Loading...
2008 01-03Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina January 3, 2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 3, 2008, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Steve Siddoway and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Members Absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call 0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the first of 24 regular scheduled meetings of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the Clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Next item on the agenda would be adoption of the agenda and we do have one change tonight to make and that would be that Item No. 8, which is CUP 07-022, request for a conditional permit for the Meridian Eye Care Center, they have requested that they be continued to the next meeting, which would be on the 17th. When we get to that item in the agenda we will make that motion to continue it. So, that will not be heard tonight. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 6, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. B. Approve Minutes of December 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Moe: Next item on the agenda would be the Consent Agenda and that includes the meeting minutes of December 6th and December 20th, 2007. Does anyone on the Commission have any comments or changes? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 2 of 59 Rohm: No, sir. Siddoway: None. Moe: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES.. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Before we get into the first Public Hearing tonight I have got a couple other things I'd like to just make note of. Number one, this would be my first meeting of the year as the new chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Rohm for two years of great service as the chairman of this Commission and look forward to seeing you sit there for many -- many years to come. Rohm: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.. Moe: And., then, again, on the next note, we also lose a Commissioner tonight, although I think the city is gaining a valuable employee and that would be Mr. Siddoway is leaving to become the park and recs director for the City of Meridian and he will be a definite asset to this city, there is no doubt about it. And it's been fun working with you on this Commission as well. Siddoway: Thank you. Canning: Regaining a valuable employee. Moe: Pardon me? Canning: Regaining a valuable employee. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2007: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G Zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall -Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: Meridian Planning 8~ zoning January 3, 2008 Page 3 of 59 Moe: Good point. That is correct. He has spent lots of time with the city. You're correct. Okay. That's all I had to say there, so, then., we will go ahead and open the continued Public Hearing on CUP 07-020 in regards to the Starbucks drive-thru and hear the staff report. But, excuse me, before we do that -- I knew there was something else I needed to talk about. If you haven't been to these meetings before, I want to kind of give you just a real quick low down of how this works. I will open a Public Hearing. The staff will give comment on the project, after which the applicant will come up and they will give their comments and opinions of the project and, basically, try and make sure the Commission has all the information necessary to make a sound decision, at which time after -- and they have ten minutes to make that presentation, after which, then, if you have signed up in the back we will take them one at a time and the Public Hearing, then,. would go on with everyone that has signed up. After which, if there are others that still would like to speak, all you basically need to do is raise your hand and you will have your -- your say. When you do have your time at the microphone, that is three minutes and we do have a little box up here that will light up and signal when you guys have used your three minutes and we would like to keep as close to three minutes as possible. I don't know that we have such a great crowd tonight that we have a lot of people on any one hearing, but if you have a spokesperson that you would like to make sure has more time to speak than three minutes and you, basically, want to give up your time for that person, you just need to let us know that you are having someone speak for you and they will get that extra time. So, having said that, now I will go to staff to give us the report. Thank you. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of an existing residence in a residential district. The site is shown here on the map on the overhead.. The property is generally located off the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Franklin Road on the future Lot 3, Block 1, of the proposed Gardner- Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1. North of the site across Franklin Road is RC Willey's, zoned C-G. To the west across Eagle Road an office complex, Parkway Plaza, zoned L-O. To the southwest across Eagle Road are existing residences that are within 300 feet of the proposed drive-thru, zoned R-2 in Ada County. To the south is vacant property zoned C-G and St. Luke's Medical Center Hospital, zoned L-O. And to the east is a retirement community, Meadow Lake Village, zoned L-O. This is an aerial view of the site and the surrounding area. The applicant is proposing to construct a new Starbucks restaurant with adrive-thru window on this site. The property consists of .3 of an acre and is currently zoned C-G. The Unified Development Code requires Conditional Use Permit approval for all proposed drive-thru facilities within 300 feet of an existing residence and/or residential district. The site is within 300 feet of an existing residence in a residential district. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing the location of the proposed building, parking., and drive-thru on this site. There are several specific use standards for drive-thru facilities listed in the UDC, which the applicant has demonstrated compliance. Further, because this site is located adjacent to an entryway corridor, Eagle Road., compliance with design standards is required. The applicant has Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 4 of 59 requested design review approval concurrently with the CUP application, although the Commission is not required to make an action on that portion of the application. Staff has reviewed the site plan and elevations in compliance with design standards and included appropriate conditions of approval in Exhibit B of the staff report. Access to the site is proposed from internal driveways that connect to one right-in, right-out, left-in access point on Franklin Road via South Brooklyn Avenue and one right-in, right-out access point on Eagle Road via East Louise Drive. The access point to Eagle Road, State Highway 55, was approved previously with variance 07-006. The access to Franklin Road was approved with preliminary plat 07-007. Because this lot is the first to develop within the subdivision, internal streets and driveways to this site have not yet been constructed. Staff has included a condition of approval that the applicant either construct two driveways on this site, one from Eagle and one from Franklin or one driveway to this site from Eagle or Franklin and construct temporary construction fencing around the site and driveway to the site to prevent vehicles from driving across the construction site where there are no paved roads. A landscape plan was submitted with this application that complies with the landscaping requirements of the Unified Development Code for parking lots. The street buffer landscaping along Eagle Road was previously reviewed and approved with the final plat for the subdivision. Building elevations were also submitted with this application. The building is proposed to be primarily constructed of minimum of three different colors of EFIS material and a stone veneer and have modulations in the facade, roof line recesses, and projections. The roof design incorporates varying parapets heights and cornices. This is a color drawing of the building. Staff would like to make a recommendation to the Commission that two conditions of approval in Exhibit B be modified as follows: The first is condition 1.2. It reads a do not enter sign shall be installed on the north. Staff would like to strike that and put east end of the planter island on the east -- strike east and insert north side of the drive-thru lane on the west -- strike west and insert south side of the building for firaffic exits. The second one is condition 1.3 that requires a caution pedestrian crossing sign to be installed,. Strike at the terminus of the north end of the driveway of the drive- thru. And, then., states on the west side of the building where traffic -- should be enters the drive-thru instead of exits. These requested modifications are included in the Commission intro sheets. staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Any questions? Siddoway: One for clarification, Sonya.. If I -- and I may have heard incorrectly, but I thought you said in the change to 1.2 to strike east and put north, but in the written version I'm looking at it says strike north and put east. I just wanted to make sure that it was strike north and put east. Wafters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, the latter is correct. Strike north and insert east. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 5 of 59 Siddoway: Okay. Thanks. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Hall: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Pamela Hall, Timberline Surveying, 847 Park Center Way, Suite 3, Nampa. Moe: Thank you. Hall: We are in agreement with the staff report and don't have anything to add. Moe: Do you think it will all go this way tonight? Hall: It would be nice, wouldn't it. Be nice if all of the buildings on this site will go this way. Moe: Any questions of staff -- of the -- Rohm: Applicant. Moe: The applicant. Yes. O'Brien: I have none.. Rohm: I don't have any. Siddoway: I have none. Hall: Okay. Moe: Thank you. Hall: Thanks. Moe.: There is no one that has signed up to speak. If there is anyone in the audience that would like to, please, come forward.. There are none. Any other discussion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a straight forward application and appears they have met all the conditions of the staff report and I don't see any reason why we can't just move this forward.. At this time I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-020. Siddoway: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 6 of 59 Moe: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-020. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, could I ask staff just a clarification question? Moe: You may. Siddoway: The -- as I read through the staff report it said that the street buffer -- believe it was along Eagle Road, recently received a variance, so that it can be located all in ITD right of way; is that true? Wafters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, that is correct. Siddoway: Okay. Wafters: The variance was approved. Siddoway: And the lot that this -- this project is sitting on is not yet recorded, it's still a proposed final plat, but they still -- they have the ability to develop as -- because it's an existing undeveloped lot; is that correct? Wafters.: That is correct. Siddoway: That's all I needed for clarification. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Siddoway: Go ahead. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Rohm: I'd like to move that we approve CUP 07-020 to include the staff report with the following modifications. On 1.2, change north to east in two locations and -- I'll just read it. In 1.2, A, do not enter sign shall be installed in the east end of the planter inside of the north side of the drive-thru lane on the south side of the building where traffic exists. This provision should help prevent cars from entering the drive-thru from the wrong direction. Please include signage on a revised site plan. The second revision would be 1.3 and that's a caution pedestrian crossing sign shall be installed on the west side of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 7 of 59 the building where traffic enters the drive-thru. Please include signage on the revised site plan. And those are the two modifications to the staff report. End of motion. Siddoway: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-020, with the modifications as noted.. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRLED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2007: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 E. Lanark: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2007: CUP 07-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 E. Lanark: Moe: I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing for RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019 for the Rockin KB Saloon and get the staff report. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a rezone and Conditional Use Permit request for the Rockin KB Saloon. The property consists of 2.2 acres and is currently zoned I-L, light industrial. The second property is located at 3163 East Lanark Street on the southwest corner of North Eagle Road and Lanark Street. Note that the property boundary of the rezone and the Conditional Use Permit are different. The property for the CUP is only the southern portion of the property, as shown in this map here. The rezone request is for that entire property. The CUP covers the southern building and the portion of the building -- the adjacent building that is proposed as part of this application. The property is bordered on the north by vacant land, zoned C-G. To the east by Eagle Road and commercial property, RC Willey's, zoned C-G. To the south by vacant land, zoned I-L. And to the west by. industrial uses, zoned I-L. The property is currently developed as two existing structures. This aerial only depicts the structure to the north. A structure has been built on the southern property here since this aerial was taken. The applicant is requesting that this property be rezoned from I-L, light industrial, to the C-G, general retail and service commercial zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is industrial. The land use categories and locations depicted on the map are conceptual. For this reason the planning director has determined that the proposed C-G zoning district is generally consistent with the Comp Plan because of the property's proximity to Eagle Road and adjacent commercial uses and zoning to the north and east. Further, staff believes that commercial uses are more appropriate than industrial uses adjacent to transportation corridors, such as Eagle Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 8 of 59 Road, for esthetic reasons. For this reason an amendment to the future land use map is not requested, nor is it considered necessary by the planning director for the rezone request to the C-G zoning district. However, the Commission and Council should also determine if the applicant's request is appropriate and in the best interest of the city. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property for the operation of the 8,042 square foot drinking establishment. Drinking establishments are a prohibited use in the current -L zoning district. In the proposed C-G zoning district drinking establishments require conditional use approval. The applicant is requesting CUP approval for a drinking establishment concurrently with the rezone request. The applicant has submitted a site landscape plan for this site as shown on the overhead. A 35 foot wide buffer is required adjacent to Eagle Road and a ten foot wide buffer is required adjacent to Lanark Street. Because the Idaho Transportation Department submitted a letter stating that they do not encourage landscaping within the right of way for maintenance reasons and because of the topography of the land adjacent to Eagle Road, staff is not requiring the applicant to install landscaping within the buffer adjacent to Eagle Road.. However, the entire buffer width is still required for setback purposes. Additional parking lot and street buffer landscaping along Lanark Street is required to comply with current UDC standards. A sidewalk is also required to be installed along Lanark Street. Because this site is located adjacent to an entryway corridor, Eagle Road, the applicant is required to comply with the design review standards and apply for design review approval with the certificate of zoning compliance application for the new use of this site. Access to this site is provided from North Eagle Road via Lanark Street. No new access points or streets are proposed or approved with this application. Per the Unified Development Code, only 16 off-street parking spaces are required to be provided on this site. Sixty- nine spaces are provided, including shared parking with the adjacent site on which the office storage and restrooms associated with the saloon are located. The seating capacity for this use, as stated in the application, is 243. Staff is supportive of the proposed parking., as it meets UDC standards. However, is concerned that it will be adequate for the proposed use. A floor plan was submitted with this application that shows the main building that is proposed to house the bar, seating, mechanical bull riding area, dance floor and an area for special events, such as live music and other entertainment. That's in this portion right here. Secondary area, which is over here in the adjacent building, is proposed to house the restrooms, storage, and offices associated with the bar. The area between the two buildings is proposed to be partially covered with a canopy. An area in the front of the building is proposed to be separated from the parking lot by a stucco fence to provide outside seating during fair weather. That's out here. Elevations were submitted of the existing building on the site as shown. Letters of testimony have been received on this application from Brad Miller of Van Auker Properties, dated December 19th., 2007, and January 3rd., 2008. Today. Staff recommends approval of the subject application with the conditions stated in the Exhibit B, based on the findings in Exhibit B of the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Any questions of staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 9 of 59 O'Brien: Not at this time. Siddoway: Not at this time. Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Please, state your name and address for the record. McKeegan: Thank you. My name is Patrick McKeegan. I'm the architect representing the owner and tenant in this matter before you and what I would like to do is -- Moe.: Your address, please.. McKeegan: Oh. 280 North Latah Street, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. 83706. Moe: Thank you. McKeegan: Thank you. What I would like to do is pass out some exhibits. I will be addressing these in my presentation and also what I would like to do is recognize that we have ten minutes. The proposed client tenant is here and he'd like to take a portion of my time to speak, so I will speak and, then, if you have any questions I'll answer those and I want to give him an opportunity to talk more about the business he's putting in, the business practices. I'm going to address the more nuts and bolts issues if that's appropriate. Moe: If we can do that in ten minutes, we are in great shape. McKeegan: Okay. I'm in good shape. I show -- here we go. Concerning the rezone, as indicated by staff, the property to the north is -- and north and east is already zoned commercial and compatible with this and the corridor -- the C-G zone is consistent with the rest of Eagle corridor and acts as transition to industrial and residential-type uses. The rental history of this property indicates that there is limited interest in it as an industrial property, but high interest as a retail commercial if a rezone is successful and that's what we have had. Mr. Sigmont -- in 2005 we came before the Commission under CZC 05-099 with the site plan you have before you and got permission to construct the building, which was constructed in 2005, 2006. Since that time the building has been vacant. We have been trying to find industrial users that would be interested in kind of a flex sort of a space, but haven't had any success. So, when we asked our leasing agent to start looking at retail type uses, we had a great interest in the -- Mr. Kelly came forward to put his proposed entertainment saloon in the -- in this building. Another thing is if we -- if the property is properly -- is rezoned to the C-G zone, it will reduce the future need for CU applications on this property if we do get uses that are compatible in the industrial zone, but still require conditional use. We are just trying to ease the burden on all of us to not have to spend a lot of time here every Meridian Planning & zoning January 3, 2008 Page TO of 59 evening. Regarding landscaping issues on the property, most of the area to the west of our landscape strip on the west side -- from the east side, excuse me, of our property is ITD right of way and is on a severe slope. The slope goes from about four feet above grade at Lanark to approximately 14 to 18 feet above -- above our grade at our southern property line and is a very -- and the slope varies from probably zero to, you know, 20 to 30 degrees. So, when we went through the original CZ in 19 -- or 2005, one of the considerations was the fact that it was sloped and be very difficult to landscape that 35 foot buffer. So, we agreed to put in an extensive ten to 12 foot buffer. But, then, an increase in landscaping in the remainder of the -- of the parking lot, which is what we have done. In the conditions of approval in front of you the city is requesting more landscaping and we have no problem with those conditions of -- conditions of approval. And as I mentioned, the site plan you have in front of you was -- was approved as part of that zoning application and the design review application at that time. As far as compatibility, the C-G zone allows drinking establishments as a conditional use. The first item in your exhibit is locations of other drinking establishments along Eagle Road within a one mile and a two mile distance from our property. You can see that there is four establishments within a mile, two of those are within a half mile of our property or less than a half mile from our property. As Mr. Kelly will indicate, the emphasis on his facility is not on the drinking, but on the entertainment. More than a third of the floor area of the building, if you look at the floor plans in the -- on the next page., more than a third of the area is dedicated for the dance floor, a mechanical bull riding area, an open event area, and other -- and other uses.. The allowable seating we could put in here according to building and fire codes is 360. We are only providing -- I have a typo there. We are only providing 243 under our -- under our application. So, we are not trying to get as many people in there to drink as possible. Mr. Kelly is going to go into detail about his proposed use for it. And, like I said., the -- the zoning ordinance requires that the -- that compatibility with the general neighborhood in the area -- and I think we are showing that the general area does -- has -- does support drinking establishments and that's what we are going to be doing also. It's a good mixed use project for the area, because the hours of operation, from the 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., are generally different than the other businesses, which will reduce the parking and traffic and conflicts within. the -- within the property. This will also -- it's not anymore intense than other anticipated allowed uses in the C-G zone. For example, restaurants, mercantile, fitness centers, health care facilities, and private education facilities would be allowed in the use in the zone and would have the same occupant load as -- as our use, but some of those, quite frankly, would be doing business during the day, which would increase the traffic on the street. The parking was approved as part of that original C-G. We put as many spaces as we could on the site. It way exceeds the city's ordinance and we think is going to be adequate for the use that we are proposing. Within the zoning ordinance there is a requirement -- an area where the Commission can take some leeway when reviewing parking and if they feel that the on-site parking may not be adequate, they are allowed to look -- look at a number of things, two of which are on-street parking that may be used for -- used by the facility and also other parking areas within a thousand square feet -- within a thousand feet of this site. In this case, in addition to the 69 spaces on Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 11 of 59 site, if you go up the street on both sides of Lanark, excluding driveways and areas where you normally cannot park, if you go up a distance of about 260, 270 feet, there is an additional 29 off-street spaces available. If you go even out farther, then, you can get -- there is -- there is probably another 20 or 30 spaces. So, easily within the thousand foot area we could get enough parking to provide parking at a reasonable ratio of one car for every two seats in the restaurant, which I know it's not agood -- that other jurisdictions that I work in, that is the normal standard you see for restaurants and these types of establishments. As far as the street, our use will actually -- this proposed use will actually reduce traffic during the daytime on Lanark Street, because, as stated., the place doesn't open until 5:00 o'clock. So, in relationship to what could possibly go there, it's actually going to be reducing the conflicts on Lanark Street and that and as we stated in the application, most of the industrial uses close down. There may be a few where there are employees working later, they have a few people coming back late, but for the most part we are going to be active when the rest of the neighborhood is -- is slowed down. ACHD has said that there is no impact or increase because of our use and it appears like -- if you look at the last document, there was some comments in one of the letters of protest that that street is a dead end street, but if you look at the -- at the last exhibit in my -- in my -- that I handed out, it appears that the design from previous applications, that South Olson Street is going to be extended to Franklin Road. In fact, at this point it's used as an illegal -- alegal-illegal drive to Franklin Street across that property. I was out there this evening and while I was there I observed two trucks that actually went up that street and turned onto Franklin Road., so -- and, then, also it appears like Lanark Street is intended to connect with Lanark Street to the west, with a possible connection out to the -- out to Franklin Road at that point. So, at some point in time we can anticipate that as the properties around this develop, the dead end street, I'm sure the fire department will want that to be eliminated, so that -- and these connections made as part of the planning process. And, again, what, I'd like to do now is just stand if you have any questions or you can wait until after Mr. Kelly has spoke and give him a chance to speak. I would like to address one item. In specific condition item of approval -- item 1.2..12, which requires the ten foot multi-use pathway, what would like to do is have some leeway in dealing with staff on that issue. Because of the slope of the site I don't know if we will be able to accommodate that in -- within there, but I'd like to be able to -- we talked with staff and they feel that we can sit down and come up with something that meets the -- the intent of that without having to do a lot of earth work and stuff along the -- along the road. At this point I'm going to give Mr. Kelly an opportunity to speak. Moe: That would be great. Don't go too far, because we may have questions after he's done. Kelly: Mr. Chairman, Members. Kevin Kelly, 5880 West Murphy Road, Kuna. 83634. also have some extensive paperwork. I apologize for the -- in that there will be an outline of what I'd like to touch on and, then, also there is five letters there from businesses down Lanark that I talked to face to face. I thought it important to do so. I Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 12 of 59 understand there is three of them that came through the website. One of them there is one that came through the website as well. As I said, I'm Kevin Kelly. My wife and I are owners of Rockin KB Saloon, LLC. We have been in Idaho -- or I have been in Idaho since 1979, so it's not like I'm running in trying to start a business and run out with my pocket full of money. This is -- this is something that we'd like to add to the community. We think that the Meridian area needs some entertainment. They got lots of restaurants and great theater and lots of things that they can do, but they don't have entertainment for the 21 to 45 year olds. So, we thought maybe we could add something to the community and try to do this in integrity and responsible manner, is what we are looking for. Our vision for the plan is not just a drinking establishment. Everyone adds that comment to it. I know we fall under that category, but we are more of an entertainment saloon. That's why we named it a saloon, not a bar. When you say a bar everyone gets that negative connotation in their head that we are slumped over the bar and it's dark and so on and so forth, so we have -- we tried to make it -- we are trying to go back to the original saloon and make it look as such inside, that -- and focus towards entertainment. Our entertainment is music, obviously, live music one night a week and a large dance floor and our concept is that we are trying to give the rodeo fans a taste of rodeo indoors under a safer environment. If you go to any of these rodeos in Idaho you will see all kinds of fans and many of them would like to get involved in that, but it's not safe and where they don't have the opportunity. We are trying to do that as a competitive fun manner indoors. They had mentioned the bull riding. As you can see on our floor plan, as Mr. McKeegan said, we are primarily entertainment. Yes, we are selling alcohol in there, we have got to pay the power bill, but -- so do restaurants, they sell alcohol for reasons and -- but our main goal is to provide entertainment. I know that -- like I say, everyone calls us a drinking. establishment and I guess we are under the category, but we have a mechanical bull, a calf roping horse. We have a quick draw shoot. And we have barrel racing on the dance floor. So, it's -- we are shooting for a competitive thing. And there is nothing like this in Idaho that we know of. We heard of one out of state that has something like this, but we are trying to be original and entertaining.. Why Meridian? Well, Meridian is one of the fastest growing residential and commercial areas in the valley, obviously. It is a central hub and the anchor of the valley, really, and as I said early, the cities are growing towards Meridian and it's filling in everywhere and they have a lot of restaurants. They have a fine theater. Lots of shopping. A large hospital.. They just don't have entertainment and that's what we are shooting for. One of the largest groups that we are gaining -- or targeting is the 21 to 45 year olds.. There is a lot of them. I'm kind of in that category or a little bit above, I'm sorry to say, but -- Rohm: Me, too. Kelly: And you might come to watch. But we are shooting for the 21 to 45 year olds -- and, sorry, is that my light? Moe: Yeah. Go ahead and just wrap up if you could, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 13 of 59 Ke11y: Okay. Pardon me? Moe: Just wrap it up. Kelly: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. We -- I went around and talked to all the businesses in Lanark. I thought that was very important to talk face to face and not send it over the e- mail. I wanted to talk to them and find out the concerns. So, in the paperwork you saw there -- or you have there, we addressed some concerns, some -- a lot of them are just general public concerns, but we addressed quite a few of them and without beating it to death and you can review some of those, but one of them was drunk driving and that's the primary one. We, like everyone else in the community, are strongly against drunk driving and driving under the influence of alcohol and to fight that we are -- we are going to offer free refreshments and events to the designated drivers and also we are going to install a breathalyzer, which most facilities -- drinking establishments don't have, so that they can check their level of alcohol before they make that decision of -- of getting out on the road.. It's an expense that we think is a valuable investment in something like this, because we are entertainment and we don't want people going out. As you will see right there, I noted what -- the type we are going to get and you can look it up and we are not kidding about it. Underage drinking. That's another thing that people are concerned about. It's a tough thing to combat. There is lots of underage people trying to slip in with false IDs. We are going to get the top of the line scanner. The scanner that we propose to get it will scan 49 state's licenses, magnetic strips and bar codes. There is only one that it won't and that's Georgia and we want to get them all. We are trying to do the best we can to go with the law here and keep people off the streets that are drunk and underage drinkers. There is a lot of concerns that are just general concerns. I guess security is one of them. The police -- Meridian Police Department patrol Eagle Road, because there is drinking establishments, restaurants, everything else right down the street. So, it's not an additional patrol for them, they just drive down the road, they can patrol it. Security will be elevated.. We have our own security in abundance. We have interior and exterior cameras going to be installed that will interface with our point of sale systems, so they can be monitored by staff. We will have our security roving as well. Trash clean up was another concern I heard of. That's just a standard thing. We take pride in our business. That draws customers. It's a small concern, but we think it's important and we will do it. It's in our lease. Traffic. As Mr. McKeegan had addressed, and also parking were both issues and I think he dealt with them, so I won't beat that up. So, we just feel that the application for this saloon will be an addition to the entertainment value in Meridian and I hope that the negative connotation doesn't tack onto this, because we -- we truly think it would be an add to Meridian. Thank you. O'Brien.: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Yes, Mr. O'Brien, go ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 14 of 59 O'Brien: A question -- Kelly: Yes. I'm sorry. O'Brien: Yes. Do you have any other establishments outside of the state like this? Kelly: No. There is not outside -- O'Brien: This is the very first time this has been tried? Kelly: Yes. Yes. O'Brien: Thank you. Moe: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant, either -- Siddoway: I do, but I can wait until after testimony. Moe: Mr. McKeegan, I do have one question for you when you discussed the additional parking, as far as in lots down the street and whatnot. Did I understand that correctly? McKeegan: We are not -- we haven't made any arrangements with -- with any of the property owners for -- you know, using their property at that. I was just referring to the on-site -- on-street parking -- Moe: Right. McKeegan: -- which is, you know, allowed., you know. We are not trying to break any laws or anything, but I was just pointing out that Ithink -- what I we are going to have is adequate, you know. We may have a little overflow onto the street, because this is not going to be the type of use -- it will be entertainment. It's not going to be the type of use where people are going to be coming singly in automobiles. We are hoping it's going to be something where groups of two, three or four are going to come in one car and have a designated driver and, then, you know, have -- have fun, you know. Moe: I just thought that -- you had made mention that there was an area that there was, you know, 25 parking spots available and -- McKeegan: Those were on -- .Moe: Just off-site there? McKeegan: Within -- they are within 250 feet off street -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 15 of 59 Moe: Off street. McKeegan: Or on-street .parking that is available. Moe: So, on street, not in such a lot. Okay. McKeegan: Not in a lot. But we -- if it does get to be a problem we are prepared to go to the adjacent property owners and see if we can work out a -- an arrangement. And could I make just one more little brief comment? I do want to point out that I think this is a good location for this type of use, because it is not next to a residential area. There are three houses up on Franklin Road. The nearest one is almost 400 feet away. The next one is like 700, the next one is 800 feet. So, there are very few places in the City of Meridian where you can -- where you can find a place that you're not going to be next to a residential area to be bothering them. Moe: Thank you very much. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Moe.: Mr. O'Brien, go ahead. O'Brien: Yes. If I have got any concern it would be the location of the restrooms, especially regarding handicapped individuals having access to it. You say there is within the -- the building proper, but you have a corridor, basically, outside; right? With a tin roof or something like that? McKeegan: It's going to be covered, yes. O'Brien: And so I -- maybe you can explain exactly how that's all going to work, because of it being outside, from one building going to another one, it's kind of unusual to me. McKeegan: It's unusual, but within the Americans with Disabilities Act it does allow for your restrooms to be located in another building in a complex like this and they even actually allow you to go up to -- I can't remember what the distance is off, but it's pretty generous. If you think of like the Outlet Mall out at Gowen Road, I mean they have one set of -- they have two sets of restrooms at the extreme ends of that and if you're in the wrong place you have to go three or four or five hundred feet. O'Brien: Yeah.. McKeegan: But the building, basically -- the restrooms are located in the -- in the white box in the existing building in the lower left-hand -- there is a pair of doors here. You go Meridian Planning & zoning January 3, 2008 Page 16 of 59 outside, there is a covered area there, it's going to be covered, so during inclement weather we won't get rain and snow on it. And, then, inside of that is going to be the -- the offices for the business and the restrooms for men and women. And if I remember correctly, I think we have four or six stalls in each -- in each side for men and women, based on the uniform plumbing code use. O'Brien: So, that area is clear during inclement weather like blowing snow and things or -- McKeegan: Yes.. It's -- the buildings are I think ten or 12 feet apart for whatever we needed for fire purposes and the area would be -- would be clear. If for some reason the snow or ice is blowing in there, Mr. Kelly would, obviously, want to keep that clear and keep it -- you know, clear -- O'Brien: Now, that would be my -- my greatest concern with that, because of that weather like we have been having, the snow and ice, and having to have wheelchairs try to traverse that area that's facing the outside and concerned about frozen ice on the ground and things like that. That's why I question whether or not it should be inside of a building. McKeegan: Well, Ithink --Ithink it's relatively well protected and if it did become a problem, like I say, for instance, the prevailing winds were from the -- from the west and -- I mean we have the ability to come in and build something at the end of that also to -- like a -- to prevent that, you know, from happening. The only reason the buildings aren't joined is because if the -- the building fire area, we had to maintain it as two separate buildings and also we wanted to keep the -- the property so it could be divided -- it is on -- these are two -- two lots on this property and we wanted to maintain that -- that ability, so -- O'Brien: Yeah. Ithink it compounds the problem with the fact that you're down inside of a -- basically a valley and the wind predominately comes from -- from the northwest or west area and through that corridor like that and it's trapped swirling around because of the -- of your embankments, I would think that would be more of a concern. That's -- I have a concern with that. McKeegan: Well, Ihave -- the building owner Mr. Sigmont is here and he can maybe address that during open testimony or right now. There is no grade changes between the two buildings. You basically come out of one at grade, the sidewalk's at grade, and you go into the next one at grade. So, there isn't any curbs or ramping or anything like that. We kept it relatively flat across here, because we anticipated at some point in time, if the building was going to be used as a -- as a warehouse, you would be -- you would be wheeling propane powered forklifts or dollies and stuff into the back part of the building and we didn't want to have a -- any kind of a slope. We have the drainage set up to where it does drain to the -- to the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 17 of 59 O'Brien: My concern is fihat when you come up -- when the wind comes up over the surface and it hits like, basically, a horseshoe or an L shape, it swirls. I live up on a hill and it comes up the valley and swirls on top of my road and causes snow drifts, because of the elevation change and I fear that this has the same kind of issue with that in the back of the building and especially that little corridor, if it's not protected, you're going to have a problem with access to the restrooms, not just by -- you have got individuals -- people walking through that corridor on snow and ice. McKeegan: I think we could -- we can easily address that. If it gets to be a problem we could, you know, put in a temporary -- you know, something during that -- O'Brien: I just bring that up as a suggestion. You know, you're to code and everything, but (foresee apotential -- McKeegan: No. I understand your concern. Well, I don't want anybody to get hurt either. I understand your concern and we can -- if it gets to be a problem we can address it. O'Brien: All right. Thank you very much. Moe: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. McKeegan: Thank you. Moe: As far as folks signed up, Mr. Kelly's already spoke, so we don't need to worry about him. Ted Sigmont signed up to speak. Okay. From the audience he says he had no more to add to this. Again, that's all that's been signed up. If there is someone that would like to speak, please, come up. Yes, sir. Van Auker: Commissioners, staff, my name Ron Van Auker and I have a business establishment at 3405 Arthur Street, directly across from this business. Lanark Street. I'm sorry. We are developers. We are pro development. One of the good things about Meridian it has a lot of good qualities and entertainment is a good idea. This has been applied for under something that would be attune to a neighborhood bar, which would not draw large groups of people. One of our objections here is we are all aware of Rudy's, we are all aware of -- excuse me -- can't even read my own writing, but some of the larger bars where they had neighborhood establishments that, then, become entertainment centers and spill out into the neighborhood.. The road on Lanark Street where it meets Eagle Road, one of the busiest roads here in the state, has anywhere from two to four accidents a day between the railroad tracks and Eagle Road and it's all right at this intersection as they are coming up the hill. That street is an industrial street. It's 36 feet wide. There are no sidewalks and there is no property available for additional parking, other than street parking. And if you go down there tonight or in the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 18 of 59 morning, I would submit to you that whether it's right or wrong, the establishments there have loaded their equipment, loaded their big pieces of HVAC onto trucks ready for shipment in the morning and so there is really no room down there. I can guarantee you that the road will not go through. ITD will not take -- or, excuse m, ACRD will not take Lanark through to Nola. We have tried to get that done, but the school has built buildings in the way, so that won't happen. There is a stub road that was required in the development process of the existing industrial park -- pardon me -- which comes up, but it dead ends there. In the future -- we also own the ground behind this and -- excuse me -- up to Franklin and the three houses. Some day that will become probably a multi- storied office building, which creates good tax revenues for the City of Meridian and we are in a position where when the time is right, that will probably go L-O or something of that neighborhood, because of it's locations on the four corners and the high value. I would submit to you that this is an entertainment center, which is going to attract a lot of people and it will create traffic congestion, will be in a position where it will create unsafe problems and, believe me, with -- having buildings next to the Marti Gras and a lot of these places, we know the problems with the Cow Girl Bar in Kuna, it's going to put us under a lot of pressure. I think it's not a good idea to do this. I think the intent is not right based on a neighborhood bar and with that my three minutes is up. Any questions? Moe: Are there any questions? Rohm: No, sir. Van Auker: By the way, I'm a loose-knit Presbyterian or a Methodist when I want to be and I'm not anti-drinking. Love to drink. Moe: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify? Would the applicant like to come back up? Any final words? McKeegan: The only thing Iwould -- I guess what I would like to state is that in regards to the traffic issues, I was down there this evening and there are no vehicles on the -- on the street. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen and in an industrial zone it certainly, you know, may. I think the advantage is that I don't dispute the action figures, because I -- I can't -- I'm not a policeman. I don't know. But I think if you looked at when those happen, it's probably during peak hours during the day. It certainly probably doesn't happen at 10:00 o'clock at night, 11:00 o'clock at night, 12:00 o'clock at night or 1:00 o'clock at night when this bar is -- or this entertainment saloon is going to be -- is going to be in use. I think the traffic slows down in the evenings and it does give you a better opportunity. I will say that I -- for sometime -- for a little bit there was a karate studio in this building and I participated in that. It was there for about six months. And my class started at 6:.30 and didn't really have any problem getting there and the class got over at 9:00 and Icould -- at 9:00 o'clock I could pull right out onto Eagle Road and go up to the freeway and get back to -- back to Boise. So, I think that during the daytime I avoid Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page Y9 of 59 Eagle Road like -- like everybody else does. I know how busy it is and the problems they have and that. But I think during the hours of business it's not going to be a -- it's not going to be a significant -- significant problem. Moe: Okay. McKeegan: Thank you.. Moe: Any other questions? Siddoway: I do, Mr. Chairman. I'm confused about the landscape buffer. I thought during the earlier presentation that it was said that no landscaping would be added, but the full width would be required, but, then, I believe you said that -- McKeegan: Staff -- that's why I clarified that, because staff said that no landscaping -- she seemed to imply that no landscaping was within that buffer. We were not able to provide the whole 35 feet. The face of our parking is 35 feet from the property line. We have provided about ten or 12 feet of landscape into the 35 foot area, at which point it starts going up the -- you know, up the slope. It's flattened out at the bottom and that's where we put the landscaping. It didn't make sense for us to provide landscaping on a slope that you can't see when you're in your automobile, because it slopes off so much there, all you're looking down into is the parking area, so that's why we agreed to additional landscaping. We actually -- along the existing building -- the sidewalks used to be right next to the building, there was no landscaping against the building, there was no landscaping in the parking lot as part of the previous project. There is actually two projects. One was to beautify the existing building and we built the new building under both of those. We pulled the -- we pulled the sidewalks away from the building to provide landscaping against the building and we put in landscape planters in the parking area to do that. Under this -- under the conditions of approval here, the city's asking us to even put in -- to put in more landscaping, which we are willing to do -- to do that, 'but -- Siddoway: So, the landscaping that's along here is this existing landscaping? McKeegan: That's existing landscaping, but the stuff that was put in, quite frankly, is a little sparse and I think that's what the city is asking for is just to add more -- more material, so that we get the cover like is intended.. Siddoway: And where will that additional landscaping go? McKeegan: I believe they are asking for it in all the planter areas. They are asking us just to provide more materials to -- to meet the intent of the -- of the landscape ordinance, which is to provide a -- a relatively full -- I don't know if it's two-thirds or three-quarters or whatever the percentage is to provide that coverage in there and that's Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 20 of 59 -- that's not a -- that's not a problem. It's fully sprinklered, the landscape and the stair is maintained.. We are just going to provide more to bring it into -- into compliance with the standards. I believe also we may have been caught in a situation where the standards have changed since 2005 where we are -- they are making us bring this up to a -- the higher level thafs required now. Siddoway: You also mentioned condition 1.2.12 regarding the ten foot multi-use pathway. Where is that -- where is that expected to traverse across this property and where are your concerns about that slope? McKeegan: The concerns about the slope are putting a ten foot wide pathway in -- in that area is -- we would have to come in and do some extensive cut and fill -- Siddoway: In the area along Eagle Road or where -- where is the problem? McKeegan: Basically, the east edge of our landscaping is at the toe of the -- of where the slope takes up. Moe: There is a pointer right there on your -- Siddoway: On the chain. McKeegan: Basically, this line right along the east side of our landscaping is where the toe of the slope is. At this point -- from this point here to this out here -- Siddoway: I think the battery is dead. Here. McKeegan: I'm smarter than that. Batteries are dying. Okay. Oh, good. This point is approximately two to three feet above this point here. As you come up, this point right here is about 18 feet above this point right here. So, you have awarped -- a warped slope that goes -- that goes up here. In order to do a ten foot wide path here and do the fill, is going to be hard.. What we'd like to do is work with -- you know, work with the city and see if they would like us to, you know, maybe take part of this landscaping and meander a path through that and once you get actually -- once you get passed this down into this area is where the -- there is a significant -- that's where the bench falls off. And so at that point it's going to be pretty interesting to provide that. We tried to find the standards on the pathway and if you look at the IT document -- ITD documents, there is just, basically, one little sketch that shows something that has people biking and walking on it. So, there are no real clear standards on what there is there. If required., guess we will come in and do the -- do a ten foot wide piece in here, but, again, I think it's going to be -- the cost of that is going to be prohibitive and I don't know if in the future if that is going to be, you know, connecting down across Franklin Road to the -- to the existing Flying J and that -- or the Chevron stations and that. But all I'm asking for is some leeway to figure out a way to do it without -- because I know ITD will not allow us Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 21 of 59 to put it in their -- in their right of way, because they are preserving that for future -- future turn lanes and whatever they are going to do when they reconstruct the intersection down at Franklin Road. Wafters: Excuse me, Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, staffs condition was, actually, for the construction of a ten foot wide attached sidewalk to the curb along Eagle Road on top of -- at the top of the grade, not below. Just for clarification. McKeegan: Okay. Rohm: So, can you respond to that? McKeegan: If ITD is agreeable to that, I don't think that would be a problem. Right? I guess Mr. Sigmont is saying yes. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Takes care of that. Siddoway: Thank you. I have a couple follow-up questions, actually, for staff. Could you go to the rezone boundary? The rezone boundary shows that it follows the property line, but, typically, your rezone boundaries go to the center of the adjacent right of way. Will that be the case with this or are we going to leave a strip of industrial zoning surrounding this property? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, that actually goes to the center line of Lanark and the section line of Eagle Road. Siddoway: And just for the record I -- in reading through the letter from Brad Miller, he stated that with 243 seats, 121 spaces would be required, but the staff report says that based on the square footage, 16 are required. Is that the actual required amount of parking? Wafters: That's correct. One vehicle space per 500 square feet of gross floor area is required by the Unified Development Code. It no longer goes off the use, it goes off the square footage of the building and the district. Siddoway: And, then, I have some concerns about the -- the restroom being in a separate building, although it doesn't seem to be against code. But I was going to ask -- aren't they -- they are on separate lots; is that correct? The -- the saloon and the building where the restrooms are, are they on separate lots? Wafters: Yes, they are on separate lots, Commissioner Siddoway. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 22 of 59 Siddoway: And is that okay to have a building that could be sold off in the future with no restroom facilities of its own? Watters: Commissioner Siddoway, it's probably not a great idea. McKeegan: Can I address that? Siddoway: Yeah. McKeegan: When this was first proposed we checked with the fire marshal, the building department, and legal counsel and there is a -- Mr. Kelly is -- has signed a lease with Mr. -- with the property owner and it's -- it's a two way -- it's a two way legal document. Mr. Kelly agrees to pay rent and be able to use those -- those restrooms on that -- in that other building, which is on another piece of property. Mr. Sigmont agrees to make those -- make those restrooms available on the -- to Mr. Kelly during the term of the lease. The leases follow the chain of sale of the property. If somebody was to buy that property to the north, they would agree and they would accept the existing lease and agree to the terms of the lease. They could not go in and say I now own the building, you can no longer use the restrooms. That's the legal -- the legal thing that we wanted to be sure of also. Because I had the -- I had the same questions about, okay, what happens if -- if somebody decides to sell something? Well, it's like -- if you -- I recently became a building owner and I know that you -- you accept the leases that are in place. You may not like them, but you're stuck with them until -- until you either want to buy those leases out or you -- or those people leave and don't renew that lease. So, from a legal standpoint, they can't go and -- I mean it doesn't mean that -- and I don't know if you have -- if you bought a -- if you bought a piece of property with an existing lease and you're getting income off of it, why you would want to -- to cut that off. It wouldn't make good business sense. But that's -- that's the -- and as far as the fire department and the building code standpoint, there are no -- there are no problems there, because, again, under the -- under Chapter 11 of the building code, which refers to the ADA guidelines, you're allowed to .have, you know, restrooms in separate facilities. And, again, I use most -- you know, you look at like the Outlet Mall or a lot of shopping centers and stuff like that, they have common restrooms that are not necessarily in contiguous buildings. O'Brien: I have one more, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, that leads me to another question. So because it's in a separate building, it's almost like it's a public restroom now. So, who else has access to that besides the saloon patrons? Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 23 of 59 McKeegan: Under the lease nobody but the saloon patrons, because -- O'Brien: How do you manage that? McKeegan: That's what Mr. Kelly -- I presume.. Is that correct? O'Brien: Is that okay? Baird: Come on up. Moe: Yes. He's part of the applicant. Kelly: You're -- you're looking at it like you're going across the parking lot to go to the bathroom. If you look at the buildings, there is a ten foot walkway there. Our intention is is we want to use that as our smoking area. There is no smoking in the building. So, we are making that a courtyard and as you're talking on the snow issue, Mr. McKeegan mentioned we have that fenced on both ends, because if someone walks out with a drink in their hand to go to the restroom or go out and smoke, they legally have to be fenced in, they cannot go out in an open area. So, we intend to have both ends fenced. One end with a -- with a security switch, so that there is a light and a switch going out one end, the other is solid towards the opposite business. There is -- it's a ten foot walkway across the smoking area to another set of doors, which opens up right into the bathroom.. It's not like they are going a long distance, it's not like they are out in the open. You could go down if you cared and look and you would understand what the flow is. The reason for that is -- is our entertainment takes up so much space, because we are entertainment, that we chose to put the bathroom across that -- the smoking area, so that we had the space for our entertainment activities. We talked about it. We talked about it. We got a lot of opinions on it and everyone thought, wow, that would work out great for us. It's not like anyone was opposed to going to the bathroom ten feet across a courtyard. O'Brien: So, you have -- to have access to those restrooms -- you have to go through your establishment? Kelly: Pardon me? O'Brien: To have access to the restrooms you have to go through your establishment. Kelly: Through the courtyard.. O'Brien: Through the courtyard. Kelly: The establishment is open, there is double doors going out to a courtyard.. It's an open courtyard. They just walk right straight across to the door going into the restroom. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 24 of 59 O'Brien: Okay. Moe: Any other questions of the applicant? Rohm: I have none, sir. Moe: I have a question for counsel. The CUP, if, in fact, this property was to sell, what happens to the CUP? Would it carry over or would a separate CUP -- and you know -- and the drinking -- or the saloon is no longer in force., would it have to be a new CUP or could it be used as a saloon again? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you approve -- or recommend approval of this and it's ultimately approved by the City Council, the CUP would run with the land. You are approving this use subject to whatever conditions are put on it. That's not to say that you couldn't attach a condition that a new owner would require to come in for an additional CUP in the future, I think we have had those before in situations. So -- and while I have the floor on the subject of conditions, if there is still a concern about the bathrooms being on a separate lot, you can always attach a condition that those bathrooms continue to be available as a condition of operation or they provide adequate restrooms on the facility. Moe: Thank you very much. Baird: And if planning staff has anything to add as far as that question, I think you might want to get their input as well. No? I'm getting shakes. Oh, she's reaching for it. Canning: Chairman Moe, I'm a little concerned now that -- I got a little confused on the discussion about the other building. I'm concerned that there is no bathroom facilities for the -- the Mattress Factory now, but -- that would be the concern. It sounded like these bathrooms are being used just by the saloon now -- or being offered only to the saloon. So, I'm wondering about what the -- how they are used. McKeegan: The other -- Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Canning, the other -- the other businesses have their own restrooms. This is -- they -- when we -- those were permitted, we were 'required to put in. We have Sunshine -- the blind store has -- has his own restrooms and the Mattress Factory has theirs. These are not -- not taking anything away from -- from the approvals or the use that are already there, so -- Moe: Just a little follow-up question, then. Where the restrooms are and the office are, is there a corridor or hall or door that goes into the rest of that other building? McKeegan: No. No. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 25 of 59 Moe: So, it's totally enclosed? McKeegan: Yes. Moe: And just with access through the corridor -- McKeegan: That's correct. Moe.: To the area? McKeegan: And like Mr. Kelly said, there is a -- there is a -- my understanding is on the east end of that there is a gate there that in case you needed to get out -- in case of an emergency you need to get out of there, you're not going to have to run back into a -- into either one of those facilities to leave, there will be a gate there with a security feature on it, so he will know if anybody's trying to let people in or somebody's trying to leave by that, but you -- I just want to make sure that we are not trapping people in there either. And the fire marshal won't let us do that. Moe: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Siddoway: I, actually, think -- you may want to stay, but I want to address my question to staff. The last question I'm struggling with is related to the parking and the 69 available parking spaces are not all on the subject site of the CUP; is that right? The CUP itself is a much smaller area? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, the Conditional Use Permit is for the property on that southern property and it also, you know, encompasses that portion of the restrooms and office is going to be in. So, to answer your question, the CUP is for a portion of -- well, it's for the whole site on the south and, then, a portion of the site on the north. Siddoway: So, we are unable to condition that this parking be available for the saloon use? Wafters: The applicant has stated to me that they have an agreement for shared parking with that. McKeegan: When the property was divided one of the -- one of the things that was put in place was cross-access, cross-egress and cross-parking agreements for the two -- the two pieces, because there was concern that -- we didn't know what the use was Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 26 of 59 going to be. We didn't know what -- what the -- at the time, actually, a majority of the existing building was vacant also, so we didn't know who was going to be coming in there and we didn't want to have any -- we didn't want the potential in the future for somebody to come in and say, well, I don't want you parking on my property and I'm going to put up a fence to prevent it, you know, type of -- so, we anticipated that that was the -- what was going to be required and that's part -- that was part of the -- when the deeds were recorded and everything. O'Brien: I have a quick question.. So, when you talked with the local business owners did you get an idea of what time they close in the evening? McKeegan: Well, I can tell you that -- O'Brien: Do they go late at night or -- McKeegan: The Sunshine Blinds is -- I believe he closes right at 5.:00. I don't think he's open in the evenings. The mattress place -- is the new one going to be open until -- until 5:00? They aren't going to be open until -- O'Brien: So, will they be using those parking places that are in front of -- McKeegan: Right. But the experience is if there is enough traffic to the mattress company that it becomes a problem, they are going to be going -- they are going to be ecstatic. Normally that -- the business that was there, Everton, at any given time if they had more than three or four cars in that parking lot it was a -- it was a busy day at anytime. It's just alarge -- large -- a lot of area with very few customers, which is I think why they went out of business. But the new business that's going in there -- again, they are going to be primarily a day business and, you know, they might -- you know, they might be open until maybe 6:00 or 7:00 o'clock, but most people they don't go shopping for a mattress at 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock at night. The other businesses down the street, they are industrial type uses. I was down there at 6;00 o'clock before this hearing and none of the businesses were open. The one across the street there was -- like I said., there was three pickups in the driveway, people were getting ready to leave, two of those drove up and went down Olson Street and up the dirt road to Franklin and the other one when I left he must have followed me out or something. The rest of the street, all the businesses appeared to be shut down, there wasn't any lights on. There was security lighting, but there wasn't any cars in the parking lot. There wasn't any -- there was one -- on down a lot farther there was one -- one trailer parked on the -- on the street. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 27 of 59 McKeegan: So, I'm anticipating that they will probably -- doesn't mean they won't work overtime and maybe work until 6:00 or 7:00, but for the most part I think most of the existing businesses there -- O'Brien: You don't anticipate an issue with parking -- McKeegan: No. I think -- I guess it's fair to say that if Mr. Kelly thought it was going to be an issue he probably wouldn't be trying to lease this property. Siddoway: Follow up, Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Siddoway: The -- so, let's just assume for a moment that you have all 69 spaces available, you know, if you're -- if you're successful and you attract -- if you attract your full seating amount there would be 243. Do you roughly have one space for every four seats, if I'm -- approximately? McKeegan: 3.2 to 3.3, something like that. Siddoway: Plus employees. So, if you do end up filling your establishment, you will require additional parking on street. That's -- is that safe to say? McKeegan: Right. And if you go to -- if you go to this point right here -- Siddoway: Uh-huh. McKeegan: -- there are -- on both sides of the street there are 26 legal parking spots. measured it and -- available on street and that -- and this is -- and this street goes down -- this is about half of the distance. The street goes down another -- the same amount of distance and, actually, as you get farther to the west, a lot of the property is vacant, so there is -- Siddoway: Is that 26 per side or 26 per total? McKeegan: Twenty-six total. Siddoway: And there is no sidewalks? McKeegan: We have sidewalks on our property. Siddoway: But, yeah, not along Lanark. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 28 of 59 McKeegan: Not along Lanark, no. None of the other -- those uses were probably constructed in the county and predated the requirements for sidewalks. I would assume that if they were ever to redevelop or change, that that would be a requirement for them. But we -- during the last project we put in the five foot sidewalks from our west property line to the Eagle Road property line. Siddoway: That's all I have. Thanks. Moe: Okay. Thank you. McKeegan: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Anything else? A lot of discussion there. Well, can we get a motion to close the Public Hearing and., then, we will discuss a little bit more. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019. O'Brien: Second.. Moe.: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES.. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Rohm, do you have an opinion of this application? Rohm: I do, sir. I think it's a very well thought out application and I think they have done their homework and I think this would be a great addition to the City of Meridian and I hope that we get concurrence from the balance of the Commission. End of comments. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, do you have any comments? O'Brien: I used to like to dance until I couldn't anymore. Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Rohm, but I still have lingering concerns about location of the restroom, the funnel tunnel underneath that metal roof, if that's what it's going to be. I'm concerned about that opening shouldn't maybe be enclosed somehow, at least on the west end, because that's where predominately where the wind blows. Don't know if you should include that in the motion, but I certainly highly recommend something there. I'm concerned with the traffic. I'm concerned with no sidewalks on the on-street parking. I don't know if it's -- especially if it's successful -- and I think it will be, because it's certainly a novel idea to have that much entertainment in one area outside of Texas, I think it's going to be very busy. I don't know. I'm kind of mixed with that. So, I haven't Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 29 of 59 completely made up my mind, but I'd like to hear from the balance of the Commissioners and see what they have to say and add anything to it. That's all I have. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'm fine with the bump of the commercial use. I think that that fits the area. The restrooms, if we did what Mr. Baird suggested and just place a condition that the restrooms be available as a condition of the CUP, then, I'm okay with that. I would not make a change to the 1.2.12 and just leave it as a requirement regarding the ten foot attached sidewalk. And my -- I don't think I personally need to address the wind tunnel itself, but my biggest concern right now is the parking. I do believe that it's going to overuse the available parking. That said, given that the code requires 16 and they have much more than that, my gut is to require the cross-parking agreement to be a condition of approval and lean toward approval with that in place. Moe: Okay. That would be -- basically leave me with my comments. My main two concerns I have are -- basically, they have already been discussed already tonight and that is the parking situation and my biggest concern is -- is that the on-street parking, I'm anticipating this would be a very successful venture. So, therefore, I think what's going to happen is your on-street parking is going to, then, start feathering into some of the open parking lots that are along Lanark as well. And at that point, then, code enforcement is going to start getting phone calls and we have problems there. But at the same time, this does meet the UDC requirements, so, therefore, although I don't like it, I don't know if there is much I can do about it, because it does meet UDC. The other concern I have is -- again is the traffic itself. I understand that this is entertainment, but there is alcohol and, yes, there will be drinking. I, too, like to drink a little bit on occasion, so it's -- my problem is that I would hate to see too many people starting to turn left out of Lanark onto Eagle, because it is already a problem out there and I don't know what we can do about it, but when you have a stop sign at Lanark and Eagle Road and you're going to have people that have been in a drinking establishment, I'm concerned about that. But having said that, again, the restroom situation, that's just a little different scenario than I have seen before. I'm not too worried about the tunnel situation that Mr. O'Brien is concerned with. Basically, the applicant's already basically stated they will be putting, you know, fencing on both sides of that, plus, there will be a canopy cover over that, so I think that's going to lessen the effect of that quite a bit in regard to that. So, I am -- I guess I would ask the question of the Commission., whoever would make a motion and whatnot this evening, that are we comfortable with the fact and if, in fact, this facility was to close, would we not want to see a separate application for another CUP to do something with this property, as opposed to just carrying it through for another establishment like this, with a different owner, so -- Canning: Chairman Moe, may I make a comment regarding the required parking spaces? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 30 of 59 Moe: Yes. Canning: Since both Commissioner Moe and Siddoway mentioned the required parking spaces, I wanted to talk about that just a little bit. We know that those numbers are low. We intended them to be low, because we didn't want to have to mandate that for -- for the folks, because there needs to be some leniency. But there is a specific provision in there that says if there is not enough, that we as a city -- it gives the director the authority to do something. In this case, because it's a Conditional Use Permit it certainly gives you that authority. You should not be influenced by the fact that only 16 are required. If you feel it's underparked, that's a condition that can you follow up on or a concern that you feel you can follow up on, you shouldn't feel that you're hampered just because the required number is 16. Just wanted to make that clear. Moe: Thank you very much. That was the end of my comments. Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I concur with everyone that's spoken on the parking issue, but the fact of the matter is is the -- the applicant -- it's in their own best interest to -- as their business grows and they more than fill the available spaces, that I'm sure that they will address issue themselves and there are businesses adjacent to that strip that have parking lots that are utilized from 8:00 until 5:00 and not into the evening and maybe at such time that their business grows to that level, they will just get some additional parking cross-access agreements on their own. But I don't think that the number of spaces that are currently available along that strip is insufficient to move forward with this application. I think there is plenty of spaces to move forward with the application just as it is. Moe.: Any other comments? Siddoway: No further comments. Moe: Well, then, I would like to get a motion. Siddoway: Condition the restroom and the cross-parking agreement. Rohm: I -- do you want to do it or do you want me to do it? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval of file numbers RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20 -- actually, January 3rd., 2007 -- Moe.: That would be -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 31 of 59 Siddoway: Or 2008. Thank you. With the following additions: That the restroom facilities remain available as a condition of the CUP and that the cross-parking agreement -- a copy of the cross-parking agreement be provided prior to occupancy and remain in force as a condition of the CUP and that cross-parking agreement is for the 69 parking spaces. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded -- Wafters: Excuse me, Commissioner -- Moe: Yes. Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, can we change that last motion, Commissioner Siddoway, to say prior to certificate of zoning compliance application, submittal of CZC application., rather than occupancy? Siddoway: Yes. Thank you. Wafters: It's a little easier to enforce. Thank you. Siddoway: I was trying to decide whether a CZC would be required in my mind and I wasn't sure and so I -- yes, I would be happy to amend my motion to make a -- the cross-parking agreement be submitted with the CZC application. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: Okay. Second.. Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019, with the modifications as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Aye.. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Moe: We are going to take a ten minute break. We will be back at 20 until. (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 07-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the storage unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road for Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 32 of 59 Moe: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we want to go ahead. and start again. We will reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting and we will open the Public Hearing CUP 07- 012 -- excuse me -- 021 for Stor-It Addition and start with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand a storage unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road. You can see here on the zoning map. The property is generally located on the west side of Ten Mile Road, northwest of the Ten Mile -Franklin Road intersection.. North of the site are rural residential properties, zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada County. To the west is agricultural property in transition to multi-family residential use, Umbria Subdivision, zoned R-15. To the south is agricultural property in transition to a church use, Ten Mile Christian Church, zoned R-4. And to the east is agricultural property, zone RUT in Ada County. This is an aerial view of the property. This site -- it shows the existing storage units and office buildings east of the Ten Mile Creek. The remainder of the site is currently vacant. The area west of the Ten Mile Creek is where the applicant proposes to construct additional storage units, along with a couple of new structures east of the creek. The storage facility was originally developed in Ada County. In 2004 the property was annexed into the city with a C-G zoning district. Because a storage unit facility was an existing approved use in the county and because the Meridian city code in effect at that time allowed storage unit facilities as a permitted use in a C-G zoning district, a Conditional Use Permit was not required at that time. Because an addition to the storage unit facility is proposed and because current city code requires CUP approval of self-service storage facilities, a CUP is required for the expansion of the existing use. The site lies within the area designated in the Ten Mile specific area plan for high density -- excuse me -- high density residential uses. Because the storage facility is an existing use on this site, the use conflicts with the future land use designation on the Ten Mile plan for this property. In the future if this property redevelops, high density residential uses should be planned for this property. Thus, the applicant is requesting CUP approval to expand the existing self-service storage facility. The site plan depicts eight new storage unit structures at the west end of the property across the Ten Mile Creek. This is the Ten Mile Creek right here. And an addition to an existing storage unit and two additional storage units on the east side of the Ten Mile Creek. The site currently consists of approximately 115,568 square feet of indoor storage units and outdoor parking area. Approximately 136,197 square feet of additional storage area is proposed with this conditional use application. Access to this site is provided from Ten Mile Road. An emergency fire access point is proposed at the southwest corner of the site here on the overhead... The applicant states that an additional access point is proposed to connect to that previously approved with the Ten Mile church just west of the Ten Mile Creek, which should be right in there.. A minimum 25 foot wide buffer is required and was previously constructed along Ten Mile Road.. The landscaping within the buffer shall comply with the current UDC standards for street buffer landscaping. Typically, a 25 foot wide buffer is required adjacent to residential uses in a C-G zone. However, the specific use standards for self service storage facilities allow the buffer to be reduced to ten feet in Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 33 of 59 width if a sound attenuation wall is provided. There is residential uses over here to the west of the property. The applicant is proposing the rear of the storage units along this boundary to act as a sound attenuation wall. Staff is in agreement if the rear wall of these structures is constructed with split face masonry concrete blocks. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the south side of the Ten Mile Creek on this property per the master pathways plan, as depicted on the site plan here. Landscaping is required adjacent to this pathway in accordance with the standards of the master pathway plan and the UDC. There are several specific use standards for self-service storage unit facilities listed in the UDC that are outlined in the staff report that the applicant must comply with. Staff has included conditions of approval in Exhibit B accordingly. One condition in particular is that the applicant -- that the applicant has an issue with is that storage facilities that abut a residential district, which this one does on the west, are required to limit their hours of public operation to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Because this facility has always operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the applicant is requesting to be allowed to continue the current hours of operation with no restrictions with this Conditional Use Permit. Building elevations were submitted with this application as shown. Exterior building materials are proposed to be cottage lap vinyl siding with a metal roof. Staff has no objections to the elevation proposed., as they comply with the maximum building height and size requirements of the C-G district. However, if the applicant proposes a reduction to the required buffer width on the west, the rear of those structures adjacent to that boundary should be constructed as split face masonry concrete blocks as previously mentioned. Staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? O`Brien: None at this time. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward., please. And state your name and address, please. Callahan: Craig Callahan. Quadrant Consulting, 1904 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. 83705. Commissioners, city staff, I'm here to represent Avest Limited Partnership, which is the owner of Stor-It. Stor-It operates several storage units around the valley, one of which is the storage unit behind Fred Meyers on Locust Grove and Fairview. This is intended to be pretty much the same type of a setup. The idea being that we get buildings constructed all the way around to encompass and hide all the parked units inside and, then, nobody on the outside can see it. It acts as your screening. It acts as your security and your sound attenuation. That's precipitated this plan. Some of the things in the staff report that I wasn't sure about is the mention of the bridge. We have built a bridge across Ten Mile Creek that's 20 feet wide, 70,000 pound loading requirements, so that the fire trucks could get across it. That's been constructed for Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 34 of 59 several years now and it's not in use until there is storage units on the other side. The emergency access -- I guess this is the landscape plan. It didn't get on there -- on the site plan. I don't know if we have a copy of that, but there is one shown right between the end building there and this location here, which is in alignment with where it's been approved for the church to have across-access and we are going to be providing a fire access through our site for the church and the church will be providing fire access through their site to our site, so we have got redundancy there on the access. We are also showing afire -- a future fire access over at the southwest corner in order to facilitate future phases of the church expanding that direction and also to, hopefully, keep our options open for when the high residential goes in next door that isn't proposed to have any storage and, hopefully, they will be able to use that as an access on the backside and not have to go out onto the main roads all the way around on Franklin and Ten Mile to access storage. The other issue that was brought up is they are operating right now as a 24 hour, seven day a week, and they have been operating that way prior to the residential going in. When -- this was all agricultural when the -- when it was operating 24 hours. So, they are having a little concern that they are going to have to change their hours now, because there is a residential been approved on the back side of it. But their comment to me was that there is not a lot of activity after 11:00 o'clock at night, so they probably would entertain maybe allowing the front side to operate 24/7 and the backside maybe be a limited time schedule. We have been working with the church on the south side of the property to get all the access easements together and I see that Mr. Woodard is here tonight and signed up to speak, so maybe he can address some of the issues also. As staff said, we had this zoned and annexed and entered into a development agreement back in 2004, 2005, and there was several conditions established at that time. One was to hook up to the city services, abandon our wells, get the sewer hookup, abandon the septic tanks -- we have been working through those -- alt those items, working with Ada County Highway District to dedicate right of way for the future improvements on Ten Mile Road and I think other than that we are pretty much in agreement with everything that staff has put in the report and look forward to .continuing this process on. Moe: Okay. Great. Can you address -- what I was curious about is this -- the building right there at the top -- Callahan: Uh-huh. Moe: Will that be an enclosed structure or -- Callahan: Everything around the perimeter on the west side is intended to be RV parking that has solid back walls on the outside and, then, open on the front, so the RVs can pull back into it. Moe: Okay. So, you're going to put the block wall here and this will be open from the front for the RVs here, as well as here? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 35 of 59 Callahan: Correct. Moe: Do you know what kind of wall you're going to put in this area right here? Callahan: All of the rest of the walls are proposed to be cottage lap siding. Moe: Okay. Callahan: And that is along the railroad on that side. The railroad has a 200 foot right of way along there. So, there is quite a distance from the residential on the other side. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from staff? Yes, sir. Siddoway: Could you address fencing for just a moment? Does the fencing go all the way across here or is that just a property line I'm seeing and the fences -- particularly my concern if someone's on the pathway, do they come up here and hit a fence or do they hit a fence up here? Callahan: The fencing. is proposed to go from the corner of the building we were just discussing, along the pathway -- Siddoway: So straight down this way? Callahan: Straight down there and connecting with the other side of the property and, then, a prior access gate that the fire department can get back into the storage units there. Siddoway: So, at the bridge there will be a second gate or entrance into there? Callahan: Correct. And it will be keyed and also the fire department will have the key for access for the fire access through there. Siddoway: And is the bridge designed so that there is still continuous access along the pathway? They are not at two separate grades? Callahan: Correct. Yeah. The pathway is just going to meander along the top of the bank along Ten Mile Creek and the bridge is a little bit lower than the pathway, but it's a pretty gentle slope. We have got to be able to get the RVs back through there. Siddoway: Okay. Callahan: Along with the fire trucks. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 36 of 59 Siddoway: That's all I have at this time, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Any other questions of the applicant? O'Brien: Not from me. Thanks. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Callahan: Thank you, Commissioners. Moe: Now, we have one person signed up. Mr. Woodard. Woodard: Good evening. My name is Larry Woodard. I live at 1701 Almaden, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. I'm representing Ten Mile Christian Church and I just want to support this application. We have been neighbors now for about four years. They keep their property very clean. We are comfortable with their cottage siding that will face our property on the south side of their development. Tonight as we talked before this hearing, this cross-access agreement has been for us kind of like who's on first and so we are going to get that sorted out. But there is, basically, two access points, one on the southwest corner of the property, then, one between the pathway and that southernmost building there. Right there. Yeah. And that will help both of us. There is also another access agreement that will be for us to provide water to them from our irrigation rights, so that they can have water on their landscaping areas along the pathway and we are in agreement with that. The pathway, as has been indicated, is continuous. It will start at the Ten Mile Road, run through our property, and, then, on through Avest's property on the same grade. So, we are comfortable with it. Moe: Okay. Any questions? O'Brien: None from me. Thanks. Moe: Okay. There is no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to comment. There is no interest in anyone else. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I move to close the Public Hearing, number CUP 07-021. Rohm: Second.. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-021. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 37 of 59 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, quick clarification. The CUP before us, does it cover the entire site or is it just for the expansion area? Is that a separate lot for this CUP or does the CUP include that existing portion as well? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, the subject Conditional Use Permit covers the entire property. There are -- most of the addition is down here on the west portion of the property, but there are two new structures, you know, on this side and, then, one addition to a structure right in there. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. The reason I was asking was because I was trying to just -- I -- this expansion is coming after the approved residential, so I lean toward favoring the proposed hours of operation in the staff report. I was trying to decide if that was just going to apply to the back portion or not. We could condition it that way, but think that would be confusing and I would lean more towards just leaving the hours of operation in the staff report myself. Moe: Mr. Rohm, do you have any comments? Rohm: While I'm in general support of the project, I differ with Commissioner Siddoway slightly inasmuch as I think that the only portion that should be conditioned to an 11:00 o'clock max is that west of the Ten Mile Creek. I think anything that's east of the Ten Mile Creek has had 24 hour access ever since it's been built and the addition of this project will provide the protection to the development to the west of this expansion in and of itself. Any light contamination or anything like will be protected -- will be shielded by the new building being constructed, so I don't see any reason why you can't leave the 24 hour a day occupancy on that to the east. Moe: East orthe -- Rohm: Everything east of the -- of the Ten Mile Creek could be 24 hour. Everything west would be limited to 11:00 o'clock. Moe: And I guess the question I would have for you -- how, then, would you somewhat anticipate them -- the owners to somewhat police that to -- Rohm: Just their access gate. That's one of the things that the applicant said is there is a -- there is a gate right here and that gate would just have to be timed so that it's not -- it won't open after 11:00 o'clock. Moe: And so I would assume that there is a -- the maker of the motion would want to put that in the motion to make sure that would happen. Rohm: I could sure do that. Meridian Planning & zoning January 3, 2008 Page 38 of 59 Siddoway: And feel free. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien., do you have any comments? O'Brien: Just the one. I don't think -- I think 11:00 o'clock is too late. I think 10:00 o'clock is more in line with so many other things in the valley, other store areas. That would be my comment. Especially next to a residential area, I think 11:00 o'clock I think is a little bit too late. My recommendation would be 10:00. Moe: Well, I would tell you that pretty much this Commission, for the life that I have been on here, we have somewhat dictated 11:00 o'clock on almost everything that we have done. O'Brien: Being new Ijust -- Moe: No problem. O'Brien: The other thing is -- Moe: That doesn't mean we can't change, but that's where we have been to date. O'Brien: Okay. Well, that's good to know. The other thing is I think -- I think the area behind Fred Meyers, I didn't even know the storage area was there until I drove up Locust Grove after the bridge opened up and I thought it was great. They did a really good job of landscaping and I think this will be a great addition. Good use of space. Thank you. Moe: Well, I have no other comments and I'm definitely in favor of the project. Canning: Chairman Moe? Moe: Yes. Canning: With regard to the hours of operation, it is the standard in the zoning ordinance, so I don't think you can make the requirement go away completely without a variance application and I'm not sure it would really qualify for a variance either, so -- but I do think that you could justify that the existing use is what would be considered nonconforming with regard to meeting that one standard and could remain that way. So, I think you're okay splitting it. I don't think you can make it go away completely without a code amendment, really. Moe: Okay. So, it's just the back half, then, that you would condition to the time frame? Rohm: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 39 of 59 Canning: And, Chairman Moe., one other comment just to -- for somebody who has pulled their boat out at 10:00 o'clock many evenings and hasn't gotten back to the storage until 11:00 o'clock, 11:00 is probably fine for the summer -- particularly for the summer. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rohm, you look like you're ready to do something here. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve CUP 07-021 to include the staff report with the following modification: That the existing site east of Ten Mile Creek be allowed to continue it's 24 hour operation and everything west of the Ten Mile Creek will be limited to the -- from 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. as written up in the staff report. Siddoway: And prepare findings. Rohm: And prepare findings and conclusions of law for that. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: I did get a second? O'Brien: I seconded. Siddoway: Do we need a date for those hearings -- for those hearings -- for those fiindings to come back? January 17th? Moe: Yeah. Let's get it on the 17th, if at all possible. Hill: Two weeks. Moe: Uh? Hill: Two weeks usually. Moe: Yeah.. Two weeks. That would be the 17th. Rohm: If that needs to be included in the motion, so be it. Add that. O'Brien: Second. Moe: All right. It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-021 with modifications as noted.. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 40 of 59 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional se Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Meridian Eye Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry Lane: Moe: Next Public Hearing I'd like to open CUP 07-022, for the sole purpose of continuing this hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 17th, 2008. Can I get a motion to do so? Rohm: So moved. O'Brien: Second.. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue CUP 07-022 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 17th, 2008., for the Meridian Eye Care. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 07-018 Request for a Rezone of 12.64 acres from R-4 to an L-O zone for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -SWC of W. McMillan Road and N. Linder Road.: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in the proposed L-O zoning district for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group., LLC - SWC of W. McMillan Road and N. Linder Road: Moe: Just a second here. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of RZ 07-018 and PP 07-023 for Bridgetower Crossing Office and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight area rezone of 12.64 acres from R-4, medium low density residential, to L-O, limited office and preliminary plat approval of 12 lots, consisting of 11 commercial lots and one other lot for the Bridgetower Crossing Office project. The site is located at the southwest corner of McMillan Road and North Linder Road. The property is bordered on the north by Paramount Commercial Southeast, zoned C-G. To the south is single family residents, zoned RUT, Ada County. To the west is Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and No. 12. And to the east is single family residences, Ada County, and Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision, zoned RUT and R-8. The subject preliminary plat is a resubdivision of six office lots approved with Bridgetower Crossing Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 41 of 59 No. 11 and 12. If you look at the aerial here, you can see with the highlighted lots these are the six lots that were approved with those subdivisions. The office area was granted as a use exception for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision, but is currently zoned R-4 respectively. Staff is supportive of this rezone request, as it brings the site in conformance with the city's future land use map. The applicant is requesting approval of 11 commercial lots and one other lot in a proposed L-O zone. Access to this development will be provided from a total of seven full access driveways, two right-in, right-out driveways, two full access public streets, which are Copper Cloud Way and Loretta Street, which will also provide access to North Linder Road and one right-in, right-out access only backage road proposed as Bellagio Way to the -- excuse me. One backage road, Bellagio Way, to West McMillan Road., which provides access to and from the two other public streets and stubs to the south for future connectivity. Five driveways will take access to and from Bellagio Way. Two will provide access to and from Loretta Street and the two remaining right-in and right-out driveways connect to Copper Cloud Way. All of these driveways are expected to align with future public roadways and driveways. Staff and ACHD are supportive of the proposed driveways and public streets, because of future connectivity with current and future developments. The applicant is proposing this to be a new public street here. Currently this is a driveway through these future -- or through the existing office lots. The applicant has got approval from ACHD to allow that to be a 25 foot road section. This is where the right-in, right-out only would be provided to McMillan Road. This is the existing Copper Cloud Way with the right-in, right-out driveways there and the proposed driveways onto Bellagio Way are located along here and, then, two access points off of Loretta Street there. Except for the -- let's see here. Except for the 25 foot landscape buffer along West McMillan Road, the entire perimeter landscaping along North Linder Road has been installed with the approval of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and No. 12. The applicant is also proposing to construct a five foot detached sidewalk with additional five feet of sod along North Linder Road. Where the commercial uses adjoin the residential uses to the west and south of this site, the required landscape buffer has been constructed. So, this is what -- this has already been in place. The applicant will be responsible for adding this ten feet of landscape buffer along here, along the new proposed street. They are also adding some additional sod and a detached sidewalk here and., then, the applicant be responsible for the 25 foot landscape buffer here. The submitted landscape plan is also proposing trees to be planted within the 50 foot Settler's Canal easement along the north side of the site. So, currently we -- this is where you can see these two dashed lines here on the landscape plan -- if I can keep this thing still. This is the 50 foot easement for the Settler's Canal and this is an additional -- a 60 foot Idaho Power easement for power lines. Code -- city code requires an additional five foot buffer width where the width -- where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions. As part of previous approvals, the applicant was responsible for maintaining access for the irrigation district to maintain the ditch and the Idaho Power Company allowed a five foot detached sidewalk with sod and class one trees be planted within their easement. Therefore, staff has recommended the applicant install sod and shrubs within the tiled area of the ditch with the irrigation Meridian Planning 8 zoning January 3, 2008 Page 42 of 59 district's approval and provide an additional five feet of landscaping with class one trees outside of the irrigation district as with previous approvals. The applicant should contact the irrigation district and the Idaho Power Company to see if the applicability of the previous requirements is still necessary and permitted with this project. If these changes are made, staff believes the landscape plan to be in compliance with the city code. Excuse me. In addition to the preliminary plat, the applicant has submitted a concept plan for this development. The site is expected to develop with a variety of office uses on the site. Even though there are 11 lots proposed with the preliminary plat, the submitted concept plan depicts a total of 12 buildings. The uses on the site will pertain to the L-O zoning district's schedule of use controls outlined in the UDC. The submitted concept plan does not indicate the amount of total square footages proposed with this site. Staff is limiting the development not to exceed 137,650 total square feet of nonresidential uses on the site. This is 25 percent of the gross area of the land. Staff is generally supportive of the concept plan and any future development of this site should substantially comply with the submitted concept plan. As shown on the concept plan, there is a potential for ten buildings to be constructed on the site. The applicant has provided staff with sample photos illustrating what types of buildings are to be constructed on the site. They portray the quality and design expected for the proposed development. These buildings are constructed with stucco finishes with varying roof heights, color changes, and stone accented colors and facades. The submitted photos show substantial building modulation and an abundance of glazing in the front facades. Staff believes that this is a good pallet for the developer to work from and future buildings shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. Basically, if the Commission remembers, we saw the Verona project back in December 6th of this -- of the previous month and Verona and the applicant for this project is the owner and developer for this project as well. So, staff felt it appropriate just to use those kind of same design elements and design criteria to be applicable to this subdivision as well. So, that's why you're kind of -- you're seeing the same elevations and they are going to be having pretty much the same architecture -- architectural elements in the future is required for Bridgetower Crossing and the next project, as well as the Verona project. As part of this application submittal, the applicant has requested to modify the existing DA governing the Bridgetower Crossing site. By city code the City Council is the decision making body for DA modifications. Staff felt it appropriate to keep the Commission informed of the DA provisions and has attached with your packets a draft staff report for your review to inform you of staffs recommendation for the Verona and the two Bridgetower Crossing projects. Staff has recommended the applicant modify the current DAs for both the Verona and Bridgetower Crossing Subdivisions and enter into new -- into three new DAs that will govern each of the above-mentioned projects. Provisions for the new DAs are outlined in the draft staff report. So, I don't know if you guys had a chance, but I sent that over to the clerk for your review to kind of let you know what's going on. Once staff started the staff report one and started getting these packets together for you, we realized that it would be easier from the staffs perspective and for the developer of the site to kind of monitor a smaller version. Right now those two -- the Verona site and Bridgetower site Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 43 of 59 are encompassed by a large amount of acreage and it's easier from a staff standpoint to kind of monitor that on a site-by-site basis or project-by-project basis. So, we have recommended that they enter into two -- into three new DA requirements as part of this approval. And that -- with luck, we were hoping that that -- these projects will catch up with the Verona project slated for the February 19th hearing. City Council hearing, I should say. With that staff is recommending approval and I stand for questions. Moe: Bill, when you say the three, that is the Verona, then, the -- the offices and, then, the commercial also; is that third? Parsons: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, that is correct. Moe: Okay. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: I don't have any. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward.. Christensen: Members of the Commission, my name is Chuck Christensen. I work for Quadrant Consulting, whose address is 1904 West Overland Road in Boise. Everything looks great to us. All the conditions look great. We just have one sort of clarification we would like to address. Condition number 2.7 says that all irrigation ditches that are adjacent to or contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled. The Settler's Canal runs along the south side of McMillan Road. It's on the left side of the project there where we have got the road that kind of curves up. The Settler's Canal is tiled between Linder Road and the -- I guess it would be the west side of that road and there is a little section of it that is open. Right there. We would just like to clarify that that -- we do not have any plans and don't -- and hope that we are not expected to the that portion of the canal. We did work with ACRD and the it down to the point that it is and it is open from there on to the west. Moe: Okay. Just one real quick to the staff. Bill, are you looking to have that tiled? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, no. Like I mentioned, this is Bridgetower Crossing. I don't recall if it's 11 or 12, but as part of the esthetics of that development the applicant has provided a detached sidewalk here and buffering and a fence here, that -- that's pretty much -- I would -- even though that's part of this application, it still would blend better with that residential development to west, so staff doesn't have any -- we wouldn't require that to be tiled. Moe: So, that can be deleted? Parsons: Yeah. That could remain open. Untiled. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 44 of 59 Moe: Thank you. Anything else? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of clarifications I'd like to ask. Moe: Great. Siddoway: Could you address the 11 lots with the 12 buildings? I think the difference is the -- this was shown as one large lot with two buildings on it; is that correct? Christensen: It's a concept plan. It's hard to know exactly what's -- how the project is going to be developed. We have put a concept plan together and just showed two buildings on one lot. It may develop that way, it may not. We are not really sure, to be quite frank. Siddoway: Okay. Would you address the need for Loretta Street? That's probably my biggest concern is just the -- managing the number of accesses along Linder Road and do realize this does align with an existing access on the other side. But my first reaction was limiting the number of curb cuts along Linder was preferable, I'd just like to have you talk about the need for that connection. Christensen: Well, we just like to see acceptability for the lots that are -- we are proposing, both from a functionality standpoint, as well as for emergency services and things like that and in terms of providing access to fire vehicles and things like that, we think that it opens that south half up a lot by extending Loretta Street through there the way we have done that. That way our fire department turnaround is, essentially, that driveway that is to the south on that building that's on the -- and I don't have a pointer. Yeah. So, that's the fire department turnaround and, then, they can get just out on Loretta Street. Siddoway: Okay. That's all I have. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Well, there is no one signed up, but if there is anyone that would like to speak to this, you're more than welcome to come up now. Seeing none and I don't anticipate that the applicant needs to discuss anymore, either. He's already been up here. Therefore -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-018 and PP 07-023. Siddoway: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 45 of 59 Moe: It has been -- been a motion to close the Public Hearing -- a motion and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-018 and PP 07-023 for Bridgetower Crossing Office. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have a question before we try and make a motion. I just noticed in the staff write up that they are looking for a combination of concept one and three and some transitioning. Did we talk about that? Parsons: That's for the next project, Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Am I on the wrong one? Parsons: Yeah. We are on Bridgetower Crossing Office. Siddoway: Is it? Okay. I thought it was part of the commercial. Okay. Then, I will hold that question. Moe: Okay. Any comments, Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: No. I just think we need to -- I'm fine with clarifying that the Settler's Canal west of Penning Grove -- is that the right name -- Way is not expected to be tiled in our motion. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any comments? O'Brien: I don't have anything to add. I think it's pretty cut and dry. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Nothing additional to add.. Moe: Nor do I. So, could I get a motion, please. Siddoway: Sure. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 as presented in the staff report -- Rohm: Wrong one. Siddoway: Am I reading the wrong one? It says commercial. Moe: We are on office. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 46 of 59 Siddoway: Okay. Mr. Chairman, let me start over. I'm so ready for the next one I can hardly tell you. All right. Moe: Okay. Yes, sir. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-018 and PP 07- 023, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 3rd., 2008, with one clarification that the portion of the Settler's Canal along McMillan Road west of Penning Grove is not expected to be titled. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 07-018 and PP 07-023, Bridgetower Crossing Office. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C- G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road.: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: Moe: Now we are to -- Siddoway: Okay. Now we are to commercial. Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are a rezone of 3.25 acres from C-G, general commercial, and R-4, medium low density residential, to C-N and L-O, limited office and preliminary plat approval of nine lots consisting of eight commercial lots and one other lot for the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial project. The site is located east of North Ten Mile Road, approximately 400 feet south of North McMillan -- or West McMillan, excuse me, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 47 of 59 Road.. The property is bordered on the north by the Bridgetower Marketplace, zoned C- G. To the south is Bridgetower Crossing No. 2, zoned R-4, proposed for L-O. To the west is the Voltera Subdivision, zoned C-G and L-O. And to the east is Bridgetower Crossing No. 5 and 7, zoned R-4. The subject preliminary plat is a resubdivision of four lots approved with Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. The commercial portion was conceptually approved and the office lots were granted as use exceptions for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision and are currently zoned C-G and R-4 respectively. The applicant is requesting -- is proposing to zone the land to match the land use and match the existing commercial and office portion of the development with the city's Comprehensive Plan. As part of the rezone the applicant has also requested the existing C-G portion of the development, along with additional office parcel, to be rezoned to C-N to allow for more diverse mix of retail and commercial uses in the area. Staff believes this to be a good compromise between the two zoning districts and is supportive of the applicant's request. In addition to the C-N zoning district -- in addition, the C-N zoning district requires more stringent setbacks and requires the same amount of buffering from the residential districts as the L-O zone. So, that I can step back here, you can see here where one existing lot is zoned C-G -- currently zoned C-G and the remainder of the three lots associated with the plat are zoned R-4, but approved for office. So, what the applicant and what staff is in support of is rezoning these four lots to C-N. In addition to the rezone request, this is currently called the Gallery Subdivision and this is another lot within the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision and those are, again, zoned R-4, but are being rezoned L-O to be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Siddoway: Bill, I don't mean to interrupt, but are these additional lots remaining R-4? Parsons: That is correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, the applicant no longer owns those parcels and they have already -- I believe there is occupancy on those. Siddoway: Okay. Parsons: The applicant is requesting approval of eight commercial lots and one other lot. Access to this development will be provided from a total of five full access driveways, two full access public streets, which are West Quintail Drive, an existing street, and Capris Street, which will provide access to North Ten Mile, and one backage road, Alba Avenue, providing access to and from the two other public streets. Two of the proposed driveways will access onto Alba Avenue, two driveways will take access to and from Capris Street and one driveway will access onto West Quintail Drive. All of these driveways are expected to align with future public roadways and driveways. Again, here is -- the applicant is proposing this new public street. This is, actually, currently in its state it's a driveway to access the -- to access these approved lots. At the time of this staff report staff did not receive ACHD comments, but I have been told by the applicant that they are supportive of that request for that becoming a public street Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 48 of 59 and that will link to this existing street, which is Bell Tower Drive as well. Here is your full access -- two full accesses here on Capris Street. One full access onto West Quintail Drive. And, then, here are your two accesses onto Alba Drive. And this is, again, the existing Gallery Subdivision and they have their access here onto Alba Avenue, too, for additional connectivity. The entire perimeter landscaping along North Ten Mile Road has been installed with the approval of Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 and No. 7. The applicant has also installed the required landscape buffers where the commercial uses adjoin the residential uses. As part of this application approval the applicant will be responsible for installing and maintaining the ten foot landscape buffers along West Quintail Drive, Capris Street and Alba Avenue. So, again, you can see the dashed lines here showing you what's already been installed and what's out there and what they are proposing to install. And, of course, condition to install. In addition to the preliminary plat, the applicant has submitted three concept plans for how this site may develop. Each concept plan shows three different scenarios depicting a variety of commercial and office uses, such as an office supply store, a nursery, multi-tenant retail, and personal and professional services on the site.. It is important to note that version two and three are similar in pad layout, however, the proposed parking for the front three pads are located adjacent to Ten Mile Road and in version three the proposed buildings are fronting along Ten Mile with their parking in the rear of the buildings. The submitted plat shows eight buildable lots. The submitted concept plan shows a range from two buildings pads to seven building pads in square footages ranging of 2.,500 square feet to 33,725 square feet. Because the applicant does not have a clear vision for how this site is to develop, staff is limiting the development not to exceed 80,260 total square feet of nonresidential uses on this site. Again, this is 25 percent of the gross area of the land. This is well below the allowed nonresidential square footage located in a mixed use neighborhood land use designation. Staff is generally supportive of the concept plans, but believes version three is a better concept plan based on the configuration of the proposed buildings on the site and its location to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff is recommending the applicant combine concept one and three, allowing a larger retail box north of Capris Street and transition to a smaller neighborhood retail south of Capris Street. If these changes are made staff is supportive of the concept development. So, here is the three concept plans that were submitted with this application. Again, here is where the applicant is proposing two building sites and these are the two similar concept plans. What staff was recommending is allow this -- this type of development to occur north of Capris Street and kind of move this section over here to kind of transition from the C-G to C-N to less intensity and to the L-O Gallery Subdivision to the south of that site. So, we think that would provide a good transitioning area from C-G down to that L-O zone that we are talking to in between West Quintail and Bell Tower Drive. I won't bore you with the elevation details, but, again, this is similar to the Verona and the Bridgetower Crossing Office. Again, the same elements, the same criteria that's being proposed in that DA are also being proposed with this development. With that, that concludes my presentation and, then., I'll stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 49 of 59 Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? O'Brien.: I have none. Siddoway: Just one. The staff report says that no ACRD comments have been received. Do we anticipate some coming? We don't usually forward them onto City Council until we have received the report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, I spoke with the applicant, they just received the staff report from ACHD. I have also been in contact with several phone calls and a-mails trying to get that staff report and was told that the -- the planner working that project was on vacation. So, we have not received that. But I -- once I receive that, that will definitely be inserted in with the staff report for Council review. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Steckline: Actually, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, if I could also add something. Moe: Yes, sir. Steckline: When you're making your motion, staff made a typo in condition 2.2, if you could strike the portion where it says the applicant shall be responsible to install two water connections from North Locust Road due to fire flow requirements, Public Works would be very happy with you. Christensen: We would be really happy about that, too. Moe: Okay. Christensen: My name is still Chuck Christensen. Moe: Change your address yet? Christensen: No. My address is still 1904 West Overland Road in Boise and still work for Quadrant Consulting and all the conditions look great for us. Once, again, we do have a little bit of a clarification on the tiling of the ditches. There is a -- if we turn to the -- the White Drain runs along the south boundary of the preliminary plat right through there. It is not tiled. We are -- and it has not been tiled as part of either Bridgetower Subdivision No. 2 or the Gallery Subdivision. The White Drain, actually, lies outside of our proposed preliminary plat boundaries, but it is still I guess technically adjacent to our plat boundaries and we would not like to have to file that. That, plus the clarification Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 50 of 59 about building a water main from Locust Grove Road are the only changes that we had to the conditions of approval. Moe: Any questions? O'Brien: I have none. Siddoway: Are you amenable to the concept combination of A and C or one and three or whichever it was? Christensen: Well, the concept plans -- as I said before, the concept plans are just plans we put together. It's our understanding that the concept plans will be primarily discussed as part of the development agreement application and not as part of what we are discussing tonight. And we would be happy to meet with staff and review any of those issues that they would like us to change. Siddoway: Is staff looking for a motion from the Commission on the concept plans or is this -- would you like just to make a recommendation on it for the -- for consideration with the development agreements? Canning: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, if there are comments that the Commission would like to make on the concept plans that might be helpful. If there is ones that you favor or whatever concept you -- or whatever comment you would like to make we can include that with the development agreement. It's always a little awkward when there is an eight lot plat and a two lot concept plan. It's nice when they kind of coincide with one another. But we understand the flexibility necessary for the commercial development. So, not opposed to that portion of it. But we would welcome your recommendation on the concept plan. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: And one final question. Is staff -- I'm concerned about the missing ACHD report. Is there no issues of concern that you would expect to have a problem with this being forwarded on to Council? I just know we have held up several in the past to wait for that ACRD report to catch up. Canning: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, you know, this is really a clean up of the DA, which is already allowed for commercial use and the rezone is not to add new commercial properties to the area, it's only to have the appropriate zoning on those. I would not anticipate that ACHD would come up with something that's significantly new. The application has seen the staff report and perhaps they can give you a quick rundown on what issues and -- I just can't foresee that ACHD all of a sudden came with a lot of issues for this project, because it's really been approved for years now. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 51 of 59 Siddoway: Yeah. I couldn't see it with the rezoning. I just didn't know whether to expect anything based on the plat and a different number of lots and things like that, so Christensen: I do have the draft staff report from ACHD and we just got that today. They are supportive of what we have shown. There is one clarification that I want to make with them regarding the right of way width for Alba Avenue. Siddoway: Uh-huh. Christensen: Alba Avenue is similar -- we have a similar driveway installed for both Bridgetowers 15 and 16. They are currently just parking lots and we have met with ACHD, because we'd like to dedicate them as right of way. The ACHD staff report for 15 said, that's fine, you construct a 25 foot roadway and you can dedicate it as right of way. The staff report for 16 says, that's fine, you construct a 25 foot roadway and put it in a 42 foot right of way and we will accept it. So, I think it's just an error. I think we just need to clarify that with them, the actual right of way width for Alba Avenue. So, at that point that's really the only thing in the staff report that we have that I need to clarify with ACHD staff before they can finalize their report. Siddoway: And your proposed plat is based on the 25 foot roadway and -- Christensen: And a 27 foot right of way. Siddoway: And a 27 foot right of way. Christensen: The only change to that is there is a well lot, it looks like lot number one, there is a square lot right there, that's a City of Meridian well lot and it abuts the roadway. So, right there we have to have a two foot narrow -- narrower right of way to avoid the city having to dedicate two feet of right of way along there. So, it's just some technical stuff that we need to work out with the highway district. I don't anticipate any problem, but their staff report doesn't reflect it, because I haven't had a chance to go over that with them yet. Siddoway: Does Alba have sidewalks along it or will it? Christensen: It will. Yes. Siddoway: It will. Okay. So, it's not just 25 curb to curb -- Christensen: On one side. Siddoway: It's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 52 of 59 Christensen: It's 25 foot curb to curb, plus a sidewalk. Siddoway: Plus a sidewalk. Okay. So, the sidewalk is outside of the right of way? Christensen: Yes. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Just another question of staff. Bill, in regards to the tiling, is that something that we do want to have done? Steckline: Mr. Chair, just some clarification on that. Basically, further down on that, what we have written in there, what we are looking for is plans to be approved by the appropriate irrigation district or drainage district or lateral users association -- basically, the ditch owners, wifh a written approval or nonapproval of tiling it. It's not the intent of the city to the make direction on whether or not they are tiling it or not. So, if they have taken the necessary measures to contact those actual owners and relayed that information back to us, that's, basically, what that condition is looking for. And that would apply on the last application also. Moe: Okay. Christensen: That sounds good.. Moe: And you're saying you shouldn't have a problem with that. Christensen: That shouldn't be any problem at all. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Rohm: I guess my only question would be are you comfortable with us moving this forward with the condition that the ACHD report be included? Christensen: Yes. Well, not the draft report, but the final report, sure. Rohm: Not the draft -- you're comfortable that you can work out the differences -- Christensen: Yes. Rohm: -- between what the draft says and the final report before it goes to City Council? Christensen: I'm comfortable with that. Is my client? Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 53 of 59 Rohm: All right. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Canning: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Rohm, I suspect that the 42 foot right of way is the correct answer, not the incorrect answer. But they could always keep it private or do it as a private road, because that -- it does meet the standards for that, which is sidewalk on one side and the 25 foot drive aisle. So, there are other options available if they are not able to get the reduced right of way width that they are looking for, that shouldn't impact the development. But I have never heard of ACHD approving a 27 foot right of way. They generally are 42. So, I suspect that that was the more complete answer. Moe: Thank you. Well, again, no one has signed up for this. At this time anyone like to come forward, feel free. If not, can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07- 022 and PP 07-026. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I don't really have too much of a problem with this at all. In regards to whether or not we send this on to City Council, because of the fact we have the -- the Bridgetower Crossing Office and Verona and they are working the DA agreements up and whatnot, I'd hate to have something lag and, then, have to pick it up again. So, I think if, in fact, if there was a motion basically stating that we approve it based upon the fact that, you know, ACHD approvals are met, I don't have a real problem sending that one forward at this time. Siddoway: And my only concern with that, Mr. Chairman, is the -- now, if ACHD does stick with the 42 foot right of way, going to either have to modify the plat or make whatever changes are needed make it a private road, I'm just wondering if that issue needs to be cleaned up before going on, but I suppose it could be cleaned up as it goes to Council. That's my only hesitation. I don't have a problem with the rezone, with the layout. I do support the modified one and three concept idea and would go on the record for that. I just have concerns about sending it up without a clean report from ACRD. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 54 of 59 Moe: Well, I would say I would agree with that reasoning as well. We always held it up to get the reports, so that ourselves can see that. I'm just concerned with, you know, trying to work with the applicant on this one. But I would have no problem with going the other way. And I, too, like the concept plan, the one and three, and I like the way what staff is anticipating in doing some transitioning through that area. I think that makes a lot of sense. Mr. Rohm, do you have any have comments? Rohm: Oh, I agree with Commissioner Siddoway and your comments and I do think that it would be nice to be able to move this forward with the assumption that they are going to be able to find resolve with ACHD and those answers will be available prior to City Council hearing the project. So, that's my position on this. Moe: Okay. Mr. O'Brien, do you have anything to add? O'Brien: Boy, I sure don't. I think you have covered it pretty well. So, thank you, I don't have any. Moe: Having said that, then, can I get a motion. Rohm: Before I make a motion I'd like to ask legal counsel here, can the motion include the provision that the Ada County Highway District report be resolved prior to City Council hearing or how do you -- how do you word a motion to that effect? Baird.:. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's really difficult to condition something on an agency that we don't control. I'd recommend you just let staff handle that and if the report turns out to be significant. Staff can manage a continuance, perhaps, if necessary. I know they continually monitor those. Planning director might have an idea that's different from that, but I would avoid conditioning this on something that we don't have -- and they don't have control over. Rohm: That's why I asked the question. So, if we were to make a motion just recommending approval and, then, in fact, they -- the applicant could not come to agreement with the ACRD, then, staff themselves would not move it forward to City Council, is that kind of what you're saying? Baird.: Well, I'd let the planning staff address that, Mr. Chair, and Members of the Commission. Canning: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, there is - - when staff prepares your recommendation to forward it to Council, they include all the discussion that went on tonight and, then, there is a last section that says outstanding issues and anytime on any project the Commission can feel free to add a comment to that. Like if you didn't like a -- not suggesting that this is going to -- if you didn't like a Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 55 of 59 project and say, well, you know, we couldn't really deny it, but we didn't like it. You know, you can tell us that and we can put it in the outstanding condition. In this case you can say, you know, our -- our approval was based on the assumption that the ACHD report would not cause a significant change to the preliminary plat and, therefore, we recommended it onto Council in order for all of these to catch up with the Verona project. Something of that sort. And we can include that in the outstanding conditions and -- and if there were ever conditions under which you wanted it to -- to come back to you, you know, if, for some reason Council feels it's appropriate., we would -- you know, please remand it back to us under these conditions or something like that. That could be appropriate as well. The outstanding issues comment, we use it all the time and it never occurred to me that perhaps we should tell you you guys can use it, too, so that's always -- Moe.: That's very good to know, as a matter of fact. Canning: Yeah. But we can certainly add a comment in there. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. I'm going to make a stab at this, then. Okay. Mr. Chairman -- did you have anything else that you wanted to -- Siddoway: Well, I was just noticing on your notes to delete 2.7, but I was going to -- to note that I think it's just the -- Rohm: That was for -- that was for another project. Siddoway: All right. Moe: 2.2? Siddoway: 2.2. It's just the middle -- there is two -- there is three sentences in that and it's just the middle sentence that needs to come out, so -- Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: That's the reference to Locust Grove Road -- Rohm: And the applicant shall be responsible to install two water connections -- is that the one that comes out? Canning.: Yes. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 56 of 59 Siddoway: Well, I think the first sentence and the last sentence stay; is that correct, Mr. Steckling Steckling: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Siddoway, that's correct. Siddoway: Okay. So, it's just the middle sentence that gets deleted.. Rohm: Got you,. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Rohm: I'd like to make a motion to -- let me read this here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026, to include the staff report with the following modification: In Public Works Department, Section 2.2, the second sentence that begins with the applicant shall be responsible, that sentence will be deleted. from that condition and I further would like to point out that the ACHD report has not been accepted in its final format and that that needs to be resolved to the applicant and staff both agree to it before City Council is to hear this project. End of motion. Siddoway: Before I second it, just -- not to be anal, but the third sentence also starts with the applicant shall be responsible to. So, I just wanted to clarify that we are only talking about the second sentence, because they both start the same. Rohm: Excuse me. Just the second sentence. Siddoway: Second. Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial with modifications as noted.. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning: Chairman Moe, it doesn't need to be part of an official vote or part of that previous vote, but did the Commission choose to comment on the concept plan for this project? Siddoway: Yes, please. Rohm: Yes. I'd like to make another motion -- can we have an additional motion or do we need to modify the previous motion? Moe: Counsel's going yes. So, yes, we can do this. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 57 of 59 Rohm: Okay. Canning: It's just a comment. Siddoway: It's a comment. Moe: Mr. Rohm would like to make a comment. Siddoway: Make a motion. Rohm: I'd like to make a motion to address the preliminary plat 07-026 and to forward onto City Council recommending that we adopt the north half of concept one and the south half of concept three. End of motion. Siddoway: Second. Moe: Okay. Siddoway: And just for clarification, that's to be used with the development agreement language; correct? Rohm: Correct. Moe: Okay. All those in favor of that motion signify by saying aye. Opposed? That motion carries as well.. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: At this time Mr. O'Brien requested that he have the floor, so before we adjourn, Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Yeah. I don't know if we need to have anybody else -- it's a public meeting, so will just go ahead with it. From time to time we have had applicants come through and continually continue their application for long periods of time -- in other words, it might happen four or five times a year and I think that in doing this it's a great misuse of time by staff, by the city and by us and I would like to recommend that when we see an applicant that continues to continue their application, that we would recommend denial of their application for at least a year. Maybe Anna can explain a little bit more in detail about what I talked with her about earlier to clarify that, if you could. Canning: I would happen to. There are some projects that for different reasons end up being continued time after time after time and it does place an extra burden on staff to notice them, to put them on the agenda, to generally keep track of them, to keep the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 58 of 59 public informed of those, and yet we receive no additional fees. So, there is the monetary aspect to this is just the first and probably most minor one. Another aspect is that the public has to watch the agenda, see if it's actually going to be on, see if they have revised their concept plan, come in, talk to staff, so it's a burden on the general public as well. It's a burden when it comes to scheduling your time, because if we are anticipating that that's going to be on there, sometimes we will put another project or another applicant off to another hearing date and., then, you end up having a very light agenda occasionally, maybe. So, there is some burden that it places on you. You have all the tools necessary to take care of the problem. It's quite simple. You say this is the last time I'm going to continue -- we are going to continue this. Next time we will deny the project. You can either withdraw it and resubmit or we will deny it for you next time. If you deny a project, they cannot bring substantially the same project back within a year. So, there is -- there is a real penalty to denying a project. So, you should give them that option of would you like to withdraw your project and resubmit when you're ready or -- you should at least give them that option. But I think that there is -- there are some real valid reasons for having people just withdraw the application and resubmit. Sometimes the code changes. We have to keep track of what codes were in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete and if it goes on for a year or more, you know, the code can change and we have got to somehow keep track of that and it's -- it's not always that easy. Siddoway: Anna, if they withdraw, do they repay fees when they resubmit? Canning: They sure do. O'Brien: Thank you. Siddoway: Sounds like sound advice. Moe: I guess the question would be there are some that staff continues on as well; correct? At times? So -- Canning: Very rarely do you get staff continuation. Most of them are due to improper posting and we are -- I think -- did Caleb talk to you about that at all? We have had so many continued for improper posting lately I'm tempted to do the posting for folks, to charge an additional fee and actually do the posting. It's something we need to run by the Building Contractors Association. But something to think about, because that's had a big impact on your agenda lately as well. Moe: Okay. I'm all in favor of that, simply because I have got a few projects in mind that I'm tired of seeing for the last year and a half or so. Canning: Yeah. Yeah. There is one in particular that's abusing the system. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 3, 2008 Page 59 of 59 Moe: Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. O 'Brien, thank you. O'Brien: You're welcome. Moe.: I'm looking for one more motion. O'Brien: Mr. -- oh, you get the privilege. Siddoway: I get to make it? Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second.. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Adjourned at 10:00 p.m. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPJ~OVED: DAVID MOE - C AIRMAN ATTES DATE AEA ~= n rF ; IAM G. BERG`JR. CIT1F~~t~f~K~,