street: Zaremba: Items No. 13 and 14. We will open the Public Hearing for RZ 04-016, request for a rezone of .27 acres from R-4 to OT zone for Serendipity Place Subdivision and Public Hearing PFP 04-009, request for preliminary/final plat approval for four single family attached residential building lots on .27 acres in a proposed OT zone for Serendipity Place Subdivision by Susan Howard, 135 West 1st Street. And we will start with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I will be brief in my comments. We are on Cherry Avenue and West 1st Street, not to be confused with Cherry Lane that's approximately 1,200 feet to the north of this subject site. Just to orient you a little more, Meridian Road is about 300 feet to the east. It is on the northwest corner to the north of the subject property. It is a duplex. Everything around the property is zoned R-4. To the south, east, and west are single-family residences. The submitted site plan -- again, weare looking at four lots. The entire scale is not very good and you probably can't see a lot of it, so I hope you look at your packet, but there are four lots. The proposed lots range in size from 2,331 square feet to 4,050 square feet. Each of the lots contain one single family townhouse. Each of those townhouses will be a minimum of 1,100 square feet. The homes proposed on lots one and two are attached to each other. And the homes on lots three and four are attached to each other. So, those to units are attached and these two units are. There is a common driveway that the units on Lots 2 and 3 will share. Lot 1 there is another driveway proposed coming in here off of Cherry Lane to the garage in the rear. There is an access proposed approximately 50 feet north of Cherry Lane, a six foot -- 60 feet north to that townhouse lot there. I think there aren't really any outstanding issues in the staff report. The only one thing that Bruce cited, he did get a letter I believe today from the applicant about pressurized irrigation, so I'm going to turn that over to him and the applicant just before the hearing did submit some pictures of typical units that they anticipate to construct on the site, so I will put that up while Bruce is talking about pressurized irrigation. Thank you. Freckleton: Thanks, Craig. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the application that was submitted did not have any request in it for a waiver or anything for pressurized irrigation. However, discussions with the engineering firm the other day has brought to light the fact that the ditch that supplies water to this area is on a rotation schedule. They get their water -- it's very limited and it's once a week or something like that. A system like that just doesn't work to put in a pressurized irrigation system where people are going to want water on demand. They submitted a letter today that talks about in order to make a system like that work they would have to install a holding tank, basically, that would collect the water and, then, they would have to pump out of it. They are estimating in their letter that the majority of the cost would be over 10,000 dollars just for the storage vault. So, with that kind of economic hardship and the Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 72 of 76 intermittent water flow, we do have provision in the ordinance that a developer can pay what we in our department refer to as a well development fee, which is they pay a fee to go towards the city supplying a well to offset the demand that would be necessary. So, in this -- in this case I think that the well development fee would be the recommended way to go and this letter that was submitted today, hopefully, you have a copy of it, is their consent to pay a well development fee in lieu of putting in a pressurized irrigation system. There was a site specific comment on page ten, it's comment number four, perhaps we could just add a sentence to the end of that that just says in lieu of a pressurized irrigation system, the developer shall pay well development fees for each lot. Zaremba: Thank you both. Any questions from the Commissioners? There are some pictures put up. Were you going to comment on those? Hood: Just briefly. As you can see, these are detached homes, so they will be attached on either side. You can use your imagination a little, but the idea is the same. They are fairly narrow houses and deep, so that's kind of the overall general look of the proposed town-homes, so -- Newton-Huckabay: And there would be two attached together or all four? Hood: Two attached on each grouping of lots. So, Lot 1 and 2 have a townhouse, two single-family units, and three and four have an attached unit. It's pretty difficult to make out on the preliminary plat where the easements are and things and where the driveways are and where the structures were and easements and those types of things, so "- Newton-Huckabay: Do you have that -- Hood: I should. Newton-Huckabay: Is there only just one house on this lot right now? Hood: There is one single family home on this lot today that they will be removing. Freckleton: As you can see on the overhead, these would be the common driveways and this is a driveway and these are the actual units themselves right here. Zaremba: Okay. I believe we are ready for the applicant. Harris: Kevin Harris, business address, 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Susan Howard. We agree with staff comments and recommendations on the site. We would prefer to pay the well development fee per lot, rather than putting in a pressure irrigation system. As you can see, Sue has provided some nice elevations of what she would like to propose on the site and we feel that it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Other than that, if you guys have any Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 73 of 76 questions for me, I'm available, and there are some neighbors directly to the west and they were here earlier tonight and they left at the first break and they said they were in support of the development and just didn't want to hang around anymore tonight, so -- Moe: And miss all this excitement. Harris: Yeah. So, if there are no questions, we would ask that you would support this application and put it forward to City Council. Zaremba: One of the things we regularly ask for are interesting projects and this looks like an interesting one. Harris: This is kind of the wave of the future in this part of town. You know, it seems like some of the neighbors are pretty excited about it, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Is there any public testimony? Zaremba: We do have two people signed up and they may be the ones that left. Rusty -- is it Carroll? Do you wish to speak, sir? He declines to speak, but he's marked on the sheet as being for the project. Eugene -- and I believe it's the initial R.E. That may be the person that left, and they are marked on the sign-up sheet as being in favor. The same people are signed up for both 13 and 14, so we will ask if anybody who didn't sign up wishes to speak. Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: There is no rebuttal needed from the applicant. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on RZ 04-016 and PFP 04-009. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second to close the public hearings. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-016, to include all staff comments of the P&Z hearing date February 17th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office the 14th of February, 2005. End of motion. Borup: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 74 of 76 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PFP 04-009, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of February 17th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office on the 14th February, with the following change. Under preliminary and final plat site specific condition, number four on page ten, I'd like to add a sentence at the end of that paragraph to read: In lieu of pressurized irrigation, the applicant will -- or shall enter into a well development fees -- or have well development fees for each lot. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. Item 15: Item 16: Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-001 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 156.49 acres to R-8 & L-O zones for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 429 building lots and 35 common lots on 155.44 acres in proposed R-8 and L- 0 zones for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of 428 residential building lots, one church lot and 35 common lots located in a "mixed-use neighborhood center" designation on the Comprehensive Plan for Bainbridge Subdivision by Brighton Properties, LLC - SWC of Chinden Boulevard and North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Thank you. I will open the Public Hearing on Items 15,16, and 17. This is AZ05-001, PP 05-002, and CUP 05-002, all within Bainbridge Subdivision and we have a request from both the applicant and the staff that these items be continued to March 3rd of 2005. Borup: Mr. Chair, I would so move. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 75 of 76 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to move all three items to March 3rd, 2005. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries on all three items. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 04-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for two separate drive-up windows in a C-C zone for Jade Plaza by Sundance Investments, LLP - 3679 East Overland Road: Zaremba: I will open Public Hearing CUP 04-056, a Conditional Use Permit for two separate drive-up windows in a C-C zone for Jade Plaza by Sundance Investments and, again, we have a request from the applicant to delay this to modify it. They have asked to move it also to March 3rd, but I would like to ask staff has staff received their modification and we need more time? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, I believe that they have. This is in -- its in EI Dorado or Silverstone and I think it was really a very cut and dry application that should be quite simple for you to handle on the 3rd, so I think this will not be a big item once we get the revised site plan. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? I would entertain a motion to continue this Public Hearing to March 3rd. Rohm: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: March 3rd? Zaremba: March 3rd. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES. Zaremba: One more motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries unanimously. Meridian Planning & ZonIng February 17, 2IXJ5 Page 76 of 76 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYEs. Zaremba: We are adjourned at 11 :28 by the clock on the wall. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:28 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~~O?~ DAVID ZAREMBA/- CHAIRMAN ATTESTED' 2L.L2J &5 DATE APPROVED L