Loading...
2008 02-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 21, 2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 21, 2008, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Ted Baird., Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay -Vice Chair X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening., ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February the 21st. I'd like to call the meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do have a change this evening. That would be that on Item No. 8, which is a Public Hearing for AZ 08-001 for the Overland Village, it has been requested for a continuance and we will be discussing that when it comes up. Also what I would like to do is I would like to -- that right there is our last item of the evening, so I would like to move that up to the front to be before Item No. 4. So, if I could get a motion to approve the adoption of the agenda for the -- number one, the continuance of the Public Hearing AZ 08-001 and also moving it to the front of tonight's agenda, I would appreciate it. Rohm: So moved. O'Brien: Second.. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda as revised.. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian Planning. and Zoning. Meetinct February 21, 2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 21, 2008, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Ted Baird., Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm -Vice Chairman X Joe Marshal X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February the 21st. I'd like to call the meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do have a change this evening. That would be that on Item No. 8, which is a Public Hearing for AZ 08-001 for the Overland Village, it has been requested for a continuance and we will be discussing that when it comes up. Also what I would like to do is I would like to -- that right there is our last item of the evening, so I would like to move that up to the front to be before Item No. 4. So, if I could get a motion to approve the adoption of the agenda for the -- number one, the continuance of the Public Hearing AZ 08-001 and also moving it to the front of tonight's agenda, I would appreciate it. Rohm: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda as revised. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 2 of 37 Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have nothing listed, so we will move forward. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 08-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts in Ada County to the C-G zoning district for Overland Village by Relo Development - 3330 E. Overland Road: Moe.: At this time I will open -- like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 08-001 for the sole purpose of continuing this hearing, but what I would like to let the Commission know is that the staff -- basically, the applicant was wanting to have this item continued to our next hearing of March 8th, but on the -- or, excuse me, March 6th. But on that evening we have four hearings that, quite frankly, we may not make it through all four hearings. There could be a few of those that are going to take some time. Just to let you know, the first one on that evening would be Castle Rock. City Council has remanded it back to us, so we will -- thank you very much. And so we will have some discussion on that. And, then, there is the Villas at Lochsa Falls and., then, Sonic Southern Springs and, then, Regency at River Valley. So, what I would like to do is staff would like to send that on to the March 20th, but at this time the only item that we would have on the 20th would be the item that we want to continue. However, I'm anticipating that we may end up on that 6th continuing one of them to the 20th. So, I guess my feeling would be to go ahead and continue the hearing -- this evening's hearings to the 20th, but I do want you folks to have a chance to weigh in on your opinion on whether we move it to the 20th. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any thoughts? Newton-Huckabay: That's fine with me. Is it too late to push some of the ones on the 6th to the 20th? Why did we load up the 6th schedule agenda? Rohm: Just lucky. Moe: It was just a lucky thing. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Rohm: From my perspective I think we could just go ahead and put it the last item on the agenda for the next meeting and if, in fact, we don't get to it, that's the luck of the draw for them. I mean the fact of the matter is the continuance is -- is at their convenience and if we don't get to it, it will be continued to the following meeting anyway. So, that's just my -- Moe: Okay. Rohm: -- take on it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 3 of 37 Moe: Mr. O'Brien, do you have comment? O'Brien: Well, Ithink -- I think the March 20th is more conducive to being able to hear it from beginning. To have the people wait until who knows how long and, then, have to continue it I think would be not in the best interest at this time. I think it's better just to go ahead and set it onto the 20th for sure. Moe: Okay. I would weigh in on pretty much the same comments. I would be concerned that there would be quite a few people possibly waiting around and., then, having to continue it anyway. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes,, sir. Rohm: I move that we continue Item No. AZ 08-001 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 20th. O'Brien: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing on AZ 08- 001 for Overland Village to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of March 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Okay. At this time before we go onto our next Public Hearing, for some of you that haven't been here before, we want to kind of just give you a brief overview of what will happen tonight and kind of go from there. I will open the hearing, at which time the staff will give a brief overview of the -- of the item, at which time after that is done the applicant will be able to come up and spend ten minutes basically reviewing what staff had to say and putting their opinions within their project as well. After that ten minutes, there are sign-up sheets in the back, if you have signed up to speak, we will go through the list and call you one at a time. Each person speaking you have three minutes to make your comments. After all the signatures have spoke, I will ask one more time if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, at which time you will be available to come up and have your three minutes. After all the public testimony, at that point, then, the applicant will be given time to come back up and rebut all comments made and, then, at that time the Commission, then, will act on the hearing.. Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 08-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 Zoning district for Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare by Annette Reed - 3150 N. Blairmore Way: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 4 of 37 Moe: So, having said that, I do notice that our other Commissioner has now arrived.. Would you., please, make that known and ask the staff to go ahead and start our Public Hearing. I will open CUP 08-001 Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is a Conditional Use Permit to operate a daycare center from an existing home in an R-8, medium density residential zoning district. As part of the Crossfield Subdivision approval, the existing home was proposed to be used as a daycare facility. The UDC requires CU'P approval to operate a daycare facility within an R-8 zoning district. The site is located at 3150 North Blairmore Way, which is south of Ustick Road and west of South Venable Lane. The property is bordered on the north by the proposed Settler's Square Subdivision and rural residences currently zoned RUT, Ada County. To the east is non-platted vacant land, part of the Crossfield Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is Crossfield Subdivision No. 2, zoned R-8. And to the west is Crossfield Subdivision No. 1, zoned R-8. Here is the aerial of the site. Here is where the existing home is located.. As you can see, there is quite a bit of vacant land surrounding this property, especially -- particularly on the west -- or, excuse me, the east and the south. Here is the existing home on the site again. The front elevation of the home facing Ustick. This is the rear property where they are proposing to have their playground area. And this is the existing driveway on the site with access going into the proposed facility through this doorway here. Here is the floor plan of the site. It's -- right now there are seven classrooms proposed located here, here, here. Located there. Also here and here. This is the existing garage of the home that's slated for employee parking and that does meet the standard requirements for the -- dimensional standards of our parking department. One thing I'd like to point out, I don't have it on this plan, but the applicant is proposing to construct. a hallway within the garage here to kind of come in -- to come in and run along there. That way when I showed you on the elevations that's the side door, this is where the office and the sick kid area is located. So, parents who -- supposed to come in here, drop off the kids, sign them in, and, then, exit out that doorway again. We have also conditioned the applicant to meet with building -- fire to make sure that that's acceptable and that they realize some of the requirements that are going to be placed on them from changing this from a residential designation to a commercial designation. Access to the site will be taken from North Blairmore Way via a one directional driveway with a total of ten parking stalls, eight general surface parking stalls and two stalls for employee parking within the existing garage. In addition, the applicant will also be responsible for planting two inch caliper trees adjacent to the parking stalls. All other landscaping requirements are in compliance with the UDC. So, again, it's not shown on the site plan, but there is an existing landscape island located here, so the applicant will be coming down Ustick here, coming into the development and, then, turning into the property here. Again, it's not impeded by that landscape island there. And, then, hopefully, they will park here located adjacent to these existing stalls here. One thing I want to point out as well is this existing concrete and driveway has already been installed, because this house .previously has been used for the sales office for the Crossfield Subdivision. So, now they are converting it to the proposed daycare center. The applicant is proposing to house up to 40 kids in there, ages from three and up. So, I wanted to make you aware of that. And, of course, they are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 5 of 37 proposing hours of operation from 6:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. They feel like there is a niche out there for parents -- those parents who work swing shift, so they want to provide that service to those parents out there. Again, here is where the play area is located on the site. UDC requires that they fence in that area on the site. There is a proposed six foot vinyl fencing along the eastern property boundary and the southern property boundary of this common lot here. On the first submittal they were proposing to put a fence across this common lot, but staff said they couldn't do that, because this is an ownership of the HOA in that subdivision, so what we proposed them to do was construct this fencing outside of the common lot and, then, what we have also asked them -- they were proposing to do six foot vinyl. We were asking them to do -- we have conditioned them to do wrought iron fencing along here and here to just, basically, add accessibility to keep this open, so anyone leaving that late at night, they could look back there and make sure there is no one waiting there or some kind of safety issue. That was -- staff was concerned that that could potentially be a safety hazard. One thing I'd like to mention, though, meeting with John Overton -- the applicant met with John Overton today and you guys should have his letter submitted in your packet tonight, but he -- he was in favor of leaving it as a vinyl fencing, but would like the open fencing along the southern boundary as well. And also UDC also requires that -- to separate private usable space from common open space. So, we have also conditioned the applicant to erect fencing along that property boundary as well. Staff is proposing -- is recommending approval of this CUP with conditions in Exhibit B and I'll stand for questions the Commission may have. Moe: Thank you, Bill. Are there any questions of staff? O'Brien: Yes. I have one question. What is the ratio between staff and children? Is there anumber -- they have an idea about how many total people would be there? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, when I spoke with the applicant she said she's expecting to have two full-time employees on site and, then, three additional part-time employees. But the fire -- when (reference -- I went and -- went on the website, the Idaho website, the state website, to see what their requirements were and the fire department requirement says one employee per 12 students. So, if they are proposing 40, they would have to have four on site. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Reed: Good evening, everyone. I would like to just -- Moe: Would you, please, state your name and address for us, please. Reed: My name is Annette Reed. And that's R-a-e-d. And the address is 2645 East Ustick Road, Meridian. 83646. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 6 of 37 Moe: Thank you. Reed: You're welcome. I just kind of want to go over a little bit of the plan here. After meeting .with -- do you have a pointer here? The fire -- the police department, what we have decided to do here for the safety of the children is we want to leave this vinyl, six foot vinyl; which also would go with the six foot vinyl that's here and here and that will go here. There will not be a gate here. This would be solid vinyl. And, then, the concern from the police department might have been a little bit of safety here, maybe in the winter with ice or something. So, I have proposed to put three concrete pillars here just for safety. If somebody was to slide they wouldn't slide through the fence or into the play area right there. There will be a locked gate here and we have sufficient parking for parents if there is a need for them to come into visit with the staff or anything here and here and, then, I'm proposing to put the two full-time staff parking in the garage area, which is here, if I get the approval to do the wall here. And we have measured it off with the Planning and Zoning and we feel that we meet the requirements for the parking with inside the garage and still the parking -- the walking width of the hallway here. The concern back here is this common lot and I have a letter from the developer that shows that he has given that maintenance and that common lot as part of my property. So, I think we are going to be looking into seeing if we still can't just bring that vinyl fence straight up to here and alleviate this wrought iron fence here and the gap that would be created right there. The only thing that runs under here is the sewer line. So, in the future if there was a need for the city to sewer service to come in and have to access that, they would have the right of way to get into that part of the property. As far as the hours of operation, I really have been researching and found that there is a need by the people that work the evening shifts, either at HP, Micron, or the hospital and there is no service that I had been aware of that provide evening care. So, we are looking at trying to bring them in. Most of them usually go in, dropping the kids off. There is a 3:00 to 11:00 shift and, then, some of the shifts are a little bit later and they would bring them in and the children would have the same routine that the day children would have. So, they would come in, they would be received, they'd have a little down time, they would still get the preschool curriculum taught in the evening. Obviously at night in the winter there would be no outside play, because it would be dark early. In the summer they would have their outside play. And, then, they would be asleep in the evening. So, they would not be out at night to disturb or to -- the neighborhood or anything of that, nor would there be a concern that they would be out in the evening playing. And I'm looking to go to 1:30 a.m., because I know that sometimes when people are at work that get off at midnight, they have to come and pick them up, there may be an occasion that they may be running late and so that staff person needs to be able to stay there with that child to accommodate that. That's it. O'Brien: So, I have a question. Moe.: Go right ahead. OBrien: So, you mentioned you have parking for two staff members. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 7 of 37 Reed: Two full-time staff. Uh-huh. And, then, the others would be part time. So, they would split the day. I would have someone come in in the mornings and., then, some people come in in the afternoon. And that's going to kind of fluctuate depending on how many kids we have, because I'm anticipating 40, but there won't be a full time 40, because we will have before school and after school kids. So, that won't be there the full day. O'Brien: What do you anticipate the maximum you might have at any one time? Reed.: I'm thinking maximum will probably be 30. O'Brien: Okay. Okay. About the fencing, the police recommended that you put a wrought iron fence on the southwest -- western southern portion of the property. Reed,: If we don't get the approval to put the vinyl all the way to pass on top of that common area. O'Brien: Okay. Could you point that out to me, please? Reed: So, right here is this common area that -- that we are a little bit concerned about right here. So, if I cannot bring this vinyl fence all the way to here, which is about another maybe 20 feet, if that, then, the fire -- the police department and the planning and Zoning would suggest that I do wrought iron here, which I totally agree with, because we want to make sure that there is visibility and not someone standing behind there that we can't see. O'Brien: Okay. That was my question. Reed.: And so the police department was in agreement with that as well. O'Brien: Thank you. I have no further -- Moe: Mrs. Reed, I want to go back over the common lot again. You said that you have talked to the developer or to the homeowners association. Reed.: Well, the developer is still -- is part of the homeowner -- owns the homeowners association and manages it now and so I have a letter from him, showing that -- what it says is if you can kind of look, Lot 1 is the berm in the front where -- which is the subdivision entrance. They maintain that. Lot 2 is the home area and Lot 3 is the common area of Block 4. So, when you read that letter, which I think Planning and Zoning has it and it should be in the packet, it says that they changed it, that I would be responsible for that common lot and so they have taken that and when I asked them -- because Itold them I wanted to bring the fence all the way to the end, he goes I don't have a problem with that. He says it would save me from having to mow that strip of grass and he put it in the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 8 of 37 Moe: But the bigger problem is that you don't own that property. Reed,: Right. Moe: So, therefore, you know, as far as this application, it's based upon the property that you own, so, therefore, that's why the wrought iron open fencing is probably required here. Reed.: Exactly. And that's where we came to. Moe: Because just in discussions with staff, taking that any farther south without you owning the property is just not going to happen. Reed: Okay. And that's fine, because I think I'm totally on line with the suggestions from the police department and Planning and Zoning. Moe: Okay. And,, then., that would -- just so I also understand one thing, as far as the wrought iron, you would not be anticipating -- or maybe you would -- putting a gate in that to be able to get to that common lot at anytime or -- Reed: I am planning not to, because I don't want the kids to be able to go in and out through there. Moe: Thank you. That's all I had. Are there any questions? O'Brien: I have nothing further. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Reed.: Thank you, Commissioners. Moe: At this time there is no one signed up to speak. If there is anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this, please, come forward. Jones: I just have a question. Moe: You need to come to the mike and state your name and address, please. Jones: Cindy Jones. 1082 West Secret Drive in Meridian. I just -- I don't know where Venable Drive is, out of curiosity. Is there another major cross-street that would be -- know where Ustick is, but I don't know what another -- I'm sorry. I know where Venable is. I don't know in relationship to Meridian. What's another -- the next big street? Is it between Ten and File Mile? Is it between -- I don't know where it is. Meridian and Linder. Thank you. That was my question. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 9 of 37 Jones: Thank you. Moe: Yes, sir. Farnham: My name is Terry Farnham. The one question -- Moe: Address, please? Farnham: Address is 1070 South Muscovy Avenue, Meridian. The one question I had would be the individual mentioned on the plan about putting in a fence next to the property or the building along there to access the play area and the only -- only suggestion I would have would be if they haven't already, considered any fire safety codes regarding where that gate would be along that fence and how close it would be in association to the building as far as access in and out of there in case there should be a fire in the building or some other safety concern. That was the only thing -- if they maybe could address that concern or look into that, but they didn't want to do that. Moe: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Mrs. Reed, would you like to come back up and maybe answer that gentleman's question? Reed: If I understood him correctly, he's looking for an emergency exit for -- on the gate and that is right here. So, here is the house structure. There is an exit there. There is an exist there from the house and this is a covered porch. So, they would be able, if they were back here, to exit through here and that seems to be sufficient for code for everyone. There is also an exit up here in the front of the house and each room has an ingress-egress window and the fire department, I believe, spoke with them on how to assess that situation for that. Moe: Did that answer your question? Sir, you're going to have to come to -- name again, please? Farnham: Again, it's Terry Farnham at 1070 South Muscovy in Meridian. And the concern I was wondering is -- is if there would be a concern about the gate being too close to the structure if there were a fire in the structure and there were children in the play area, they would need to safely leave that area without being blocked in that play area and not being able to get out of that area. There may be a distance -- Moe: I would anticipate that the building department would be reviewing that and they will verify that prior to -- Farnham: Okay. Moe: Okay? Farnham: All right. Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 10 of 37 Moe: Thank you. Mrs. Reed., do you have anything else to say? Reed: Nothing. Moe: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Is there any other discussion of the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Marshall: My couple questions have been answered. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 08-001. Newton-Huckabay: Second.. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 08-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.. Newton-Huckabay: Bill's over there waving his arm. Parsons: Joe just had his microphone up. Moe: All right. Mr. Rohm, it looks like you're ready to do something here. Yeah. I think so. It looks like they have met all the requirements of staff and have done a pretty good job of preparing this, so with that being said, I'd like to at this time make a motion to approve CUP 08-001 for the Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approval of -- oops. Excuse me. I'm sorry. That's not. This is a CUP. Approved CUP 08-001. Parsons: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. Could I get some clarification on how you want that fencing to be? Do you want it all wrought iron or do you want to go with the police department's question -- or suggestion on the site? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 11 of 37 Moe: Mr. Rofim, I would say that the police department wanting the vinyl down through there and the applicant not planning to put any type of gate or anything in the wrought iron, but we still have visibility there; basically, the Police Department would probably be the best way to go. Rohm: Lnclude that in the motion to go with the police department's recommendation. Moe: Okay. Okay. Having said that, then, it has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-001 for the Blairmore Pre-school and Daycare. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 20, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property (aka Browning Plaza) by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 08-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 commercial /office lots and 1 common lot on 38.21 acres in a proposed C- Gzoning district for Browning Plaza (aka Waltman Property) by SLN Planning., Inc. - 505, 521, 615 and 675 W. Waltman Lane: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing -- continued Public Hearing for AZ 06-063 and., then, open the Public Hearing for PP 08-001, for the Waltman properties, aka Browning Plaza, and start with the staff report, please. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applications before you are an annexation and zoning request for the Waltman property and preliminary plat for Browning Plaza. The subject property consists of 38.68 acres and is currently zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County. The property is located on the south side of Waltman Lane., as you can see here on the overhead. East of The Landing Subdivision, and directly north of I-84. The site is bordered on the north by Waltman Lane and single family rural residential properties, zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County. And on the east by single family rural residential, zoned C-G and an ITD sand lot, zoned RUT in Ada County. On the south by the Interstate 84 and on the west by single family residences in The Landing Subdivision, zoned R-4. This is an aerial view of the property. And there is an existing barn and sheds on the site that are proposed to be removed upon development of the property. The rest of the site is vacant. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 in Ada County to C-G, general retail and service commercial. Staff believes that the proposed C-G zoning is appropriate, as it complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of commercial for this property. And with the annexation request the applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan, as you can see on the overhead here, showing how this property may develop in the future. The plan depicts approximately Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 12 of 37 400,000 square feet of commercial space, distributed among 21 separate buildings, consisting of five office buildings, five office retail buildings, one big box retail building., one potential hotel here at the corner of the property and nine smaller retail buildings. Staff is supportive of the proposed concept plan with the development agreement provisions as noted in the staff report. There are currently only two points of access to this property, Waltman Lane along the north of the property here, which is a public street that runs along the north boundary to the intersection up here at Meridian and Main Street there. And Ruddy Drive, a public street at the west boundary right here that's stubbed to this site from The Landing Subdivision. Waltman Lane will be the major access corridor to this site. Currently, Waltman Lane is a partially improved roadway with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. There is a third access point that staff also believes is important to the viability of this area. Corporate Drive and its extension across the Ten Mile Creek north of this site. Staff believes that each of these points of connectivity is important to the development of this site. For this reason staff has included a development agreement provision that no building permits be issued or construction traffic be allowed on the site until the construction related to the Waltman Lane, Meridian Road, Main Street intersection is completed, or Corporate Drive is extended across the Ten Mile Creek and connected to Waltman Lane from the north. Further, staff has included another development agreement provision for Waltman Lane, Meridian Road, Main Street intersection be completed and Corporate Drive be extended across the Ten Mile Creek to connect to Waltman Lane and Waltman Lane be fully improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk from the intersection of Waltman- Meridian, to and abutting the subject property prior to occupancy of any structure on the site. The reconstruction of the Waltman -Meridian -Main Street intersection and split corridor project is scheduled in ACHD's five year work program to start in 2D09. A preliminary plat is also proposed for 40 commercial building lots and two common lots on 38.21 acres of land.. The plat shows a public street connection, Corporate Drive, from Waltman to the stub street Ruddy Drive at the west boundary of the site and The Landing Subdivision, as depicted on the concept plan. The site is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G district as listed in the UDC and noted in the staff report. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan with this application. Per the Unified Development Code, a 20 foot wide buffer is required along both sides of Corporate Drive within the site. A ten foot wide buffer is required along Waltman Lane west of the Corporate -Waltman intersection. It's classified as a local street in this area. And a 20 foot wide buffer is required along Waltman east of the Corporate -Waltman intersection. And this is considered a collector street here. In order to provide a buffer between the three existing residential properties on the north side of Waltman Lane, right here, and the proposed commercial development, the applicant is proposing to relocate Waltman Lane further to the south and provide a 25 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the residences where the existing right of way is located.. A 25 foot wide buffer between land uses is required as shown on the plat along the west and northwest property boundaries adjacent to existing residences. And so it will be right in this area here. And there is also a short section of multi-use pathway required along the Ten Mile Drain per the master pathways plan, as depicted on the landscape plan at the northeast corner of the site. Prior to the hearing tonight the applicant submitted some conceptual elevations and photos of what future buildings on this site may look like. As you can Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 13 of 37 see, there is a wide variety here. The applicant doesn't really know at this point what future users they will have and what the elevations may look like, but they did provide a variety here. Most of the buildings appear to consist of stucco with brick and rock accent materials. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications with development agreement provisions and conditions based on the findings in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Are there any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward.. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Joe Borton, Rose Law Group, on behalf of the applicant, 4398 Red Grass Court, in Meridian, to make some brief introductory remarks on this, and, then, Shawn Nickel will make some comment as well. I'll leave most of the time for him to remark on this. It's exciting to be here. This is an exciting opportunity to present in front of the Commission here. I got to confess, when the application before was -- was in front of you for the pre-school and you took a vote, I almost voted on it. I'm used to responding to it, so it's kind of hard to be on this side of it, I got to confess. So, this is an exciting opportunity, it's an exciting project in a great location and it's gone through a whole lot of work with city staff, lots of the neighbors and lots of individuals trying to make this project work. It appears to be a wonderful opportunity to advance and enhance this northwest corner of this intersection. The site plan depicts a proposal for that. We have got the staffs recommendation for approval we are excited about as well. There are a couple of minor site specific conditions of approval that we are working through. We are not in agreement -- well, Shawn Nickel is going to address some of those. But, in whole, it's been a great opportunity to try and complete this project in those locations and add this important component to the City of Meridian. We have got some -- some of the transportation improvements that were mentioned in the staff report concerning the connection to Corporate and concerning Walfiman Lane, will be addressed. There was -- just to briefly mention it, ACHD staff report as of yesterday was fine with the applicant and our review of that. That's changed as of today. So, there is a new staff report, which has made some significant changes in some of the recommendations, which give us some cause for concern, but are not insurmountable challenges to try and get -- to get remedied, so, again, we are in agreement with staffs recommendation of approval to move this -- this project forward and with regards to those specific site -- site specific conditions of approval, we have some concern with and Shawn Nickel will be addressing those. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel with Rose Law Group, 6223 Discovery Way, Suite 200 in Boise, here tonight representing the applicant. I want to thank staff and also Joe for kind of getting -- getting me to this point, so I'll try to be rather brief here, but, first off, we have tried to work with your staff. We have tried to work with the neighbors as much as we can, because we do understand that there is certain responsibility that we have, especially coming into this type of area Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 14 of 37 where we have existing residential, we have some site constraints that we have to get through, such as the creek, a stub street from an existing residential neighborhood always provides a challenge and, then, working with folks that are going to be immediately impacted to the north of this .property where Waltman Lane comes in and so you have seen a lot of tablings over the year to get us to this -- to this point and we do appreciate your patience on this. And, hopefully, we can -- we can keep it -- we can move forward. I'm going to -- I'm going to use the word flexibility a lot tonight and in the future, because I think it's important to understand that originally when we were asking for annexation and zoning of this property we know that staff and the city wants to -- you know, wants a little more information, wants to know what -- you know, what's going to be on this property in the future, so they can make an appropriate decision and we do respect that. However, to start the process and get this property marketed, we got to start small with the zoning and work from there and so at this time we don't know what this ultimately is going to look like. So, to work with staff to make sure they are comfortable and the city to make sure they are comfortable with what we are proposing., staff has come up with some conditions of approval that they want to put in the development agreement and after meeting with them today, I think we came a long way from where we were yesterday, with the understanding that that flexibility needs to be in place and the concept plans that we have submitted, both concept plan and the concept elevations, are just that, they are concepts. Now, we kind of were reassured this morning from staff that, yes, we understand, this is -- these are conceptual. We need a starting point. So, if these concept plans are adopted within the development agreement, we are fine with that, understanding that they could look -- it could look somewhat different when it's all finally said and done. I think staff has told us that -- and the word was general compliance with the -- with the concept plan is what they are looking for. I guess we have the ability, if someone comes in with something that's really way out there, as far as these plans, that we can come in and modify that development agreement. So, I think we are okay with that and if you have got my very late comment letter this afternoon, I apologize for the lateness of that, but, again, we were trying to work through a lot of issues at the last minute. I kind of point that out as far as the conceptual plans that I think we are in agreement to what that means and so I'd like to get that on the record, which I have. The other thing I want to make sure everybody understands is that by requesting flexibility and the conceptual plan flexibility in no way does this -- does this indicate that this property is not ready to develop. I think planning this property