Loading...
2007 09-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 6, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 6, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, Tom O'Brien and Wendy Newton- Huckabay. Members Absent: Steve Siddoway. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Scott Steckline, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X David Moe -Vice Chairman O Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: The adoption of the agenda. I do not believe there are any changes tonight and so I would appreciate a motion to adopt the agenda as written. Moe: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 2 of 46 B. Approve Minutes of August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and that consists of approving the minutes from the August 2nd, 2007, and the August 16th, 2007, Commission meetings. Any changes or corrections? Moe: I have none. O'Brien: None. Rohm: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: We have a very short schedule tonight, but as always, before we open up any public hearings, I'd like to just share with you the process that we go through a little bit before we open it up and, basically, we ask the staff to provide their response to a given application and once the staff has given their assessment as it pertains to the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC, then, we ask the applicant to come forward and present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations have been completed, the balance of the time will be open to the public to provide their testimony. The applicant, then, will have an opportunity to respond to any testimony from any respondents out in the audience. So, that's the process that we will go through and when you come forward, please, state your name and address for the record. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C-N zone as allowed by UDC 11-2B-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C-N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: Item 5: Tabled from August 2, 2007: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 3 of 46 approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C-N zone as allowed by UDC 11-2B-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C-N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: Rohm: With that being said I'd like to at this time open the continued Public Hearing from August 2nd, 2007, of CUP 07-013. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. This is the Cherry Lane Christian Church project that you guys previously heard on July 5th. It's located on the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Franklin Road. At the hearing on July 5th the Commission declined to make a decision, because ACHD's comments had not yet been received and you guys wanted to have that information before making a decision. The ACHD report was still not completed by the August 2nd hearing, so the project was continued until tonight's meeting. Comments have been received from ACHD and staff has included those comments in this report for the September 6 Public Hearing. Additionally, the applicant has submitted revised elevations that reflect the Commission's desire for the proposed metal siding to be used as an accent material as required by the UDC, rather than as a main building material as originally proposed. I will show you a copy of the revised elevations that the applicant submitted here. The original plan -- plans have been included on the slides here and, then, the revised ones are also included, so that you can see the difference. The applicant has also submitted revised site plans that show a reduction in the size of the structure proposed in phase one from 48,000 square feet to 35,277 square feet. Has a reduction in parking from 481 spaces to 413 spaces. And the seating capacity in phase one sanctuary was previously 888 and is now 760. This is a copy of the revised landscape plan. The original also. And the master plan has been revised to reflect a reduction in the overall parking proposed from 2,388 spaces to 2,050 spaces. And the total square footage of all buildings before was 316,858 square feet and is now 333,621. The difference being in the master church building previously 229,475 square feet and is now 246,238 square feet. And the revised site plan also depicts relocation of the easterly access to Franklin Road shown on the master site plan to be shifted further to the west as required by ACHD. So, these revised plans depict the location that ACHD required. So, that's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: Excuse me. Staff -- Mrs. Wafters. What was the reason that Ada County Highway District wanted to move that -- what was the main reason for moving that entrance further west? Wafters: Give me just a second here. I believe it was the location and proximity to the intersection, but let me look real quick here. It says here that if the applicant relocates the driveway 100 feet further to the west it will be allowed to be a full access driveway, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 4 of 46 due to the intersection design of Franklin -Ten Mile that includes dual left turn lanes, it's not possible to allow a full access driveway in the location originally proposed by the applicant. O'Brien: Thank you very much. Nothing further. Wafters: And this will be constructed in a future phase. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Sonya, a couple things I was curious about. In your summary of the recommendation and whatnot we still have the issues as far as the deferral of the requirement of the landscaping on the area south of the sidewalk, as well as the 25 foot buffer along Franklin Road. Those are still in your staff report as staff wanting those to happen; is that correct? Wafters: That's correct. Yes. Moe: And I did note that we did get a letter from ACHD discussing the Ten Mile - Franklin -Cherry Lane projects and whatnot and it looks like that's not going to happen for awhile, so, therefore, I just wanted to make sure that I -- that we were aware of that as well, so --okay. Thank you. That's all I have right now. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Woodard: Good evening, folks. My name is Larry Woodard. I live at 1701 Almaden Street in Meridian. I'm one of the pastors at Ten Mile Christian Church, formerly Cherry Lane Christian Church, and so let the final record show that it's now Ten Mile Christian. We appreciate you placing us on the agenda tonight as we wrap up our request, so we can begin construction of our new worship facility at the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Franklin Roads. If you recall from our previous hearing, there were two main issues that were unresolved and they were, one, a lack of a report from ACHD and we did not have the elevations and pictures of how the building was actually going to look and we have all of that tonight. Since that July 5th meeting we have met with ACHD officials and I'm pleased to report that we have reached agreement on all of the issues with them. The issues of access points off Franklin Road were resolved and you were correct, they asked us to move that one -- future exit a hundred feet further west and they would allow that and so in a future phase we will build that. We also are in Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 5 of 46 agreement at the southwest corner of our property that we will be a partner in installing a traffic signal at that corner and I understand that's apt to happen within the year, that Baronya -- have I got the right -- Baronya project to the south. Initially we will have two access roads in this first phases. One's directly in front of our new facility and the other is Umbria Road, which is at our southwest corner. And that's where the traffic light would be installed. We have also negotiated to the north two fire access routes across the Avest Storage property to meet ire department recommendations. At our July meeting it closed with a recommendation that the Public Hearing tonight be limited to the issues surrounding ACHD. So, I think now we have all the pieces in place. The charter school which purchased our old campus is now open as of last week and they and ourselves look forward to the day that we are not stepping over one another. We are jointly using that facility still. Steve Pardew, our architect from BRS, is here to answer any questions you might have on elevations and colors. You will note that we have down-sized the building a bit because of construction costs, but we are still going to end up with a seating capacity in the main sanctuary of 760 seats, which is double what we currently have. Kriezenbeck Constructors, whom you're familiar with on various public schools in Meridian, is our general contractor. Our plans are to have a ceremonial groundbreaking with the Mayor and other officials on the 23rd of this month and that some preliminary work could start by mid October. We anticipate that we will actually have amove-in date to our new facility around Thanksgiving of 2008. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you. Not at this time. Moe: I just want to see the elevations and whatnot, so -- Woodard: Yeah. Sure. Moe: So, your presentation is not done yet, you're okay? That's fine. Mr. Chairman, just one quick one. Has staff seen these prior to tonight? Watters: Commissioners, this particular elevation staff has not seen. However, it should match up to the ones I have on the overhead here. It's just a little different view. Moe: Okay. Pardew: Steve Pardew. Address 1010 South Allante, Boise, Idaho. BRS Architects. First of all, I'd like to ask if there is any questions specifically in reference to the elevations or colors? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 6 of 46 Moe: Can you go ahead and give me an outline as to the materials on that? Colorwise I'm not too concerned so much about. With the rendering I've got here it still looks like you're doing some metal wall panels. Pardew: Yes. As was previously discussed in the prior hearing, it was our understanding that staff did allow, as mentioned in the staffs report, that the metal siding would be allowed as a detail element in specific locations, primarily just to direct one's view with the lighting also centered in those panels as an appropriate finish. Moe: Is that stucco next to it, then? Pardew: Everywhere else is stucco. Moe: Okay. It's -- Pardew: And, then, we still have the cultured stone accents primarily at the frame of the entry, the main entrances. Moe: Okay. Pardew: That's all the metal that was previously indicated on these upper areas, as well as in these areas has been removed and replaced with stucco. Moe: I said I didn't care about colors, but just a question for you. Pardew: Sure. Moe: Is that the same blue that's on Blue Cross? Pardew: It's a slightly different blue. It's maybe more understood as a cobalt blue. It's an off blue, not more of a royal blue. Moe: Okay. Pardew: And, essentially, the other colors in this have changed to gradations of gray, so that it's a light, medium, and a dark gray band. Moe: Okay. Pardew: As Sonya discussed the specific data changes from the previous submittal, the plan has been reduced to 35,227 square foot footprint and so what you -- you will see in this being different from previously was that we, essentially, had an increased second story over here, which has since been reduced. But in context, the -- the design I think has been very successfully retained and the elements of entrance and accenting Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 7 of 46 of main entries has also been, essentially, kept the same. Now, the other item specifically that I would like to request of the Commissioners to consider is in the conditions of approval and I have Zane Johnson from WH Pacific to bring up another graphic that will indicate specifically what's proposed for current existing edge of asphalt, as well as the proposed landscaping, the proposed meandering sidewalk that's in here and, then, also the area that would -- that is still requested as being deferred. It's mentioned in the item 1.8 of conditions of approval that it is required, but we would like to respectfully request that it be deferred due to the extension of time by which ACRD has put off the actual construction. In meeting with them they specifically prefer that that curb line and adjacent landscaping be placed after their improvements are in to reduce the aspect of additional costs and damage to that landscaping if it was put in at this time. And there would be a curb only separating the pavement improvements of the new right of way that they would propose from the landscaping and, then, the meandering sidewalk. So, we are only really actually asking for a deferral of the landscaping south of the meandering concrete sidewalk. All the other proposed landscaping of trees, lawn, et cetera, north of that sidewalk around the full perimeter of the property is still proposed. Are there any questions specifically on that? O'Brien: So, if I understand, you're saying that that buffer is going to be without any landscaping for a time and that -- did we determine that was going to be a year by year basis? Pardew: As far as the letter of credit, as we discussed in the previous hearing with Commissioner Siddoway, that that letter of credit would be extended and whatever terms would be agreeable to the city to hold that such that the church would, essentially, bond for it or be able to provide that landscaping when ACHD made those improvements. O'Brien: I understand, too, that we talked about putting a gravel base in there. Pardew: There would beaten foot gravel improved shoulder. O'Brien: With weed barrier or -- Pardew: Yes. Yes. O'Brien: -- they will have maintenance -- Pardew: It will be maintained, so that the weeds would not take it over. It would be maintained by the church. O'Brien: Thank you. Pardew: Thank you. Any other questions on that? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 8 of 46 Rohm: Not at this time. Pardew: I think all the other points that have been revised previous to our current submittal have been addressed by either staff or by Mr. Woodard, so if there is no -- I would entertain any other questions at this time. Rohm: Before you sit down I'd like to ask staff to respond a little bit to this adjustment in the landscape. How do you see this request for everything south of the sidewalk? Does that seem logical or does that -- is that something that the city would prefer that we avoid? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, yes, we discussed this at the last meeting and we are not really in favor of holding a letter of credit for, you know, an indeterminate amount of time. The widening of Franklin Road between Black Cat and Ten Mile is in ACHD's five year work plan to be widened from two lanes to five lanes using federal funding. However -- and the construction year is unknown, because it isn't a funded project. So, for that reason we aren't in favor of extending this. Rohm: Well, okay, let me -- let me ask it this way, then. If the applicant makes their improvements based upon the -- the settings from their property line and what have you and, then, Ada County comes in and has to tear it out to finish their road widening project, is it up to Ada County to replace them and the -- this applicant wouldn't have to reinvest in landscape, would they not? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if ACHD does come in and widen that road or when they do come in and widen Franklin Road, it would be the responsibility to re-improve, if you will, the remainder of the right of way. It doesn't necessarily mean they will patch back in whatever they tore out, they could put in gravel or whatever they feel is appropriate, it's their right of way. So, they may or may not put sod in. They may put gravel down or something else. So, within the right of way they pretty much have free reign to -- to again re-improve that, if you will, to their standard, not to the city's standard necessarily. Moe: Mr. Chairman. I guess that brings up a question, then. What will their -- what will the standard be to landscape that area right now, then? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe -- and that's why I'm looking at the applicant's -- the only thing that I see on the south side of the sidewalk is sod or that would be sod. All the required trees are on the north side of the sidewalk. So, it wouldn't be like they are ripping out trees or any real mature landscaping, it really is just -- would be sod or that's as simple as it could be, would just be seed, even, if it -- if it germinates and takes, it could just be grass seed with a ten foot gravel shoulder. So, there really isn't -- I mean I guess from my perspective, rather than having to track this every year and re- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 9 of 46 up a letter of credit and get a new bid, if you want to waive it, I'd rather waive it than wait ten years and us as staff every year have to track this thing and get a new letter of credit and hound dog -- you know, make sure this thing keeps going. If you want to just waive it and have ACHD put gravel in that's fine. The ideal situation is to just have them put in the entire improvements on their property, so -- Pardew: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one other comment. In the discussion with ACHD specifically to that, we were having some difficulty in getting actual grades and design from ACHD on where that would occur based on the curb that they would put in and, then, pave to. So, the applicant's concern is that we would put in lawn and improve that, taking our best guess at what that ultimate grade would be to match their back of curb, that if it's grossly -- you know, grossly different, obviously, that would have to be torn out at that point anyway and redone. We are just hoping to be able to do it all at the same time and have that, you know, be a new construction all at one time. The other aspect of it is in that the specific back of curb for equipment clearances and that you would need to get into whatever the church would provide for that lawn anyway. So, it will be damaged and that was what we discussed with ACHD and their ideal situation of having that put in following their construction, just to appropriately blend the improvement of that lawn to the new curb. That was the discussion. Rohm: The distance from the south side of the sidewalk to the Ada County Highway District's right of way, how far is that? Pardew: The proposed landscape buffer specifically is 25 feet. The meandering sidewalk varies down the middle of that 25 foot buffer and, then, my understanding is that there is an additional ten feet of gravel that would be placed at the existing edge of asphalt that now exists. Rohm: It seems to me, just trying to visualize the looks of the lay of the land, if we ask you to put ten feet of sod or at least a straight line all the way parallel to the roadway, not to match the meandering sidewalk, make it parallel to the roadway and not take it all the way to where the road right of way is, it seems like that would be a happy medium. Do you think you could do that? Pardew: I would agree. That would be a good compromise. Rohm: Okay. Hood: So, Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification. And if that's the direction the Commission wants to go and for the applicant, too, since you're still up there, would that be from the furthest point that the sidewalk meanders or -- that's what I'm assuming, I guess, because it gets to four or five feet it looks like, I'm guessing, to that right of way line, so ten feet wouldn't even be on their property, but that would be from the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 10 of 46 furthermost -- the most grass lawn seed, whatever, required would be ten feet and that would taper down to maybe two feet in some places. Rohm: If that's the meandering of the sidewalk. Hood: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. That's -- you know, just -- that's my opinion. I don't know. The balance of the Commissioner certainly have to weigh in on that. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, a lot of landscaping along the arterials now, they are kind of like on a berm or something. Is that what this is going to be? Pardew: That is correct. O'Brien: So, it's going to be raised in some places? Pardew: That is correct. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask staff again. Your opinion of the new elevations, what's their opinion of that? Wafters: Staff -- Commissioner, staff supports the new revised elevations. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: At this time there is nobody else that is signed up to speak to this application, but if someone would like to come forward now is that time. Any discussion before we close this Public Hearing? O'Brien: I don't have anything further. 1 think we have covered it. Rohm: I think it's been pretty well covered and for all intents and purposes we were just concerned about the Ada County -- Ada County Highway District's report and, then, some of the materials used in the elevations and I think the applicant's responded to both of those issues and so from my perspective I see no reason why we can't close the Public Hearing. O'Brien: So, are we going to waive, then, this -- as recommended by staff to waive the letter of credit on ayear-to-year basis? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 11 of 46 Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing, then, we can answer that -- O'Brien: Oh. Sorry. Moe: -- if we could. Mr. Chairman,, I'd like to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-013. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I'm sorry. Moe: You're fine. Rohm: No. That's fine. O'Brien: Yeah. Are we, then, going to recommend to waive the letter of credit until I guess the end of this -- depending on when the highway district improves that roadway? Rohm: Well, you know, it depends on who makes the motion, but just from my perspective, as long as we have an improved buffer that includes some sod on the south side of the sidewalk, I think that that's suffice to meet the intent and -- from my perspective and you know -- O'Brien: So, were they going to do this right of way, then, the -- Rohm: And we wouldn't take a letter of credit. O'Brien: Okay. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Chairman, just to go over all the other items as well, as far as the exterior elevations, this is much better than the last time and I do appreciate that. And I appreciate staffs comments on that. In regards to this site work and whatnot, after reading the letter from ACHD in regards to the Ten Mile, Franklin, and Cherry Lane projects and whatnot, it could be on that five year plan, but they are stating in the letter that, basically, they don't have the money and are not sure when they are going to have Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 12 of 46 the money and so I'm of the opinion I would like to see the comments of staff to stay. I think if, in fact, all they are going to do is put out seed, which would be the least expensive way to go, it's going to green it up, it's going to look a lot better. I realize they are going to -- they are considering putting some rock down and, you know, some type of weed barrier and whatnot. I think all you have got to do is go around town and you see quite a few of these after about a year or so. I'm not saying they wouldn't maintain it, but I just got to believe that putting it in grass seed is going to be less expensive than even doing the rock with the weed barrier and everything else. And, of course, you have got to have the maintenance cost to that, but I would like to see the conditions stay as they are. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing of real significant value to add to Commissioner Moe's comments. I agree with him. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: It's a rare day. Rohm: Mark that down, would you, please. Moe: You said that, I didn't. Rohm: With that being said, then, could we get a motion to move this forward, please. Moe: Yeah. Just give me a second here. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 07-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th and continued to September the 6th, 2007, with the no modifications. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-013 to include all staff comments with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: So, that you folks can move forward, I believe that we have got Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law specific to the staff report as currently written. So, with that, at this time I'd like to reopen CUP 07-013 for the sole purpose of accepting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 13 of 46 Moe: That is as per the staff report? Rohm: As per the staff report. Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 07-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 34 commercial /retail building lots and 1 common lot on 17.84 acres within the C-G zone for Emerson Park Commercial by Kuna Victory, LLC - 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road and 110 E. Victory Road: Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. At this time we'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 07-014 related to Emerson Park Commercial and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a preliminary plat request for the proposed Emerson Park Commercial development. The property is 17.84 acres in size and is currently rezoned C-G. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Victory and Meridian Road at 2910 and 3030 South Meridian Road and 110 East Victory Road. The property is bordered on the north by a veterinary clinic, zoned RUT in Ada County and future single family residential homes in Bitter Brush Point Subdivision, zoned R-4. On the south by Victory Road and the future mixed use subdivision, Tanana Valley, zoned R-8. On the west by Meridian Road and Strada Bellissima Subdivision future office uses, zoned L-O. And on the east by existing and future single family residential, zoned R-4. This is an aerial view of the property. The site is currently being used as a nursery for Victory Greens. This is a re- plat. This property was previously platted as Mussell -- I think it was Mussell Corners Subdivision. All of it is included, except for this lot here. I believe it was Lot 3. This property is currently zoned C-G, general retail and service commercial district, which complies with the Comp Plan map designation of commercial. And the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for 34 commercial building lots and one common lot on 17.84 acres of land. The proposed building lots range in size from .19 of an acre to 1.28 acres in size. Access to the site is proposed from Victory Road via South Emerson Street, a proposed public street within the development. An existing secondary access consisting of a right-in, right-out is located on South Meridian Road just to the west of the subject site on Lot 3, which is not part of this plat. The secondary access primarily serves Lot 3 of the Mussell Corner Subdivision and also serves the proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 14 of 46 subdivision through an existing cross-access agreement. There is also an access driveway at the north end of this site to Meridian Road that is being used for loading for Victory Greens. If you will -- it's just right here at the very corner. And this driveway will be required to be removed and the use discontinued prior to signature on the final plat. Cross-access should also be provided to the property to the north where the veterinary clinic is located and a driveway should be extended to the north property boundary for future connectivity. This is a copy of the landscape plan submitted by the applicant. A minimum 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along South Meridian Road here. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Victory Road. And a ten foot wide buffer is required along Hallerand Drive and Emerson Street. These buffers are required to be installed outside of the ultimate right of way of adjacent roadways. Additionally, the applicant shall either landscape the 30 foot wide Kennedy lateral easement that runs along the east property boundary here with grass and low lying bushes or shrubs, not trees, as allowed by the irrigation district or provide a five foot wide buffer outside of the Kennedy lateral easement, planted with trees and vegetation in accordance with the standards for landscape buffers to adjoining uses, to meet the requirements for a buffer to residential uses. There is an existing structure located along Victory Road, if you can see it here. And it has a zero foot street side setback. Although there is not a required setback in the C-G zone, structures are required to be located outside of the street buffer, which in this case is 25 feet from the ultimate right of way of Victory Road. Staff is requesting that a condition of approval be added, that the applicant apply for alternative compliance to UDC Table 11-2B-3, which requires a 25 foot wide buffer along arterials, for a reduction in buffer width to zero feet for the portion of the buffer required adjacent to Victory Road that is in front of the existing structure. Alternative compliance must be applied for prior to or in conjunction with the final plat application. And this condition is not contained in the conditions of approval in the staff report. Staff realized this after the report was written. The applicant submitted a concept plan with the plat application that shows how the site may develop in the future. Staff has reviewed the plan and notes the following: The access point to Meridian Road shown at the northwest corner of the site shall be removed as previously stated. Structures located on Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, adjacent to Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C. A driveway should be extended to the north property boundary and cross-access provided to the Bartlett property here, which is the existing vet clinic. And a buffer to residential uses shall be added along the east property boundary. With these changes staff is supportive of the proposed concept plan. The applicant submitted conceptual building elevations with this application that comply with those approved with the previous development agreement modification for this site. There are several here. Per the development agreement future buildings on this site shall contain design elements as stated in the development agreement and each building shall be generally consistent with the elevations shown. If a future building is not consistent with these provisions, then, the building and use shall be required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval prior to construction and operation. The applicant submitted a response to the staff report and the staff will reply to as follows -- and you should have a copy of that in your packet Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 15 of 46 there, if you just want to follow along with me. Regarding condition 1.1.1, staff agrees that the current development agreement for this site will need to be amended to reflect the current project, because the original DA was drafted for a four lot subdivision and several of the provisions will be outdated as the subject plat is approved. Staff recommends that the Commission add a condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit a miscellaneous application to amend the current DA for this site that reflects the conditions of approval for the subject preliminary plat. Regarding condition 1.1.4 and 1.1.6F, a detached five foot sidewalk -- five foot wide sidewalk was required to be constructed along Meridian Road, State Highway 69, as a planned development amenity with Conditional Use Permit 03-071. This requirement was based on previous city code. It has been four years since this property was annexed and approved for a four lot subdivision. According to the UDC, all new developments are required to construct a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along State Highway 69. For continuity with adjacent developments this condition should be complied with. Regarding condition 1.1.5. Staffs recommendation that access be provided to the parcel to the north is based on UDC 11-3H-4B3, development along state highways, which requires the construction of a street generally paralleling the state highway to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting state highways that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or a half mile collector road, regardless of zoning. Further, regardless of current or future land use, staff believes that it is appropriate to have afrontage-backage road paralleling the state highway in this location. Regarding condition 1.1.68 and 1.1.7, when the Mussell Corner Subdivision was approved Victory Road was only classified as a collector roadway and the signal at Meridian and Victory had not yet been constructed. Since that time the street classification for Victory has changed to an arterial street in which ACHD requires 96 feet of right of way for the construction of a five lane roadway with curb, gutter, five foot wide concrete detached sidewalks and bike lanes. As a collector Victory would only have been a three or four lane road. Because of this reclassification of Victory Road and the higher intensity of the proposed use, staff believes that the applicant should provide the 25 foot wide buffer outside of the ultimate right of way, as the entire 48 feet will be used for the future expansion of Victory Road. If the Commission does not require this, when Victory Road is widened there will be no landscape buffer. Regarding condition 1.1.13, staff concurs that this condition be modified as stated by the applicant and adding the language City Council and Idaho Transportation Department. Note. A variance is required to be approved by City Council for the relocation of an existing access point to a state highway. Regarding condition 1.2.2, staff concurs that the existing pond may remain in its current form on Lot 6, Block 2, provided that the pond have re-circulated water and be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. In accordance with UDC 11-3B- 9C6, staff requests that a condition of approval be added that the applicant comply with the aforementioned UDC requirement. Additionally, staff would like to request that condition of approval 1.1.6D, which requires a 25 foot wide buffer along the north property boundary adjacent to parcel number 82114050305 Bartlett property be stricken. When the report was written staff thought that this property was a residence Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 16 of 46 because of its RUT zoning. However, it's, actually, a veterinary clinic, which does not require a buffer. Staff is recommending approval of the subject preliminary plat application with the aforementioned changes to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. That's all staff has unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. That was a pretty good report. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? Tverdy: Good evening. My name is Chris Tverdy. I work for Oaas Laney, LLC. Address 519 West Front Street in Boise. We have done a lot of work in the last hour and a half and so I'm a little bit behind Sonya's response the -- to the letter that we submitted today, so pardon me if I stumble a little bit as we go through here, okay? I think for the sake of getting through the material quickly, I'll go right to the conditions that are listed, because I think that the staff has done a good job reviewing our application and I think there really isn't -- there aren't any issues with the concept of what we are doing here, it's really related to landscape buffers and interconnectivity. So, those are the -- those are the items that I'll address real quickly, but, please, if you have any questions feel free to interrupt me at any time. Starting off, condition 1.1.1, I think if you refer to staffs most recently revised letter -- the revision of the one I submitted this afternoon, I think we can kind of just walk down that and that will be most productive. The first item is condition 1.1.1, which is relating to previous documents and development agreements and we agree with the recommendation that staff is making. However, I do want to make one point of correction and that is that the staff is correct in that the first agreement, development agreement, was entered into four years ago, but - - but as recently as September of 2006 that agreement was amended, which is where much of their landscaping items were agreed to and were constructed within the last year by us and as you see -- we will go through this presentation, but you will see that there is a lot of work that we just completed nine months ago that staff is recommending we tear out and -- or not necessarily tear out, but significantly change and expand. O'Brien: Sir, excuse me for interrupting. Mr. Chairman. Is this -- you're referring to the road work that was done on the south side of the Victory Road, adjacent to the Victory Greens area? Tverdy: It would be the north side. O'Brien: Oh, the north side of the road. Okay. Yes. Tverdy: Yeah. O'Brien: But the south side of the property. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 17 of 46 Tverdy: Correct. That's exactly right. That's really where the heart of the discussion will be focused on tonight. O'Brien: Thank you. Tverdy: Yeah. But as related to condition 1.1.1, we have no issue with the staffs condition -- recommendation for the condition there. Condition 1.1.4 is focusing on the request to widen the sidewalk that's actually on the west side of the property along South Meridian Road from a five feet wide sidewalk to a ten foot wide one. Again, that project was just completed within the last nine months, related to some of the work that we did around the -- around the property, which was the cause of the -- the amendment to the development agreement. We would like for the Commission to consider leaving that requirement -- or not requiring that condition and leaving it at five feet. We have a few pictures here, but I don't know if this is very productive. Would you like me to pass these across to you on these improvements or is this -- is this good enough if I hold it up like this? Rohm: I think we will have to have a copy of it for our records, but -- Tverdy: Okay. Rohm: -- obviously, we can see that. Tverdy: Condition 1.1.5 relates to the north property boundary, the cross-access easement to the north property. Rohm: Can we go back to that for just a moment? Tverdy: Absolutely. Rohm: The picture that you -- you're showing there is the existing five foot sidewalk along the east side of Meridian Road running north-south? Tverdy: That is correct. Rohm: Is that what that is right there? Tverdy: That is correct. Rohm: Okay. Tverdy: So, moving on to condition 1.1.5 where staff recommends connectivity through -- a driveway through to the property on the north. Just a point of clarification. I think staff is incorrect in terms of the location of the vet clinic. It's actually one parcel further Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 18 of 46 over. Actually, I know that -- that property, so I drove out there yesterday and was trying to meet the people to the immediate north and it's just a residential place with about three acres of pasture. The point remains, though, we have no issue making that connectivity. We are a little nervous about what that use is ultimately going to be, but we understand through conversations with staff the requirement for that internal connectivity and we really have no issue with that. So, yeah, we agree with that condition. Rohm: So, you're okay with that, even though it's not the vet clinic, it's a private residence, you're still in agreement that you will provide that interconnectivity. Tverdy: Yeah. And, in part, because it will help us tie into the emergency access requirement and it's likely that that will develop into a commercial activity as well and -- and Ithink that only improves the connectivity and the access to the property. So, moving on to condition 1.1.6, subparagraph B, this is the item that's difficult for us, so wanted to hold up a picture here. So, this is related to the -- what we spoke of earlier, the property -- property's southern border where along -- along there staff spoke of an existing residence -- !mean the store front of Victory Greens. The building's been there a long time. It's been converted into the store. Additionally, as you go down Victory Road, you will see that the -- that there is another existing building that's abandoned and we probably will be doing some rework to that, but the parking lot is in the -- in the area where staff is recommending we add the landscaping. Further down we just -- we just completed construction of the new 2M facility. They moved in in March of 2007 and it would require half of their parking lot to be removed in favor of the landscaping and it just kind of goes down that whole side. Excuse me. So, we are very uncomfortable with this -- with this particular requirement, understanding all of the issues related to the development codes and the change in classification of Victory Road. This work was just completed with this amended development agreement in the last six months and we spent probably 150,000 dollars putting in the sidewalk, the landscape buffering, improving Victory Road and irrigation. And so you can see that that's a pretty major impact to that area of the development and we would strongly request that we remove the 20 foot wide buffer requirement on that edge of the property. The surrounding other edges, as we will see through here, we really would -- will, you know, comply with those fully. But in this case there is just a tremendous amount of rework and it puts some of the existing structures into a noncompliance situation. Rohm: Now, this picture here is Victory headed east; is that correct? Tverdy: Correct. Correct. Rohm: Okay. Moe: And the curb, gutter, and the walk that's shown here, that goes all the way through your property towards the east? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 19 of 46 Tverdy: Correct. Moe: All the way through the other building you said you guys have built as well, that's -- Tverdy: Yeah. This is -- I guess I haven't done a great job explaining, but this is in the right of way, it is not on our property. It's in the Victory Road right of way as -- with it's expanded -- Moe: But, basically, what you're telling me, then, is if, in fact, ACHD came in and they wanted to widen out, then, all that goes away and we basically have the edges. The street, then, would be about where those cars are parked, then? Tverdy: I think there would probably be a couple of feet, but your point is pretty accurate. Moe: That's what I'm saying. Tverdy: Yeah. Yeah. Moe: Okay. Tverdy: Section -- or condition 1.1.6 is just a -- you know, redundant with an earlier item, as well as 1.1.7, it's really the same exact issue, just stated in two different -- two different conditions. Onto condition 1.1.13, where there is a requirement -- effectively we agree with the staffs revised comments here, so I guess I don't really need to go on with that. Condition 1.2.2 is the wet -- the wet pond condition and we -- staff agrees with our contention that that existing pond is -- I guess we will meet the staffs requirements here. It's really become a -- going to be a feature -- landscape feature on the property and it's a common lot central to the commercial building that -- O'Brien: Where on the map is that located? Thank you. Tverdy: Condition 2.1. This is related to sewer service to the site. We have had many productive conversations in -- in the last couple of days with the Public Works Department. We were surprised, if you will, with the staff report when we were required to -- steps requiring us to continue the Black Cat trunk from the corner of -- it would be the northwest corner of the Meridian Road -Victory intersection, carry across -- extend across Meridian Road and, then, down the frontage of our property along Victory. We assume that we were able -- we would be required to bore under the -- under Meridian Road and connect to the sewer that's being -- in the process of being installed there. Through a variety of conversations with staff, we understand that that doesn't meet the -- I'm not sure the terminology, but the plan for the sewer system, and they want us to Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 20 of 46 construct that down Victory Road, so -- with avariety -- it's a large cost item, because the -- it's a large diameter system and it's very deep, I think. In the neighborhood of 30 feet deep, which will -- as currently designed, it will require a good portion of Meridian Road to be tore up and with sewer placed in and, then, recreated which, obviously, is a very large ticket item. So, we have been working hard to try and come up with a good resolution to this and, ultimately, we can see a path to accomplishing this and, really, what we are asking for in the -- in this -- this condition is that Meridian City Public Works engaged in engineering, value engineering efforts, with us to place that sewer line on the south side of Victory Road and that will, of course, require us to work with the property owner on the other side of the road to -- to make sure that we have got good easement and good location of that, but that could significantly reduce the cost to install that. So, we are not disturbing Victory Road or at least disturbing it as little as possible. And, then, secondly, because the capacity of that sewer main is significantly oversize for what we need, we would -- we are asking the city to engage in a reimbursement program with us and I think staff acknowledged today that they are willing to carry forward those conversations provided appropriate approvals. That is a really fuzzy and nebulous item for me and it kind of gives me a pit in my stomach, because I feel like I'm signing up for dollars that we really don't know the magnitude of yet and that's really where the engineering discussions need to take place. But to move forward with the project and the discussions, we are okay with -- in principle of funding the creation or the implementation of that sewer main provided that there is a reimbursement program. Moe: You lost me. I want to make sure I understand this. You said earlier that the Black -- that to pick up the Black Cat trunk line at the northwest corner of Meridian Road. Correct? And, then, bring it across. But, then, you talked them talking it to the south side of Victory Road? Tverdy: Yeah. I might have misspoken, but let me just -- let me just clarify. Moe: Okay. Tverdy: The northwest corner of the intersection -- okay. So, it's on the opposite side of Cloverdale -- Moe: Right. Tverdy: -- not Cloverdale. Moe: Victory. Tverdy: Victory. Meridian Road from our property. Moe: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 21 of 46 Tverdy: So, the path that Public Works would like that to take -- and I'd love them to jump in here and help me, just so I don't muddy this up, horizontally -- Moe: Horizontally. Tverdy: -- or across the intersection to the south side of Victory Road and the reason for that is because there is a significant amount of installed water mains or whatever on the north side of the road already. Moe: But at the same point you'd still have to tie in underneath Victory to get to that to put it onto your property at that point. Tverdy: Correct. Moe: So, you are going to go through all those again. Okay. Tverdy: Yeah. You can see why we would prefer to go just directly across Meridian Road and that's what's clearly best for our -- our particular development, but it really doesn't meet the plan that's laid for the Public Works. Moe: Okay. Tverdy: I think I did that justice, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. Okay? Moe: Well, actually, that whole issue is kind of muddied up for me, because the original property -- you know, the original project that happened on the corner, I can remember back in some of our hearings it was discussed at that time, that, eventually, who ever is developing this property was going to have to bring the line over, so -- Tverdy: Gosh, I wish I would have been there for that one. i would have had a head start on that. Moe: So, anyway -- okay. I think I know where you're at with that. Tverdy: Okay. And, then, the last condition is 3.17 related to the emergency access and I think, you know, we are on the same page with staff in terms of, yes, we will provide that access point and we will tie it into the stub street to the north property and we see the value there. So, that was a whole lot of material lightly covered in just a -- in just a little bit and Iguess Iwanted -- the only additional comments I have is that we are pretty proud of this development. There is a lot going on on this corner with the 2M project, the Double D facility on the corner. And, then, the Victory Greens business there. The Victory Greens business owns one parcel and, then, leases the majority of that acreage from my company. Over the course of the next several years we will develop this in phases, working in concert with Victory Greens business, so that, you Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 22 of 46 know, I'll successfully, you know, coexist. However, it is clear and Victory Greens understands that the long-term development plan is to -- to turn this into a very clean, light, industrial, commercial, retail, business park. O`Brien: So, basically, they are going to be moving out? Tverdy: That's right. And, you know, there is a lot of steps in between now and, then, to work through, especially as we start doing the big earth work here, but we are clearly in sync with them on that. Moe: Mr. Chairman. So, if I might, I want to go back through this list one more time just -- as what I think what was said, okay? How is that? Tverdy: Great. I apologize if I went too fast. Moe: No. You did fine. Basically, condition 1.1.1 you basically agree with staff. Tverdy: Correct. Moe: Condition 1.1.4 you want to keep your five foot walk, not have to go to the ten foot. Tverdy: Correct. Moe: 1.1.5 you agree with. Tverdy: That's correct. Moe: 1.1.6 you would rather not do that. Tverdy: That's right. Moe: And, then, 1.1.6E -- okay. That goes back to the 1.14; right? Tverdy: Uh-huh. Rohm: Can we go back to this 1.1.66 for just a moment? It seems to me that the buffer that staff is asking is actually north of this existing buffer, if you will, and it -- less the variance for the existing structure that's east of the Double D. Is that correct? And it seems to me that if -- if you could do the buffer east of the existing structure and have that added to the existing buffer that's there now, you're not tearing anything out and it's -- it's just -- it will be an expanded buffer, but, nevertheless, there wouldn't be an area that has no buffer at such time that Ada County does their road widening. Are you following me? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 23 of 46 Tverdy: I -- completely. Let me add a few comments to that, okay, and then -- staff commented about excepting out the area around the existing structure and that was a new one to me. So, I was just kind of absorbing that as you were talking, but let me use my pointer here. There is no -- basically, from this corner all the way to the end, the -- there is no landscape buffer on -- except for in the right of way with the highway. So, from this point to the edge of the Double D property there will be no interior landscape buffer, because that's not part of this discussion. Then right here is the location of that store front and that's the area that staff is recommending we except out, if I understand that correctly. So, when we do any future development on that location, then, of course, we come back for Conditional Use Permit and that's where we discuss that particular location. But, otherwise, I think that that's your understanding so far. Moe: Uh-huh. Tverdy: At this edge of the building, however, this is -- this is still -- I don't know how to describe it. It's kind of a driveway and where the Victory Greens open air store front is, if you will. They have a lot of plants and whatever. So, that's kind of retail space for them today. They are using that space. As that continues down, then, we run into the parking lot for this building right here. The parking lot would be in the -- we would have to remove that parking lot to place the 25 foot landscape buffer. Then, we get to the driveway and, then, this is an existing building. This is the 2M building that we just finished in March. They just took occupancy in March. This parking lot would be, I don't know, roughly cut in half as well, so we would have to tear that out. And, then, we get to the end of the developed area. And so from this point to the side, I think that's where we could discuss the larger area. But you can see more than half of the frontage there we are going to have to tear out some existing -- Rohm: Basically, it's already developed. Tverdy: It is. Rohm: And all you're doing is replatting, if you will. Tverdy: Right. And I guess I want to underscore -- at the expense of sounding like a broken record, but that work was just completed. Rohm: Got you. Got you. Tverdy: Just completed. Rohm: Got you. Thank you. Now, back to you, Dave. Sorry for the interruption there. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 24 of 46 Moe: You're fine. Okay. So, I said 1.1.6F, you take exception to that as well, right, because that's the same as the 1.1.4. Tverdy: That's right. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Same as 1.1.7. Moe: Yes. Same thing. Tverdy: That's correct. Moe: Then, on 1.1.13, you are in agreement with that -- with the city. Tverdy: Yes, we are. Moe: And same thing on 1.2.2. Tverdy: Yes. Moe: And, then, 2.1, discussing a reimbursement agreement, you're in favor of that. Tverdy: Yeah. And just that -- the commentary related to the engineering work, the value engineering work that needs to take place, which is probably not needing stated, but -- anyway. Moe: And, then, 3.17 you're also in agreement -- Tverdy: Correct. Moe: -- with staff. I'm up to speed on those. Thank you. Tverdy: So -- Moe: I have no other questions. Tverdy: That's all I have to present. We have much more material, but I think maybe we would -- it's just backup material, so I'd kind of stand for any questions. Rohm: I think we have pretty much handled the questions as we have gone along, but thank you for -- any other questions of this applicant? Thank you. Tverdy: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 25 of 46 Rohm: There is not anybody that has signed up to speak to this application, but if someone so desires, now is that time. There is no one coming forward, so that's -- no additional testimony. Moe: Mr. Chairman, ask staff a question if I might. I'm just kind of -- I'm a little unclear on what the deal is with the amended DA that was done. Hood: Commission, Commissioner Moe, I did work on the amended DA for this project here in 2006. The driving force behind that was the -- the new 2M building and the current development agreement or the previous development provision that said all uses need a Conditional Use Permit before you can get going. So, we did work with this company on doing a development agreement, rather than sending them through the CUP process. There was a concept plan and some elevations that were submitted with that. I do not remember reviewing landscaping plans at all. It's a little bit odd that the CZC for the new 2M building got through our office and we didn't say, hey, construct the landscape buffer outside of the right way. I know that wasn't part of what was asked for with the original development agreement modification. Looking back now I should have said, hey, there is this other provision that no one's talked about that we need to update now, but we didn't. That really wasn't what was on the table at that time. We could have brought it up and we could have addressed it, then, but we didn't. Again, I'm a little concerned that the CZC got through the process and they just finished work here this last year and we didn't get the landscape buffer where it needed to be, but, you know, like Sonya said earlier today, she didn't even realize this was in the right of way until she really studied the lines to show, oh, there is the 25 foot wide buffer and sometimes you look at that and you don't see, oh, it's in the right of way, it's not on your property and so -- again, I don't know the whole history behind that. What I would recommend we do, as -- as hopefully a solution, is the alternative compliance that staff recommended for those encroachments in that are there and where there aren't encroachments, then, provide -- and maybe not the full width buffer, because if we are only going to have five or ten feet for three-quarters of it it doesn't make sense to have 25 feet -- where you can put 25 feet in. Maybe it's a ten foot wide most of the way and when you have the existing Victory Greens office encumbrance, parking lot encumbrances, those types of things, we can allow those to encroach into the buffer or reduce the buffer width there. But where it is -- where you can get a good buffer, let's make that look really nice and meet the intent of the ordinance somehow, so we aren't left with just nothing. So, I think there is some compromise there. The alternative compliance section is done at the staff level, so it would help to have some guidance from the Commission as to what we should be looking for if, in fact, that's where you go and ask them to apply for altemative compliance. I don't think it makes sense to just require a full 25 foot wide buffer, because this site is -- a majority of it is redeveloped. Now, if they knock down the nursery and something new is constructed where that house office is today, they should have to comply, because, you know, they are razing it and new construction should comply with the ordinance, but I think in this case we can Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 26 of 46 work with them on finding something that works for both the city and the applicant, hopefully, where we can provide an adequate buffer. I don't know if that totally explains the history, but that's my perspective from being involved in this for several years now. Moe: That's -- I appreciate that. I guess the only other question I would have for you -- again, (realize that the -- the Meridian -- you know, the Meridian Road side as far as where we have the five foot sidewalk there, you do want to see that go to a ten foot. Hood: I can let Sonya answer that or I will -- I will answer it. The code requires a ten foot. Moe: Okay. Hood: You're going to have Double D that has five foot and they are probably not going to develop for many many many years, so where ever it goes you're going to have still a stretch of it that's still only going to be five feet. The code requires a ten foot wide buffer and I will just leave it at that. I mean -- or a ten foot wide walkway. So, staff is really obligated to require that. If you allow the five foot sidewalk to remain, I will sleep at night -- tonight just fine, so -- Newton-Huckabay: But will you, Sonya? Sonya: I will sleep also. Thank you. Moe: We are worried about that. Rohm: Before we go forward, I want to -- I want to have both of those pictures entered into the record, so we need to have both of them up here, please. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: With the landscaping that's in the right of way on the south property line, it also has a sidewalk, so if we don't do any landscaping, there will be no sidewalk. Is that -- Wafters: When Victory widens and -- well, that -- if Victory widens this sidewalk will be constructed with the widening by ACRD. Newton-Huckabay: No? Wafters: No. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 27 of 46 Hood: The sidewalk should be constructed with the subdivision plat and, in fact, I'm sure ACHD has a condition that they have to construct the sidewalk as part of this. That's pretty standard. Newton-Huckabay: I was talking about the one that's already there. Hood: Oh. Okay. Reconstruct it you mean? Wafters: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Hood: Yeah. It will be reconstructed. Sorry. I didn't -- Rohm: So, that would be Ada County Highway District would reconstruct the sidewalk? Hood: Correct. Rohm: That's real important from my perspective. I just want to make sure we have one. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I didn't want to impede the alternative compliance on the landscaping, because some parts of it you just couldn't put sidewalk in with it all -- for example, right in front of the Victory Green's office. Rohm: Yeah. I'm not sure how close that building is to the road right of way. Newton-Huckabay: There is two -- yeah, there is two of them right there that are -- Rohm: Right up to it. Newton-Huckabay: -- right up there. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, and the other Commissioners, I -- you know, in that case they may actually have to condemn -- and maybe that's why this -- this mile hasn't been widened is because there are a couple of buildings that are pretty close, so that may jump the cost of a project up significantly if they have to condemn a building. But generally what they would do is they would, you know, neck that down or they wouldn't have -- if it was supposed to be a detached sidewalk, they would attach it for just a short stretch to get around the house or something. I don't know what exactly they have up their sleeve as far as that, but it would be a continuous sidewalk. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 28 of 46 Rohm: Good. Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, excuse me, if I might add one other thing, in light of the applicant's statement about the property to the north being an existing residence, not a veterinary clinic. I have my site switched. I'd ask you to remove the condition of approval 1.1.6D that requires a 25 foot wide buffer between land uses. If we could just let that condition stand that would meet the UDC requirements. Newton-Huckabay: That was the one you added during your presentation. Wafters: I asked for it to be deleted. And it's actually in there and needs to stay in there. Newton-Huckabay: Needs to stay in there. Wafters: Thank you. Rohm: Because it's not commercial. Right. Wafters: It's residential. Rohm: Thank you. Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing on this project? Baird: Mr. Chair. I'd just suggest before you do that we might want to give the applicant an opportunity to rebut or address anything that has been discussed. There hasn't been any other testimony, but there has been some discussion and I want to make sure we have a complete record. Rohm: And I sure want to give them every opportunity. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and respond to any discussion of the Commission and staff? Basically, we have been discussing all of the different changes that you have requested and staffs inserted their comments and, basically, this is your opportunity to respond to any discussion amongst the Commission and additional comments from staff. So, if there is anything that you heard that you take exception to, this would be your time. Tverdy: I would like to comment on a couple of items. First, I really appreciate the effort that staff is putting forward in working with us on this -- on this southern border, because I realize it's a real irregular situation and we can absolutely live with the commentary of adding that landscape buffer and working with staff to redo our plan to show that buffer being where it's -- where there is room to do it, where we don't have to tear out a parking lot and, then, as we go forward with some of these developments we absolutely agree that if -- if, for instance, a building is removed and there is one building on the project that's the Old 2M building, that is an example of that where we would Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 29 of 46 remove that, then, we would add the landscape buffer in there. So, I think that's a fantastic suggestion and we can -- we can fully support that. The last comment that staff -- that Sonya made about adding back in the condition on the north boundary of the property where this -- where she previously removed the requirement fora 25 foot buffer, we have no issue with placing that back in as well, just want to comment that the large majority of that small slice of property -- we are talking right there -- is going to be taken up by the interconnectivity road, but there might be a little bit of space on the edges that would -- that would facilitate some sort of landscape buffer. So, we knowledge that. Rohm: Good. Thank you. That's perfect. Tverdy: I think that's -- those are the -- any other comments that -- Rohm: I think that captures it. Tverdy: Okay. Rohm: At this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. PP 07- 014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Any final comments, Commissioner Moe? Moe: I'm confused. Well, basically, going through the letter and, then, the comments back through, I'm glad to see that we can probably work something out on Victory Road in some alternative compliance to take care of that issue on -- what was that, 1.1.6. I'm glad to see that the applicant has somewhat agreed to most of the items that the city wants to change here. In regards to the pathway going from the five foot to the ten foot, I'm struggling on that one a little bit, simply because of the fact the five foot one is in there and so, quite frankly, I would just as soon see it stay that way. It's landscaped, it's done, and I think that I'd just as soon see it stay that way, so as far as that I would just delete that. Other than that, I think that -- you know, between the five foot walk or the alternative compliance on Victory Road, all the other items were pretty much agreed to per staff comment. That's the way I see it, unless someone can tell me otherwise. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 30 of 46 Newton-Huckabay: I have -- I agree with the sidewalk and that if there isn't some that isn't constructed I would encourage it to be tapered into the ten foot, so as other properties connect into it, it would match up. Does that make sense? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Regarding alternative compliance on the south side, I'd like to see at least ten foot where ever possible on the -- on the landscape in the right of way. If not, 15. I think 25 would be too much to try to modulate through there. So, that would be my only preference on the -- on those pieces of sections that could be landscaped is to go with ten foot, 15 foot buffer. And, then, also we would put a requirement if any building was razed it would come into compliance. Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Mr. -- one question if I might. Your -- your minimum ten foot, would that be something you would want to put in a motion to that or not -- or them working with staff to review it or is that just kind of a comment of yours? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I thought the staff had asked for a preference on that. Was I wrong? Was I wrong? Moe: No. I'm just -- Newton-Huckabay: So, I -- no, that was just my preference. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I have no other comments. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Well, I get kind of torn sometimes on these issues of flexibility and being consistent with other areas around town, but I'm glad that we are able to work with -- able to work with the situation, so it's not awin-lose thing, but awin-win. I think as we develop this thing I agree with Commissioner -- fellow commissioners about making the transition as we go -- making it compatible with what's already been built and not disturb that, because in going by there quite frequently I think it would be a -- quite an expense to redo all of that and I think it would make a mess out of it. So, I think that we should just go along with -- with the way it is and, then, develop it as we go, make sure that the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 31 of 46 buffers meld into the existing landscape and I don't think I have any issues. I think you covered them already, so that's all I have. Rohm: Good. Thank you. I guess the only comment that I would make is I think from the staffs perspective having more time to digest these changes or requests for adjustments to the staff report prior to the day of the hearing would be appreciated. It puts a lot of strain on staff to make sure that any -- any applicant's request don't encumber some other UDC ruling and it's tough for them to put things together for us and, then, by the same token for us to respond all at the same time. So, in the future we'd appreciate it if -- if you have got these kind of developments to address issues, give staff more time to work with it. That's my only comments on that. But having said that, it appears as if there is a compromise here that will work for both our staff and for you folks in the development community and thanks for coming in. Newton-Huckabay: Who wants to make this motion? Rohm: I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was going to make this motion. Newton-Huckabay: Since she opened her big mouth. After considering all staff, applicant, and public -- oh, before I start, if I just speak to the letter and staffs response -- staffs response to the letter, make a comment that we are striking condition 1.1.4 from the staff report and -- Moe: And modifying -- Newton-Huckabay: And, then, we are going to modify condition 1.1.66 and recommend alternative compliance. Moe: That's what I thought we were going to do in your comment of minimums or whatever. Newton-Huckabay: And that's to be worked out with the applicant and city staff. And my request for the ten to 15 foot is where it's not going to look silly. I don't want to make it look -- I don't want it to look stilly, but I would like it to be as wide as possible. So, that's kind of -- and condition 1.1.6F we would be stricken from the report? That's the ten foot wide along South Meridian Road. Moe: Yes. Same thing with seven. Wafters: Excuse me, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Can you clarify how wide of a buffer that you would like in the areas that aren't encumbered by existing building or parking lot? Newton-Huckabay: I'd put ten to fifteen feet. You want one or the other? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 32 of 46 Wafters: Please. Newton-Huckabay: Fifteen. Wafters: Fifteen? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Wafters: And could you also add in that -- in your motion alternative compliance must be applied for prior to or concurrently with the final plat application, please. Newton-Huckabay: With the final what? Wafters: Final plat application. Thank you. Moe: I guess the others -- Newton-Huckabay: 1.1.7 is striking -- Moe: Yes,. I believe so. Then, on these others staff is going to concur with what they said. Wafters: Excuse me. Commissioners, we don't want to strike all of condition 1.1.7 if -- believe that's what you said. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Oh, yeah. You're right. Wafters: Maybe modify it to require a minimum 15 foot wide buffer outside of the ultimate right of way where no existing -- where no buildings exist or parking lots, something to that effect. Newton-Huckabay: Where no building or -- Moe: Probably need to put something to revise this condition -- Newton-Huckabay: 1.1 -- Moe: All the conditions that the staff concurs, just per the applicant's response -- or the staffs response to the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: On what -- on 1.3 and 1.2.2? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 33 of 46 Moe: .2 and 2.1. Same thing, actually. 3.17. They are going to work with staff on all these. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Moe: That should do it. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Here we go. Moe: That's easy. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 07-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 6, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval -- and most of these are being made from the letter and response from Oaas Laney on September 6th to Sonya Wafters. Condition 1.1.4 will be removed. Condition 1.1.6B the Commission recommends alternative compliance for -- with the applicant and is instructed to work with staff on the details of that and the alternate compliance must be applied for prior to or in concurrence with their final plat application approval. Rohm: That's 15 feet? Newton-Huckabay: That's down one more. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Condition 1.1.6F will be removed. Condition 1.1.7 will be restated as the applicant will be required to put a minimum 15 foot buffer outside of the right of way in areas where no building or parking lots exist. Moe: On East Victory Road? Newton-Huckabay: On East Victory Road. Condition 1.1.13, staff is in agreement with the applicant's response in the letter previously mentioned, dated September 6th. Condition 1.2.2 staff is also in concurrence with the applicant's response in the same letter. Wafters: Excuse me. Could we back up to condition 1.1.13? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Wafters: Staff was recommending that that condition be modified as stated by the applicant and the language added City Council and ITD. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 34 of 46 Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Wafters: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. And staff is in concurrence with the applicant and, then, goes on to add that they want to have added -- language added City Council and ITD and note that a variance is required to be approved by City Council for the relocation of existing access point to state highway. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Condition 1.1.2 -- Moe: 1.2.2. Newton-Huckabay: 1.2.2. Staff is concurrence the pond may remain and -- but it must have re-circulated water and be maintained so that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground in accordance with UDC 11-3B-9C6. Condition 2.1, staff agrees with the applicant's response and staff will work with the applicant to draft a reimbursement agreement that will go before Council for approval, as outlined in City Code 9-4-19. Condition 3.17. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's response. They agree that the condition be modified to require an emergency access driveway to South Meridian Road at the northern portion of the development, rather than specifically at the northern end of Colleran Drive. This change is based on the applicant's proposal to potentially relocate access to the highway as stated in condition 1.1.13. If the relocation occurs a new driveway may serve as both an emergency access and access for the development. Construction plans for the access drive shall be approved by the Meridian fire department. I believe that is the end of the motion. Hood: Oh. One question. We talked about modifying the development agreement to reflect this current project. Staff would still propose -- and the applicant I think concurred with that, but that wasn't part of the motion. That was regarding condition 1.1.1 is where it was brought up by the applicant, but if the City Council also finds favorably of this application, I think the development agreement should probably be cleaned up, since it probably makes reference to a four lot subdivision and these types of things, just to be cleaned up to kind of lump this all into one document that is comprehensive. Newton-Huckabay: Would you like me to read staffs response on the record or -- Hood: You can reference it. You can come up with your own. I mean condition -- I guess the point is is that the applicant should submit for a development agreement modification prior to final plat. That way we can have the development agreement again Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 35 of 46 reflect the approvals for the subdivision on a project. Again, that's just the cleanest way to go. If it doesn't happen you have got a preliminary plat that would -- Newton-Huckabay: Let's go with condition 1.1.1 will be modified as stated in staffs response to the letter from Oaas Laney dated September 6th that starts with staff agrees that the current DA -- DA for the site will need to be amended to reflect the current project, et cetera, and so fourth. Does that cover it? Hood: Yes. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: That was a good job. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 07-014, to include the staff report and the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Proposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And we are going to take a short break here, about ten minutes, and we will be right back. (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: PFP 07-003 Request for a Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6 acres located in the C-G zoning district for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Carmen, LLC - 1351 & 1375 E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: At this time we'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening the Public Hearing on PFP 07- 003 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a combined preliminary/final plat request for proposed Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision. The property is six acres in size and is zoned C-G and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. In 2002 approval of a preliminary/final plat for the subject site was approved by City Council. However, the final plat was never recorded. The applicant is requesting approval of the same plat Council approved in 2002. If you look on the map here, the subject site is located at 1351 and 1375 East Fairview Avenue. It's located on the southeast corner of North Stonehenge Way and East Fairview Avenue and west of North Locust Grove Road. The property is bordered by county Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 36 of 46 property zoned C-2 and that's Idaho Salvage Yard. There is multi-family residential to the south, zoned R-15 and R-40. And, then, Canterbury residential subdivision to the west, zoned R-8. And, then, more commercial to the north. The applicant is requesting combined preliminary/final plat approval for four commercial building lots -- get to the site here. Ranging in size from .69 of an acre to 3.65 acres. A portion of the subject site includes the Stonehenge Plaza shopping center, which is located on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. You can see that here. And a CZC has been issued and construction is underway for an 8,450 square foot multi-tenant retail shell located on Lot 3. And that is approximately that lot there. Access to the site is from two existing driveways to East Fairview Avenue and one existing driveway to North Stonehenge Way previously approved by ACHD. So, you have a driveway entrance there, here, and, then, right here along Stonehenge Way. The applicant is proposing across- access easement be recorded for all lots in the subdivision and staff has conditioned that an access easement and driveway stub be provided to the property owner to the east of Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. So, staff is recommending connectivity right here. The submitted landscaping plan is proposing a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along East Fairview Avenue and a ten foot landscape buffer along North Stonehenge Way. An additional 25 foot landscape buffer is required along the southern property boundary adjacent to residential uses in zones. It is important to note that the Jackson drain and Settler's canal easements run along the southern portion of the property, making