Loading...
2003 11-20Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 20, 2003 The Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, November 20, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Michael Rohm, Leslie Mathes, and David Zaremba. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Tara Green, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___X__ David Zaremba _______ Vacant ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for November 20th . Start with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of October 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: First item on the agenda is our minutes from October 16th . Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: We have all discovered that we do not have a copy of those minutes and I, therefore, suggest that we table this to our next meeting. Borup: I was wondering if I was the only one. Zaremba: Does that need a motion or just an administrative decision? Borup: I think we will just delete that item. It's just -- we won't have that on the agenda. Item 4. Recommendation: VAC 03-006 Request for a Vacation of utility, drainage, and irrigation easement on the south 10 feet of Lot 2, Block 6 of Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 1 by Tully Cove, LLC – west of North Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 2 of 32 Borup: So, the first item is -- it's a vacation -- a request for vacation of a utility easement, VAC 03-006. This is for a vacation of a utility easement in -- what was originally Turtle Creek No. 1 Subdivision. They are just looking for a recommendation from this Commission. This is not a Public Hearing, so we will not be opening this as a Public Hearing. Do we have any additional information from staff? Powell: Yes, sir. Members of the Commission, this is a fairly straightforward vacation. You can see here that this is the -- the Turtle Creek Subdivision and also the resubdivision, which is why we have to do this easement, is to accommodate the resubdivision. The dark line that you see is the south line of Lot 2 and that's what has -- the easement is on the south ten feet of that lot. As you can see, it goes through several of the new lots in the subsequent subdivision, so we are just vacating that easement. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem recommending this to the City Council. Does that require a motion? Borup: Yes. Go ahead. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item four on our agenda, VAC 03-006, request for a vacation of utility, drainage, and irrigation easement on the south ten feet of Lot 2, Block 6, of Turtle Creek Subdivision No. 1 by Tully Cove, LLC, west of North Linder Road and south of West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments -- or were there any? Let's -- hang on just minute to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 20, 2003. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 6, 2003: PP 03-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 2.064 acres in a L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers – 2150 West Cherry Lane: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 6, 2003: CUP 03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 2150 West Cherry Lane: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 3 of 32 Borup: Okay. The next item is a Continued Public Hearing for Cherry Lane Office Park. We do have a request from the applicant, since they were out of town, to -- if we could continue. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: That request is for us to continue it to our next meeting, which would be December 4th , which I find I have stack and stacks of paperwork for, so I assume it's an extremely full meeting. Are we able to revise the request and put it to December 18th instead? Borup: Well, we sure can. Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I -- Borup: Let me take a quick look at -- yeah. We have got the continued Redfeather, which could be lengthy. Zaremba: Is that on the 18th or the 4th ? Borup: On the 4th . Zaremba: Yes and there is -- I have at least 10 other things, I think, already in my stack for that. Borup: Yes. I was just trying to see how many were -- well, there are like -- four of the items are on one -- on one subdivision, so -- so there is three other residential subdivisions -- or two other residential subdivisions, besides Redfeather, and then, some business parks and that kind of stuff. I think we do have a full night. Zaremba: So, you're in agreement that the 18th is a better choice? Borup: I don't know. The 18th isn't much better. Oh, what happened here? I'm sorry. Has Cobblefield already requested -- why do we have Cobblefield on both hearings -- or both dates, do we know? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, after the first notice was given for Cobblefield Crossing No. 2, the Highway District had their tech review meeting with the applicant and at that meeting there was a stub street that was added, which changed the number of lots, which meant a revised hearing. Borup: So, that takes if off -- so, it's not on the 4th ? Hawkins-Clark: It's not on the 4th , no. It has been re-noticed for the 18th . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 4 of 32 Borup: Oops. I just -- okay. That's already -- Green: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I did leave it on December 4th , being it has already been noticed for that hearing, so I left it on that agenda with a note that it has been re-noticed for the 18th . Borup: Okay. That sounds -- Green: Just so you know. Borup: For right now that puts presently 16 items on the 18th and 14 on the 4th . The number of items doesn’t necessarily coincide with the length of the hearings and that's with Mayfair -- okay. Well, that's why we got Mayfair on the 18th . I think that's -- well, I think that's still a good date. Zaremba: The 18th ? Borup: Yes. Looking at -- yes. That still puts three residential subdivisions on the 4th as it is. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: With the Cobblefield gone. Zaremba: Let's go with the 18th . Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Back to where we started. Zaremba: I move we continue the public hearings for items five and six, PP 03- 029 and CUP 03-048, to our meeting of December 18, 2003. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to continue to December 18th . All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: The other thing I might mention before we go on, Item Number 11, 12 and 13, Mayfair Commons, they have -- well, that -- actually, that hearing has been re-noticed. Was there anybody here for that? Okay. The reasoning for the re-notification, it was posted on the wrong property, but, apparently, you got notice okay, though, so it served its purpose. Just to try to be careful on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 5 of 32 legalities, it was felt necessary to renotice that. It will be -- it has been re-noticed for December 18th . If there -- since it has been noticed for tonight, if any of you would like to stay and would not be able to come the other time, we would take your testimony this evening. You're welcome to stay and we would take the testimony, but there would not be a presentation by the developer. Item 7. Public Hearing: PP 03-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots, 21 office lots, and 7 other lots on 14.58 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Maverick Subdivision by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs – south of East Overland Road on the west side of Millennium Way: Borup: Okay. Continuing on. Item number seven is PP 03-030, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots, 21 office lots, and seven other lots on 14.58 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Maverick Subdivision. Item number nine, CUP 03-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify existing Planned Unit Development to allow for office uses. This is at Overland Road and Millennium Way in an L-O zone. This is for the proposed Maverick Subdivision. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Craig Hood, Planning and Zoning staff. The applicant has requested preliminary plat and conditional use approval for a Planned Development on 14.48 acres of land located on the south side of Overland Road, on the west side of Meridian Way, between Locust Grove Road and Eagle Road. The subject site is designated high density residential on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map and currently zoned L-O. The subject site was previously plotted as Lot 6, Block 1, of Resolution Subdivision. The submitted Preliminary Plat proposes to subdivide the existing 14.58-acre lot into 48 residential lots, 21 office lots, and seven other common lots. The submitted Conditional Use Permit planned development proposes to modified the previously approved conceptual permit by reducing the number of apartment units from 200 to 192 and including 21 office pad sites along Overland Road and Millennium Way. All the proposed units contain two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to construct a clubhouse, complete with pool and playground facilities and pedestrian pathways throughout the development as amenities for the PD. The detailed CUP includes a request for reduced setbacks for the buildings, reduced lot frontage, and reduced lot sizes in the L-O zone. As part of the detailed approval for the previous Conditional Use Permit on this site, the previous applicant was proposing to construct 20 multi-family buildings, with each building containing 10 units arranged to appear as one very large residence. This big house concept provided a different multi-family development design and feel than most other apartment complexes within the city. The applicant has responded to the written staff report and agrees that -- and staff agrees that east should be west and east should -- or west should be east and east should be west in the conditions – site- specific condition six and seven. After talking with the Public Works Department, they would prefer to just leave the standard conditions of approval in the staff Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 6 of 32 report as written and then, sign off on those, rather than delete them entirely from the staff report. Zaremba: You're referring to page nine, numbers eight and nine? Hood: Conditions eight and nine, correct? That concludes staff's report and I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Does the developer have a presentation they'd like to make? Brown: For the record, my name is Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. I guess to start off with one of the things that we have to change on it is the name Maverick. We were hoping to use that with the Maverick -- the Mountain View High School and, apparently, they have built a gas station and had to do a subdivision. Mr. Priester said that name has been used and it's going to be called Sage Crest and the modified drawings that we provided to staff to answer and comply with the things that they were concerned about showed those and you should have received a copy of those. One of the modifications that we made to comply with the staff report is in our northwest corner. You can see that we have provided that cross-access at this location to our neighbor. We had two office lots there. We increased this office and made it larger, to be able to provide that connection that they were looking for. We can meet the other access that was spoken about east being west and west being east by -- in that location we would probably do that with a cross-access to meet the setback requirements. From your parking you're supposed to have five feet? Correct? That's why it's drawn the way that it is. If the access needs to be there, I guess we can take it right over and make that correction when and if that takes place. We have tried to provide a pool and a clubhouse in this location. There is a playground located here. Felt that those were nice amenities. One of the other amenities that we have shown is a walking path that goes in between the office and the residential units, comes along the back here, ties into the sidewalk system here, continues up the west side and links back in. The office people also could get on the sidewalk in this location and come down and they can also walk in this location and access the pathway that will be located around the development. I don't mean to belabor anything else. I don't know that there is a whole lot. I will just answer questions. Rohm: I'm curious about this access right there. Is this whole piece of property sitting to your west? Is this the only access that that piece of property will have off of Overland Road? Brown: No. Rohm: They will be able to gain access directly from -- Borup: This has got access from Locust Grove also. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 7 of 32 Rohm: Okay. Borup: Is that all one partner, one ownership property? Brown: Uh-huh. All that that's intended to do -- I don't know if you get frustrated, but you get into a parking lot and you got an office that's -- you thought that you were getting off the right location and this just provides this cross-access between I would imagine other office users. Borup: Okay. Well, that's a real traffic reduction. You know, some of the old things on Fairview in Boise, to go to one store from the other you got to go clear back out on the street to go next door. Rohm: Well, I guess what my concern was is this is going to be a very busy intersection right here and -- and I thought that the intent was to tray and minimize the number of ingresses and egresses off of the main roadway and if we have one -- you have an access off of Overland right in here and then, having another one right in here, it just seems like it's asking for trouble down the road. It appears that way to me and so my point was -- is it didn't look like that there was a lot of vehicular traffic available there, it was just more, like you say, if you pulled into the wrong driveway you could, actually, make it over to the right one and It just seems like it should be wider. Is that possible? Brown: The travel lane is very similar to what a regular local street would be. It's 28 foot and you have 34-foot width, 50-foot right of way -- I would think that the 28-foot is adequate. Borup: Don't we already have a project to the west that's been approved? Zaremba: Even if we don't, I would add that ACHD just completed the Overland Road project across here and here is a driveway cut into that other property, so -- Rohm: In here? Zaremba: There is an existing -- Rohm: If there is, then -- Zaremba: -- driveway cut in, so I assume they are expecting that to be used. Borup: Okay. It's a separate parcel under separate ownership right now. Okay. Zaremba: I had a question. You identify on the preliminary plat a lot called an access lot, which, apparently, is all the driveways and the parking and stuff like that. Does that differ from a common lot in how it will be maintained and who is responsible for resurfacing it 30 years down the road or is it like a common lot with just a -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 8 of 32 Brown: It's exactly like a common lot, without being a private drive. It just provides access and there will be a mutual maintenance over that, so -- Zaremba: The homeowners association and business owners association? Brown: Right. Exactly. Zaremba: Okay, and the other would be just an opinion. On this access here to the east, assuming this other property will develop sometime soon, even if we don't have an application now, I can't see having you go to the expense of five feet of landscaping for that 30 foot wide stretch necessarily. I would think just act as if it's going to be connected sometime soon. Is staff comfortable with that? My only other question -- I know this is an L-O zone, which has some restrictions about what can go into the businesses. There being a high school literally right there, do you envision any of these being fast food restaurants or needing to have drive-thrus or -- Brown: If any of those were to come before you, they would have to come through with a detail -- Zaremba: The CUP process. Brown: -- CUP process, and so, basically, the only detailed portion of this process that we are going through tonight is the residential portion and each and every one of those office spaces and the uses there you will be reviewing. It's kind of similar to what Boise does with design review, the way that we are approaching that, but we are comfortable with each one of those offices coming in that way. We have received a lot of interest from -- I mean Briggs wants to move to Meridian. That's a great location. It's less than a mile from my house. My son goes to Mountain View but we can't coerce him for an office yet, but we are working on that, so -- but I know that that's been some of the use that they have had, probably a little more commercial type of an office use out on Overland versus being closer to the high school. Borup: But did you say they would need to come back under a CUP? Brown: Yes. Borup: Was that -- was that how this parcel was originally -- that was one of the original conditions on this parcel? Brown: No. The original approval was for a detailed approval for -- Borup: I remember -- no. I remember that. I mean why does it need to come back with a CUP? Brown: Because we are not specifically showing you what the spaces are going to be. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 9 of 32 Borup: Oh. Okay. It doesn't affect the zoning, just the -- Brown: The zoning will remain the same and they would have to comply with the zone and come in for a CUP. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on Item 7 and Item 8 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 7 and 8. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, PP 03-030, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots, 21 office lots, and seven other lots on 14.58 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Maverick Subdivision. With a note that the name will be changed to Sage Crest, by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs, south of east Overland Road on the west side of Millennium Way, to include all staff comments of their memo for the P&Z hearing of November 20, 2003, received by the clerk November 14, 2003, with the following minor changes. On Page 2, middle paragraph, as stated above, the middle sentence in that, the conceptual CUP include multiple parcels and its boundary extended from Locust Grove -- west should be east and on Page 7, Item Number 6, east should be west. Item Number 7 west should be east. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: I'm sorry. I was making notes. Moved and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 03-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify existing Planned Unit Development to allow for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 10 of 32 office uses along Overland Road and Millennium Way in an L-O zone for proposed Maverick Subdivision by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs – south of East Overland Road on the west side of Millennium Way: Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our Agenda, CUP 03-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify existing planned unit development to allow for office uses along Overland Road and Millennium Way in an L-O zone for proposed Maverick Subdivision, with a note that that name will be changed to Sage Crest, by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs. South of East Overland Road on the west side of Millennium Way, to include all staff comments of their memo for November 20, 2003, received by the clerk, November 14, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify commercial to include four out pads, 25,000 square foot retail and include Phase II of office complex in C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 & 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. – 824 East Fairview Avenue: Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 25,000 square foot retail building with a drive up window in a C-N zone for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 & 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. – 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. Thank you. The next items, Items No. 9 and 10, is Public Hearing CUP 03-054, request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify commercial to include four out paths, 2,500 square feet of retail, include phase three of office complex in the C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2 by Hopkins Financial and accompanying that is CUP 03-055, request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 2,500 square foot retail building, drive-up window, C-N zone, the same Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2. I'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, before I give the staff report, I guess a point of clarification. I guess the applicant -- the exact applicant isn't -- Mr. Tamura is not here yet, but I think we will proceed. I think there is someone else to represent the project, but that's -- Borup: Do we have someone here? Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 11 of 32 Hawkins-Clark: On this first item, CUP 03-054, this is the application, the two that proposes to modify the conceptual plan and I don't think this Commission is any strangers to this piece of ground, something like the 12th application that we have had on it, but this particular change is related to really two main items and, again, we are talking about this 23 plus acres that is shown here on the north side of Fairview, quite a bit on the site. Some of the infrastructure work is under construction today, as you probably well know, if you travel Fairview. This aerial photo shows I think pretty well the area -- the Jackson Drain that's here at the northern end where the 96-unit apartment complex has been approved and, then, we have The Willows Subdivision to the north and Settler's Village and a carwash here to the east and, then, a mobile home park to the west. This frontage piece down here, I think it's something like 200 feet that is commercial adjacent to the Devon Park project and then, the balance of this entire west boundary is the mobile home residential use. The site plan -- the main difference -- let me go to the previously approved -- this kind of gives you the general overall area breakdown. This -- Area A, of course, is the apartment use, Area B is the office use, which now is proposed to expand down to the south and, then, Area C is the C-N zoning, which also has proposed office uses and, then, Area D is their kind of commercial retail area and then, what I have here on the screen is their -- their existing concept, which, as you can see, there is three pad sites on Fairview. The new one has shifted this pad site over on the west side of Lakes Avenue and then they have added another one here next to Dirty Harry's car wash. Then, the other major difference that this concept has is shifting this retail 25,000 square foot pad to the south and expanding their office use here, so that the office use actually comes down another couple hundred feet, so, as you can see, It's got a real similar layout. There are just those two main changes that they are proposing at this time. I think there are just two items to point out in the staff report. The first one is on page three, the finding B, and I outlined two areas there that I thought warranted the Commission's discussion. The first one deals with the Comprehensive Plan policy that sets a maximum square footage of 200,000 square feet in these mixed use areas. They are exceeding that by 20,000. However, we have another Comp Plan policy that says the acreage shall not be exceeded they can have no more than 25 acres of nonresidential. They are doing about 18, so I guess it's kind of a weighing difference between those two. Our opinion was that the 20,000 extra square feet really was -- since the Comp Plan is just a guide and that that met the target range and that it's well under the acreage amount, so -- Borup: And, also, by going from the C-G to L-O, they are doing kind of a less intensive also, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Right. That is -- yes. Yes. Expanding the amount of office and then, the second comp plan policy I guess I read -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 12 of 32 Zaremba: Brad, we aren't changing the zoning though, on it. Is that -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Borup: They are taking some of their commercial zoning and -- or use and going into office use, which is generally a less intensive use. Zaremba: Similar to L-O, but they are not calling it that. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, and that particular Comp Plan policy doesn't distinguish between whether it's office or commercial, it's just something that's non- residential, but -- and we have had, I guess, not too many applications come in, in this mixed use community area of the Comp Plan. That was another reason to kind of just draw the Commission's attention to these policies that are really trying to encourage a different kind of commercial development pattern in the city. You know, in some ways I think that bringing up their -- you know, their buildings -- and they really have created a true mix of uses. I mean they have the retail, the office, and the residential all on the 23 acres, so it certainly meets the goal of getting mixed use in this area. The one design guideline that's in the Comp Plan deals with trying to create more of a sense of place with these mixed- use areas. It talks about if you have multiple freestanding buildings that are on one parcel and they are under one development, to try to design them in a way that creates more of a space for the employees to meet at lunch, for people to gather, rather than just the parking. They have provided an amenity as far as the public pathway that comes off of Fairview and heads up on the east side of Lakes Avenue and then, it will cross, come in front of the office complex. Then, come up to catch the Jackson Drain and that is going to be an open -- it will remain an open drain and then, there will be the pathway across there. That -- we certainly considered that one of their amenities and, then, the second amenity really has not been fully addressed. That's what we are asking for that to be clarified tonight. I understand that they are looking at when this eastern half of the project comes in with detailed conditional use, that they would provide an amenity at that time separate from the ten percent open space. I was told that by Mr. Tamura tonight, but we will ask for that clarification still. I think those are the two Comp Plan policies I wanted to point out and then, on page five we have our proposed conditions of approval and I don't think there are any changes there. Item Number 3 is that the buffers between land uses must be provided and I think the applicant's going to address that on this west boundary next to the mobile home park they are proposing a 20, instead of a 25. We would need that to be changed -- if the Commission agrees with that, we would need that to be changed in order to approve it at the time of the Building Permit and because of the way that I have it worded, they must provide it per the code, which is 25 feet. Then, Item Number 4 on Page 5 is talking about that aspect of getting another amenity and meeting the Comp Plan policy of either orienting some of these buildings to each other or creating a small open plaza, et cetera. Just propose that no more than 50 percent of buildings in this area, which would be about 36,000 square feet, no more than that be approved until we have a commitment from the developer about what their amenity is going to be and how they are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 13 of 32 going to comply with that Comp Plan policy. Let's see, and then, Chairman, did you open both hearings? Borup: I did. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. I'm sorry. Then, on the next item we are talking about just this retail building itself, the 25,000 square feet of, yes, retail. They do have a proposed drive-thru on the eastern elevation. They are proposing to -- the elevation that they have here is a -- appears to be a multi-tenant design. We have not been given, either through the application or verbally, who the tenant is at this time, it's strictly showing a building shell with no commitment as to the actual user. The middle elevation that's shown here is the eastern that would face to the inside of the project and you can see their drive-thru window is probably a third of the way north on the face and one of our conditions was we had a concern about traffic backing up into this drive aisle, which is the main drive aisle in front of the store for, you know, when people drop off family members or picking up loads of produce, et cetera, or product, whatever they are doing, to keep that free and clear, and they have submitted just tonight a revision that I think provides better stacking and would help to keep this free from any encroachments. I think the other change that we talked about was the Sanitary Service Company did ask about the trash enclosure, needing to relocate those so that they can pull straight in with their -- with their front loader trucks and their -- that modification has also been shown on the revision that they brought in tonight, and then, finally, we had a couple of comments about the -- how the phasing of this is going to be done. We'd like some clarification if all of the unshaded area is going to be constructed at this time, in order to meet the city's parking requirement, they really only need to have the parking that's north of this aisle here about in the middle of the project. I guess we just wanted some more clarification on the timing and the phasing of this particular Conditional Use, if they are intending to do the entire thing. We were proposing a condition that said they need to improve the full Fairview frontage as part of this Conditional Use. They have applied for a planned sign program with our department already, that deals with Item Number 12, so that is -- that is underway. Then, Item Number 8, which dealt with the 23 foot wide drive aisles that were all of these here in the middle of the -- if I can -- that run north and south, these were shown at 23, the ordinance requires 25, and that change has also been made on -- with the revised plan tonight, to meet the 25 minimum. Staff is supportive of the application with these proposed changes. Borup: Thank you. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Does the applicant have -- Mr. Tamura did make it. Were you here for -- did you get filled in on some of the questions staff -- we just asked for clarification on? Tamura: Yes. I think I can address those. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 14 of 32 Tamura: Good evening, Commissioners -- Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, I'm the developer and applicant on this project. Should we start with the setback first or do you want to talk about the overall project? Borup: I think we are fairly familiar with the overall project. Like has been stated, this has been several times and, you know -- I don't know if there is a lot of questions on the project, so that might be good to talk about the -- on west side. Tamura: What I put in front of you is when we had an earlier CU, it showed the setback requirement that we had approved with that CU, because the 25 foot landscape on the east side and a 20 foot landscape on the west side. When I spoke with Planning and Zoning and if you look at that matrix on the second page of that handout that gave you, I had handwritten in mobile home park. It seemed like when I working with Dave on that, he had said that he considered it a class two and, then, what I did was I highlighted zones, the R-8, R-15, and R- 40. Under your ordinance to have an approved mobile home park you got to be in one of those three zones, so two out of the three zones falls under a class two. If you look at the third page and it shows the -- you know, intensity class of proposed use, you know, and, then, how they relate to each other, so if you have a retail space, which is class four next to a class two mobile home park, it requires a 20 foot setback. The reason that we'd like to keep the 20-foot setback for us to meet the city ordinances and stuff, you can see that our parking lot lays out real well if we can maintain that 20-foot setback. The other thing that I had mentioned to Brad is that we have been working with Dirty Harry's on the east side. One of the things he'd like to do is eliminate his old wooden fence and, then, I think that when we come in for the detailed CU, that we will combine and put circulation through there and, then, do a shared landscaping along that space. You know, what we'd like to do is keep the 20 foot down to where we get to the commercial line and, then, potentially, we will work with the neighbors to the west of us there on doing some kind of combined landscaping there and, again, on the east side we are going to do the same thing. As far as the amenity packages that I talked to Brad, you know, one is we are proposing this ten foot pedestrian pathway to go along with the City of Meridian's pathway program and, then, the other thing is I think that when we come in for the detailed conditional use on our east phase of our project, we will go ahead and corporate some kind of common area open space in there. What we are hoping is that, you know, one, is we want kind of a neighborhood family shopping center and our major anchor that we have right now going to be a good one to attract, you know, that type of use and so what we are hoping is that we can attract at least one or two or three family restaurant type of situations, you know, where it's pizza or, you know, a family restaurant and so along with that I think we can create some open space that we can, you know, fit in with Meridian's PUD mixed use concept. The other thing that we did on this is you can see those changes that we have made are, one, we revised the parking to meet the 25 foot setback. The other thing we did is we turned the driving aisles on the drive-up window, so we are not conflicting with the main drive, so I think that's about it. The main thing is we'd like to request the 20 foot setback, if we could, be maintained on that west property line. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 15 of 32 Borup: Then, from what the staff report says, it looks like all the other comments that you already had revised a plan to -- to address those questions from any of the Commissioners? I don't know if there is a question on anything else. The buffer on the west may be one thing we may want some discussion on. Tamura: You know, I guess one other thing is the phasing issue. Borup: Okay. Tamura: I don't know if everyone's seen the site, but we have got all the curb, gutter, and sidewalks in back to this point here. You know, as long as weather holds out, we are supposed to have paved today, but, hopefully, we will get that road paved back to the cul-de-sac. Our plan is going through the winter that we are going to put in -- the next thing that we will do is we will put in all our sidewalks along Fairview. Along those streets back to the cul-de-sac, we are planning on trying to get our -- all our trees planted this fall and, then, start working on putting in our ponds and our signs again this fall. By next spring we will have all the Fairview frontage will be completed, all this quarter back to the cul-de-sac, we will have all our street lights and trees installed. This winter we are planning on pressing ahead, putting in all the utilities for the parking lot for our office. We have got -- we are in for permits on these three buildings right now and I think the permits for these three buildings will be completed by next week and so we are planning on starting construction on that probably within the next two weeks. The tenant that we have right here, we have got a commitment that they need to be open by August of this next summer, so what we are hoping is to submit plans on that in January or February and be under construction this spring. On this issue right here, I think the only thing that we may not do, is like Brad had mentioned, right now our commitment parking lot wise, is from this access point back to the exhibit that we have to provide for him and since we don't have this tenant right now, we may hold off on just doing this one portion. But all the infrastructure and perimeter buffering and sidewalks will be in and so the only thing that we will have is we will keep this cleaned off as far as an open pad site. We are talking to a lender right now that potentially may be interested in doing that site, so we are hoping that within the next 30 to 60 days we will have a commitment, as soon as we announce who our main anchor tenant is. Right now, we'd like to leave that kind of open. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Am I interpreting correctly that this is access to the next property? Should it be -- Tamura: Yeah. We can get that worked out. Zaremba: I would just make a comment on the 20 or 25-foot landscape buffer. If I were one of the neighbors to the west, I don't think the 20 feet in this portion of it would bother me at all, those are going to be smaller buildings with gaps in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 16 of 32 between them and there is -- you know, even if you're a neighbor, there is still an open feeling in places you could see through. The only place I really would want to consider whether or not it would be more possible would be along what's probably going to be a fairly large building with not very many breaks in it. Would you be able to do 25 feet just for that part of it? Tamura: You know, in lieu of that, what we had offered to do would be to space our trees tighter to provide more landscaping as a buffer, would work better for us. I guess on the building, if we had to -- well, even that is difficult with that drive-up window in there -- for us to provide all the -- the thing that kind of drove everything is that -- what we did was on that main boulevard between the main sidewalk. What we did was a license agreement with the highway district and we provided a 15-foot landscape buffer from the curb to the back of the sidewalks on each side of that boulevard, so that kind of created this real nice landscape boulevard. At that same time it pushed everything to the west and so it kind of scrunched us up over there, but what we'd like to do is, you know, if you see fit, would be to provide more landscaping versus moving that over five feet. Zaremba: Taller, larger trees to begin with? Tamura: Or, you know, just spacing on the trees. We'd just put them in there tighter. That's what we -- that's what we proposed on the -- on the east side against that residential neighborhood, we went ahead and proposed tighter spacing on all those trees, just to make sure that we had plenty of buffer. We haven't had any neighborhood opposition from the mobile home park, though. Zaremba: Okay. Brad, would staff be comfortable with that as a solution, more landscaping along that section as an alternative compliance, I guess, you call it. Borup: Also any comments on the -- if you had any comments on the classification. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I guess taking your latter point there first, I, to be honest, hadn't seen this Page 9 of 22 that Mr. Tamura just put in front of you tonight that talks about the 25 feet on the east and 20 feet on the west. I mean, certainly, this is a new application, so in some ways it's up for discussion again. Borup: But you're saying that was what was approved on -- Hawkins-Clark: I'm saying it was -- yeah, I did not realize it did actually have -- it was approved by City Council May 27, 2003 so, that's pretty recent. I don't know what the density is of the mobile home park. I'm guessing that it's -- you know, it's probably around five or six, something like that. If you're looking at the classification chart from the code, you know, it has up to an R-8 that is a class one, but could a mobile home park be considered class two, along with multi- family dwellings, you know, I don't know, I just -- just received it, so really need probably more time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 17 of 32 Borup: Well, I think he stated those are the three zones that a mobile home park are approved in, eight, fifteen, and forty, but you need to -- wasn't that -- is that the case? Tamura: Conditional Use in those zones. Borup: It's a Conditional Use in each of those three zones? Tamura: Yes. Borup: So, those are the only three that -- Hawkins-Clark: It's a valid point and I do think that it bears some weight that we have had numerous hearings on this and we have not had any opposition from the mobile home park. I think that's part of the public hearing process is to help to determine these kinds of issues about separations. Borup: The other thing that I was thinking was a factor is if that property is ever redeveloped, it's probably not going to be residential next time, just given the location. Zaremba: Or even if it is, it's more likely to be larger apartment buildings or -- Borup: Right. Some -- yes. Zaremba: Taller buildings. Borup: Not a single family R-4 type of subdivision. Hawkins-Clark: I think on the first question about the landscaping be more intense, is that what -- Zaremba: Along the side of the big building I think is my concern. Hawkins-Clark: What I have shown here on the screen, they, actually, did not provide with their application a west elevation. The middle one here is the east elevation, which I was told verbally by Mr. Tamura that if you eliminate these service doors, delivery doors and, of course, the drive-thru window, you have, generally, what they are proposing and maybe -- is that correct? Tamura: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: So, you know, certainly it does provide some variation in building setback, you know, some materials that, you know, give a little bit more interest to the elevation than just a bare CMU block wall. I guess the question is if -- what would you be buffering without any service doors and without any drive-thru window and the purpose of the land use -- of the buffer between land uses is to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 18 of 32 help, you know, mitigate sound, mitigate light, mitigate any dust that's created by the more intense use. Borup: So, you're saying if that's the purpose of it, it's a mute point here, because there is no noise, lights, dust, that should be coming? Is that your point? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yes. That was my point. I think to get to Commissioner Zaremba's point about the mass and it's a good point, too, I guess the question is -- for the Commission is do you think that the elevation that's shown here helps to breakup the mass or would additional landscaping that would be sort of penetrating vertically, you know, in here on this side, which is what you would see from the mobile home park, is that an advantage or a disadvantage or a moot point or -- so I think that's -- Zaremba: I would say if the applicant has offered to put in a couple of extra trees, I would ask for that. Just my -- I'm just saying it breaks up the -- I realize there is some breakup to the appearance already, but -- Borup: And that -- I mean I think that's a good point. You know, the noise and lights and that aspect of a buffer is not necessary here, but we are talking about the esthetics of it and something a little more pleasant to -- Zaremba: As opposed to giving up another five feet of -- essentially, he would have to take it out of the building. There is no place else to get it. A couple of trees would be cheap and I think I'd ask for them. Borup: Okay. You're fine with that? Zaremba: And the rest of the project looks pretty good to me. I mean, as you say, we have talked through this concept in this area several times already. Borup: And we are finally getting up to where you got some tenants and that's what this has all been leading towards, so -- Tamura: Oh, yes. Zaremba: And I do agree with the staff, before further development on the east end, I think we would want to see the second amenity and kind of a courtyard kind of a thing, but I'm not sure it needs to be decided right this minute. Tamura: Okay. Zaremba: That's my personal opinion. Borup: Anything else? Tamura: Thank you for your time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 19 of 32 Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. No one at all this time. Zaremba: Well, that being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Items 9 and 10 on our agenda be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close Items 9 and 10. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda. CUP 03-054, request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify commercial to include four out pads, 25,000 square foot retail, and include phase two of office complex in a C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, 824 East Fairview Avenue. I would say that this refers to the plat submitted to us tonight, November 20th . Is this a plat or just a drawing? Borup: That's just a drawing. I don't think the plat has changed any. Zaremba: Okay. Then, that doesn't apply to that one. We will just say recommend approval with all staff comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of the 20th , received by the Clerk November 14, 2003, with one change. On Page 5, condition of approval Number 3, we will accept the previous approved landscape buffer on the west side of 20 feet, with the addition of a couple of extra trees along the side of the retail building number one, which is the topic of current discussion. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, CUP 03-055, request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 25,000 square foot retail building with a drive-up window in a C-N zone for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 20 of 32 Inc., 824 East Fairview Avenue. This time I do refer to the drawing that we received on November 20, 2003, and to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 20th , received by the Clerk November 14, 2003. Do we need to mention the trees again – okay, and next to the 25,000 square foot building in the 20-foot landscape setback there will be a couple extra trees beyond those required. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ 03-011 Request for a rezone of 9.34 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC – 1125 East Pine Street: Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 38 building lots and 17 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC – 1125 East Pine Street: Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 03-057 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC – 1125 East Pine Street: Borup: We are moving tonight. As mentioned earlier, I don't know if any of those that came in late -- Item 11, 12 and 13 have been continued to our December 18th , meeting, so, our next item will be Item Number 14. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, do we need a motion to actually do that? Borup: Oh. Green: No. It's just renoticed. Borup: Oh, that's right. This one was renoticed. Okay. I guess it's not even continued specifically. Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor soccer center in an existing business park in an I-L zone for Meridian Soccer Center by Meridian Soccer Property – south of East Franklin Road, west of South Locust Grove Road on East Piper Court: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 21 of 32 Borup: Item Number 14 is Public Hearing CUP 03-056, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor soccer center in an existing business park in an I-L zone for the Meridian Soccer Center by Meridian Soccer Properties, south of East Franklin and west of South Locust Grove. Like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for an indoor soccer field. It's located off of Piper Court, which is in the Medimont Business Park, which has, actually, been marketed as Woodbridge -- oh, Stonebridge. Excuse me. Is Woodbridge the residential sub? Okay. Stonebridge. I'll make a note. I wanted to note -- actually, make one correction to my staff report. On the first page under location and surroundings, there was a note that I made to Anna that I should have deleted. It says, Anna, I will run out to the site and check on the names and the uses. To go ahead and -- Zaremba: I thought that was a very personal addition to it. I was going to call her up and ask if -- Kirkpatrick: So, we will get into the use later. I'll go ahead and work that out and, let's see, they are proposing -- I'll go to the site plan. There is an aerial of the site. You can see it's surrounded by -- we have vacant property to the west and that property, actually, is zoned -- it's R-40, but it's still a vacant piece of property, but has a potential for higher density development and it's surrounded by the rest of Stonebridge Business Park. I'll get to the site plan. They are proposing a 20,000 square foot indoor soccer field. There will also be 3,000 square feet dedicated to an office and pro shop. The heaviest usage periods for this project will be evenings and weekends. The indoor soccer field is geared towards adults and adult soccer leagues. Typically, there will be two teams playing at once. There will be two 10-member teams. There will be two employees there. It's not -- we had the applicants come in and do a pre-application meeting with us. It was explained that it's not -- it's not at all a spectator sport, it mostly adults, where you have a spouse that just sits there and watches -- will sit there and watch a tournament. It's not at all like youth soccer you have the large crowds and parking problems and volumes, it's a completely different type of use and I'm going to get into why we thought that this was an appropriate use for this area. I'll go back to the site map and this is actually -- this is here as a Conditional Use Permit, because we classified this as an indoor -- as an indoor recreation center, which is not in our schedule -- in our schedule of uses. We thought that in a couple key ways it was different from an indoor entertainment center, we saw that as being a more passive recreation use that would be an arcade, a movie theater, bowling alley, it was just more of an active use. That's why it's here as a conditional use application. We thought that the hours of usage for this site made it compatible with the adjoining uses. The mix of uses surrounding the property -- these are, actually, all light industrial uses. There is an office for a construction company, an office for a food company, a Mary Kay training center that would join in this property. It's not heavy industrial development where there is a lot of truck traffic. The fact that there are adults using this facility, rather than small children, I thought made this a more compatible project. While we certainly Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 22 of 32 hope our applicant is successful, if at any point they ever had to reuse this building, I think this type of building is especially suited to reuse in a light industrial area and I will show you the elevations of the building. Basically, it's a shell that I think would be easy to reuse for another light industrial use, if it did ever happen down the line. Staff is recommending approval of this application. We think it's compatible with the surrounding land uses. There has been no opposition from any neighbors that we have received or any phone calls that I have had. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Questions by the Commission? Zaremba: I had only one and you touched on it right at the end. If, for some reason, they decided to move their operation somewhere else, let's say they are successful, but still decide to move and this building were repurposed, what would the parking requirement be for some other use in this same zone? Kirkpatrick: It probably would, actually, be -- would be less. We were requiring them to have, I believe, it's -- or they have 35 parking spaces and, in addition to that, we are requiring them to do a cross-parking agreement with the adjoining property owners. I think a typical industrial use would have -- would not have that parking requirement. Zaremba: Okay. Kirkpatrick: Let's see. It's a 20,000 square foot building. Anna's figuring out how many parking spots they'd have to have. Okay. Actually, if it became a warehouse use, it would be one parking spot per 1,000 square feet, so it would be about 20 spaces. It would exceed the parking requirements if this were to be reused as an industrial building. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Is there anything the applicant would like to add, whoever is here for that? Main: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Jim Main, I'm with Design West Architects. You know, we have read the staff report and we are in agreement with all of their comments and have no problem with the shared parking agreement. Mostly, since this is a new concept in this area, I just wanted to make myself available and also we have a representative from the Spokane Soccer Center here also, if the Commission would have any questions about this type of a use. Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: I would say we welcome a new business in the city and we think it's a -- I personally think it's a tremendous idea. I did appreciate the notes that this is -- even though it's a first time for Meridian, it's not a first time for the applicant, or Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 23 of 32 the developer and their experiences help me see that they have thought things out and parking and everything else is adequate. I appreciated the presentation. Main: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Boyd: Good evening. My name is Jim Boyd, I reside at 9194 Beachside Lane in Boise and I'm here to represent the developer of the Stonebridge Business Park and I think we see it as a good mix to the light industrial that's there and as staff had brought up earlier, if there was an issue that turned to another type of change, it will fit into the Stonebridge Business Park as light industrial and I think it -- we also have an architectural committee that reviews some of the requirements and even though it's, I believe, a partially metal building, we have asked that they put other treatments on that building to give it something other than just an industrial building look and as well as providing adequate landscaping around all four sides of that particular property. I was a little confused as to why there would be needed a cross-parking with other adjacent owners there if it had the required parking to meet their need and an excessive amount of parking for other industrial uses. All in all we support the -- what's going on and I think it's a good use for Meridian and other people I have talked with that have youngsters and are involved in other types of things, they see that the sport of soccer as being a popular thing for adults. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Just as a personal opinion, I can see the reason for the parking agreements with the neighbors being, for instance, on a weekend, if there were a series tournaments going on, you might have the two teams playing and the 35 parking spaces taken up while two more teams were arriving and that overlap would require some use of neighborhood parking and just -- rather than have cars spill out into others, I think there should be that agreement in place. Was that the thinking of staff? Kirkpatrick: That was. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Was there anyone else? Thank you. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on Item 14 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close CUP 03-056. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 24 of 32 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-056, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor soccer center in an existing business park in an I-L zone for Meridian Soccer Center by Meridian Soccer Property, south of East Franklin Road and west of South Locust Grove Road on East Piper Court, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 20, 2003, received by the clerk November 14, 2003. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-053 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for development of a 2,800 square foot bank with drive-thru and future retail tenant with drive-thru in a C-C zone for Key Bank by CSHQA – south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road: Borup: Item Number 15, CUP 03-053, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a development of 2,800 square foot bank with a drive-thru and a future retail tenant with a drive-thru in a C-C zone for Key Bank, south of East Overland and west of South Eagle. Like to open this hearing at this time and, again, start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a proposal for a new Key Bank. It is in -- proposed to be in the El Dorado Subdivision. You can see the vicinity map on the screen. It's one of the -- it, actually, fits on portions of Lot 7 and a little bit of Lot 8, which I'll get into that in more detail, but this is the general location on the front end of El Dorado Subdivision. You can see the -- that plat overlaid with the existing fields that were recently out there where the road's coming in, just the uses across the way. You will note that directly across the road from the proposed project site is open pasture. The house on this property sits off to the east and this subdivision is further to the west. They are proposing a 2,800 square foot full service bank with three drive-thru teller lanes and a drive-up ATM. They are also asking for approval of a future attached retail use, could likely be something along the lines of a Moxie Java or similar type use that would use a drive-thru on this location here. Since they do not have a tenant yet reserved for that space, they are asking approval for being able to construct a building without that space today if needed and have submitted a site plan separately to show what that configuration would look like. In addition, they have submitted landscape plans for both scenarios. This landscape plan is for the full building as intended and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 25 of 32 the Plan B is for the same site, it's just the bank is built with just a future retail pad adjacent to it, but their intention would be to, eventually, add onto it and create the full plan. You should have staff a report with today's hearing date and transmitted November 13th . There are four special considerations that I want to briefly go through. The first is the lot shape. As I mentioned, it's on portions of Lot 7 and 8. We recommend a condition that the applicant submit a lot line adjustment and have it recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance for this project. Item Number 2 is the options that I just mentioned on the site plan and just making the Commission aware that they are looking for approval of both options tonight and that is supported by staff. Landscaping, there were two modifications needed to bring it into full compliance with the ordinance. The first is the addition one tree in this island along the north edge of the parking lot. The second is the addition of trees at one per 35 lineal feet along the south property line and I believe the applicant is in agreement to do that. The fourth and final issue has to do with the planned sign program, which they are requesting for this project. As a multi-tenant building, they would like to have signage over the entry for Key Bank, as well as for the future tenant. They would also -- they have this tower structure as part of the building. It does not extend higher than the roofline of the building and they would like to repeat their logo and signage on the tower. You can see elevations for the front, for the rear, for the west, and the east here. They have also submitted elevations for the Option B as well, it's just the bank is built at this time and what that would look like. The staff recommendation on this issue is that we ask the applicant to prepare calculations to demonstrate that the total square footage of all signage on all four faces does not exceed 18 percent of the front wall facing Overland. The applicant has brought that in tonight and I'll let him go over that with the Commission. I think that's the last one. That is the final issue that would need to be resolved from staff perspective and with that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Steve. I agree with the need to correct lot line thing. There is no necessity for us to continue it until that's done. That can just be done by making the requirement that they can't move into the building until that's done; is that right? Siddoway: Yes. I think that that is -- it's fine to move this on for now. What's going on is the property owners don't want to shift the lot line unless they know they have an approved project and so to facilitate that, I think that we just hold the requirement until we issue the certificate of zoning compliance and it will work that way and that is prior issuance of the Building Permit. They will not be able to start building until the lot line is moved. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: One final point. At the beginning of my presentation I was going into the location of surrounding existing residences. That was because in the new sign ordinance there is a provision that says no illuminated signs can be facing Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 26 of 32 existing residential properties and so I just wanted to make the point on the record that we have looked at that as staff and have determined that across Overland from this there are no existing residential properties and that the residences far enough away that we determined that it's not an issue for this one. Borup: Okay. I just had a question on your comment -- you said this island needs another tree? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: There are three in there now? Siddoway: No. Those are shrubs. The trees are the larger circles. Borup: Well, I'm showing a Washington Hawthorne, it says can grow at maturity 30 feet high, 20 foot diameter. Am I interpreting that wrong? Maybe we can have the applicant clarify that. Siddoway: I believe what you're looking at is -- the Washington Hawthorne symbol is very similar to the red carpet rose, which is a shrub. Borup: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: Those are, actually, rose bushes. Borup: Oh, yes. I see. That's got an X in the middle, rather than a triangle. That is a rose bush. There is no -- so, the only tree in there is a pine right now. Siddoway: There are no trees in that island right now. There are only shrubs. Borup: All right. Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Slocum: Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Commission for the record, Craig Slocum with CSHQA Architects, representative for Key Bank. We have reviewed the staff report and the proposed conditions of approval and are in agreement with them. As Steve mentioned, we have run through the calculations in regards to signage, with the option of both the bank and the future retail tenant. With the proposed signage there is 11.3 percent of the wall frontage facing Overland in signage. With the bank, only version there is 13.89 percent, both of which are well under the 18 percent that's allowed. We are fine with that condition. I don't have anything else to present this evening, other than to stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. I do have one and I appreciate your presenting the two options that are being considered and I don't have any problem saying that we would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 27 of 32 approve it with you having the choice of which option you're going to use. I only have a question on the option that includes the potential retail space and, actually, it's a question of staff while you're still standing here. If the cars at the drive-up window are drawn to scale, this is not a very long stacking depth and my question would be if it's been suggested that it be a Moxie Java or something like that -- I'm trying to remember which one it was. There was an added drive-up I think to the one next to the Fred Meyer, whatever business that is, and we put a restriction on it that the drive-up was only allowed to be used if the service through the window was drinks and prepackaged foods, so that there was not a lengthy stack while somebody actually made hamburgers and -- is that where we did it and what we did and if we did something like that, would the applicant accept it? Siddoway: I believe we did do something like that on the Fred Meyer one. That one did have a very short stacking area. It seems like there was only about maybe two cars on that one. Zaremba: Well, the alternate question is are you comfortable with this stacking depth? Do we need to do something like that? Siddoway: Yes. During the pre-application process we did actually have