now -- this is the best time, especially with the city growing as it is and the reconstruction of that intersection to the east, now is the time to find out -- you know, to figure out what is going to be on this very important piece of property that's so vital to the city and in proximity to the off ramp and to the interstate. So, now is a good time to be looking at this property. When -- can we get some other pictures up, please? Thank you, Sonya. As I indicated, we have had several -- we have worked with the neighbors and have had several neighborhood meetings and I -- hopefully, when the neighbors get up they will acknowledge that we really do respect them and appreciate their -- their lifestyles and we want to do what we can to -- to do what we can to make this development as compatible and transitional as we can to them and we would want to continue that relationship. I'm trying to stall here for a second. This is a vicinity map that kind of shows how this all lays out here. This is the property right here. You can Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page t5 of 37 see the existing residential and the Waltman Lane and the interchange and this is the main -- the main intersection reconstruction that's going to -- that's going to occur. If you can turn to the next one, Sonya. Next one. There we go. Thanks. This is Waltman Lane as it comes over the creek and the bridge and these three properties right here, these residential properties, were our main focus, because of Waltman coming in on the property and so what we proposed was to relocate Waltman, as staff has indicated, and provide the property owners north of us with an increased buffer. We, actually, are going to vacate right of way along this portion of Waltman and have it dedicated to those owners and provide berms and landscaping, again, to try to -- to try to minimize that -- that impact as much as we can. As Joe indicated, we have reviewed staffs report. We kind of got hit late this afternoon with a revision from ACHD that we are still going to need to work out, unfortunately. Yesterday we thought we were in agreement with ACHD, but they have kind of changed their minds with regards to off- site improvements and your staff also has some conditions in your staff report .that are of concern to us with regards to the off-site improvements. And they include -- that will work. And in your staff report staff is recommending improvements to Waltman Lane from -- this will be new the intersection. So, from the end of the new improvements to our .property line., staff is recommending off-site improvements along Waltman Lane, in addition to a connection of Corporate Lane or Corporation Drive across the creek here and down into the property. As of yesterday that was conflicting with ACHD's recommendation and since then they have kind of come back and they do want that Corporate -- that Corporate Drive connected. Our concern is anytime we have off-site improvements required upon us and that is we have no control over those properties. The collector status road that is needed -- that is being told is needed by staff along Waltman Lane, there is not enough right of way there to accommodate that. We have had a traffic study done and reviewed by ACHD and initial indications were we were fine with those existing conditions. We are required to do quite a bit of improvements internally, including connecting Ruddy to Waltman and the construction of Waltman. So, we want to take a look at that tonight and., again, we are not -- we are not going to have a final decision from ACHD for probably a couple weeks, so we will need to decide what to do from this point forward with your recommendation. Hopefully, it will be a recommendation for approval with the limiting or the elimination of those -- those off-site improvements. In addition -- and this is -- again, this was something that was -- that was of concern to us earlier and after talking with staff this morning I think we are on the same page and that's with regards to -- one more slide, Sonya. I promise I will have a better presentation for you next time to work with -- that's great. Thank you. And, again, with the -- with that flexibility word again, not knowing what those future uses are going to be on the property, but also respecting the residential districts that are surrounding us -- and I believe we can work with staff on the wording of the conditions as far as the transitional uses along -- along these two -- these two boundaries. We don't want to limit ourselves to a type of uses, but we also don't want to put uses there that are going to be detrimental to the neighbors and so I think working out the conditions in the development agreement on things such as hours of operation, lighting, sound walls, a buffer, and things like that, obviously, requirements that -- on setbacks and bulk -- I think bulk was an important issue of staff and we do agree we want to put a -- you know, 200,.000 square foot -- two or three story building up against the residents, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 16 of 37 but we propose conditions that a Conditional Use Permit would be required for certain things, loading docks and areas in the back would be -- would be prohibited and so I think that's going to be an ongoing fine tuning, I guess, with staff on those conditions. So, we can talk about those this evening if you like, but I think we are probably on the same page with staff now. So, I want to be quiet now and let you ask me some questions and then -- Moe: I do have a question for you and just a general question. You want to construct this huge development here, but, yet, you want -- you are anticipating wanting to leave Waltman pretty much the way it is with all that traffic going into this large site. You don't think that Corporate needs to be extended in order to have another access point into this thing and try and avoid bringing everything down Waltman? Or do you agree it needs to be done, but you guys just don't want to pay for it? Nickel: It's not necessarily a matter of paying for it, it's -- well., I guess it is a matter of paying for it, because when you -- whenever you require an off-site improvement and we have no control over that property, it could become quite -- quite an expensive endeavor just getting the property entitled. As of 1:00 o'clock this afternoon we were under the impression that we met ACHD's requirements for capacity and that's what -- that's kind of where we are at. As of 2:00 o'clock, as far as how much capacity can Waltman really take now, as opposed to when Corporate really needs to be brought in and that's where -- that's where we are going to be going in the next few weeks with ACRD on, you know, whether there is going to be a percentage of development that could occur on the property before Corporate ultimately needs to be improved. Moe: Thank you. Nickel: If I could just elaborate. Moe: Sure. Nickel: The concern we have is a flat out condition from -- from the city that it has to be done -- all of it has to be done now. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, you made use of a lot of words like flexibility and ability to work with staff, but you never succinctly said beyond, just what specifically are you asking for? You said you have a lot of things to work out, but, yet, you want to move forward to City Council, but I didn't really get a commitment on what it is you're willing to do. I'm more confused since you started your presentation than I was before the hearing started. So, I have a hard time with that, just words like flexibility and work with Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 17 of 37 staff, given the situation it's a little hard for me to say, oh, yeah, let's just forward it onto City Council without a succinct list of what it is exactly that you're asking us to remove, if you will, from the staff report. Nickel: And that's a fair question, Commissioner. I think what I'm really asking for removal tonight is with regards to the off-site improvements. Regarding the on-site flexibility, again, I think we can work with staff on the details of setbacks and bulk and, again, it's hard without knowing what the end user is going to be to know what -- I mean there may or may not be a hotel right here. So, putting those conditions in place as far as height and in the event -- in the instance of a hotel stepping back the height based on setbacks and -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So -- Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: What are you proposing, then, in lieu of concessions so that we don't surprise the neighbors with MaDonald's when they thought it was going to be a bank? Nickel: That's a very good question. We don't necessarily want to put a McDonald's right here, but we don't want to limit a shoe store from going in there and so to get -- to get to the -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, you're -- I mean -- Nickel: We don't want to have full control, we want -- we do understand the need for -- fortransition. Staff has recommended that for any buildings over 100,000 square feet, if they are located on this west side, that we would do a Conditional Use Permit. That would bring it back to the Public Hearing process and open it up and we could take a look at it in more detail. That's something that's fine with us. In addition, we would agree to a no loading docks in the back and so we are looking at compatible uses up against that boundary. Newton-Huckabay: So, how many thousand square feet is a shoe store? Nickel.: Five thousand, twenty-five hundred.. And., again, the list in the development agreement could be endless if we sit here and try to anticipate every single use that could or could not go on this site. But we do respect that there needs to be some sort of requirements. Now, also keep in mind that you do have design review process that -- to look at this in the future and that's another thing that we would be more than happy to have as a condition of approval in the development agreement. That further review -- administrative review would look at something like that to determine that we are not -- you know, we not putting a Reebok back there, we are not putting obtrusive lighting back there. And, then, you know, at some point a Conditional Use Permit would be required, which would put it in a public hearing process, if need be. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 18 of 37 Moe: I think that's probably where I'm a little confused as well. As you go forward in discussing this, if you go to your concept plan, those buildings there are shown to be professional offices, as well as the others up off of Waltman there. We have noted one is a retail also. So, all you're speaking of tonight so far has been commercial, so you really don't know what you're going to put there at this time. Nickel: That's the problem.. That's why, you know, the flexibility -- but at the same time, it is not appropriate or responsible to put a bar back there. We understand that. We understand there are some limitations. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I have no further questions right now. Thanks. Moe: Any other Commissioners have any questions? O'Brien: I'd just like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Regarding what we were just talking about. In the notes on item ten, analysis of staff says that it's including a development agreement provision that requires office use only on the western and northern boundaries of the property. So, that would., basically, rule out retail; am I correct? So, you couldn't put a shoe store in there. Nickel: Right. And that's what we are -- we are not in favor of those conditions that are going to limit us to just office=type uses on those boundaries. O'Brien: I submit that that certainly opens up a can of worms long term. I mean it's kind of hard to -- like what the fellow Commissioners were saying., it's kind of hard to understand what it is we are going to end up with, then. Nickel: I agree. O'Brien: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Marshall: Originally you were saying you were in favor of the development agreement, other than just the off-site issues. Now, you're saying you're not in favor of the issues on site as well; is that correct? Nickel: No. And this might be where I lost you guys. We are fine with the development agreement and we are fine with the conditions of approval. I think we can work with staff on coming up with a list of restricted uses -- uses that could kick in a Conditional Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 1'9 of 37 Use Permit, things like that, and we would agree to those with the development agreement. We are not -- we are not there yet. Marshall: But if I read the development agreement correctly, it placed professional offices all along this entire area here and here, which would eliminate having a hotel here. It would eliminate any retail or -- but, yet, you're saying you want flexibility there, so you can put retail there, because you just don't know. Nickel: We want to have the ability to, but with the understanding that there are some limitations, that we need to come up with some limitations about what type of retail is there. Yes. Moe: Okay. Any other questions at this time? Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I just have aquick -- so I understand. Can we put in the development agreement specifics for that particular question about retail versus office that we won't allow one thing, but we can allow something else? Is that something within our jurisdiction to do? Can we specify in the development agreement about shoe store versus McDonald's, if you will. Moe: Absolutely we can. O'Brien: Okay. I just wanted to make sure -- understand that. Thank you. Moe: Yes. Okay. The first one signed up is -- is it Donna Aldredge? Okay. Lee: Curtis Lee. 365 Waltman Lane. We are on the east side of the drainage ditch. We have been there a little over 40 years and we had a small dairy there and you are correct on the traffic on Waltman Lane is already ridiculous, especially at that corner. You just can't get out. And the only way -- Meridian does need businesses. That's true. It's good for the taxes and it's good for the city, but until Corporate Drive is done, it's impossible. It just has to be done first. And that corner up there has to be done also. And that lane they keep talking about, Ruddy Drive or whatever, that was the old Springer house and they just tore it down and took a bulldozer and -- it's just dirt. So, I don't know what that is, but -- and the other question I had is when they widen Waltman Lane, which it sounds like they are going to have to, it's inevitable, and the 25 foot easement that they are going to take -- our well and everything is right up front there and all of our shrubbery and sidewalk -- we have a sidewalk up there, how are they going to do that. Are they going to move the well and everything to make Waltman Lane a real road., because it's just, what, a half mile dead-end street right now. It's not even dirt. I mean it's just kind of a gravel road, almost. Tar. Moe: Well, the applicant will answer that when we bring them back up. Lee: Okay. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 20 of 37 Moe: Okay. Christie. Haddock: Christie Haddock. I live at 650 Waltman Lane and right across the street. I wasn't planning on doing this. But my big concern is the traffic. You're opening a huge subdivision to go by my little house with my five kids on their bikes and not only that, but you have big semis who will be accessing this and we are just as confused as you are on the flexibility. So, that's all. Moe: Thank you very much. Kathy Floyd. Floyd.: Kathy Floyd. 520 Waltman Lane. And I don't think we had said this, but we live on a dead end lane, so it's not like we are talking about Franklin and Eagle or some major crossroads where this makes sense. Can I zoom out to like the overall -- can you do that? And does this work? Moe: No. There is another one there. Floyd.: Oh. Thank you. So, this is my proposal, which I think makes a lot more sense. Okay. Here is Waltman. Well, in the future, obviously, this is going to be something -- if you are going to go to all the expense of redoing the subdivision, which -- I mean this intersection, which I think is a waste of taxpayer money, but that's my personal opinion. So, when this is really done, then, you're going to have to have something here to develop. So, my proposal is that you do a frontage road that goes from here over and, then, connects with Corporate, which makes a lot more sense if you look here, it would kind of match and it would eliminate a lot of traffic down our lane and I'm not necessarily opposed to that being changed to commercial, but I am opposed of everybody in that subdivision and everybody going to this development going passed our property. That's all I have. Thanks. Moe: Thank you for your comments. Is it Nona Haddock? N.Haddock: It is. My name is Nona Haddock and I live at 480 Waltman Lane. And want to thank you. It's nice to come to a meeting and find out who is in charge of planning and zoning. I am impressed with all of you. Appreciate your demeanor and the way you conduct these meetings. I agree with Kathy that we'd really like to ask for a frontage road. I'd like you. to look at the whole area, rather than the plot that's in front of you right now. I realize that's what you have for consideration, but where we live, we try to access Meridian -- our only choice is at the intersection and our only way out of this intersection is one traffic light and that's when the traffic on Main Street is going south, the cars will stop long enough for us to get out and that's it. And when we tried to access -- like our children have attended Meridian Middle School, from our side of the city, you cannot get anywhere across town without using Meridian Road or Linder. On the east side you other roads that will go from Franklin over to Fairview and so I'd like you to really look at the whole area as far as accessibility goes, so that not everybody has to travel Main Street to get across town. And I know the new Locust Grove is helping. Linder would help. But just to get across, I wish we had a road from Franklin Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 21 of 37 that went over to Pine. That would eliminate a lot. But I don't think there has been anything that I have ever seen that left a corridor open there. But as you're planning this whole area, if you would think of the frontage road as a possibility that way the subdivision could empty out, it wouldn't be a problem getting to where the businesses are, it wouldn't be a problem getting to our residential area and would give good access. When the subdivision went in, public hearings were held and Waltman Lane residents voted not to have that access to the subdivision and our requests were granted and so there is not an opening, other than a walkway, into the subdivision. I realize that all the people in that subdivision need access in and out. They certainly are landlocked. And so I'd like to request that you look at the needs of the subdivision and the needs of our neighborhood as you plan and approve this. I have no objection to it going commercial. certainly am concerned about what that means. You know, what the commercial will be. But, please, look at the whole area and think of a traffic pattern that will meet the needs of everyone. Thank you. Moe: Nathan Floyd. N.Floyd: Nathan Floyd. 520 Waltman Lane. Most of my concerns have already been presented, but one concern I did have -- this one here, I guess. In several of the meetings that we have had with Waltman, LLC, they suggested that the development of this intersection right here would be a good thing for us, because it's such a -- it would be easier for us to be able to pull into Waltman Lane if the intersection was developed. But it's -- it's already hard enough to pull into Waltman Lane, getting off the interstate, trying to get over through traffic and into this light right here. They get onto Waltman Lane. Since corporate has planned to be developed through here, I suggest it would be a lot easier for us to get into Waltman Lane for a residential area down Corporate and so I wouldn't see a reason to really need to develop Phis intersection here and so I was wondering what Waltman, LLC, had thought about that. My other concern also is with the development of Corporate across Ten Mile Creek, if there was going to be a buffer zone planned for -- for that boundary right there with the property. Thank you. Moe: Joe -- is it Lorcher? Lorcher: Joe Lorcher. 740 Waltman Lane, Meridian. I am the property owner of this property right here where Corporate Drive is being discussed as going through. I mainly wanted to come tonight to -- the only people that have ever talked to me about this lane are the developers. ACHD has never said anything to me. Planning and Zoning, I have never heard anything. So, all I'm getting is information from one side. So, I just wanted to state my name, be on record, and say I'm the property owner and willing to discuss Corporate Drive through my property. .Moe: Okay. Thank you. Cindy Jones. Jones: Cindy Jones. 1082 West Egret Drive. I live in Mallard Landing, which is bordering the subdivision. My question is why is the developer not considering residential, more homes there? It seems kind of an odd place commercially because of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 22 of 37 Waltman -- the way that intersection is. So, I have been on that road.. Trying to get out of there is ridiculous. To add more traffic to that makes absolutely no sense. So, I'm just curious why it's not houses. And I would like to say that I am opposed to that Ruddy Drive being opened up. I would not like more traffic coming into Mallard Landing. It's a quiet neighborhood that is quiet and I don't want more traffic. I mean, yes, it would be nice to have another access to come out, but people coming out also means more traffic coming in and that bothers me. Moe: To answer your first question, basically, on the Comprehensive Plan map right now for the city that is zoned for commercial property. Jones: It is just zoned. Moe.: Okay. Thank you. Next, Terry -- and., I'm sorry, Idon't -- oh. Okay. Farnham: Again, my name is Terry Farnham.. I appreciate your willingness to give us the opportunity to speak tonight. Again., my address is 1070 South Muscovy. I live right along here where this intersection with Honker Drive and Muscovy meet right there. I have been able to attend one or two of the meetings that the developers had, more initially than recently. They have tried to address concerns with the various individuals involved in this as far as homeowners and that and from what I have seen -- or the concerns that I raise and it sounds like that they briefly address it, would be what kind of barrier wall would they be putting along here, that they would be looking at. I, like the previous owner, am a little bit more concerned with a lot of commercial right along here, you know, what kind of security concerns we would have, both during the development and afterwards when there is use -- you know, there -- you know, there would be a lot of parking lot space throughout this area.. You know, would there be plans for, obviously, the City of Meridian police department would probably patrol the area, you know, there would be actual usage being used along there once it is developed, but that would be one concern that -- that, you know, I'm not sure how that would take place once it is developed, you know, as far as security concerns. The lighting along here, it sounds like they might 6e considering that as far as residents goes, but those would be, you know, a lot of concerns as far as that goes, as far as a homeowner, would be lighting, security, and., you know, noise abatement, such as a concern as far as access for garbage removal and whatnot, you know, for businesses along there. If you're going to have -- if you do end up with a two or three story motel here, then, obviously, there is going to be windows from there, you're going to have viewing issues probably between the residents and the buildings along there, unless they -- they construct it to where there is, you know, no view access, you know, along that side of the wall. Personally, I know just having one access -- and I will try to complete this here and make it quick. Just having one access out of this subdivision to Franklin from Linder makes it, you know, if they do open this up, if there is concern for traffic already, I imagine a lot of people., as well as myself, would be looking at, you know, ways to get out to the freeway and whatnot. Iwould -- once I heard that the Corporate Drive was going to be going in, I thought that would be an excellent opportunity to relieve some of the traffic flow out. If there is going to be concerns going out of Waltman before Corporate Drive, I would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 23 of 37 imagine that that would be a big concern, because myself, as well others, are going to be looking for ways to get out of that subdivision, just as there -- you know, I have lived there ten years and, you know, there is a concern living there and having that access. Once you open that up it's -- you're going to have a hard time stopping residential from leaving in and out of there and as the previous person addressed, if you have other people coming in through this area as well, it's -- you're going to have a lot of additional access that's going to be a potential concern just for that one corner there with the new light that's going to be going into that there. So, whether a frontage road would be beneficial or not, I'm not sure, but that might be something to consider. Or Corporate Drive, dates -- I'm not sure when that's looking to be developed., but those are my main concerns and I appreciate your time allowing me to speak. Moe: Thank you very much. That is all that has signed. If there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, please, come forward. Winer: Good evening. I'm Robert Winer. I am one of the developers. My address is 2730 South Mayflower, Boise. 83709. I have been working with all the neighbors since day one, which they can attest is many, many, many days back. I have done a small development that we had some neighborhood concern in Boise off of Overland and Vinelle. We put together a development agreement with the city. That development agreement included no drive-thrus, no speakers, in those particular retail type uses. More low impact type retail. No bar rooms, specific lighting, barrier wall. If you'd like to know more of the location, it's right caddy corner to Wal-Mart, very quiet. The neighbors are extremely satisfied with it. It, basically, took a ratty corner and turned it into something really nice. And the last thing -- I mean we have never had a neighbor come back and say bad idea. We respected them. I have respected these guys. They have been respectful back. We have worked real hard to try to make contingencies for everyone. Obviously, we know that when this kind of thing goes in everybody is going to have issues about what travels in front of their house, as opposed to what's there now. We understand that. We sympathize with them. We have talked about building a big lake for water-skiing, unfortunately, that didn't work for us. So, we are willing to work with them. The concept of being restricted to only office against that corridor reduces the use of the land for us. There is a glut of office anyway. We .are not looking to put anything in there such as a McDonald's in that area. We are also willing to keep the backs of those buildings to where they don't have truck traffic behind them. Keep them front load, which is what we did on Overland and Vinelle. Again., the neighbors are more than happy and, you know, their opinion, hey, now we have got a building that blocks the light from Overland and the noise from Overland and they have actually got a quieter place to live than where they were. I'm not saying that's necessarily the issue when you take a center this size, but it's definitely a buffer between them and what potentially could be. So, we are working hard to try to make sure that they are satisfied and that we put something there that's desirable and that is about all I have and I will turn it back over to the powers that be. Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to come speak on this? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come back up, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 24 of 37 Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, for the record, Shawn Nickel. Just to reiterate to everyone in the audience, and, again, to you folks, there will be no development of any of the uses on the property until that intersection is improved. So, we won't be adding to any congestion to what's already a very bad intersection right now. That's important to note. The question about the improvements onto Waltman Lane -- and this is one of our concerns with the requirement for an off-site improvement. Right now there is only 50 feet of right of way to build the type of road that staff is suggesting would require acquisition of additional right of way and we just can't go in and take that right of way from -- from those -- from those neighbors. Something that has to be done at the time that they -- that they redevelop. Keep in mind, their property, in addition to ours, our all comp planned for commercial. So, not saying that they are going to be leaving anytime soon, but at some point that -- you know, the intent is to have this corridor commercial. They are out of order here, but with regards to the confusion of a flexibility, I agree a hundred percent and I apologize for making this so confusing to both you folks and the neighbors. It wasn't our intention when we originally submitted the application for the annexation and the zoning, it -- what makes it confusing is requiring conceptual plans and preliminary plats when you don't know what the -- what the use is going to be. However, we can't market the property at all if it's just a pasture in the county at an RUT zone. So, the starting point was annex it, get it zoned and market it that it is zoned for commercial. That's where the confusion is coming. We are trying to look too far ahead, which I don't think is wrong, because we need to know what it's going to look like, but it gets real nitpicky on what type of uses and things like that. We are more than happy to work with staff and to provide you with that list if that's what it takes for you to be comfortable and for the neighbors to be comfortable. One gentleman brought -- you know, he brought up a good point and I think that's -- it's our intent not to have windows looking into people's backyards. Not to have driveways back there. Have the buildings, whether it's office or a light retail back up again -- back up against the west with proper buffering and/or sound walls or masonry walls or whatever. Low lighting. Things like that, yes, we agree to that and we are happy to put that as conditions of approval. Again, the Comprehensive Plan does show this as -- as a commercial designation and ACHD and the city are the ones that are requiring us to connect to Ruddy. Now, I'm not going to say that's right or wrong, as the one gentleman spoke, they only have one access point out of their development. But that stub street requires us to now move that traffic somewhere -- some way to the east to get out -- to get those folks out to the rest of Meridian and so it creates a -- you know, a design issue and also a traffic issue for the neighbors that are out here. But that's -- you know, that's -- it's something that's there, something we have to take care of. But if we had our -- if we had our way, we could or could not connect to it. It's going to be just required by the powers that be. And, then, keep in mind that design review, as understand it, would take care of a lot of those concerns with those unknown uses, if we have additional review sometime in the future, we are fully in favor of that to make sure that those uses that are against those residential districts are compatible and transitional and appropriate for that area. And I did find one other condition that I would like to review within staffs report and that is the requirement -- I think it was my letter. Requirement for a minimum number of buildings on the site. I think staff had initially Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 25 of 37 stated 15 buildings would be the minimum that could be allowed on the property. Again, we don't want to lock into a specific minimum or maximum number of structures, since we don't know what's ultimately going to be there. So, I'd like to include that in the discussion as well. I'm sorry if I confused you. Please ask any questions you need to and let's see if we can move on. Moe: Are there any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I had one that I'd like to -- Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: -- clear up, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the widening of Waltman Lane and there was a conflict between the property owners of providing a buffer between the street and the property. Actually, you're adding -- you're adding properties by moving Waltman Lane over; is that correct? Is that what you were trying to say? Nickel.: That is correct. On the north -- on the north boundary on the -- O'Brien: So, the concern of one of the property owners was that they have utilities close to the roadway, which from what you say would not be affected, because to get approved you would have to move the roadway. Nickel: Yeah. We will move the roadway further south. Yeah.. O'Brien.: Further south. And if you did that you would have to wait for the property to become available, but you just can't widen the road between your property and Main Street; is that correct? Nickel: Yes. To the east. Correct. O'Brien: So, that could be a long time; is that right? Nickel: It potentially could be, yes. O'Brien: From what I hear what you're saying that you don't have any control over that by aligning the road, moving it further south, seems like it's -- like it's kind of hard to predict what's going to happen there. Nickel: Well, we have control of moving it to the south -- O'Brien: You do? Nickel: -- from -- yes. From our -- for our eastern boundary west we are going to put it completely on our property, so we do have the ability to build that road. It's everything east of our site that's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 26 of 37 O'Brien: That's what I'm talking about. Nickel: Yeah. An existing 50 foot right of way. O'Brien: Between that -- your property line and Main Street is the concern, how are you going to move that roadway without -- Nickel: Correct. O'Brien: -- moving property and I'm thinking like how is it going to work, you know, try to put this new center in there and you have a bottleneck already built in that you have no control over. So, I don't know -- Nickel: And that's the concern with the off-site improvement. Now, again, working with ACRD, they are not requiring Waltman to be improved and they -- we will be talking to them in the next week or so, they are going to -- they are going to talk about threshold of how much development can occur on this -- on this property before Corporate would ultimately have to be brought in. So, that's -- that's an unknown for right now. But they are the ones that are going to establish that. O'Brien: That's only half of the equation, though., from trying to satisfy the amount of traffic that I'm sure is going to be generated from this and from the subdivisions when you put Ruddy Drive through. That's all I have.. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Hood.: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Hood.: If I may, just to make a couple of comments on some of the testimony this evening. Hopefully, it helps to clarify some of what's gone on and hopes to clarify the staff report that Sonya put together for tonight's hearing. I did just kind of some of the back history -- it's been over a year since the annexation application has been submitted to the planning department. I did., with Justin Lucas, begin a staff report on this, like I said, 12 or 14 months ago, so I do have some history with this project as well. do want to clarify, because Shawn made a couple of comments about requiring off-site improvements. That's not how the staff report's written. We are not requiring them to do anything off site. What staff report says is those things need to be taken care of before you develop. It doesn't say you have to do it as the developer, but it needs to be taken care of. So, it's at their option. They can certainly, you know, buy some right of way and improve Waltman Lane. We are not saying they have to do that. We are just saying there is an existing condition, it's substandard; it needs to be taken care of. You want to develop, it needs to be taken care of. You can do that or choose not to do that. But from staffs perspective those off-site improvements need to be taken care of. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 27 of 37 that's -- those off-site requirements are not requirements of the developer to go and build a bridge across the Ten Mile per se for Corporate Drive extension. It is -- again, we do want them to be a party to and part of that -- moving that project forward and making sure that bridge does happen, because we do think that's key for interconnectivity in this neighborhood and that brings me to maybe one of the other points about Waltman and Ruddy and Corporate, if you don't have the Corporate Drive extension, I, too, agree with a couple of the neighbors I think you're looking at potentially some cut-through traffic, because you have no other outlet from this project, except for Waltman Lane out to the interstate. That's why we push for Corporate to be improved, because if you get -- if you get Corporate improved so an extension across the Ten Mile here, people along Franklin have a straight shot into the development from here and don't have to go down Linder and try to weave their way through. Without that, I think people may be tempted coming from the western part of Meridian and even Nampa, may be tempted to come down Linder and try to find their back way into the development. Certainly, if there is some workforce housing in here, I think that's probably okay for them to get to work that way, but Ruddy was never intended for it to be an access to this -- a commercial development through the residential subdivisions. So, that's why I think it's coupled and why it's key that Corporate Drive be part of the discussion for this project., although off site, because it is key to the transportation network in the area. So, again, I just wanted to clarify that, because we aren't putting the onus on this developer to construct any of it, it just needs to be done period. And, then, I did also want to testify tonight that although I don't mind working with the applicant, we certainly can do that. However, right now we have got a staff report with development agreement provisions. We can't do that when we get back to the office tomorrow that needs to be done now. Staff has provided provisions. If the applicant doesn't like the provisions, they need to state we don't like provision five, ten, and fifteen and here is why and please modify it. Those provisions are our stance. We can't -- not that we are not willing to listen to them some more, but we have made our record on paper in the staff report and now it's up to you to decide and you get to modify those as you see fit. It's not -- again, it's just -- it's too late now for us as staff to modify those provisions. They are part of the public record, they are brought forward to you for your discussion and action, so -- and, then, maybe just one final comment on annexations and in the past we have had projects in the City of Meridian that came in and didn't have a concept plan and just wanted C-G zoning and we have been burned before. We have seen, you know, boxes built on sites that are big boxes in and didn't take into accounting anything in the neighborhood and this is how we have evolved as a planning department and as a city. We now require conceptual elevations, a concept plan for how are you going to develop that site. Now, that vision for the property can change and if we -- it needs to change because of market or something else, we have a process to modify development agreements. It's never set in stone. That concept plan that was shown up there tonight, it's the best guess at this time. And if in a year or two something needs to be changed from that that isn't substantially the same, we can sure take that back to the City Council and say, hey, this is a better plan than what we showed you in 2008. Here is why. Please approve this. So, it's not set in stone. It gives us some guarantee and the general public some guarantees of what can and can't go in there at this time. It's not -- that's not even set in stone, so if they want to build all Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 28 of 37 retail along that and they ask for that in a couple years, maybe it's appropriate then, but it's a starting point and it is something that we think is a good basis for -- if you're going to annex this today, to put those development agreement provisions as staff has mentioned in the staff report this evening. So, just wanted to clarify a couple of those things and where we are really at in the process with the report and whatnot, so thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Any comment to that? I'm sorry, once the applicant's already been here -- you can respond to his comments. Yes. Please do. Nickel.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, for the record Shawn Nickel. We are not trying to push this through by any means. I don't think we are -- we have been rushed over the last year, as you can tell. We are -- so, if you're uncomfortable with the confusion and the flexibility and the uses, we'd be more than happy to go back and work with staff and come up with a list of conditions for development agreement now that we have heard additional testimony and build on -- and build on that. Plus we don't have a decision from ACHD yet, a concrete decision. We have got a staff report from staff, we don't know where that's going to go and it's going to take a couple weeks for that to go through their process. Again, we were just thrown that late this afternoon, so we haven't even had a chance to talk to ACHD. So, rather than pushing this through with. a recommendation for approval with all the conditions in or a recommendation for denial, because we don't have the proper conditions in place, we would be more than happy, again, with your recommendation to postpone, get ACHD's decision, the commission's final decision, and, then, work with staff on those conditions, if you find that appropriate. Moe: Okay. A few comments to that and that would be probably one thing that -- that was anticipating discussing with the Commission as well. But at the same time -- and I don't want to make it sound like I'm slapping your hand, but this project's been out here for a long time and so bringing it forward we anticipated a lot these things were going to be resolved and you coming tonight and discussing that there is still quite a few issues to deal with staff and whatnot and I'm in agreement with staff that you do need to line out -- itemize out which ones that you do still have concerns with and, basically, I do believe that -- we will wait and see what the rest of the Commission wants to do, but I'm good to know that you're able to consider doing a continuance. The only thing I am curious about is what kind of a time frame that would be and what you would be anticipating trying to get this thing in a fairly decent time frame, as opposed to continuing this two or three more times. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, I believe our ACHD meeting is March 5th. March 5th. Which is a Wednesday. And if I could just explain something. Again, Idon't -- I don't want to be perceived as being unprepared tonight, but you got to understand that we just got our decision from ACRD -- or our staff report this week. We got staffs report late last week -- or Friday. So, a lot of things have happened and. we didn't want to postpone again. We knew you would be -- you probably wouldn't be too happy with us if we asked for a postponement. So, our intention was to come here, do a presentation, listen to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 29 of 37 neighbors. We understand that it's probably not there yet, but we had a very short -- it might seem like a year, but we had a very short time from the time we got the staff reports and it's no fault of staff, it's just the way it works. They can only go so far without ACHD's recommendations and we have literally just got those recommendations and they did the best they could at putting those. into the report. So, again, we are not trying to be difficult, we are not trying to delay. And I think you understand that we want to work with everybody and so we don't want to push it through, we would be okay with - Moe: I agree one hundred percent and hope you can understand our point of view up here and that is when we seen this come forward and we are reviewing reports and, then., the day or two before the hearing we find out you're continuing again, I mean Commission has reviewed things that aren't being done again and it's a little redundant as we go along., so we get a little bit (inaudible) about it as well. Nickel.: Absolutely. Thank you. Moe: Excuse me. I will speak for myself. I do. O'Brien: Um. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. O`Brien. O'Brien: I'm sorry. I just have a quick question. So, when you talk with Ada County Highway District, you will or somehow someone is going to be contacting the owner of the property -- I think his name is Joe, I forget his last name, but is he going to be included in these talks? Because I think the Ada County Highway District is going to want to do that. How does that happen? I don't know that -- you guys need to work that out, I guess. Nickel: Yeah. We will -- O'Brien: I want to make sure he's included., I guess. Nickel: Yeah. We can definitely invite him to those meetings. He's correct, we are the only ones that have talked with him and we have talked to him about, you know -- you know, the possibility of bringing Corporate down. So, we can look at that. O'Brien: Okay. That sounds like it's key. So, that's the only reason I brought it up. Thank you. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 30 of 37 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, I had one question I meant to ask before. Several of the neighbors had mentioned about a frontage road and there was some information that there -- at one time there was a concept with a frontage road. Could you tell me why you have abandoned the idea of a frontage road being an appropriate -- Nickel: I wasn't involved when -- if there was a frontage road proposed. This has been going on for quite a long time and I just recently -- last three months got involved. So, I can't address that to you. I don't know -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Nickel: -- if Robert wants to. Newton-Huckabay: Can someone address that? Nickel: I don't recall ever seeing a frontage road.. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I had read in one of the letters from the neighbors at one point that they had -- that there had been discussion of a frontage road on this -- on this property. Now, granted, I understand it's been going for some time, so -- Nickel: From my recollection in some of my neighborhood meetings, the neighbors have brought that up to us, but we have never -- as far as I know, drawn up a plan. They have asked why can't we do a frontage road on the property? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess it's not like it's a revolutionary idea that's never been done before and so I think it would warrant some discussion as a possible way to move traffic through -- through a development, but -- so, I would guess have sufficient answers to the question, if you don't -- when you come back and it doesn't have those frontage road and Ijust -- I agree, you guys have a lot of work yet to do on this and so I appreciate that you have come around to the idea it needs to be continued. Nickel: Thank you for letting us, if you decide to. Moe: So, Mr. Nickel, ACHD is on the 5th of March you said? Nickel: Correct. Moe: And at that point, then, you'd want to -- you'd have something to go to the staff with to kind of review at that point? Nickel: Yes. I would want to make sure that staff has plenty of time. Moe: That's why I'm asking you right now. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 31 of 37 Nickel: Not want to have a meeting on the 6th. I want to -- so, we need to come up with an appropriate date. Moe: So, question of staff. Would the 20th be a hearing date possible? Watters: Yes. March 20th would work good. Moe: Okay. Okay. Do you see a problem with that at all? Nickel.: We will make it work. Moe: Remember what you said now. Nickel: Okay. Iwill -- give me a second, then. Moe: Thank you. Please review the -- Rohm: Good job, Mr. Chairman. Nickel: I guess you don't want to see me coming up here again and asking for another tabling. Moe.: I'd rather not. Rohm: I think that was his point. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I'm not so concerned about us as I am the neighbors. They probably have other things to do on Thursday nights the first and third Thursdays. We are just scheduled to be here. Nickel: Right. I agree. Yes. That will work for us. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Could we get a motion to close the -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I move we continue the Public Hearing on AZ 06-063 and PP 08- 001, to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of March 20th., 2008. Rohm; Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the public hearings on AZ 06-063 and PP 08-001, to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of March 20th. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 32 of 37 All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. Those will be continued to the 20th of March. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 7, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional Use 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: At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing for CUP 07-022 concerning Meridian Eye Care and start with the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new medical office in the Old Town zoning district that does not meet all of the criteria listed in the downtown Meridian design guidelines. The property is located at 125 West Cherry Lane on the southeast corner of Cherry Lane and West 2nd Street. North of the site is rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the east is a former residence in transition to commercial use, zoned OT. To the west is a church, zoned R- 4. And to the south are single family residences in Wilson Addition Subdivision, zoned R-4. This is an aerial view of the site. It shows the existing residence that is proposed to be removed upon development of the site. Anew 3,600 square foot medical office building is proposed to be built on the site in its place.. The site plan has been submitted as shown that shows how this property is proposed to develop in the future. Because this property is located in the OT, Old Town, zoning district, all new structures are required to comply with design guidelines per the downtown Meridian design guidelines. Because the site and proposed building do not comply with all of the criteria listed in the design guidelines, a Conditional Use Permit is requested by the applicant, as required by the Unified Development Code. Staff has included analysis in Section 10 of the staff report detailing which guidelines the applicant does and does not comply with. Access to this residence on this site is currently provided from West Cherry Lane. However, when the site re-develops access will be provided from West 2nd Street with no access to Cherry Lane. The existing development agreement for this site requires that cross- access be provided to the property to the east. The applicant is requesting a development agreement modification, along with the Conditional Use Permit to remove this requirement. A little history on this property. When this property was rezoned, it was also rezoned with the property directly to the east and a development agreement was entered into with the city for both sites. And the applicant submitted a landscape plan for the site as shown. There are five existing mature trees on the site. Three will be retained, one is dead, and one will need to be removed, as it is located where the driveway is proposed right here. The applicant is required to provide mitigation for the existing healthy tree that is proposed to be removed and protection during construction for the existing trees that will remain. Street buffers and buffers between land uses are not required in the Old Town district. Building elevations were submitted with this Meridian Planning 8 zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 33 of 37 application as shown. Exterior building materials are proposed to consist of stucco, with cultured stone accents, and fiberglass shingles. Staff has no objections to the elevation proposed, as they comply with the maximum building height and minimum number of stories for new construction in the Old Town district. Staff is recommending approval of their requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Gibson: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is James Gibson and my address is 38 North 1st Street in Eagle. I'm the project architect representing the project this evening. First, we have worked pretty closely,. I think, with staff and we have no disagreement with the proposed conditions and feel that they are really very -- very appropriate. Just a couple of things that we want to mention. The reason for the site plan being the way that it is, the project is an optometry office. Heath care, but optometry. And that requires rooms of a certain size and dimension in it in order work to properly for the optometry exam rooms. That, then, reflects itself in the size and the shape of the building, and we have tried the building on the site in a different configuration, placing it more east and west and along Cherry Lane. That was our first idea. Then our friends at ACHD decided that they wanted more property to -- for the future widening of Cherry Lane, more than was originally indicated. That shot the first concept out of the water, so this is what we have come up with, placing the building toward the east of the property, again., though, with the entrance from the west from 2nd Street. The building design we think is really compatible with other buildings that are in the neighborhood there. We are very aware of the Old Town design guidelines and certainly understand the appropriate nature of those guidelines in Old Town. But this property certainly was never part of the Old Town, the portion of downtown that is or in the foreseeable future would ever be developed along those guidelines. Therefore, we are proposing a building that looks like the other buildings in this area. Physically, it would be possible to, of course, to redesign the appearance of the building to look more like an Old Town building. However, my opinion is that that would look rather strange in this location. A building harmonious with the neighborhood would seem more appropriate, especially since there is a residential development existing and probably will be existing for some time right next door. We are anxious to retain the mature trees and have worked with Mr. Huff and he's been very helpful in trying to figure out what to do and how to retain the trees. We note that at the southwest corner there is a large existing tree, which our plan proposes to retain. Of course:, one of the motivations for retaining the trees is to avoid a substantial mitigation fee. We have worked with the neighbor, the property owner to the south and he indicates his preference would be to remove the tree. We have no objection to removing the tree if that be the direction of the Commission. However, if that is the direction, we don't want to be responsible for paying a substantial mitigation fee if we are told to take the tree away. So, that's -- we have to, shall we say, throw yourself -- throw ourselves on our mercy with that -- that question. The tree is -- we have tried to retain the tree, but if it is ours to take away, we are receptive to that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 34 of 37 also. Basically, we think that the project would be a vast improvement to the immediate neighborhood there. Hopefully, you have had opportunity to look at the property recently and., frankly, it could probably use some improvement. So, we think this would be definitely an improvement and just appreciate your consideration. If you have questions, we will try to address those. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: What was the neighbor's logic for wanting the tree removed? Is it just so large -- Gibson: He said that it was a dirty tree and dropped its droppings on his property. It is a very large tree and it does extend over onto the neighbor's property. Newton-Huckabay: What kind of tree is it? Gibson: I think it's a sycamore tree. I -- though I'm not an arborist and I -- Newton-Huckabay: No. No. That's okay. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, your only disagreement with the Old Town guidelines was just not to like the parapets and that kind of thing? Gibson: Pardon? I didn't understand quite correctly. Newton-Huckabay: Just the architecture of the building was your only -- Gibson: Yes. Yes. We wanted the building to look like something that would logically be built in this location, rather than in the center of Meridian and we think that something that would be built right in the center of Old Town would look a bit strange in this location. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Thanks. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Dan -- is it Thieme? Thieme. You signed up. Did you want to speak? Okay. From the audience he has nothing more to add. No other names are here. There is only one other person in the audience. Do you want to come up and speak? There is no other one wanting to speak and so, therefore., there is really no rebuttal I don't think we need to worry about. Having said that, Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 35 of 37 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm Rohm: Could -- I'd like to make a motion to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-022. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-'022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, do you have any comments on the project? O'Brien.: No. I have to agree with the applicant, Ithink -- you know, we can look at things that might fit better downtown in Old Town; specifically building this kind of structure would maybe be out of place, so I'm inclined to agree with what staff has recommended. Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall, would you have any other comment? Marshall: I agree. Ithink that went with staffs recommendation that it was right on the edge of Old Town and that this was a .better transition to the other uses around it, the other zones around it, and that it fit better. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: That wasn't staffs recommendation, was it? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Moe: I would say that's why when the applicant was saying he was in favor of the staff comments, but, then, he went into discussing the Old Town look, that's probably where you got confused.. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I read what I wanted to hear. Moe: There you go. I'm sorry, Mr. Marshall, did you have any other comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 36 of 37 Marshall: No. I'm sorry it didn't work out so that we could have hid the parking lot behind the building, but I understand the change now, because of the additional right of way required, that can't -- that's not feasible and that this is a decent alternative. Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm, any comments? Rohm: No comments. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would only comment that I would somewhat disagree that the Old Town design guidelines wouldn't apply here. Having -- I was telling Commissioner Rohm -- grew up on West 1st Street and lived on West 1st Street as an adult -- I'm putting my old stories of Meridian on the record again. I always felt like I had lived in a part of downtown Meridian and I think if new -- as new buildings were added and get that Old Town flair, that I think that that would add to that -- that feeling, so -- but it's certainly not a deal breaker for me. It's not like they are proposing an unattractive building. But I would say I believe the west -- or I guess it's U.S. Bank now, that building is -- complies somewhat with the -- it has the parapets and that type of thing on it, so I would just -- it wouldn't be out of place in my mind.. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: But it's a substantial improvement over what is there now. I do agree with that. Moe: I would agree entirely with that. I do have one question of staff, just so that I -- that I do understand.. Within the conditions and whatnot, the access to Cherry Lane would go away if, in fact, this came to commercial property; correct? Wafters: Chairman Moe, that is correct. Yes. Moe: Okay. Just wanted to make sure of that. Beyond that, I would say that I concur with most of the others, that I happen to like the exterior elevations, very nice, and I think it will blend into the area very well. And that's about all I have left. So, could I get a motion from someone positive? Rohm: So, there is no changes from the staff report? Wafters: No. Moe: Not that I'm understanding of any. Rohm: Okay. I think I can make a motion, then. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve CUP 07-022 for the Meridian Eye Care, with no changes to the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 37 of 37 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved -- pardon me? And seconded -- Watters: That is correct. This -- as a development agreement modification that accompanies the conditional use it does need to go to Council. Moe: Therefore, then, it has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-022 and send it onto City Council for that approval. All those in favor of that signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: At this time, since we already took care of Item No. 8, there is only one more item to do. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn Opposed? Motion carries. 9:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) AP ~/1`D MOE - C AIRMAN All those in favor say aye. Q ~ ~~~~ DATE APPROVED `\`\```~~~~,,,~~~~~~,,,,,,~~~~~/,',,' .~ ~~d~~, ~ ': ATTEST: B~AL JAYCEE LMAN, CITY CLE~21~ ~~' rf~. ~,: ,, ~, ~P ,, .,, ,.