it difficult to meet that 25 foot landscape buffer requirement. Code does allow a five foot buffer width where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions. This also poses a challenge to the applicant due to the location of the existing building and service on Lot 1. Staff is supportive of waiving the land use buffer requirement adjacent to Lot 1 due to the concerns from the Meridian fire department. However, a full 25 foot landscape buffer should be required along the southern property line of the proposed lot. Fire was concerned when we met with them at our comments -- agency comments meeting that right now you have the Goodwill that's located right here at this end -- the east side of the building and they have quite a bit of storage here along the east side and south property boundary here. And sometimes they get quite a bit of congestion in there and fire had a concern that if staff was to add additional -- have that requirement of additional landscape, then, that could deter fire from getting behind the building and access it for fire and possibly servicing the rear of the building. The applicant submitted conceptual building elevations and a master site plan. Lot 1 is an existing commercial development and Lot 3 is under construction for amulti-tenant shell. Lot 2 will probably develop in a similar fashion. This is what they submitted for their commercial portion. So, this is typically what we might see -- staff might see on Lot 2. And, then, on Lot 4 they are proposing possibly amulti-family use. And I just want to let the applicant know that in the future we can condition it in the staff report that any future multi-residential in the commercial zoning district requires Conditional Use Permit. Also, staff did receive comments from the applicant regarding several conditions of approval with the staff report. Did include those in your packet tonight. First condition was 1.2.2 regarding that -- go back to the landscape plan here. Regarding that 25 foot landscape buffer. They were asking that that portion of it be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 37 of 46 the portion on Lot 4 be installed when this -- when they come in with this lot to be developed and staff is -- agrees with that or is complacent with that. We don't have any issues with that I should say. The other condition was 1.24. We had a condition in the staff report that the irrigation district would maintain all the pressurized irrigation systems and as I reviewed the final plat here and talked with the applicant, it's actual going to be part of the business owners association to maintain that pressurized irrigation system. So, that will change as part of that condition as well. Instead of it stating Settler's Irrigation Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, it's going to be the business owners association to maintain that. The final condition was 1.2.13 and that primarily dealt with the access agreement. The applicant was requesting that they construct that once this property came in for redevelopment, was annexed into the city, because right now it's currently in the county. And staff is recommending that Planning Commission uphold our condition that we have in there stating that they have to construct it with the final plat approval of this application -- or final plat, I assume. So, staff is recommending approval of the requested preliminary/final plat as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. This concludes my presentation and I'd stand for any questions Commission may have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman. On the bottom of your report it says staff recommends condition of approval 1.2.13 requiring construction of the driveway stub to the property and have cross-access to the property. Is that to the west of that property line or -- because on the east side is the wrecking yard, I guess, or -- so what are you proposing to have cross-access to? Rohm: The wrecking yard property. O'Brien: Just to that property or -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman -- Newton-Huckabay: When they redevelop in the future they will likely lose their access on Fairview. O'Brien: Oh. And the other thing is if -- if I understand you correctly, that you're requesting that the buffer behind the property for access for fire be -- I guess waive the requirement fora 25 foot buffer down to five or ten foot you said? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, basically, what we have done is rather than conditioning this 25 foot buffer to the rear for Lot 1, we have done it for Lot 4. O'Brien: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 38 of 46 Parsons: And let me go to another slide here. The preliminary plat here -- this shows how much of this Lot 4 is actually encumbered by that easement. So, the way I interpret it is say if she only had -- if this lot -- the applicant came in, this lot only had 20 foot in the easement, then, they could do a five foot landscape buffer there, that's a minimum. If it was 15 foot of that easement was into that lot, then, they would have to do a ten foot wide landscape. But they have to have a total of 25. Is that correct? That's the way I -- that's the way it's set up. But the minimum is five feet according to code. O'Brien: Thank you. Parsons: Yeah. O'Brien: I have nothing further. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Suggs: Good evening. My name is Jane Suggs and I live at 200 Louisa Street in Boise. And I'm here representing Carmen, LLC, and Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision. And we are going to try to set a land speed record, so -- but I will try and make it really clear, because I think the staffs done a great job. We are not asking for a change of zoning and this did go through in 2002 and that's a way to make extra money when you're a consultant is just do the same project over again, so -- not that we meant to. There were some conditions of approval from the old there that still exist about doing some additional landscaping, even in front of Intermountain -- well, what was the Intermountain Outdoor Sports, now the Stonehenge Shopping Center. The last applicant didn't want to do those things and they just let the final plat lapse. They didn't record it in time. So, there is a certain amount of time we have and they didn't, they sold the property, but the new owners want to do a subdivision, so we want to do that, too. I think Bill did a good job. Let's just go ahead and get the clarification on 1.2.4, so if your recommendation of approval might include a clarification that the property owners association will maintain the irrigation system. That actually comes from a well on site. Let's see if I can add anything else to what the staff talks about about the 25 foot landscape buffer that's along Lot 4. We appreciate the staff understanding that the existing building and the location of the drain makes any kind of landscaping very difficult behind the existing building and we appreciate keeping that open for not only fire protection, but safety also, and deliveries. I have made a copy of just that section of the preliminary plat that kind of shows that part of Lot 4. So, I'm going to give this to you. There is six of those. And I did that just so you don't have to pull out that big set of plans, but you're welcome to do that if you'd like to. And so this is a one inch equals 40 scale, which is just the same as the plan. And what you will see is that the property boundary along the south of Lot 4, that darker line there that is kind of dashed, that's in the bottom of that drain and so by the time you get to the top of the bank that's about 20 to 25 feet. So, what we are asking for is that one condition, 1.2.2, would be revised Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 39 of 46 also. So, we could show that as a landscape buffer, but we can't practically landscape within the canal, because the canal company won't let us put plantings in there, because it's a water conveyance. What we do agree is that we think that a five foot of landscape minimally along the top of the bank is the appropriate way to go and your code allows for that. And that's what Bill was talking about is allowing five feet minimally along there. If for some reason we find out that the canal bank is only 15 feet from the edge, we will put in ten feet, but at least there will be five feet of landscaping on the top of the bank. Now, we haven't worked that out with the irrigation district and we haven't put that -- worked that out completely with the staff. The staff is asking for us to resubmit a landscape plan, so we will show in on that. The other thing we are asking for is that to be actually installed when Lot 4 is developed. We don't have a plan right now. We did show amulti-family building. We are not sure what we are going to put there. It's kind of a tight site. You can look at the plat and see that's kind of small with all the easements on it and we would like to be able to put that in at the time that lot is developed, not now, because it will just get destroyed whenever somebody comes and builds a building there. And I think the staff concurs with that. So, there would be a little bit of a conditional change to condition 1.2.2 to make sure there is at least five feet of landscaping along the top of the bank and that we would put that in at the time Lot 4 was developed. I do want to talk to you about the idea of putting in the cross-access to the lot to the east. We don't disagree, we think that's a good idea when that lot develops. We want to put a note on the plat or record some sort of instrument that says that we agree to that, but I think a note on the plat would suffice saying there would be a cross-access actually built, but where do we build it? Do we tear out landscaping that exists now? Now, I didn't make a lot of copies of this, but this is an aerial photograph. I'll let you all pass that around and, then, I will make sure this -- and this might not be the most recent aerial, but there is a planting area, there is some curb -- I would say there is a 90 percent chance if you put a driveway stub to the fence, because it's not going to go into the lot fence. There is a fence there. So, it's a stub to nowhere -- that when they redevelop that we are going to be stubbed into the wrong place. It could be even stubbed into the side of their building, because, likely, if that's developed on that corner, they are going to use the new urbanism techniques to put the building up closer to the streets, just like we are going to do on lot number two, if that develops. It's not going to have parking up in the front like these old buildings do, like the existing building. So, what we are really asking is for us to agree that that needs to happen, but not build it right now, because it's just going to be building it and having to tear it out and put it in again someplace it later and we need to cooperate on where that goes. It doesn't make sense to remove landscaping, put in pavement to nowhere, and have to tear it out. I think the staff is concerned about catching it. Certainly when that lot to the east does develop, it will be required to do cross-access to us and what you really need to know is there is a provision on this property, whoever owns it -- and that's on the plat -- that that would be required of them. And so that would be something that could be worked out. I don't think it will get lost in the process at all and it seems crazy to have to go out there and build a driveway to nowhere just to make sure it doesn't get lost. think -- I think that, you know, probably will lose access to Fairview and so it will be Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 40 of 46 important to have some good access, appropriately sized. So, we are asking for that condition to actually be changed, so that we do record on the plat as requested, but we actually build that when the lot to the east redevelops. So, do you want me to point at something? Rohm: Well, from my perspective it seems appropriate that it would just be right here. This is an existing parking lot, is it not? Suggs: It is. Rohm: And -- Suggs: It seems appropriate for you, but if that goes into a parking area of theirs or into the back of a building, it doesn't seem appropriate. Again, their -- Rohm: Well, then, at such time that they redevelop, they can make application to make adjustments at that time. You think that would work? Suggs: I think it would be real hard for you to tell somebody on the east to change this guy's property, like go in and do curb and gutter and those types of things, because I think what we'd have to do is we are having to remove existing curb and gutter and landscaping to put in, again, this driveway to nowhere, which, you know, we could choose a place, but it just doesn't seem right to, then, tell somebody else they have to build according to a driveway stub -- it would be different if it was a street stub, but not a driveway stub. And, then, if they wanted to do something different and you approved and you liked their design, to go and tell them, oh, and by the way, you have got to go work on somebody else's property. I don't think you can do that, actually. So, it makes sense for us to do it as a note on the plat. That's just my hope is that you would reconsider that condition, so we wouldn't end up taking out landscaping again, putting in pavement, knowing that likely it would be moved. Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Suggs: And so there would be -- and we agree with all the other conditions. We just have those three -- well, one's just a clarification. One that the staff agrees to about landscaping on Lot 4. And, then, this other one. So, if you could make those changes to the conditions, we would appreciate your approval. Thank you. Rohm: I'm sure you understand that the reason that they wanted the cross-access installed at this time is because that lot is ostensibly already developed. There is -- there is no redevelopment planned for Lot 1 and if -- if we just make a note on there that, yeah, well, we will be in compliance, that I don't know what the driving force to -- to keep you in compliance after the fact, because that lot's fully developed. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 41 of 46 Suggs: A note on the plat that would say that cross-access must be provided when the lot to the east redevelops or some other document that allows that to occur. I mean if someone comes in to -- okay. If we -- I'm just kind of thinking through this, because I'm -- if we put the driveway in and the lot to the east develops, what makes it -- what gives you the power if Lot 1 is already developed, to make that -- move that. Rohm: I don't disagree with your logic, but just from our -- from our perspective that lot is -- your Lot 1 is already fully developed and if, in fact, we don't at this juncture tonight create a vehicle to make that a requirement that across-access be installed, then, I'm not sure how we are going to get it down the road, other than your suggestion that we just make a note on the plat. Let me ask staff if there is a way that that can be incorporated into the final plat. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the problem I see with that is it costs -- and it's not a huge amount of money, but there is going to be some cost associated with constructing that driveway stub on the subject property. So, where is that money coming from, then, and how do we -- it's almost similar to the last one, we don't want to track this thing and be holding a thousand dollars or whatever it takes to build a 20 foot wide by ten or 15 foot long driveway. But as the chair mentioned, there is no way to -- to come back Lot 1 and say, hey, now it's time, pave the driveway now. That's the main concern that we have with putting this off is there is no provision for that or trust or surety or whatever for the cost of actually putting it on the ground. Suggs: And I would say that if we do that, just to follow that logic, we put a driveway here and we stub it through and the development plan comes in and they put theirs here and theirs goes into -- or they put it here, they put it someplace that doesn't make sense and ours goes into the back of their building -- I mean there is not -- if that's the case, I guess I'm concerned about trying to create a useless driveway, when, in fact, we could create it in the future easily with a condition of approval. I mean that's what you're wanting is something that encumbers the site in the future; right? So, I think we can record a document or something on the plat that allows that to happen. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, if I may, since I helped kind of Bill craft this condition somewhat. And the idea -- and what would be ideal for us is to know what's ideal for you to put a driveway and just best guess, assuming -- I mean you're right, we don't know where the building is going to lay on that lot. Ideal situation is there is a separate document that's recorded under an instrument number that's cross-referenced on your plat. Don't create it with the plat, but cross-reference this instrument number and say cross-access has been provided. Now, you can detail that and say it's 20 foot wide and it's located in this spot. If, in fact, that's not ideal for that property owner, they can come here and say, hey, you know what, appreciate you giving me a driveway, but that's not where I want it, can we modify that instrument number and it's that simple and you re-record a new document. He pays to reconstruct that driveway where ever it's ideal if you concur. If not, we require them to extend it where it's ideal for you. And that's why I don`t see that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 42 of 46 it's putting you out any. You could put what works for you in line with your second drive aisle here if that's the case and just -- just stub it over. And, you're right, it's a driveway to nowhere now, but we want potential property owners to see that, hey, the city requires this guy to stub over, I'm going to be required to tie in with their driveway and use the driveway out to Fairview Avenue. Suggs: And I don't disagree with anything the staff is saying, other than if you're going to go to the trouble of having an instrument number and make it so that the guy can build it where ever it makes sense for him, why do it now and have to do it later. Just have the instrument number on the plat now recorded that allows that to be something that happens whenever the property is redeveloped. I mean there is no reason to build it now and, then, have the instrument number that allows you to build it later. So, I'm -- but, you know, I'm -- Hood: So, again, and I'm -- Mr. Chair, if I may. The only problem with that, Jean, that see is how does it get constructed? We can't put it on this other guy to come on your property and construct that. We need it to be constructed and if we -- you can figure -- if you can propose some way that there is some money set aside somehow that gives the city assurance that can be constructed, yeah, let's do it only once. That's ideal for me, too. I don't want to see it ripped out. But I don't know of any way where it's not just a tracking nightmare to figure out -- maybe it's ten years for now and there is -- you know, back in 2007 they bid this job at a thousand bucks and construction costs in 2017 are five times that, that's the problem that I see. I agree with you in theory, it's just that's where it doesn't work for us. Suggs: I guess I was just following up with your logic that says if you can create an instrument number that, then, allows the other developer of the east lot to come onto your property rebuild it at a location that's best for him, if we can do that through instrument number for something that happens later, we can certainly do it now. But, you know, Idon't -- we don't want to argue about it all night, so if it's -- Rohm: We certainly don't. Suggs: No. I just feel like that it's just an unnecessary encumbrance and cost to the property that certainly can be handled a better way and I'm sure we can figure out a way to do it without having to build something there that's going to have to be moved and you just lose that opportunity to have that connection that makes sense, so -- Rohm: And I'm not sure that it's -- it's assurance that it would have to be moved. If you build it, then, it's possible that the adjacent property would have their parking right along with yours. It just appears as if that's the way it would look as a redeveloped parcel as well, but I don't know that. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 43 of 46 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, we don't have a long history of people moving cross- accessesthat exist now. Rohm: We don't. Right. Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: You take it as a bonus, I have got across-access to the property I just bought and that saves me however much I would have had to spend before and -- Rohm: To acquire it. Newton-Huckabay: -- skip on down the road and build their -- their building, so -- Suggs: I would never deny them the opportunity to build their -- to build it where they want it and we would build it where it -- to tie in, because it would be beneficial to this property, too. I mean probably beneficial -- we would be able to get over to the Locust Grove Road without going out on Fairview. So, that's what seems to be so powerful for us is that it's in our best interest, too, just not to do it now, so -- Rohm: Yeah. Thank you. Suggs: Thanks. Rohm: There is nobody else in the audience to speak to this application, so I don't believe there would be any additional public testimony. So, at this time -- O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I move to close Public Hearing number -- can't find that number. PFP 07-003. Is that the one? Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PFP 07-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Well, carrying on a little bit about the cross-access, we are going to be the ones that are going to be approving the cross-access to any development next door anyway. I think it's -- the burden is going to be on the developer of that property to be in line. I don't think we are going to allow them to build a cross in line with the existing parking structure there, I think we are going to follow an access road and I don't think we are going to have any problem making sure that that happens. So, I don't think Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 44 of 46 there is an issue. Everything else I think pretty much agrees with the staff on their recommendations. End of statement. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to leave the parking access alone for a minute for cross- access. The -- we were all in agreement that the Lot 4 could develop the landscaping when that lot developed and so I have no problem with that. And I had no problem with the minimum five foot there along the canal for that. When I look at this piece of property -- and I have always thought this -- if I could have it my way, so to speak, I would start here and end there with cross-access. I'd just knock the whole thing out and -- so you could develop continuity along that very large corner. So, I'm not really sure what -- what the right answer is. I don't want to put a burden on the city staff to track that and do feel confident that any cross-access stub that would be created would be likely utilized by -- as it is with most other developments. So, I'm going to have to defer to the other Commissioners at this point on how strongly they feel on that cross-access issue. End of statement. End my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm up, uh? I actually have no qualms on any of the other two issues either. As far as cross-access I, myself -- I don't know, because of the existing building on Lot 1 there, to me, basically, the drive aisle there, you know, the east-west right there, I would anticipate would be the perfect spot for across-access and call it good and, then, when the developer does something next door, then, they have to somewhat design around it to make that work for them and at that point, you know, I don't see any way of bringing cross-access any nearer to the existing building simply just -- well, we talked about earlier -- talked earlier is the fire department and access for them and everything else, we need to keep the area around that open for them. I don't know what the developer per would do, you know, on his property, but the long and short of it -- I guess I'm getting long winded about this issue -- is I would like to see the cross-access agreement be required now. Rohm: As do I. End of my comments. Could I get a motion to move this forward, please? Newton-Huckabay: Be my guest. Moe: I don't really under -- you know, how to state those others, so you go right ahead. Rohm: Well, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is on a roll tonight. Newton-Huckabay: So, condition 1.2.4, we are just clarifying that the property owners will maintain the irrigation on the pressurized irrigation system. Condition 1.2.2, staff is Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 45 of 46 supportive of that request and they will just reference the applicant's comments back in your comment, Bill, and that should cover that. 1.2.13, we will stand as stated in the staff report. Moe: If that's how you make your motion. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of the file number PFP 07-003, as presented during the hearing on September 6 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: Condition 1.2.4 will be clarified to read that the property owners will own and maintain the on-site pressurized irrigation system, not the irrigation districts. Condition 1.2.2. Staff is supportive of the applicant's response to that condition to allow a minimum of five foot buffer along the -- along the canal easement and that the plantings will be installed at the time Lot 4 is developed. And staffs statement was UDC 11-3B-7- C1 B allows a minimum of a five foot buffer width with the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions. Am I clear enough on that one? End of motion. Moe: Second. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PFP 07-003 to include all staff comments, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Moved and -- Newton-Huckabay: Second. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: -- seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 46 of 46 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: MICHAEL E. HM -CHAIRMAN ATTESTE ~~~ DATE APPROVED \`1'~.. . "~,~ I ~L1n n n N _'1_ ~~ o~~.TF~ ~ C~ WILLIAM G. BERG Jk., C TY C~~f~,l~, U ~~ ;~ Q ~Q' . ,, .~ ,, ~ ~l~1VTY ,