them move it farther back, so that we could meet ACHD standard requirements for distance off of the -- off of Overland Road, so, yes, we are comfortable with it. Zaremba: Without a condition -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman -- Craig, is the window at this back point? Slocum: There is not a specific tenant. However, Key Bank is working with a tenant and their actual requirements were more stacking distance than we originally had. The window has been pushed just about as far back in that building as it can and there is 100 feet of stacking, which is what the particular tenant Key Bank is talking to now requires, so it's five parking stalls, basically. Zaremba: Well, then, I'm comfortable not adding that requirement if staff is comfortable. Borup: Okay. Powell: Members of the Planning Commission, I guess we had always anticipated it would be a coffee place. We hadn't anticipated that they might come back with a fast food restaurant, such as a lunchtime serving one that typically does have longer stacks and waiting lanes, so I'm wondering if Mr. Slocum can suggest some wiggle room, so that we are not giving cart blanche approval for any type of restaurant, if you feel that comfortable. Slocum: I do. I think if the Commission would like to propose a condition that -- if it was a fast food use that it would have to come back for specific approval. I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 28 of 32 can tell you that Key Bank's intention is certainly not fast food. That is not their desire next to their bank. Borup: I would think so. Slocum: I can't go -- you know, I can't tell you today it won't ever be that, but that's not what they are looking for. I think they would be open to some language that you may propose, if that's a general concern. Again, 1,500 square feet is never going to produce McDonald's or a use like that, but I'll leave that to your judgment. Zaremba: If we worded it in such a way that they could serve through the window drinks and prepackaged foods only, otherwise, need to come back for a new CUP? Is that too restrictive? Slocum: I believe it probably will be. As I'm thinking, of coffee houses and some have rolls, danishes, or something like that, may not be considered prepackaged. Borup: Well -- but you wouldn't be waiting for them to be baked while you're sitting in the drive aisle. It would be prepared and maybe that's a better way to -- or another way to put it. Zaremba: Prepared is a better way to put it. Okay. That you're not waiting for a sandwich to be assembled while you're sitting there. Is that workable? Preprepared stuff. Prepackaged? Slocum: I believe it is and if I'm not mistaken on the path that we need to travel here, this Commission could put that as a recommended condition. If in the next -- between now and going to City Council if I find that Key Bank is not willing to follow that, it's certainly something we could take up with Council. Zaremba: Yes, you do get another hearing. Absolutely, and they have overruled us many items. Slocum: But I believe that that language would be in keeping with the intent of who they are looking for as a tenant. Yes, I guess is the -- Borup: Any other questions? One I had, again, is on the building. It sounds like you're striving to have that other tenant in there right to start with. If the other option was built with just the Key Bank, would you be looking at adding another addition down the road? If so, what would be the west elevation of the building if that were the plan? It would stay just like that? Slocum: Actually, the east elevation is what you're -- that's the side where either the tenant will be or not be. Borup: The east? I think you're backwards. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 29 of 32 Zaremba: West. Slocum: It's west. It's labeled east for some unknown reason, but -- you guys discussed that earlier, west and east. Borup: We need to get a compass for the architects or something. It will stay like that is what you're saying? Slocum: Yes. If -- Borup: Okay so, that elevation is not conducive to add on, probably. Slocum: I think the windows -- Borup: Yes. Lose the windows is all. Okay. All right. That's what I was -- just wanted to know if there would be a blank wall with -- you know, like a tenant separate wall. I don't have any other questions. Anyone else -- Zaremba: I had one other comment and it's really more along the lines of a suggestion, I guess. Go back to the plan if you would that shows both buildings - - or the one building with both -- I'm a little bit concerned about people perhaps heading to the bank, but, at any rate, traffic that would enter through this driveway, theoretically going to that driveway and I'm just suggesting that there be maybe a sign here that says do not enter and one over here that says bank drive-up is this direction. Slocum: And there is -- I believe in the packet we have submitted a full sign package. Zaremba: Did I miss that? I'm sorry. Okay. Slocum: There is a lot of, you know, ATM signs as well so, absolutely. Zaremba: All right. Okay. That was just -- Slocum: We widened what we -- and we widened that approach to allow that movement to be safe. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. That was it. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Was there any other testimony? Okay. Commissioners? Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 30 of 32 Powell: Sorry. Just to add more thoughts on the drive-up issue. That is a fairly good size space and it might not be unreasonable to have like a sandwich shop or something like that. I mean they are -- I don't know how to guide you on that decision. If you say no prepared food, then, that's limiting them from doing quite bit of stuff. The Moxie Java point, that was a much smaller space, even the lease space is a lot smaller on one by Fred Meyer. I think it would be best, probably, for you just to figure it's going to be a regular drive-thru and -- because even the coffee -- I mean, geez, it takes forever to make a latte it seems like. I mean you could make a couple sandwiches in the same time you could make some of those caramel macchiato with whipped cream on top, so -- Zaremba: Well, the point is well taken. At 1,500 square foot it isn't going to be McDonald's or Burger King or even Pizza Hut. Powell: No. Borup: But it could be a little coffee sandwich shop. Powell: Yes. It could be Subway. It could be -- Mathes: Well, Moxie Java serves sandwiches now. Powell: Right. Borup: The hearing is still open. Powell: And you do want to encourage a mix of uses there. You don't want to have to -- every Key Bank employee to get in their car to go someplace to their get coffee. I mean it is serving to keep those traffic trips within the El Dorado Subdivision, so -- Borup: And if it's going to be detrimental, Key Bank is not going to be pleased with that or it's going to be blocking people getting into their facility. I mean they are going to have an interest to make sure that -- they are going to be more interested in their customers than the coffee shop customers, I think. Maybe that should up to them to police. Slocum: The 100 foot stacking distance, which is a requirement of the tenant they are working with, is fairly common for most drive-up window users. Boise city's drive-up ordinance requires 100 feet, so it's a pretty -- Borup: Even for a hamburger drive-in? Slocum: Yes so, it's pretty standard, if that helps you at all. Zaremba: I could go with that. Borup: Thank you so, there would be no modification of the staff report, then. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 31 of 32 Zaremba: Yes. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on Item 15 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 15 on our agenda CUP 03-053, request for a Conditional Use Permit for development of a 2,800 square foot bank. Let me pause for a moment in the motion. That is the size of the bank, not including the optional retail. Do we need to say that the option is a 2,800 square foot bank or a 43 square foot -- Mathes: There is an and -- Zaremba: I know, but it doesn't specify the size of the drive-thru. Yes. Let's do it that way. I will begin the motion again. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03-053, request for a Conditional Use Permit for development of a 2,800 square foot bank with a drive-thru and a potential future retail tenant of 1,500 square feet with a drive-thru in a C-C zone for Key Bank by CSHQA. South of East Overland Road and West of South Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 20, 2003, received by the clerk November 14, 2003, with the knowledge that applicant has presented two options and we are agreeing that the applicant can make their choice between the options. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, we may have set a record for the last two years. I don't know. Mathes: We had one in July. Zaremba: Yes. We had an 11-minute one in -- Borup: That was when I was gone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 32 of 32 Mathes: Yes. Zaremba: I would like to suggest that our director have a few words. Powell: And if you'd like to close the Public Hearing, so that our stenographer can pack up, that's all I was going to suggest. Borup: Yes. Let's go ahead and -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:36 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK